Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive/Lizard King (UtherSRG)

Section 1

We are unable to reach any compromise. In fact, LizardKing despises compromise, finding it a weak and despicable trait. Compromise is the heart of good consensus decision making. Please see the discussion on User talk:Lizard King as well as the edit war history on Bigfoot and Yeti and talk:Yeti. - UtherSRG 18:36, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As you can see on my talk page, I attempted to converse civilly with Uther for quite some time and he kept stooping to name calling and accusations. At one point he mentioned an "editing war" which I did not participate in and even admitted that he was not being civil or obeying Wikepedia rules of etiquite. And contrary to what some believe, a person who compromises his scruples is despicable. If I make a mistake or break a rule and it is brought to my attention I will remedy the error. However, Uther has been taken inocuous actions of mine, calling them mistakes or dishonest or vandalism and attempting to convince others to support him. This is very unproductive, immature, and clearly not in the spirit of Wikipedia. - Lizard King (Afternoon 1-19-2004)

Edit war: When two (or more) users revert each others changes.
If I was in an edit war, who was it with if not you? There's a difference between compromising ones scruples, and compromising so as to reach a mutually agreeable solution to a problem. If you do not want the latter, how do you propose to work here at Wikipedia? I have serious reservations about how you do work here at WP. I have serious reservations about using original pieces of art in a public encyclopedia, especially when there are equally good images already in the public domain. I have serious reservations about putting text into images instead of using the Wiki text editor to add a caption to the image. These are the changes on Bigfoot and Yeti, et al, that I will continue to rail against until we (the Wikipedia community) can come to some agreement on. Are you wiling to compromise so that we can come to a reasonable solution? - UtherSRG 20:19, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Now one asked for your definion, nor needed clarity on the issue. -Lizard King 17:51, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No one asked, but you obviously needed the answer. Don't claim to not be in an edit war when you don't know the definition of one. We were/are very much in an edit war. You just didn't understand that that was the situation. - UtherSRG 18:36, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is a difference between not understanding and not caring. Please do me a favor and go out and get laid tonight. I know I am. It will make every one feel much better. Bye now!Lizard King 19:26, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

DO NOT GIVE OUT MY IP ADDRESS. That is PERSONAL INFORMATION. Administrators already know what it is or can find out. From time to time I have made changes without signing in, and I did alot before I even signed up. The fact that from time to time I forget to log in before I make a change does not make me duplicitous. You know that though. You are throwing mud. I do not appreciate having you advertise my IP address, it is unethical as it is personal information, just like a telephone number or an address.--Lizard_King

I am not interested in participating in a war with you. Please grow up and treat other Wickepedia users with respect. (Afternoon 1-19-2004)

The problem with your definition of compromise is that you are suggesting that you should be able to INVENT what is right and wrong, for other users BEYOND the standards of wikipedia, which you appear to be quite well versed in.

If you say I am doing something wrong and I know I am not, I could not respect myself, if I went along with you. You just seem to do things as an innapropriate demonstration of power over activites on this site. --Lizard_King (7 pm 1-19-04)

No, it isn't personal information - you disclosed it when you edited this and other pages. If you don't want it known, remember to log in. As you've chosen (or forgotten, it's easy to do) to make edits with that IP, that information must be part of this page, so other wikipedians can fairly assess all your edits. -- Finlay McWalter 23:40, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Whatever. I just don't want people spoofing my IP or using it to track down my primary email address (it can be done). I would not have asked an adminisitrator to post the IPS of the people MHR and UTHER had accused me of also being if I was trying to hide my IP FROM THEM. I just wanted to keep my IP between as few parties as possible. Lizard King 17:51, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Also, please remember to sign your posts. It's difficult for the rest of us to figure out, after the fact, who said what to whom, and when. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter 23:40, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Would have been nice if you had pointed out how to use the (~) key instead of just complaining about it.Lizard King 17:51, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually, you were told on 8 Jan 2004, on your own talk page, by Infrogmation in his welcome message to you - the very first edit of that page. I know I also told you about it on 03:54, 19 Jan 2004 in the same place. - UtherSRG 18:42, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Section 2

Alright then. If it is not considered personal information than I would appreciate it if a member with sysop powers would display the IP addresses of the following members (or the members associated with the following IP addresses) I have been accused of being:

