Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive74

User:Pm master and policy v. expertise

User:Pm master and I are having a disagreement over at A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, as described at Talk:A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge#8 October 2009 cleanup. Here's the short version:

• I've tried to discuss changes to the article in terms of Wikipedia policy, but instead, I've been told that unless I am a subject matter expert, my edits are not wanted ("your edits to articles that you obviously don't know enough about are not helpful," " Please if you're not a Project Manager don't go and vandalize established articles just for the sake of fixing what is not broken (you call it cleanup).," & "Please don't hide behind Wikipedia standards to prove that you're right in editing the content of an article you clearly have no clue whatsoever what it's about.").
• So far as I can tell, he believes that he owns the article ("I'm here, and I'll keep protecting this article." & "me, as well as every other Project Manager, don't want this article to turn into rubbish.")
• He has, several times now, accused me of vandalism and page blanking—which I have never done. Here's the last version I tried out; note that while it may be a stub, it is not blank, and contains more (ok, one versus zero) references than his preferred version.
• My reaction to this was to whip up a little table of how I saw our disagreements and suggested that we take it to WP:3O. His response: "You have too much time on your hands," & "please stop wasting my time on this, and yours, and move over to another specialized article where your helpful blanking of the page will be welcome."
• As he hadn't said no to getting a WP:3O, and I felt like discussion wasn't productive, I listed it there.
• He then stated that he'd never agreed to the WP:3O and that once again, I should just go away.
• User:RegentsPark came in and gave his opinion. From my perspective, about the only thing he and I disagreed on is that I thought there was some value as a stub, and he thought that without any third-party sources, it should just be sent right to AFD.

I've tried hard to maintain my cool and stay focused on policy and guidelines in the face of personal attacks. But the current status is that User:Pm master will not deign to discuss changes with the likes of me, and, most importantly, the article isn't improved. If y'all can be of any help in this, you've got my thanks and appreciation. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have advised the editor via his talk page of the Wikipedia guidelines on referencing and verifying claims, as well as pointing out that a page should be accessible by anyone with an interest in the topic and not just experts. I also reminded them to assume good faith of other editors, as all those involved on the page seem to be trying to improve it. I hope that concensus can be reached, although I think the best solution here would be to do an in-depth search for references so that some "middle ground" can be found so to say, so that not so much content is removed in one big jump. Happy editing to you both. --Taelus (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that PM Master wants to own that particular article no matter what, and it seems that WP policy won't stand in his way. This is plain wrong, IMHO. The user doesn't seem to want to listen to anyone who throws policy in his face, yet is quick to point out that his expertise on the subject matter trumps our policies. Sorry to say, PM Master, but even if you were a 50-year expert on the subject, our policies always come first. ArcAngel (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for dropping by and giving your opinions. The article will soon be referenced properly and this will be resolved as discussed on the page. I do not own the article, I'm just here to help make the Project Management category on Wikipedia better and more solid. User Dori is just trying to prove a point, the user could have made a search and referenced the article properly, but chose not to. Instead, the user chose to post here, on my user page, and on the article's discussion page (and maybe somewhere else), and create a big deal out of this trivial argument, simply because the user doesn't like his/her edits to be reverted. PS: I edited the title to include both our usernames, not just mine. Dori, if you don't want your username to be in the title, then please remove mine as well. Thanks!Pm master 01:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    • One more thing, the table on the article's discussion page does not reflect my view on the subject, the table was completely filled by the user Dori, which is misleading, IMO. I never said that references are useless, I didn't say that the article should not be categorized as a book (but I did say that is should remain under Project Management), I didn't say any of the things that the user stated in the table, it was all Dori's assumptions. I have no aspirations whatsoever of becoming and administrator (contrary to the user Dori, which probably is the reason why we're just short of summoning a G8 meeting to resolve the issue). The user took it very personal that the edits were reverted, twice. Everyone's welcome to edit the article, but please do some research prior to the edit. Failing that, the article may wind up as complete nonsense. Pm master 03:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
      • My responses:

        

        • User Dori is just trying to prove a point

          If by "prove a point" you mean "improve an encyclopedia," you're right. If you mean anything else, you're (again) making unfounded accusations against me.

        • the user could have made a search and referenced the article properly, but chose not to

          Such as, say, adding a {{cite book}} to the article? Oh wait, I added that one; you're the one that took it out again.

          And I'll ask you your own question: where are the references you've added? You reverted a valid reference I'd added, removed the References header entirely, and claim that you have expertise in this area—so, why haven't you added any references?

        • the user chose to post here, on my user page, and on the article's discussion page

          Note, up above, where it says that (a non-optional) part of posting an alert here is to

          Notify the reported user(s). Place a short and polite statement on their talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved. You may wish to use the template {{subst:WQA-notice}} on a user's talk page.

          That's what I did—exactly what policy states, no more and no less. If you have a problem with policy, then go work on changing it.

        • create a big deal out of this trivial argument, simply because the user doesn't like his/her edits to be reverted

          My preference was to discuss edits on the article's talk page. You made it clear there that, so far as you were concerned, neither my opinions nor my edits had any value. At that point, I had three choices: edit war (against policy), allow you to own the article (against policy), or follow the dispute resolution process and see what the consensus was. Once again, I chose to follow policy. And again, if you have a problem with policy, then go work on changing it.

        • Dori, if you don't want your username to be in the title, then please remove mine as well

          No, I've just put it back to my original. As you pointed out above, I posted links elsewhere pointing here. Changing the title here broke those links. Additionally, if you look at the other sections on this page, they follow a similar structure: one person objecting to another's behavior, with the editor in question's name as (all or part of) the alert's title.

        • the table was completely filled by the user Dori, which is misleading

          Yep, which is why I wrote, "Obviously, I've guessed at your thoughts above, so if you could you edit that column to accurately reflect your opinions, I think we'd be set" and later, "you're still free to add your thoughts and opinions to the table above." I've never claimed that that column reflects your opinions, but rather, how I've perceived them. For the third time: you're invited to modify that column. If you choose not to, that's your choice.

        • probably is the reason why we're just short of summoning a G8 meeting to resolve the issue

          Once again, I'm simply working my way through the completely standard normal everyday dispute resolution process. You refused to participate in the third opinion process, which is how we ended up here. What do you suggest we do otherwise? (outside of just allowing you to own the article, sadly).

        • The user took it very personal that the edits were reverted, twice.

          And you say this based on what? If you think that following policy = hurt feelings, then I have some doubts about us reaching consensus.

        • Everyone's welcome to edit the article, but please do some research prior to the edit. Failing that, the article may wind up as complete nonsense.

          It's complete nonsense now—I've simply been trying to remove some of the nonsense. And the only research an editor needs to do before removing uncited information—in any article—is verify that a citation can't be found. I've done that. If you're able to find a citation, please add it. So far, all you've done is re-add uncited content and remove the citation I've tried to add.

