Hello! Welcome to my talk page, feel free to leave a message for me at the bottom of this page, using a new heading for new topics. Please try and use descriptive headers, as it helps with my archiving (I reserve the right to change the header for this purpose). Messages in italic like this have been copied from other users talk pages to keep the full conversation thread together. I will usually reply on your talk page (exceptions include replies to possibly dynamic IPs, and when multiple people are involved in one conversation) to give you a new messages notification. Petros471

• Full archive index of old conversations. If you wish to re-start any conversation from in here please start a new heading on this page.
• Quick links: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Wikipedia Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Wikipedia In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Wikipedia
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

How do I file an RFC? I've read the page and I can't work it out. It's for the Thunder Bay Northern Hawks and the other youth teams that are clogging up WP. The hockey guys keep trying to stifle debate and have even been removing the merge tags to prtend that debate is finished and so I think it is time to open this up to the wider community. Robertsteadman 14:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex. Article RFCs are pretty simple, just a request for others to take a look at and comment on a particular article issue. It's the user RFCs that can get complicated, but that's not what's needed here. Petros471 16:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have enough evidence that this is a sock account, you should file a checkuser request. Otherwise, you'll have to believe Neuropean that only one account is being used, and treat him/her accordingly. Petros471 18:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other behaviour? The persdonal attack tags, etc?Robertsteadman 18:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already warned for that. Petros471 18:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again a shame it is only a warning - this is repeat behaviour from the sock account. This editor is an internet stalker and is only on WP to cause trouble. I will search through for some evidence of sockpuppetry. Robertsteadman 18:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful not to make allegations like "an internet stalker" without evidence. I've been warning Neuropean to deal with this in the right way, the same also applies to you. Calling someone a stalker could be seen as a personal attack. Petros471 20:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is he was warned yesterday by user: Weregerbil [1] (it's hidden in his user taslk history because he keeps deleting stuff he doesn;t like rather than archiving) and then made more similar personal attacks[2]. Now you have warned him - how many warnings does one person need when it comes to such poor behaviour? Robertsteadman 19:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry missecd this one - also since his warning of yesterday - it's not like it's been a long time and he's forgotten he shouldn;t be doing this.... Robertsteadman 19:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make edits like these. They can be considered personal attacks. If you wish to report Robertsteadman as a sockpuppet I suggest you bring it up on WP:ANI. Also it is not a good idea to clear things off your talk page without archiving. It makes it look like you have things to hide. Petros471 18:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am allowed to delete whatever I want - it's in the history, it's not been wiped. I will remove all the tags as soon as you stop accusing me of sockpuppetry. Every day you are giving me more and more encouragement to get past my laziness and to start the mother of all referrals: civility, personal attacks, spamming, making a point etc. The thing is, once I start it, I have no doubt that it will be quickly added to by a large number of other editors concerned with your attitude. I just don't get how you can get away with calling me a sockpuppet, yet not one administrator has warned you, but I make links to your confirmed sockpuppetry and nothing happens. If i cared enough, I'd be annoyed.Neuropean 19:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is still some discussion ongoing about if and when warnings can be removed. It has been my experience that users who remove things off talk pages tend to be the controversial ones who either have received legitimate warnings and want to hide them, or deal badly with criticism meaning situations escalate unnecessarily. I don't think I've ever accused you of sockpuppetry (and if you were talking to Robertsteadman please use his talk page to do so rather than mine). I'm rather inclined to believe that you are using just this account, but has previously used another one (like you said on the RFI). That is no reason to repeatedly post in the way you did about Robertsteadman. As I said, if you want something done about him you'll have to try WP:ANI. Petros471 19:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your warnings, I am amazed that you failed to see the reason for my links. Why am I getting a warning but the consistently disruptive Robertsteadman gets none? I'll ignore the warning, thank you very much, until I see that you are acting in an impartial way.Neuropean 19:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought the reason for the links is you accusing Robertsteadman of using sockpuppets. Well, as I said before you need to raise that in the appropriate way. Posting links like you did all over the place could be seen as harassment. If you want to point out any violations of policy that Robertsteadman has done (with diffs) then I'd be happy to warn him for those. Petros471 20:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about these for a start: (Taken from User:Weregerbil's talk page