1) Annek
2) ScifiterX
3) The_Agent
4) User:69.22.99.231
5) User:65.35.69.180

--Lizard_King (7pm 1-19-04)

No takers I see? I got ScifiterX to give me his IP (see Talk:Yeti). Annek hasn't responded, The_Agent got kicked off, one those IP addresses doesn't link to a user talk page...Lizard King 18:04, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You're removed the IP address twice, and twice I've had to restore it. As I've explained to you, it must be here, so that other wikipedians can see what that anon IP's contributions were. PLEASE don't remove it from this page again - removing it is vandalism, and vandals are blocked from editing wikipedia. A sysop can't help you with those other IP addresses, as we don't have access - only developers do, and they have much better things to do than expend effort on stuff like this. Lastly, may I be frank: it looks like you're embarked on a path that so many before you have trodden; round after round of anger and recrimination, accusation and counteraccusation. I'm sure you feel you've been treated unfairly or accused of things unjustly - in reality, wikipedia is a horrible, unfair place where most bad deeds go unnoticed, never mind punished. My humble advice to you, as someone with whom you've hitherto had no conflict, is to forget this page, those listed on it, and the grievances they and you may have. Go find some article you care about that needs attention, and give it some. Pursing this matter (whoever's fault it is, or whoever started it) will only make you unhappy, and will only waste your time. I can't speak for you, but I find making a better encyclopedia to be great fun, but arguing about an encyclopedia to be majorly depressing. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter 00:48, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

1) I only removed the IP address once. The second time was the result of an editing conflict, I was simply writing at the same time you were, before the change was made. --LK (8pm 1-19-04)

2) An IP address has to be identified before it can be blocked. An IP address can be blocked by someone with sysop status. I do not understand how you could not prove that those parties have different IPs. It is highly hippocritical for you to allow my IP address to be posted against my will but then not post IP addresses of parties I am accused of also being. --LK (8pm 1-19-04)

3) I resent the idea that you seem to think that I should not be talking on here. If you have been paying attention, these parties have been accusing me of vandalism and of having multiple IDs. Things, which, if I am not mistaken, could result in my own IP ban. So naturally, it is in my best interest to respond to defend myself before they manage to persuade a member with sysop powers to kick me off. --LK (8pm 1-19-04)

4) Most subjects I have attempted make additions to have run into similar problems with these members who have CHOSEN conflict. Are you suggesting that I tuck my tail under my legs and run away when ever I start making an addition to an article and another member decides to start accusing me of vandalism and such? I wouldn't have much freedom to do much on here if I did that. I think I will stand up for myself, thank you. --LK (8pm 1-19-04)

Note: Marvelite does share the same IP address. He does use my computer from time to time. He has his own connection, but it is very slow.--LK (EVENING 1-19-2004)

None of this changes that you are unwilling to compromise on edits to articles, on what are appropriate images, and whether it is appropriate to put text into images instead of leaving the text as a caption via a table. These are my specific problems with you, Lizard King. this is why we are in conflict. - UtherSRG 02:22, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We seem to be using the work compromise differently. First, you said that the image appeared to be a photo, but was not and was therfor dishonest. Then after I added the caption explaining that it was not a photo (only an artist conception) you waited a few days and then took it down saying that I had to remove the caption. At this point I cannot see the profit in cooperating with you because you seem to invent fault where there is none. It seems to amuse you to make others go through hoops. If all that was needed was an html message to begin with you could have added it to the image before you removed it to begin with. As it is you have deprived Wikipedia users of any image.--LK 10:30pm 1-19-04

I do appreciate your calmer and more respectful atitude in this response. If you wish to continue this discussion it will be more productive for all parties involved if we keep the discussion on this level of civility.--LK 10:30pm 1-19-04

I'm glad you finally understand what compromise means in regards to working with others. It will go a long way to learn the meanings of words in the context they are in, instead of blinding reacting to the only meaning you know. - UtherSRG 04:44, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please do not put words into my mouth. I never said "photo" or anything about your image appering to be a photo. I did say to provide one you hadn't created. Let me expand on this - it is better to use an image in an encyclopedia that is commonly used. Can you think of a good reason I might think this? - UtherSRG 04:44, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually you did say, "that's not a photo of a yeti". Liar.Lizard King 18:04, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No. You are mistaken or a liar. My exact quote was "That wasn't a pic of a yeti". Yeti History 20:30 16 Jan 2004 EST