      • User:Pm master: please stop making personal comments about me and how you perceive I feel. They aren't helping you make your case. If your goal is to make me lose my temper, well, I'm trying hard to avoid that. Can we please focus on the article instead?
      • User:Taelus and User:ArcAngel: thanks for your efforts! Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• I advised the user again to disengage and focus on their goal of adding references to the article, rather than engaging in revert cycles. May I also suggest Dori that you tag everything that needs citing/clean-up, then give it all a week before removing unfixed points? This would seem to diffuse the scenario, and the tags will inform readers of potential problems with what they read. If not, perhaps all the current problematic content could be userfy'd for future improvement to User:Pm masters userspace, as they claim they are busy off-project currently. --Taelus (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I added both maintenance tags and a citation in previous edits. User:Pm master reverted both. I'd be happy to add both/either again if I thought that he'd allow them to stay, but I have no reason to believe that he will. User:Pm master, if you're okay with this, I'd be happy to do it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 19:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Jk54

Over a period of about a year and a half now, this user has consistently re-inserted their large WP:OR into the article Quilliam Foundation, despite the efforts of numerous other editors over the history of the article. See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quilliam_Foundation&diff=316382567&oldid=315693400

The user has continually reverted, with no argument, the attempts to remove their Original Research essay, and apparently ignores the discussions against this. It would be helpful if an administrator could help out on this topic somehow, or at least look into the article and watch the article, because the process of reverting their original research has stubbornly continued for over a year. Avaya1 (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My advice is to take a poll on the article's talk page, asking which version is better, Jk54's long version, or the short version that you support. If, as seems likely, multiple editors support the short version while Jk54 is the only supporter of the long version, you will be able to state that continued attempts to violate consensus will be viewed as disruptive, and you will probably be able to get an admin to block the editor if the disruption continues. (If you do decide to go ahead with such a poll, make sure you ask that people not give long explanations, and not respond to other people's opinions, or it will degenerate into a mess.) Looie496 (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, I'll do that when I have time. But all the other editors of the article seem to have disappeared? Surely at least insofar as any re-inserted material obviously contravenes basic wikipedia rules about NPOV and original research, we can just prevent the re-insertion of material

This what Jk54's version of the article looked like before we managed to cut it down: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quilliam_Foundation&oldid=223641695

So we have made some progress at least. Avaya1 (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

But all the other editors of the article seem to have disappeared

In that case, a topic request for comment might be a better option, as it'll get outside opinion. At a glance, however, what Jk54 is adding is definitely original research (for instance, all the sections that take external political definitions - or unsourced ones - and use them to produce original critique of the Quilliam Foundation's stance). Not to mention the number of unreliable sources, such as forums and blogs, JK54 cites. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

IF there is any original research, please quote it so it can be discussed and if shown to be the case, can be removed. Citing things in general terms does not help the discussion nor does arbitrary removal of cited material. Jk54 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

All you need to know is that if you write something like:

Professor Willy McGilly defines extremism as wearing dresses. Applying this definition to the Women's Institute classifies it as extremist

it's original research - WP:SYNTH - unless Prof. McGilly himself made that analysis. I'm sure you can see for yourself where that applies in the material you keep adding. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Such statements should then be removed - Avaya1 is removing large chunks of referenced research.Jk54 (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether or not the original research is reliably referenced or even NPOV (although both of these are also necessary, but not sufficient, conditions). The point is that it is original research. If you want to publish well-referenced essay material, this encyclopedia is not the place. Also read WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH Avaya1 (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend you actually read the article - there is considerable non-original research. Any original research you object to, if substantiated, can be removed - it is clearly unacceptable to remove non-original referenced work which you/Quilliam Foundation dislike.

Furthermore, Avaya1 has appeared from nowhere, has contributed nothing to wiki whatsoever, and has a sole biased interest in this article alone - I would ask the editors to review his IP address and it will no doubt reveal he is a sock puppet of the Quilliam Foundation. Jk54 (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Jk54's very long material is not appropriate. Though he is thorough, his material is highly opinionated and is not neutral. He seems to be critical of the foundation and what he adds to the article reflects his personal views. In the past, it has not been easy to get enough people to show up to form a consensus on that article's talk page. See Quilliam Foundation#Jurisprudential revisionism where the article offers criticism of the Foundation in Wikipedia's own voice. Same thing in Quilliam Foundation#Abdullah Quilliam. To illustrate his limited understanding of our policy, in this recent edit to the article Jk54 describes the previous editor's change as 'vandalism.' His persistence in the face of all other contributors might be considered as edit warring. Note that in the cited edit, he removes a lot of work of other contributors while adding his own. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem if someone removes POV or original research, as per the example you quote. The problem is that there is numerous cases of neutral facts being reported too which are being removed. Avaya1 is not distinguishing between the two and removing everything wholesale. To take things forward constructively and achieve concensus, I would suggest that an editor goes through the article removing what clearly violates wiki standards and retains that which is acceptable.Jk54 (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue has also been disputed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN3#User:Avaya1_reported_by_User:Jk54_.28Result:_.29 Avaya1 (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Warmpuppy2

Resolved

 – Blocked as sock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Warmpuppy2 (talk · contribs) In the past couple of days I added the image File:Johnny Test Cast Poster.jpg to the Johnny Test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. But the user Warmpuppy2 removed the image stating on my talk page that the image was unencyclopedic and that I was a Schmuck who didn't know the rules. Now Warmpuppy did eventually own up to their remark and appologized. Now I continued on and re-added the image and move the character section into it's own page List of Johnny Test characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As it is my understanding that images such as cast poster are encourage for use as they feature mutiple characters from the list, I see no reason why this image can't be utilized from the list. But Warmpuppy feels differently and keeps taking the image down and replacing it with either this or this. I went to the discussion page voicing my thoughts on the matter and asked them mutiple time in my edit summery to go there and voice their thoughts and they would, for the most part, egnore me, or give big infarct no in their edit. Eventually they called my attempts to put the image back as vandalizim and threatened me with an indefinite block. Then they proceeded to add an indefinte block tag on my user page as seen here. Shortly after, I dicovered that they began adding more images of the characters into the list which I know to be a big copyright violation. I pointed this out to them in my edit summary, but they refused. So when I anounced that would report them, they went an blankened the page. Now I will admit that this has most likely turned into an edit war. Yet I tried to prevent this by getting Warmpuppy to discuss rationally. I didn't go to their talk page as I didn't want to personalize the situation. But I hope I not in any trouble for my actions. Sarujo (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the List of Johnny Test characters page because of the edit war between you two. I'll leave it up to others here to discuss the behavorial issues of this post. either way (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay thank you. Sarujo (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it appears that Warmpuppy continues with his actions. Not too long ago I just removed another tag they place on my user page claiming that I was banned from editing as seen here. Sarujo (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Bedford and uncivil language

Resolved

 – No action needed or forthcoming

Whilst looking through the user talkpage of User:Die4Dixie, I noticed a conversation about the user's block. I have no opinion on that block of that user, but read a comment by User: Bedford about his loss of adminship some time ago. The comment can be found [[1]] and, since I can't figure out how to do diff's, I'll reproduce it here through copy and paste: 'Similarly, there were those that did not care that I pointed out the fact I was gangraped last year on my page, and tried to get rid of that to hide their guilt. However, this arbitration case helped me, and it seems it would apply to Dixie's case as well: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi'

I found this to be an incredibly offensive comment; no matter the circumstances of the event in question, it can in no way be even vaguely compared to gangraping, a heinous, painful and disgusting act. I thus started a thread on Bedford's talkpage, the entirety of which can be found here: [[2]]. I can use that diff because Bedford deleted the entire conversation with the edit summary of 'rmv garbage'. I don't find that to be the most complementary or helpful of language, and the same can be said for the entire conversation I had with Bedford. I admit that I did start by saying that such a term was 'disgusting' and 'disrespectful' but I stand by those words: they are and are entirely inappropriate to use. Bedford may have had his admin tools taken away without his agreement, but that can in no way be likened to being raped by multiple people.