I believe you warned Neuropean not to do this sort of thing yesterday [[[8]] - sadly, as you can see, he is continuing today. What do you suggest? It is very hard to AGF when someone (a clear sock) is virtually stalking me on here. Robertsteadman 11:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC) I invited people to take part in a debate on a subject that they had previosuly shown interest. I gave no indictaion of the result I wanted, mere;y that their view would be welcomed. Please look at Neuropean 's contributions. He is a sockpuppet and is out to make apoint. He nominated in bad faith and is upset because things aren't going his way. Robertsteadman 19:59, 30 June 2006 (UTCNeuropean 20:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[][reply]

A quick look at the most recent contributions by CmdrClow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to suggest correct signing of talk page comments. The warnings are in place on the usertalk page as well, so I won't take any specific action at this point in time. Might be better if you report any future vandalism (if any) to allow an admin to post the warnings (normally you'd be encouraged to post them yourself, but in this case they will probably cause more trouble). Providing diffs from the edit histories will help with that. Petros471 18:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those events transpired almost a week ago, and have sense not become a problem. CmdrClow was not signing on the Superman Returns page, and when I asked him to sign his comments (on that Talk page) he would remove what I posted. So, I warned him of deleting other user's comments, especially warnings. He proceeded to remove that, and if you look at the history his personal talk page you will see everything that transpired. He attempted to justify his actions by claiming they were a "personal attack" and so he could remove them. If you look at his history further you will see this isn't the first time that these events have taken place with him and other users. But, since he has kept the most recent warnings up, and has controlled him/herself from deleting portions of comments by others I don't see why there should be any further act on this user (as you pointed out). Thank you for responding though. Bignole 18:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, might as well try and sort this one out. Even though the report was made in the wrong way...

Are you Robsteadman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? If you are, can you explain why you are using this account to avoid a block? If not, can you explain the similar username? Petros471 20:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am the same person -however it was agreed that this was ok - there was a lot of strange things going on with the old account, impersonator accounts user: RobSteadman, accusations of sockpuppets which I have NEVER used, stalkers from other websites (www.tes.co.uk/staffroom) who established accounts on here to have a go ( user: Bakewell Tart andUser:Crusading composer (do have a word with user:Musical Linguist for further info (though she maintains I used socks when I didn't (sometimes WP can be wrong - one supposed sock turned out to be one of my A-level students editing to support me! - yes I am a teacher), User:Crusading composer later became user:Count Of The Saxon Shore) in order to try to disguise his actions and stalking... etc! You probably should take a look at this and have a word with user:Syrthiss. Several other admions know that I am using a new username (including user:Deskana who can verify the Syrthiss thing even though we are arch enemies!! Other problems arise because of the article Robert Steadman which is about me (and the thing that alerted me to WP in the first place) but, despite some claims was not written by me (this is one of the occasions when WP found things out and was wrong). For what it's worth I believe that our freind is linked VERY CLOSELY to AT LEAST one of the stalkers listed above. I'm sure this just sopunds confusing, particularly if you know none of the history, but I am, and always have been a valid editor trying to improve WPO - sadly others have done their best to get in the way. Robertsteadman 20:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, User:Syrthiss/Robertsteadman looks pretty clear, and I assume other admins agree to the principle. After all, you're visible enough that I would have thought someone familiar with your past one would have blocked by now otherwise. As you can tell I'm not familiar with the past situation and stalking problems, and from your above description it looks more like something you need the arbcom to handle, or at very least a wide audience of admins on WP:ANI (i.e. basically not just me and/or a couple of other admins). Petros471 20:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - sorry you had to be involved. I've been trying to quietly make edits and be useful to WP - sadly the stalker (in all incarnations) plus some of the boys from the ice hockey wikiproject have decided to "have a go" for different reasons at the same time - the result was the cat AfD (which was only ever a bad faith nomination with the purpose of causing trouble) and variouys people having their time wasted. I am collecting all info about the stalking and wioll, if need be, pass it to the police. It did has involved REAL LIFE things too.

Thanks for your help. Robertsteadman 20:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:Neuropean's latest vandalismis here. Robertsteadman 20:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]