Yes, I took your image down several times. "No image is better than a bad image." Several times the image was indeed bad. This includes when you added text to the image. When you first did that I took it down and said "please remove caption from pic". I already provided you with a reason not to have the text within the picture: not everyone can edit the image. Can you think of a good reason why I didn't want to edit your pic? - UtherSRG 04:44, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There you go insulting my artwork again, calling it "bad". Children do things like that. If it isn't your taste just say you don't like it. Enough people have stood up for my illustrations to prove that they probably aren't of the low, amatuer quality you are trying to suggest. Lizard King 18:04, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Anyone can see the full dialogue of our comments here. Your non-logged in edits show as your IP, which is why I included your IP in this dispute. Anyone interested in the broader dialogue should also view the edit histories of Bigfoot, Cronus, and African Grey Parrot. On all of these articles, you have shown yourself to be very hot-headed. Please understand that your views on what the right thing to do will not jibe with everyone, and that you'll need to work at not flying off the handle when someone makes an edit you disagree with. - UtherSRG 04:44, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Again you try to suggest that I was hiding a discussion. Whatever. Lizard King 18:04, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And please stop bringing in your high school buddies, or whomever they are, to vote in your favor on Talk:Yeti. You know who they are: The_Agent, ScifiterX, Popcorncafe, Javaman42, and anyone else who shows up to vote and has only done work for you or no work before. Very childish. - UtherSRG 14:03, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙

You are clearly casting aspersions. I am not in high school, do not associate with high schools students. I am over 22 years old, as are all of my friends.

You are trying to make it look like I am a juvenile delinquent vandalizing entries on Wikipedia. That is dishonest, and people who behave dishonestly consistently, over a significant period of time, are probably dishonest.Lizard King 18:04, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Registered Wikipedia users are allowed to do whatever they wish within the guidelines of the system, regardless of how small their contributions may be. You are the one who keeps name calling. I am getting tired of being called "obnoxious" because I have the patience to converse with you and pretend that it is a discussion when it is really just an onslaught of name calling and unsubstantiated accusations designed to stigmatize my name on this site.--LK 6pm 1-20-04

In general I share UtherSRG's observations and opinions. Lizard King has been generally obnoxious and uncompromising, in my opinion. (Being obnoxious is not a crime, though it does diminish any sympathy I might have for his position.) It does seem like the other users UtherSRG has mentioned are either puppet users or friends of Lizard King supporting him on that basis rather than the merits of his edits (User:65.35.69.180 in particular is a user UtherSRG and I have both had disputes with in the past; Marvelite's interests seem to align closely with his, and they may be the same individual). I've also been tracking some issues regarding these users on my own talk page. -mhr 18:22, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well of course you share it, you answer half of his sentences for him don't you?Lizard King 18:12, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

People like you and UTHER always refer to honest people who stand up to you as obnoxious or stupid and dishonest people as clever and elite. Here you are yet again slinging unsubtantiated accusations you will never be able to prove. I already explained the situation with Marvelite and it is obvious you are deliberately trying to decieve people who are reading this. I will state it again. Marvelite uses the same IP address. When he first started this we were using the same IP. Now he has his own connection but it is slow. The other people I have been accused of being you have shut up about because you know they can prove they are different people at this point. But since I explained, in other posts, the situation about Marvelite you have taken the opportunity to try to make it look like we are the same person. However, Marvelite hasn't done anything to support me, such as vote, so he is really just a red herring, isn't he? --LK 6pm 1-20-04

PS- Please stop demoting my educucation by 4 years. It is fairly obvious to people who read my posts that I am not a high school student. Uther and you (if you are two seperate individuals) seem to take every opportunity to deride me or slander my character. As I have not done this to either of you, it should be obvious to all impartial observers that it is you who are behaving immaturely and dishonestly.--LK 6pm 1-20-04

Section 3

Let's review:

Yes lets do that.

1) Lizard King started replacing images on pages such as those at African Grey Parrot and Cronos with his own homemade images. Then complained loudly when others reverted them to the previous images.