I asked him whether he would refactor the comment made on the other user's talkpage, or whether he would replace it with less insluting and colourful phrasing which I believe to be essentially the same. However, he remained uninterested, rude and rather Dickish, going so far as to state that 'I will never strike out a phrase so apt in its description' and 'Yawn!!!' when I pressed him on the issue. I've never filed a WQA report before, but I'd like to see this end with the phrase either being struck out or modified with some less disrespectful language. Skinny87 (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't you have anything better to do with your time than making a fuss about what one editor puts on another editor's talk page? Behavior like that is the reason Bedford lost adminship -- he already knows that many other people find it offensive. If it rises to the level of justifying a block (which this doesn't), then complain at WP:ANI; otherwise this is a waste of effort. Looie496 (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that you feel like that, but please WP:AGF. I've had no prior involvement with Bedford, but simply found the language distasteful and disrespectful And I do have better things to do - I'm doing a lot of content work anyway. I attempted to do everything I could to resolve this on his talkpage, but he refused, and so this was the next step. Skinny87 (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think though it's an honest question, does this need to go further. A week ago, he made a comment on a talk page. You find his metaphor distasteful, he finds it appropriate. No one's going to change his mind on that issue. It's not a personal attack, just a general characterization of a previous situation. It's on a talk page, not in article space, or even article talk. What is best for wikipedia and all involved? Taking further steps to redact this comment that may be borderline, but isn't a dramatic policy violation, and has already sat around on a talk page for a week? Or would it be best to just move on?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So, consensus is that users can make such disgusting comments and get away with it? Very well, then, I'll drop it. But I'm certainly not happy about it. Skinny87 (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

For my own part I wouldn't presume to declare my opinion the consensus opinion. I'm just asking you to consider my opinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Distasteful, callous language, yes. But it's really not against the rules, especially not as a one-off statement. And neither is refusing to talk to you about it. If he's being a jerk, then he's being a jerk. You're kind of at an impasse here- there's no real recourse to compel a user to redact or change a statement they don't want to change, particularly when no rules have been violated. --King Öomie 19:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it simply the term "gangrape" you do not like, because Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. If you don't like his description, don't look at it. End of story. Grsz¹¹ 19:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, wonderful. There we are then. Skinny87 (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

User David A

Greetings. I think David A needs cautioning as he has a habit of inserting inflammatory comments in his Edit Summaries about other users, particularly myself [3]. This is at times taken to an extreme as he's taken a shot across my bow in a summary at an article I haven't even looked at for over a year [4]. Although there are disputes about some of the content he inserts, I'd just like him to tone it down in discussion and not deliberately try and bait others. A glace at his contributions and comments also paint a picture [5]

Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have used David A's Talk page to alert him or her to this post, and to encourage him or her to respond. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian is asking that he or she not be named in David A's edit summaries. This request is entirely reasonable and must be respected. In future, David A must not name Asgardian in edit summaries, and probably should not name any other User in edit summaries except where it is unmistakably a positive or neutral reference. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had a few years and literally hundreds of instances of experiences with Asgardian's brand of systematic information-distortion, methodical deceit, and heavy manipulation, and am the type that's virtually unable to lie/filter in any way whatsoever, so when he consistently creates the same types of situations over and over again it turns impossible to not point it out. I have a major hang-up just about deceit and deliberate/the same pattern repeated over and over again information-twisting/misinformation, whereas I always speak the truth as I see it at all times. It's both a part of my lifelong medical condition, and the resulting personality stemming from it. I've had Wikipedia experiences with death-threatening stalkers, people who start chewing my head off for very little reason, and people who want to wantonly delete pages I've invested a lot of time in, sometimes in combination, but not even all of them together have given me nearly as bad an experience/impression as Asgardian to my perception unbelievably calculated "every-dirty-trick I can get away with" deceit and disinformation, which has gradually completely worn down any layers of benefit of doubt, and almost erased my energy for even helping out at Wikipedia. Not to mention that accusing me of "baiting others" (as opposed to pointing out word-by-word exactly what he does, which is what I always do. He lies, I tell the truth, it's why we don't get along) here hardly rhymes with his old tactic of calling me "shrieking, unbalanced, and unhinged".

Just to use a few more easily found examples. We are talking about a few years here after all, and as the greater amount of long-time ongoing "completely rewriting the content of fictional publications in the summaries" parts are harder to refer without you personally actually reading them all:

Asgardian being proven sockpuppet user, and that's just the one that's been discovered, which to me further underlines his overall willingness for systematic deceit, and turns especially suspicious whenever various anonymous ips have reverted to his edits: [6]

Asgardian's block page for consistent edit-warring (although he's since started to simply do one revert a day to get away with it, regardless if anyone agrees or not): [7]

Newer conflicts: [8]

User: J Greb also noticing my ongoing hair-tearer (which makes it impossible to make useful corrections or matter-of-fact logical discussion, which I've repeatedly tried with him to no avail) that Asgardian has continually written edit-summaries that have little, or nothing to do with what he's actually doing, or even flat-out contradict it, and Asgardian characteristically stating that he'll continue to do so as long as he can get away with it/until the specific regulation is pointed out: [9] "I've grown very, very tired of edits like this where the editor does multiple things and then puts in a partially truthful edit summary." Response: "As for J Greb's concern, I've made a request to be directed to the relevant rule on Wikipedia."

User: Nightscream also noticing Asgardian's systematic tendency for manipulation, i.e. the whole "drive people insane with annoyance over what I'm consistently actually doing in my edits, and not being honest in my edit summary rationalisations" and then accuse them of "incivility" simply for pointing it out, which given that he does what he always does makes it completely impossible to even respond: [10]

Asgardian recently apparently systematically vandalising page-structures just to make a point, and various other users making a plea to finally shut him down: [11] [12] [13]

Only the most recent situation of distorting profile content and deleting multiple references regardless that the information was entirely correct, and that the entire Talk population disagrees with him, and again going by my experience on other pages such as Thanos no matter the result he will eventually sneak in there and revert everything at a time when everyone else has mostly lost interest, even if he has to wait half a year to do so, previous middle-road solutions and adjustments be damned: [14]

