I admit that I thought that Tryptofish's picture of the healthy-looking dog licking the laughing boy's face as the "epitome of animal ownership" was funny.

But there are so many others that jerk chains even better:

SV, you say that your questions for Tryptofish are about trolling, not sockpuppeting. However, in your post to that account's talk page, you asked about alternate accounts. That sounds like your making, at least implied, an accusation of socking.

Also, you say that Lar has been attacking you on wiki. Where on wiki has Lar been attacking you?

To be fair, I believe you are being trolled. When I was researching for the ArbCom case I saw that a couple of years ago there was an account who appeared to be trying to antagonize you via several of your animal rights articles. I don't remember the account's name. If you believe that Tryptofish is that account, you can say so here, because it's off-wiki and Tryptofish and the other account's name are anonymous account names, not real names.

Lar, Bainer, and Risker are correct in that if you're going to imply that socking is going on, you need to do so in the appropriate forum on wiki. Otherwise, Tryptofish should be treated as a good faith editor because so far he/she seems to be following the rules.

See http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=165693 on the antics of "Resaunaut." WR is hardly above (below?) commenting on obviously socking or SPA accounts.

Tryptofish, by his/her edits, looks like a righteous biologist. If he/she is trolling SlimVirgin, it's because after a long time on WP, Trypto has identified SV as some bio-POV pusher that needs to be poked with a stick, to see what it does.

Good luck, Trypto. They're Africanized, you know.

That's just part of the ritual banning dance.

The Sock Hop


I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time. I feel like I may have forgotten this before.

For SlimVirgin's sake, we should have a little window that opens up on WP, every time you hit the "edit" tab, which starts out with a warning. Something like:



I think that would help Slim out when Slim starts getting all bothered over somebody messing with her hard work.

What do you all think of this idea?

To be fair, it is frustrating when someone edits an article that you've spent a lot of time on in way that you think is unhelpful. For example, someone recently edited an article that I'm currently working on to try to get it ready for FA nomination with this edit which, to be honest, I don't fully agree with. But what am I going to do about it? I'll probably rearrange it a little in the future and work more with the editor in the discussion section about it on the article's talk page.

That's the way you have to do things in a wiki. Reverting other people's changes with edit summaries that say "per talk" or see talk when you haven't done any actual talking seems to miss the point of how the wiki is supposed to work.

By the way, Tryptofish appears to have sound reasoning for using the FBI cite instead of the DoHS cite for the lede at ALF. As he points out, the DoHS cite is a draft document. In your response, you don't address his point about the source, but instead seem to be saying, I disagree so therefore the article should stay in my version.