Answer: No, I just said I didn't like it. Now what I really didn't like was when an individual said that an image I had spent several hours toiling over, was poorly drawn and silly. You seem to have a problem with people expressing themselves contrary to your wishes.Lizard King 05:20, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Answer: Actually, the first part of that is partially a lie on your part. Thier was no picture for cronus before I uploaded mine. I did not replace the image. I did not replace the image of the African grey (which did not show a profile of the bird, as it seemed be scratching its backside with its beak in the photo. I added another image. Then Uther, or one of his buddies, took it down. I tried putting it back up again a few times and gave up. End of story.Lizard King 17:46, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

2) Several others users came to his defense, though conveniently many of these users had not established a contribution history prior to Lizard King's, and their contribution history was entirely or almost entirely limited to pages to which Lizard King had contributed.

There is not rule against that. And many of the people who have come to my defense that you have NOT listed such as RickK, Stan, and Cyan have made sizable contributions. Lizard King 05:32, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

These users include:

1. 65.35.69.180 (dormant since 9 Jan; the user at this IP address has been especially intransigent)
2. 69.22.99.231 (dormant since 9 Jan)
3. 65.35.66.136 (active 12 Jan-present; Lizard King seems to acknowledge that this is in fact himself)
4. ScifiterX (active 12 Jan-present)
5. Marvelite (active 12 Jan-present)
6. The Agent (active 9-12 Jan)
7. Popcorncafe (one contrib, 19 Jan)
8. Javaman42 (four contribs, all 20 Jan)
The activity of these other users is tied closely to the period of controversy (approximately 10 Jan to present), suggesting that some of these users are the same person, or are acting in concert.

Answer: There is no rule against Wickepedia users acting in concert and it was proved that your accusations regarding my identity were false. It is a good representation of your moral character that you persist in allogations even after they are proven false, just because you know that someone watching the conversation may not be informed and might be peruaded to believe I have done something that YOU KNOW I have not done. Lizard King 05:15, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

4) Lizard King refuses to employ the Wikipedia convention for signing comments in discussions.

Answer: What? I didn't know how to use the (~) symbols to make the date until an administrator pointed it out to me. That is a pretty silly allogation. HE REFUSES TO EMPLOY THE CONVENTION FOR SIGNING COMMENTS!! OH NO!!! EVERY BODY RUN!! HE'S A MADMAN!!Lizard King 05:15, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Its interesting that UTHER and MHR were the first to complain to me that I wasn't using the naming conventions, but that they chose not to clue me in on how to do it with the (~) key. Set up anybody? Lizard King 17:46, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

5) Lizard King is extremely defensive about any efforts to determine whether his claims are true, and complained loudly when UtherSRG linked his login to specific IP address.

Answer: That is a lie. I actually asked an administrator to involve a developer to prove that I was not the other members you said that I was. To that end my ISP would not have to be revealed in such an obvious way. The only reason I was concerned about my IP address is that it can be used to trace my computer and there are internet stalkers out there. The more trouble people have to go through to get my IP the better off I am and the less likely I am to start having problems with people spoofing my IP or finding out how to get an email address from my internet service provider by bullsh**ting thier way through the ISP customer service hot-line.

6)Above, Lizard King asks that I "stop demoting [his] educucation [sic] by 4 years", which I presume is a dig at UtherSRG's (not my) comment about his "high school buddies". If so, then it seems we can deduce that Lizard King is about 22 years old, and that Marvelite is not, for instance, his son.

Answer: I was speaking figuratively. No I am not 22 years old and no I never said I had a son. I said Marvelite was a friend and that is all you need to know.

7) On his user page, Lizard King claims that he is "intellectually gifted" - not usually a claim one makes of oneself in a public forum.

Answer: I can write whatever I want on my user page. Yes I said I'm gifted, I also say that I sell merchandise on ebay and that I like movies about robots. What is your point? You completely took the statement out of context and it isn't a claim. I am dyslexic and was tested in elementary school (because a teacher thought I was retarded) with the Wiechler. I scored above the 97th percentile. Why do you insist upon heaping these childish insults and taking my words out of context. It does not make you look good. Can't you see that?Lizard King 04:48, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

8) On the other hand, he opposes compromise on principle.

Answer: I meant that I have integrity and that I don't compromise my scruples. That means that If you say I have broken a rule and I know I have not I will not pretend that I have just to get along with you. But, you already know that. You are again trying to make it look like I have said something entirely different by taking my words out of context. Lizard King 04:53, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

9) He has word-edited some comments from other users to change the meaning of their comments, for instance 1 and 2.