In addition, what started to make me see him for what he is was in an old Talk (1-2 years ago) edit wherein he expressed amusement at my outrage over his lies, and considered it infantile to have that kind of perspective of decency, but I didn't find it when looking for it. It's what he does... and I suppose getting pissed off about that he gets away with it is what I do. This is just the latest in a very long line of tactics that he uses as weapons to do so. Dave (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does any of that mean you have to take potshots at him personally in long, wordy edit summaries? Without getting into this specific situation, dealing with editors you have problems with is part of life on Wikipedia and we are supposed to deal with it in the appropriate way. Being "the type that's unable to lie/filter in any way whatsoever" doesn't give you the right to get personal in edit summaries. There are so many better ways to deal with this kind of thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not taking "potshots". That's not the way I think. I'm pointing out exactly what he's doing in them, since he's trying to hide or detract from them with his misleading summaries, and someone has to point out every instance of what he's doing. I mean, it would be impossible for me to find the time to sift through his years and hundreds of instances of this behaviour, and literally have no patience whatsoever with him anymore, so I'm pointing it out all the time instead. He's also specifically making it extremely hard to respond to him in any other way anywhere. He seems to be using the "civility" excuse towards everyone, as seen in the Nightscream comment and the Dormammu discussion. I have no idea how to handle him in any other way sicne he seems to have an inexplicable get out of jail card for things that are hundreds of times worse than anything I ever did, and he's using loopholes in regulations to make a case that lies are ok and truth isn't as a weapon. For that matter why wasn't he permanently banned after his first sockpuppet was discovered? I'm so incredibly tired of him. You try dealing with the same manipulative person several hundred times in a row dragged out over a few years and see how you like it, even without a medical condition (I have some weird overlapping Asperger-ADD-bipolar-OCD-Damp-Tourettes-Schizophrenic condition or whatever the theory I'm presented is this year. There have been a lot of variants) Dave (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

user:Trilemma

Trilemma has been attacking me, and any text the user disagrees with, in regards to the Alan Grayson article. See User_talk:Trilemma#Abrasive, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Alan_Grayson_Edit_warring, Talk:Mass_media_coverage_of_Alan_Grayson's_comments_on_the_Republican's_health_care_plan. I cant have a discussion about the actual content. Scientus (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This report comes from an individual who created an article with the intent of having it deleted so that he could 'win' his dispute against me. I do not consider it a violation of wikiquette to accurately describe another users' behavior, and this is an illustration of the manner in which Scientus has been comporting himself with regards to the Alan Grayson article. Trilemma (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"win": I never used that word. Putting words in someones mouth doesn't make them who you wish to portray them as. Scientus (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, the apostrophe is not meant to infer a direct quote of Scientus. It's rather meant to summarize what I view as his ambition in creating the article, and which I feel his declaration in the talk page of it reveals. Trilemma (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, for the record, Scientus' misinterpretations of my statements, and his hostile behavior, have been noted by independent editors, as is demonstrated in the following two references: . Trilemma (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User: F-22 Raptored

User has used frequent hostility and threats over a simple dispute on the Oingo Boingo article, continued on my talk page and his. I believe we may have concluded a truce on this instance, however, reviewing the users other contributions, I am concerned that this user may show signs of hostility and being an "instruction creep" in the future.68.36.148.39 (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Although you have linked us to his and your talkpage, Diffs would be nice.--SKATER ^Speak. 02:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

User: TheSickBehemoth

Began and continued an edit war (which, to be fair, I probably should have handled differently), and afterwords engaged in multiple personal attacks, repeatedly telling me to "grow up" and stop "vandalizing" wikipedia. After warning him after each attack, he has started warning me for the exact same thing, and now claiming that I'm personally attacking him. I'm not sure how to approach the situation. Friginator (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Diffs Please.--SKATER ^Speak. 02:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

BOTH OF YOU stop changing genres without sources. I have zero tolerance for Genre Warriors, and the same goes for a number of admins. TSB, read through WP:VAND before referring to contentious edits as vandalism. --King Öomie 02:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Galassi

Galassi (talk · contribs) is behaving irritatingly immature on Talk:Cantonist. See comments like "That goes for you as well."[15] and "Ehrlich's success being irritating to someone."[16] And his unfounded reverts, as explained in that talk discussion. To the reverts I have replied, and in all cases he has had to conceed to my arguments. To the childish remarks quoted above I have not found fit to reply. But somebody should have a talk with him.

And then there are his insulting remarks. Like when he supposed I hadn't read the source he quoted.[17] (in edit summary) And his reminder to me that a rabbi should have scruples.[18] Or when he was accusing me of deliberately misusing a template.[19] And he is also stalking me, insolently mixing in my request to a friend-editor for a second opinion.[20] Debresser (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Galassi after further harrassment. Debresser (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

User:INic

In a content dispute on Two envelopes problem, this user is describing others' edits as vandalism [21] [22] [23] "vandal feedback". Also general incivility: [24] [25] [26].

My concern isn't about being called names, but about the difficulty of improving the article while this behavior continues. There is some blatant original research/POV-pushing in the article, as explained in Talk: [27] [28]. User:Tomixdf and more recently I have tried to remove this misleading content but have been met with the above reverts and hostility.

I think there's a case here for the edit warring noticeboard, but maybe progress can be made on the article if INic can be persuaded to Assume Good Faith and engage in productive discussion. Thanks in advance for any help, MartinPoulter (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he's not Assuming Good Fath, I'd like to hear his side of the story first though before making my conclusion.--SKATER ^Speak. 20:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

user: User:Homezfoo

This user is very disruptive on talk pages, rude to other editors, appears to be looking for fights, and uses vocabulary not suitible for Wikipedia as you can see on his talk page - User talk:Homezfoo and on my own talk page User talk:Alankc His messages are very self explanitory, after warnings on his talk page. Alan KC 04:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Although you linked to your talk page and his, Specific difs would be great.--SKATER ^Speak. 04:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

he keeps changing what he puts, the history of the talk pages are loaded with his edits, but it's all at the bottom of each talk page. here's links to the sections.. User_talk:Alankc#OH_MY_GOD.21 and User_talk:Homezfoo#VH1_Divas Alan KC 04:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at his talk page and advised him to change his tone, you should also alert him to this thread. --SKATER ^Speak. 04:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

alerting him now.. My talk page is even better, he admits he's been coming on to harass me in a response to someone else, I haven't even had a conversation with him personally.. waTer-thin ice? I haven't really said or done much on wikipedia except call this person a poopie head (and a few edits misunderstood as vandalism and a couple of real vandalism here and there and that's it) but I guess I'll think twice before I ever call someone a poopie head or any other silly 2nd grade bully playground names again on wikipedia since i guess they're a bit sensitive about that. Oh God, Lord forbid that I ever get blocked from wikipedia for calling someone a mr. meanie pickle face next time. Oh the horror! I guess that's a personal attack here and you will suffer the consequences! Alan KC 04:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

He's pushing it, Also adding warning against personal attacks. On a personal note, I notice your signature dosen't link to anything, is that intentional? Also WQA is not for Admin Intervention that goes to WP:ANI which is where this might me going.--SKATER ^Speak. 04:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey I didn't mean to sound rude or like I was "pushing it" when I wrote the whole pickle face thing. It might sound like I'm pushing it but I'm just really surprised that people find poopie head (it means shit head, now i see that soryy) or pickle face offensive or rude. That's a first to me! And I change or constantly edit what I said because of typos or such but they're still the same words. But please read what I said on his talk page and mine which is somewhere at the bottom of both pages. I have no intention to be rude to anyone on wikipedia for it does NOTHING amazing to my life at all. Please and thank you before you block me cause of this silly situation.

