`FYI- In case you didn't see this....  SkagitRiverQueen making unfounded accusations I have had to deal with this person continually since before Christmas. Someone posted questionable content to her talk page, whereupon she intitiated an unfounded sock case against me at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie/Archive. Then she filed a report here about me. Next she popped up at Black Dahlia, an article upon which she had never previously edited, to revert something I removed and has maintained a overly long, ridiculously drawn out discussion with editors there. At one point, Crohnie admonished her for treating her like ``an idiot or something``. Next she popped up at Charles Manson, also an article upon which she had not previously edited, to throw herself into an issue I was involved in and making unsupported statements, which she has proceeded to edit war over. She then joined WP:CRIME, a project in which I'm active. It is quote obvious she is stalking my edits. Finally tonight, another editor came to Talk:Black Dahlia to enter a content vote, and SkagitRiverQueen made an outright accusation against me of canvassing votes, where she clearly and unequivocably said ``It's obvious that some editors have been canvassed specifically to sway the vote (and am I making an accusation here? yes, indeed, I am).`` I asked her to withdraw her comment and her response was ``And, frankly, regardless of whether or not I can prove it, I don't believe that you *haven't* canvassed for input here.`` She was clearly challenged on this by LaVidaLoca here and Pinkadelica here. I want this editor to stop following me around, picking tenditious arguments and making specious and unfounded accusations against me. Wildhartlivie (talk)   I endorse these comments by Wildhartlivie. I object to the specious claim that my opinion was canvassed in anyway and believe SkagitRiverQueen's intent is tenditious and assaultive in nature. For the record, she has reverted the Manson article 3 times, even after she was asked not to edit war over it. It appears to me that she is wikihounding Wildhartlivie and would take exception to anything she says or does. This is an untenable situation that needs to stop. LaVidaLoca (talk)   As the editor who instigated the preliminary consensus vote (and as such a possible cohort in the WP:CANVASS), I must agree that this claim against Wildhartlivie is specious and unwarranted. I have attempted to instruct SkagitRiverQueen on the proper way to engage in disputes (mainly not attacking other editors based on perceived editing style). This has not worked as of yet. I do see a pattern of ``wikihounding`` here on SkagitRiverQueen's part, as do many other editors, and this has persisted for some time. This feud must end... Doc9871 (talk)   IMO, this is purely retaliation by Wildhartlivie for the sock-puppet investigation (exactly why it's the first thing she mentioned in the complaint even though the issue has been over and done for nearly a couple of weeks, now). Not only is she reverting practically everything I have edited recently, she is now reverting entire sections of large articles I have edited[18]. On top of that, she continues to call me by an inflammatory name (``Skag`` - I have noted on my User Page it is *not* an acceptible contraction of my user name; she even mentioned earlier today that she has read that admonition on my user page[19] that is a known slang term for women who have less than savory reputations[20]). Now, in addition to everything else, she has placed an ``edit war`` warning on my talk page *after* she filed this report.[21] I am not in an edit war - and am actually trying to reason with the editor of that article who has been reverting my recent edits.[22] Wildhartlivie has publically called my mental and emotional health into question here in Wikipedia on more than one occasion. Additionally, she has a questionable history that includes abuse of her rollback privileges (see User talk:Wildhartlivie for the warning she recently received and User talk:GTBacchus for her responses to the warning), continued incivility to anyone who edits articles she watches, and canvassing her Wikipedia friends to back her up whenever her edits or actions are called into question (above content from LaVidaLoca is proof of this). And yes, I do believe she canvassed editors by email regarding the issue we have been discussing at Talk:Black Dahlia. Concerning this complaint, you will likely also hear from User:Doc9871, User:Pinkadelica, User:Crohnie, User:Rossrs, User:Vidor, and User:Equazcion - all editors she has canvassed in the past when she feels she needs support in one of her efforts to prove me wrong. Evidence of this can be found at [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. In those instances, she out-and-out lied that I mentioned four of those editors in any fashion - yet, her message to them gave them the impression I had. Until yesterday, Wildhartlivie's reverts have usually been improperly used rollbacks without any reason given to the editors who made the edits that were reverted. On the internet (outside of Wikipedia) she has a reputation for being controlling over Wikipedia articles (to the point of discouraging new editors from contributing) and is seen as someone who feels she owns articles. On the website, Vox, she referred to herself on September 9, 2009 as ``Wildhartlivie a wikipedia celebrity special interests agent``. In describing herself at that website she stated, ``Yes I  control all the celebrity content on Wikipedia.