Answer: Yes I altered two sentences suggesting that Tuf-Kat wanted to have sex with bigfoot. That is all I did and I apologized and Tuf-Kat apologized to me for insulting my artwork. Which is more that I can give you credit for.Lizard King 04:56, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

10) He is quick to put the blame for these altercations anywhere but on himself. He is also all-too-happy to accuse others of "behaving immaturely and dishonestly".

Answer: You are immature and dishonest a number of other members have also made this observation.Lizard King 04:56, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If I were to go and find every innapropriate thing you have said and done and catalogue it as your attempting to do it would take up more space than this entire discussin board. Get a life.Lizard King 04:48, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You are distorting the truth. Anyone can see that. This little list of yours is obviously a simple childish insult, and that is who I am dealing with, a child.

My comments have been completely civil. None of the people who came to my defense were one and the same. Further, I never claimed that my IP address was a seperate identity from myself as you state.

I did say some innaproriate things toward TUF-KAT and did as a joke, alter a small portion of his text. However, that issue has been mutually resolved and neither of us appreciate your digging it up.

You, are a liar. Period.Lizard King 04:34, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Does this, as a whole, sound to anyone like a typical Wikipedian who deserves the benefit of the doubt? Especially given the general tone of his comments above? -mhr 23:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The talk on my talk page made me look good and Uther quite hostile and immature. So what are you complaining about? The talk page is archived under the Page history. Look up the word ARCHIVE in the dictionary.Lizard King 04:34, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Be aware that Lizard King has cleared the contents of his Talk page without archiving it, so don't expect any future comments you make there to usefully persist. -mhr 03:48, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Another lie. The Talk page is automatically archived. All one needs to do is look for it. Also, as it was pointed out on my ARCHIVED talk page, a number of administrators also delete thier talk pages periodically.Lizard King 04:22, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is the second time he's done so. He's also under an incorrect assumption that talk pages are automatically archived. - UtherSRG 03:53, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The contents of the talk page are available in the page history. This is the automatic archiving that LK is refering to. I'm not sure why you think he's mistaken. In my opinion, limiting my comments strictly to this matter, LK is not doing anything improper: Eloquence (talk) and Evercat (talk), both sysops, have policies similar to that of LK. -- Cyan 05:00, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't particularly object to people archiving their pages in this manner. It is, however, a rather hidden way of doing it, and opinion of Lizard King's behavior is that some things he does are intended to obfuscate some of his activities. Since discussions regarding Lizard King's actions are occurring more-or-less simultanously on multiple pages, it seems worthwhile to point out that some of the discussion text is going away without a clear link from the most recent revision. -mhr 05:41, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So, you don't object to it, but it is sneaky, so you do object to it. You can have one opinion and its opposite at the same time. Now, that takes talent.Lizard King 17:37, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

He's just now uploaded an image of an African Grey Parrot complete with taxobox and replaced the existing image and table-formed taxobox with his image. I've cropped it and put it up, with the original taxobox restored. - UtherSRG 04:02, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That's right I uploaded a picture of an acfrican grey parrot to replace the existing one which looked like it had most of its head buried in its ass. I thought a profile of the bird with its face up would actually show what the animal looks like. You could have cropped the table WITHOUT MENTIONING IT ON THE CONFLICT BETWEEN USERS PAGE. Lizard King 17:37, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, it was highly appropriate. I'm demonstrating the steps you have taken to go out of your way to make inappropriate edits and images. You had to take the steps to get that image, add the graphical taxobox to it, and then replace the whole table-form taxobox with your image. Instead, you could have simply uploaded the new image and changed the link on the page. The conflict we have isn't just between us as individuals, but it stands on our different ideas of what Wikipedia is, and what is proper for edits and images. - UtherSRG 18:57, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have little to add to my numbered summary above; I think the evidence shows at the least that Lizard King (talk) is intransigent and combative. I also feel there's reason to believe that he's employing puppet users or friends simply to bolster his positions, although this is probably impossible to prove. Since the sysops have not indicated that they're interested in this subject (which, y'know, I can't really blame them for), I think the only thing we can do is to tackle the individual issues he introduces on a page-by-page basis and hope he just gets tired sometime. I don't really have any interest in playing policeman on pages I'm not interested in working on (what fun would that be?), so I'm going to cut bait here and go back to my regularly-scheduled editing. (I've gotten my US RDA of flamewars for the time being.)