And by the way he quoted like a bad setence from the entire thing I wrote. Now that what he quoted from me makes me sound like a criminal 100% I'm out to get you kind of person which i am not.
And yeah that thing about what you said about him not linking his signatures. I fixed it on my page cause I thought it was wrong and I thought it was suppose to link back cause that is what I have seen so far on Wikipedia. That's what people here do but then he said that that wasn't him or his signature but it IS. Look at my talk page history.

This, everything he wrote to you, is HIS side of the story which is wrong and I guess I am misunderstood here. You should read the whole thing from the beginning. But anyways please look at what I wrote carefully and thank you and I hope you can fairly see my point of view of this whole silly thing. And I had no idea what the Wikiqutte alerts is so sorry if it took a while for me to come here cause I barely just cliked on this link like right now.

And AlanKC introduced me as a person I am NOT to you, so on his actions, I apologize for that as well cause I am a really great person. :D

And I called him a poopie head cause shit head just sounds much worse. And sorry i just read what you wrote on my talk page cause I didn't see it. But that guy started it first. Sounds like a he said she said situation but like i said, please read what i ever wrote or he wrote and thanks.
--Homezfoo (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The only response I have to that is you Shouldn't be insulting at all., Wp:NPA.--SKATER ^Speak. 14:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Myself as an uninvolved third party to all this, I have to agree with what Skater said, why pour fuel if you know that there is already a raging fire? Two wrongs doesn't make one right, you know? I'd suggest to move away if you don't feel comfortable or it's the trout for you, Homezfoo. Kapish? --Dave1185 (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Homezfoo has says he has wished the put the whole thing behind him on my Talk Page (As well as an unessecary summary of the events thaat took place.) At this time I'd like to ask Alan KC if He'd be willing to call TRUCE.

User Dori and Misleading Assumptions

Stale

 – User:Pm master hasn't edited this report since 14 October, the article in question since 9 October, the talk page of the article in question since 12 October, and hasn't edited WP at all since 17 October. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A few days ago, User Dori and I had a trivial argument over an unreferenced article, the A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. The argument has grown out of proportions since. The user stubbed the article, I reverted, in good faith, the user reverted back while explaining why, and I reverted back aslo explaining why. The user insists that stubbing the article is better than to have a more solid (yet still short), but unreferenced article. The user also created a table, full of misleading information about my opinion towards Wikipedia standards and the subject. The user constantly claims that he's trying to keep his temper, trying to avoid losing his temper, etc... Because the user is so dramatic and has aspirations in becoming an administrator, he has drawn support against me (posting here, on my talk page, and on the article's page), while I'm only trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Essentially, the main reason why other wikipedians came to his support is sympathy for his cause after he made the table comparing his opinions on the subject against what mine, which he wrote (now he cleared it). Every assumption the user Dori made was completely misleading to the other people mediating. The user claims that I'm pushing him to lose his temper, while, IMHO, I feel that he's pushing me.

My main and only presence on Wikipedia is to make the Project Management section better, yes I consider myself an expert on the field, and no I don't consider non Project Managers unworthy of contributing. The very simple issue is that Dori's edits (IMO) have not helped the article, and that's why I reverted back, twice, and I explained why I did it.

I am a Wikipedian for over 3 years now, and I have never been involved in a conflict before.

I have no aspirations whatsoever of becoming an administrator, I love working on this little section on Wikipedia and I am dedicated to make it better (is that bad?). I do not own any article nor I try to own any article (as falsely assumed) nor I wish to own any article nor I think I can own any article. I know for a fact that Wikipedia is for everybody. But is it that bad to revert someone's edit (who's also aspiring to become an administrator). The edits were simply not good, and that's why I reverted. Is it really worth it to make all these false assumptions, misleading others, just to get someone's revert reverted? Is it worth it for me to be stressed out and have every day someone posting new and misleading stuff about me.

Small message to Dori: Dori, in case you're reading this, I had never and I will never have anything personal towards you. I don't even know you. You thinking that I'm pushing you is completely inaccurate, I'm not. I have no problem with you editing the article but I'm sure you know as a Wikipedian with history that it's very normal to have your edits edited/reverted in case another editor doesn't think they're helpful.

I have had multiple messages on my talk to assume good faith, I totally agree, but the question is, is the user Dori (who repeatedly makes false and misleading assumptions about me) assuming good faith? The user is constantly trying to besmirch my name while I was only trying to close this issue.

I would love to have objective help on this issue, I just want to contribute to Wikipedia, and I don't want to be constantly stressed out by the user Dori.

Thanks for the help!Pm master 21:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm master (talk • contribs)

I have used Dori's Talk page to alert him or her to this post, and to encourage him or her to respond. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got to leave for tonight, but I have time to ask a few questions:

• I'd like to see diffs of things I've said where I've offended you (especially where I didn't give you a chance to add your thoughts).
• I'd like to know the reason you didn't take this to WP:3O first, given that you knew that I was fine with following that process.
• I'd like to know why you didn't notify me of this, given that it's a required part of the process.

User: Dolphin51, thank you for notifying me. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Dori's first request above (I'd like to see diffs ...) is reasonable. However, my view is that the other two requests are rhetorical questions and are not relevant to the matter in hand. Pm master is free to ignore the second and third request.

All Users are encouraged to come to this site to report what they believe to be breaches of Wikipedia's principles of etiquette. When Users make Wikiquette reports on this site they won't be subjected to questioning about their motives or methods, or questioning that might be perceived as interrogation or intimidation. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've struck the 2nd and 3rd questions above per Dolphin51's objection to them. However, I still don't understand quite what the issue is that User:Pm master is reporting here. From my perspective, it just looks to me like a simple tit for tat reaction to my complaint about him, above. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Dori, in answer to your question, I didn't say you offended me (do you see the word offend/insult anywhere? Never mind, can you give me an example on where I even hinted that you insulted me?), yet I can give you an example if you want: "And I'll ask you your own question: where are the references you've added? You reverted a valid reference I'd added, removed the References header entirely, and claim that you have expertise in this area—so, why haven't you added any references?". I can only read sarcasm in this sentence. When you say that he's pushing me and I'm trying to keep my temper, you're not really helping your case either. Someone aspiring to be an administrator such as yourself should be calmer, should not waste other people's time, and should respect others (no sarcasm). When I look at the provoking triangle above, I see your attitude and I don't see mine. The point behind this conversation is that I felt that you were not accepting the idea that reverts can happen, and that there's no need to open multiple fronts to prove your point.

Now when I say that it was personal for you, I meant it, because you saying that you're trying to keep your temper can only mean you took it personally.

The whole problem is that you always give your misleading assumptions to trap others, and quite frankly I don't like to play these games. The table is an example, parts of your conversation above is an example, the "tit for tat" is another example. These misleading and false assumptions besmirched my, in my opinion, respected username, as others thought I was against Wikipedia standards. I'm sorry user Dori, but again, I assumed good faith all the way (I believe I told you that I had no problem with adding the PBMOK to the category books, no problem in formatting the article...), yet your only intention is to build a case against me.