`` She has a harassing, heavy-handed attitude in editing and reverting edits and, IMO, is - simply put - a bully and the kind of Wikipedia editor who makes Wikipedia an unfriendly place to be.  SkagitRiverQueen (talk)   SRQ, you've just named seven (7) editors that agree with Wildhartlivie on this particular issue. If you believe were are just automatons, bound to Livie's ``canvassing``, no matter what the issue... you are both giving too much credit to Wildhartlivie, and insulting (at least) seven other editors. This has possibly passed beyond the realm of ``wikihounding``... Doc9871 (talk)   Oh, please. This is not retaliatory for the sock accusation, please spare us the injured party act. This is a complaint about an overt and unabashed accusation of WP:CANVASS. I inadvertently typed her name without ``itRiverQueen``. That wasn't intentional, but then again why would someone use a username ``that is a known slang term for women who have less than savory reputations``? The 3RR warning was absolutely correct, she did revert 3 times. The editor on that talk page said to her ``You are now arguing — and editing — in bad faith.`` She clearly has a vendetta against me and is exercising it at every turn. I do not have a questionable history on Wikipedia, but now that SkagitRiverQueen brings it up, I wonder how User:GTBacchus got wind of the reversions of inappropriate removal of country of birth and death, which I maintain bordered on vandalism? That she knows about it indicates she was the catalyst for it. Do you deny it, SkagitRiverQueen? That is where she got her mention of inappropriate use of rollback, and after the discussion of which GTBacchus decided to not act on it. I would mention that SkagitRiverQueen had her own rollback removed recently when she successfully blamed her cellphone for two separate rollback comments on User:Crohnie's talk page, almost 2 hours apart. And for all that, why is this editor so familiar with how I edit and where that is?? Like I said for her accusations of canvass, prove it when you claim I have a pattern of incivility. I don't know where she scared up her ``outside of Wikipedia`` comments but I do not belong to Vox and those comments were not made by me. Whoever opened that account doesn't even spell my username correctly all the time. I will disclose to any interested administrators where I suspect that content came from (an editor who kept posting on celebrity talk pages about their salaries and who hacked a twitter account called Wildhartlivie2, and posted an annotated copy of my contributions history which is referenced on that page and which twitter would not remove). All of that crap is contained on that page and I have contacted that website to request its removal as harassment. It's preposterous to think that I would post such nonsense and specious and vindictive to conclude it is me. And even if I did, what does anything off of Wikipedia matter here anyway? I am not interested in SkagitRiverQueen's personal opinion of me, but I do want her to stop stalking my edits and causing problems with me. This is a specious and unwarranted attack upon me which qualifies as violating all behavioral guidelines on Wikipedia. Please look at her recent editing history for confirmation. I'm quite sure the editors she mentioned would object to her claim that they do what I ask and are mindlessly under my control. Perhaps they just happen to more often than not agree with me. Please make SkagitRiverQueen back off and leave me alone and stop stalking me here. And as I stated here before, my comments were characterizations regarding her accusations, not an opinion or diagnosis about her mental health. Methinks thou doth protest too much. And for the record, I did not lie and tell editors they were under discussion, when you blatantly named people who were bullies in your complaint further up the page here. Meanwhile, you're already involving yourself in dispute with another editor at Talk:Charles Manson. Wildhartlivie (talk)   Thanks ever so much for the pronouncement about my endorsement of the complaint against you, SkagitRiverQueen: ``above content from LaVidaLoca is proof of this``. For your i