1) It was proven that none of the people who voted were me, other than me. So, no the evidence does not show it. It shows the opposite.

2) Registered Wiki users, no matter how little they contribute, can act in concert. I never said the people were not my friends, that is not against any rules.

3) It wouldn't be impossible to prove if I was spoofing IPs, or whatever. I am confident that the developers of the site could easily discern such matters.

4) I have not been combative and I have simply responded to you and clearly defended myself which you aren't very comfortable with. You are used to being able to bully around wiki users with impunity and in my case it isn't going to happen.Lizard King 17:37, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Though if Lizard King actually manages to demonstrate that UtherSRG (talk) and I are the same person, please let me know as I'm sure both of us would be very interested in that development! :-) -mhr 05:41, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I never accused you and Uther of being the same person (though it is hard to tell to be honest). If I was going to accuse you I would do so thusly:

LOOK EVERYONE!! UTHERSRG AND MR ARE THE SAME USER.

HERE BELOW IS THE DEFINITIVE PROOF:

IP ADDRESS, proof that only one person lives at residence, etc.

But, I haven't done that.

But you keep answering for each other and I'm tired of checking to see who it is I'm talking with.Lizard King 05:55, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Translation: "Don't confuse me with facts!" -mhr 18:16, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for letting every observer to this discussion know, definitively, that you are childish. Lizard King 18:29, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The two of you use the same grammar, speak the same way, and answer each others sentences. I am not going to bother discriminating between the two of you unless the two of you are going to stand on your own two feet instead of trying to tag-team me with your onslaught of bold lies and unsubstantiated accusations.Lizard King 18:29, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

By the way, you two have lied, distorted the truth, taken other people's statements clearly out of context, and insulted other Wiki users at every opportunity. It is you who are trying to avoid the consequences of facts, not me. If you don't think that is obvious to other users observing this discussion, including administrators, THINK AGAIN. Lizard King 18:29, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh really? I do not recall having lied in this whole ordeal at all. If you have specific lies you think I have made that you would like me to address, please point them out explicitly and I'll address them. As it stands, you've made broad sweeping accusations with no proof, or with (purposeful or not) erros of your own making. You have chosen to get angry instead of discussing coolly and rationally. You have taken personal offense to my disagreeing with the appropriateness of your images and their placement in articles. I actually like your artwork. I just don't find them appropriate for an encyclopedia. - UtherSRG 18:50, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What's obvious to this observer, at least, is that everyone in this dispute is behaving incredibly badly. Michael and Uther are picking on LK like a couple of schoolyard bullies; LK is throwing tantrums that make a two-year-old child look mature. I suggest that all of you grow up; go do something more constructive than this endless petty squabbling. — No-One Jones (talk) 18:52, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I actually am being productive. I've made nearly 3000 edits since I've signed up at the beginning of December. I actually think Wikipedia is a great resource and want to see it improve. I do not think that Lizard King's edits are generally helpful in that regard, and I'm determined to ensure that quality is maintained. Yes, I've engaged in troll-baiting, and I'm not 100% proud of that. I let him get to me and I don't like it. But I've grown from the experience. - UtherSRG 19:01, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