My opinion is that an administrator in Wikipedia should have tolerance, flexibility, and impose respect with his great and lovable personality. The administrator also should understand that SMEs are vital to Wikipedia, and should try to increase their contributions, not waste their time. Unfortunately, my opinion about you is the complete opposite, but that's besides the point. If you want please comment on what I've said and let's just close this subject. I think we're both wasting other people's time as well. Thanks! Pm master 01:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm master (talk • contribs)

Pm master: you wrote above, "I didn't say you offended me." Generally, reports are made here because one editor feels offended by another. So, what is the reason you reported me here?

When I wrote above that "I still don't understand quite what the issue is that User:Pm master is reporting here," I meant just that; no more and no less. Given that there's been plenty of activity on this page, and the only third-party response to you I've seen in this complaint is Dolphin51 saying he'd notified me of it, I have to guess that I'm not the only one confused here. I'm sure that you know what you're referring to, so how about letting the rest of us in on it—for example, what "assumption" do you claim I made, and what was "misleading" about it? {{Diffs}} would be particularly helpful. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please can you resolve this by citing the article Pm master? There is no real point to this WQA, as you have filed it in response to one being filed about you. The way I see it, either this can be resolved via following the concensus of citing the claims in the article, or it will simply be stuck. --Taelus (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• I've added the {{stale}} tag above, as User:Pm master has responded to neither Taelus's concerns nor mine. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Schrandit

User:Schrandit has recently taken to using patronizing and sexist terms to refer to me, such as "hun" and "love". This is part of an overall pattern of behavior that seems like baiting. I'd like him to stop. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This user is a old hand, probably a blocked user, possibly User:Spotfixer. This ip has been edit-warring against consensus terms and says he/she has been conspiring with another user, I feel a checkuser may be needed. - Schrandit (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I encourage anyone who takes Schrandit's accusation seriously to look at my edit log and see for themselves that I've avoided violating even 2RR. On the other hand, he's gone on a reversion spree that I've allowed others to repair. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Today, User:Schrandit has also been changing the term for any woman who is pregnant in many articles from the medically accurate "pregnant woman" to the politically-charged and legally-incorrect (in the United States) "mother", perhaps in an attempt to legitimize claims that life begins at conception, rather than at birth. Such an attempt would be furthering the Pro-Life POV.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That does hint at his motivation, but I'd prefer to AGF. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I havn't changed anything on those pages, I've reverted the anon's work. Both terms are politically-charged, this is not the first time this disagreement has been brought up on abortion related articles. - Schrandit (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He appears to be wearing his motivation on his sleeve - his user page appears to have been stating that he was "Pro Life" or "Pro-Life" since this edit 18:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC).   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do, I try to be upfront about what I believe. - Schrandit (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It was pointed out by User:Benjiboi that he has a pattern of finding fault with liberal articles, such as claiming they need more citations, and using this as a basis for deletion. He seems to be engaged in a long-term, low-key effort to violate WP:NPOV by selective enforcement of the rules, as well as selective violation. It's an interesting case. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Some folks have made those accusations, my record has been examined and my work has always been upheld.

Speaking of interesting cases - an anon edit-wars, thows around the wikipedia-lingo and brings a case to wikiquette - are you a sock or a banned user? - Schrandit (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Come on, you already know I'm not. Please don't add to your incivility by throwing out accusations in apparent bad faith. It's not going to deflect attention from your activities.

I'm going to ask you outright: are you going to stop using sarcastic, patrononizing and sexist terms such as "hun", "chief" and "love"? 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't throw an accusation of that magnitude around unless I was very certain it was true. In the part of the country I'm from that just the way folks talk but if it will make you happy I'll try. So, banned user? - Schrandit (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Repeatedly asking an answered question is badgering, another form of incivility. Going for a clean sweep? 69.121.221.174 (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe you're referring to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Which is similarly irritating. Schrandit, if you have evidence, file an SPI. If not, drop it. --King Öomie 13:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Over time I've come to the view that using patronizing or condescending language is the most obnoxious form of trolling -- there is never any justification for it. Overt rudeness, even, is less objectionable. Schrandit, just stop doing that, please. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have filed a sockpuppet investigation. There is IMO more than ample evidence that 69.121.221.174 is Spotfixer. So, since I see no reason to believe a word of what 69.121.221.174 says after his/her deflection or denial of questions regarding his/her possible past account history, let's throw the sock back in the drawer and then get onto the content issues. Awickert (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of local friendliness, this is the internet and the use of condescending terms such as "hun" to denigrate any editor or belittle contributions is not welcome on Wikipedia. We may have 2 issues here (indeed, the clear non-NPOV editing might make 3), and each needs dealing with separately. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Since I've unfortunately stepped into this mess, I'll scoot around the articles in question at some point this weekend and do my best to find the root of the problems and acceptable solutions. Whether or not 69.121.221.174 is a sock, there do seem to be content, revert, and courtesy-related issues among established editors. Awickert (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Schradit came into an edit-warring conflict with Spotfixer who was, IMHO, justifiably concerned with Schradit's rather transparent agenda and tenditious approach. They seem to dissapprove of LGBT culture/people and seem to adhere to a dogmatic pro-Catholic/socially conservative agenda. That in and of itself is not an issue. How they manifest their beliefs is to run through articles on subjects which they don't approve and litter them with random {{fact}} tags no matter what the sentence says. They also install various article tags at the top and will also delete content. On a limited basis this would seem helpful, however when multiplied over dozens of articles it seems they have as their primary goal an interest in simply removing and diminishing subjects which they don't approve. And they are often keen to edit war to reinsert content removed for poor sourcing and only back down when multiple editors show unified opposition. While they may hover just within the letter of the rules they certainly violate the spirit of the project. If i could wave a wand I would compel them to build several GA articles before removing any more content so they can see the uphill process that building articles entails. Unfortunately I think they will simply recoil a bit and if we say dropping three tags at a throw seems like a bad idea they simply game things and do two instead. There can be seen a value in bringing attention to work needed to be done but as we are all volunteers here it seems coercive and disingenuous. They also have made some rather bad calls as well removing perfectly valid content and sources and restoring really bad content and/or sources. Setting the sock issue aside we have a chronic issue that has gone on for months. -- Banjeboi 00:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting, because after reviewing Schrandit's contributions, I left a message at his/her talk that says just what you said above. I also got a rather unkind email from the IP, which makes me think that either (a) this is someone else using the same IP and writing about the same topics and is legitimately pissed at me for starting the investigation, or (b) this is a known puppetmaster trying to pull off an impressive scam. In any case, I agree with Benjiboi that there is a chronic problem of Schrandit fact-tagging only statements that they find disagreeable, and removing content that they disagree with. I left a message at the IP's talk which, while rather harsh in tone, pales in comparison to the email that I just skimmed. If there is a way to find that the incredible coincidence that the same IP is writing about the same articles with the same POV is truly a coincidence, I'd love to hear ideas, but atm it seems that the only evidence I have that the user is not a sockpuppet is how much harder than TruthIIPower they appealed / resented the sock-block. Is there any evidence that a checkuser could give that would go beyond that which we've been able to figure out via the IP? Awickert (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Schrandit has targeted me recently so I can't be considered impartial here but I believe accurate still. The sock issues, and there may be layers on multiple sides, should likely be set aside and handled purely on that basis while the tenditiousness and behaviours looked at by some uninvolved editors experienced in what seems to be a POV issues in a few subject areas. -- Banjeboi 14:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Just to make things flow better, I am a man, you can say "he".