He was suggesting that your creative energies would more effectively and productively be put to use elsewere on Wickipedia. He never made the statement that you have made no productive contribution to Wiki. Lizard King 19:06, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think its good that Uther and Mhr devote thier attention to discussions like this, because it takes thier energy away from thier harassment of other Wiki users and thier defacement of the entries on the site.Lizard King 19:12, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Okay. I am going to partially retract that. These two have made sizable contributions to Wiki. Especially in the area of correcting grammar and formatting entries. That is far more fair an appraisal of thier activities than they have ever given me.Lizard King 22:28, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate that No-One Jones is attempting to be somewhat impartial in this discussion, sort of trying to be the peace maker. I would like to point out to him that addressing allegations and disputing them rationally is not something that equates the tantrum of a two year old. They throw peas and baby food. ( : - Lizard King 19:09, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Vitriolic insults with long strings of bold text and petty accusations of "defacement" are the textual equivalent of peas and baby food. Calling people childish is not the same as rationally addressing their allegations. That said, here's my suggestion for you, LK: Go edit something not related to Yetis, Bigfeet, Titans, or African Grey Parrots, or comic books; put your artistic skills to use where there's a real need for them; Wikipedia:Pages needing attention may give you some leads. — No-One Jones (talk) 19:16, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I tried that, these guys follow me. Also, I can't choose to have interests different than what they are. I am not going to be interested in writing entries on baseball or hemoroids.Lizard King 19:22, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The bottom line is that you know I am simply defending myself and you are afraid that if you take my side in the discussion, they will start messing with you too. I don't need that. I have done nothing but defend myself, occasionally expressing that it is my opinion that the way that Uther and Mhr are conducting themselves is childish and dishonest. If you can not respect a person who stands up for themself, I don't know what it is that you do respect, and frankly I couldn't care less. Lizard King 19:22, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please do not make unwarranted assumptions about my thoughts or fears. I think that you are defending yourself in an amazingly immature and spiteful fashion, and I am not in the least "afraid" of Uther or Michael, because in every other instance than this they've been quite decent people. I now see why they were treating you in the way that they were, and I withdraw all my objections to their behavior: lashing out at people who were honestly trying to help you is a really dumb, immature, and obnoxious thing to do. Have fun; I withdraw my attempts to broker a compromise, since you clearly aren't interested in having things any other way than your own. — No-One Jones (talk) 20:15, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Never asked for your help and don't need it. I never lashed out at you, I was just being straight with you. - Lizard King 22:28, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

Okay, first off, please use ==section breaks== now and then or else pages like this get too big to edit. And that isn't at anyone in particular--I'm just making sure we all make it easier to handle disputes. Second of all, is anyone paying attention to this but LK, Uther, and Michael? (Sorry, and Mirv too, in recent posts) Because let's face it, LK, Uther and Michael, if all this page consists of is a graffiti wall, let's all move on.

I will say that it is my impression that there is a lot of rudeness flying around here, and that most of it is uncalled for. I don't want to see a lot of posts back at me saying "oh yeah? well *insert user here* started it!" or "oh yeah? Well u suck" or anything like it. I'm not trying to make any individual one of you three feel as though I'm ascribing total fault to you. I'm saying Wikipedians can do better than this. Even when attacked (which I have been), I muster a little more respect for others than this. I even try to talk nicely (though firmly) to known vandals. So even if you think your oponent here is a known vandal, let's cut out the trashtalking (if for no other reason, because it would make me happy). It gives me a headache. There are real issues here. If any of you have done what you are accused of (please don't reiterate defenses again), it's a serious matter. If you know you haven't, then I imagine you think it a real issue that someone accuses you falsely (and it is a real issue). But here's the advice of one little administrator who would like not to get into a flame war with anyone here.

(1) Leave each other alone if you can. If your opponent follows you around trying to pick fights, be noble: allow them to walk on you, and remember that "injured parties" gain the most sympathy when they suffer in relative silence. If you feel compelled to respond, please observe all courtesy imaginable so that all will see that you are doing what you can to increase civility and Wikiquette, even if others do not. (2) It looks like it's about time to get the Mediators involved. Maybe we should do that and stop the fighting. (3) Leave this page alone if you possibly can. I don't want you to feel silenced if you're truly being abused. But as noted above, I think this is becoming a place to dump frustration and let it echo and build. Let's end that if we can. I'm not playing a holier-than-thou card, I'm just trying to get us all back on track. Let's be better than our perceived enemies, shall we? Perhaps you'll even find in time that you can work collaboratively in limited and respectful ways, months and months from now. I have hope. Now let's all leave this forum and edit some pages. :) Jwrosenzweig 23:14, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I can deal with your suggestions for the most part. However, I will continue to improve articles as they need them, regardless of who else is editting them. - UtherSRG 00:44, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for being willing to accept my advice. I tried to be fair in what I asked of everyone. I certainly don't want to suggest that you shouldn't edit articles that need editing...I'm looking for a change in attitude and demeanor from the participants in this struggle as they continue to edit at Wikipedia, and I have hope (based on your comments) that this is possible. Thank you Uther. Jwrosenzweig 15:45, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have tried to respond on this page, but so far everytime I have made the attempt the data base was locked up. I think that what Jwrosenzweig is saying makes sense, but you have to remember that I wasn't the one who started all of this. Hopefully, sleeping dogs will be allowed to lie. Time will tell.Lizard King 00:11, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)