2. I edit many, many things and have started hundreds of pages and had some of them deleted, I know the work that goes in to building an article but lets pretend that I don't. Lets pretend for a moment that all that I had done these last 4 years was flag and in some cases remove unsourced content from pages pertaining to homosexuality. Would that have been a bad thing? I content that it would not have.

3. Ben, it is rather disingenuous of you to play the victim, to pretend your motives are pure and that myself and other editors have been reviewing your work just because of our social dispositions. - Schrandit (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep the focus on your behaviours here. And please use my full user name, it's not too long at all. Why you targeted me seems irrelevant as the editing pattern was seen months prior and you have called on it repeatedly. I would rather have uninvolved parties look at the issues raised here so deflecting responsibility was less of an option. I stand by my assessment and note that a lot of good editing, especially if it has devoled since, does not balance the problems noted here. -- Banjeboi 18:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've said my piece, if anyone has questions I've never been shy. - Schrandit (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the he/she thing; I should have just looked at your user page. Awickert (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I know ya'll were just being polite. - Schrandit (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Blueshirts at Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War‎

User:Blueshirts has been constantly trolling and flaming over a disputed issue on Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War, and despite many attempts at reminding the user of civility, the over-use of Caps lock, the concept of WP:TEA, inflammatory language and aggressive wording of sentences, user remains to communicate angrily and in an uncivil manner, not adhering to proper ettiquette. I have offerred to end the dispute in a number of ways, namely an offer of mutual detente, an offer of WP:TEA for a few days, and a proposed de-escalation of argument, but all non to avail. User is frequently making Ad hominem attacks against myself, namely ageist remarks and comments about my psychological, hormonal and mental development as an adolescent, in clear violation of WP:ADHOM and WP:ATTACK. User is also refusing to acknowledge that he is losing his temper [29], and accuses that I am the one that has been over the top [30]. Edit summaries such as [31] and [32] may also be considered as inflammatory and inappropriate. Thus, it can be interpreted that the aformentioned user may be deliberately "pouring oil onto the fire", as to provoke a heated argument. User argues his case using Argument from ignorance, Argument from authority and Ad hominem against myself, and is refusing to empathise or reach an understanding of his "opponent". He also seems to see this as just a game [33], in which he can "win". He also makes the Tu quoque argument that I am uncivil, completely ignoring his own actions (with remarks such as "I would rather not listen to some kid who obviously knows little", "Angry kid", "And you are a kid, judging from the way you've behaved and that mugshot of yours"). He makes claim of having a sufficient argument to retort the arguments of my own, despite that they are still disputable. User's frequent inflammatory remarks stirs strong anger within myself; something like this happens commonly in all human beings when agitated beyond a certain limit (and I am sure many of you should know that), and so I entirely reserve the right to engage in tit-for-tat strategy. (Although I admit that the both of us may be at fault, as a result, but WP:TEA is sadly not something only one user should bear.) I am not here to complain about a content dispute; rather, I am appalled by the state of behaviour and level of aggression that I have to bear with while discussing on an article talk page. Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• First, remember that this is the English Wikipedia. Much of what you are apparently complaining about has been written in Chinese and so there is no way for any non-Chinese speaking/reading people to understand what has actually been said that you object to, nor to properly understand what you have said either. It seems to me that you are both at fault in this regard. I know that I have asked you before to change your sig in the English Wilipedia to show some respect for your fellow editors, but you chose to ignore that request. I make it again. As for you complaint against User:Blueshirts I find it hard not to see that you are reponsible for most of the aggrevation. You should tone down your own language before you complain about that of others. After going through the the entirety of the discussion you are complaining about and checking all your diffs and edit summaries, I am afraid that I feel Blueshirst probably has a point when he says that you have been acting childishly. You are quick to throw out accusations to others for the very things you are doing yourself and you plainly fail to assume good faith. This forum is not a place to come to get support for your dispute with another editor, rather it is a place to seek mediation in a dispute - this requires good will on both sides to be successful. I have seen no attempt by you in the discussion to attempt to resolve the issues you have with Blueshirts and no attempt to assume good faith. That is what you should try first. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

While the dispute is something about the construction of a particular sentence in Chinese, it is not the dispute itself that I am referring to (and no, I am not fishing for support regarding the dispute), but rather the attitude of the particular user, and Wikiquette. Yes, I realize that I am reluctant to adhere to WP:AGF, which is bad on my part, however I feel strongly disappointed by the particular comments made by the said user, leaving the dispute itself out of this. All users on Wikipedia have the right to be treated as equal, and age should not be something to which leverage can be applied to, as with race, gender, ideology, political affiliation and the like. By stating that only individuals over a certain age, with certain qualifications can contribute to Wikipedia, one has made a violation of Wikipedia:Five pillars. I am greatly angered by his remarks, which may be the reason behind my stubborn retorts, however I still firmly feel that I have been wronged in a way that should not have been as so. If I am granted respect, then by tit for tat I will return respect; do you honestly feel that I have the moral will to personally give respect with all my heart and soul if my actions will never be reciprocated? Wikipedia:Etiquette states "Treat others as you would have them treat you", "Argue facts, not personalities", "If you are arguing, take a break"; from looking at these, I personally feel that none of these have been fulfilled by this user. As I am beginning my first degree at university, I feel personally degraded by this user's remarks about my age, as an African American would feel of "nigger", as a female would feel of "slut", as a Socialist would feel of "red" or "commie". "Kid" is a term designated for small children, and by using such terms, I feel strongly degraded as a human being. Do you think that I would be emotionally happy to even think about things like WP:AGF after seeing such comments? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with all this is that your comments while valid so far as they go, apply equally to your own actions and words. Furthermore you are asking us to mediate in a dispute where much of what has been said has been said in Chinese. This is disengenuous, at best, and could leads someone to question your bona fides. However, I will assume that it is simply your inexperience that causes you to not understand this point, rather than a deliberate attempt to dissemble. Seriously, if you want us to take this matter further you both need to provide accurate, idiomatic translations for all the Chinese words and phrases you have each used (I suggest you each provide translations for your own words). This is, as I have said, the English Wiki. Failure to do this IMO simply means that you are not serious about wanting assistance with the issues here and are simply fishing for support for your dispute and/or have something to hide. And please do something about your sig. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Adhere to the current discussion; talk about my signature can be discussed elsewhere (preferably my talk page). I would rather have my signature the same on all my unified logins on my Wikimedia accounts, as it is on the Chinese Wiki, Japanese Wiki, and Commons. I also have the right to utilise my personal name, a right guaranteed by the United Nations. I don't see how it may affect another user in any way; there is a clear link to my userpage, talkpage and contribs, and it isn't too hard to find out my actual username by heading for my userpage, or going through the history list (it would be just as hard to obtain the actual username of Mr. E. Sánchez, which is User:ESanchez013, for example). As for "knowing what it means", you don't have to know what it means to deal with me; I've seen editors writing their sigs in the International Phonetic Alphabet (which I do not understand), and Cyrillic, and they seem fine. Plus, its my name, it isn't important to know what it means. Wikipedia:SIG#Non-Latin encourages the usage of the Latin alphabet, but it is not policy. Wikipedia:Username policy#Non-English usernames also affirms that usage of non-Latin characters should not form the root of great controversy. As for the current dispute at SSJW, I'll disengage and wait a few days. Perhaps once everything has calmed down, I'll return to the discussion, and maintain WP:AGF and WP:COOL as you have said; if the attitude continues, then I will request for further mediation. Or, I might start the discussion from scratch, as a compromise for the sake of keeping the peace, and hope that Blueshirts will start from scratch as well. Now, for translations as requested (in order of appearance):

Translations

• 一萬餘: The current point of dispute. Literally "in excess of 10,000". I interpret this as an idiomatic phrase, just like in English "I told you a million times"; User:Blueshirts interprets this as the Chinese Communist Party claiming that they have litterally engaged in 10,000 or so battles. (Note that "10,000" in Chinese is synonomous with "million" in English, as it is the largest base. Just like how we have "ten million", "hundred million" in English, we have "myriad" (10,000), "ten myriad" (100,000) and "hundred myriad" (1,000,000 = 1 million) in Chinese. This makes it all the more idiomatically significant.)
  • 千: one thousand
  • 萬: ten thousand
  • 萬歲: ten thousand years
• 千山萬水: name of a poem, literally "1,000 mountains, 10,000 waters"
• 狂姦三千次: tabloid headlines regarding Sora Aoi, copied from Taiwanese website. Translates to "(NSFW) three thousand times". Used as an example to disprove Blueshirts' claim and prove how absurd it is, as that would mean that Sora Aoi would have literally been (NSFW)ed 3,000 times, which is practically impossible.
• 成千上萬: by the thousands and tens of thousands
• 一万个理由: song by the singer 郑源. Song title literally means "10,000 excuses". I use this as another example, as this singer cannot literally describe 10,000 excuses, as this would be physically and mentally impossible for any human being. "10,000" is clearly being used as an expression; such language is universal in this usage, as in the Communist Party example that is currently disputed.
• 一千年以后: song by JJ Lin, similar example. Translates to "1,000 years later on"
• "美脚美女の挑....": This is Japanese.
• 咱们是爷们，不是娘们: Commonly used phrase in Beijing. Means "We are all men (爷们), not women (娘们)" (note Beijing slang used in brackets), referring to something similar to "play it like a bloke" in English.
• 對不起，我的中文不是很好: Plagarised from my Chinese Wikipedia userpage, in an attempt to discredit me, by arguing that my Chinese is poor. (Reads: "Sorry, my Chinese language skill is not all up to scratch") Explanation provided later a few paragraphs down.
• 你有脸说这句话吗？: "Tu quoque?" (Literally "And you have face (social concept) to be saying that?")
• 大小一萬餘次: "More or less 10,000 times" - Official quote from the Communist Party, see above
• 愛河一萬餘尾魚...etc: a handful of example quotes from Blueshirts to make his argument that the "10,000" refers to an exact number, and not an expression
• 大小一万公斤的米, 大小一万个红枫: example that show that they do.
• 我已经感觉和你争争吵吵是没啥意思。从现在开始，不说人话，我不会理你的。: "I have had it with constantly (having to) bicker and argue with you. From now on, if you do not talk properly/nicely/humanely, I will not respond to you."

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, scrap the last part. It's definitely not going to work. To hell with it all. WP:AGF doesn't work. "I have you given you FIVE DAYS since my question and this is the best you've come up with" - I ain't sucking up to anyone no more, man or god. To hell it goes. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It begins all simple, a normal, basic discussion; Blueshirts gets a bit impatient and stings me like how a mother smacks a child (八路軍... section, 2nd post by Blueshirts), which feels rather unpleasant for me; by tit for tat I sting back a bit harder (2nd post of mine); then come the ageist remarks (3rd by Blueshirts) and whatnot. By this time, I feel that all WP:BLAHBLAH is pointless. I try to talk sense in my 10th post, but it is utterly dismissed in the following post by Blueshirts ("I don't care how many sentences you come up with...so just quit giving more useless examples.") First olive branch comes out directly after ("Just back down, and end this now. Like men."), which is replied by a double standard remark ("I agree, let's end this stupidity once and for all. No more what you "think" is right and porn titles.") (quick question: how would you feel if you faced this kind of attitude?), and soon we have more flaming attitude (""However, you keep on yapping."") after comments from me that were not inflammatory in any way. Then we have accusations and "ownage" ("Give me a break. You've been the only angry one here...YOU HAVE NOTHING TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS...YOU GOT PROVERBIALLY OWNED IN THIS ARGUMENT"). I remind him of etiquette and Caps lock, and that nothing is a competition, he retorts with more Caps. I feel helpless but to vent a little at the 06:43, 21 October 2009 post. User:Arilang1234 attempts to mediate between the two of us ("end these school classroom kind of talk"); Blueshirts, refusing to back down or show weakness (how I interpret it, you may see it differently), replies with "Hey, I've never lost my cool here" After consulting WQA, I take the advice to follow WP:AGF, etc. and so I ignore the previous comments, and try to talk sense again ("Alrighty, let's have a look at the examples you have given a few clicks up...") I even try to compromise to get him to calm down ("Your first example was a good one; we've established that "一萬餘" can be used as figurative language and as something literal, depending on the context it is in...") and make a simple request for civility ("And please reply like a gentleman this time"). Blueshirts sees this as a weakness (again, my interpretation), and retorts "You've not established they are used figuratively, because None of them are used figuratively, because they all mean one ten thousand plus...I have you given you FIVE DAYS since my question and this is the best you've come up with...Honestly, this is getting ridiculous."[34] I give up following this. I've given enough olive branches, and my tree is now stripped. I don't care anymore, further talk is hopeless. I don't care about my arguments', I don't care about his arguments, and I don't care about anything else that you, me, him, or Joe Bloggs thinks, I just cannot bear this attitude. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

On reviewing the exchange I think you have actually been the one most at fault, for initiating and driving the aggression. (Initial part of the exchange is edits Oct 15 to 17.) You also seem to be factually incorrect on the point at issue and have resented been told so. Blueshirt's worst fault has been that he is a bit dismissive, which makes it hard to work with other editors, and you have evidently found this hard to take. But his first reply was clear and unobjectionable, and you were actually the one who started with the belittling language, as well as the one who started the rudeness. I recommend you simply avoid the topic for a while. There's no particular reason to think that figurative usages in other unrelated texts have any bearing on the matter. Of course the phrase can be used figuratively in other texts; I see no reason or argument for thinking it is used figuratively in the extract you should be talking about.

If and when you return to those pages, just try to forget the whole thing. People have just as much or more reason to complain about your own conduct, so perpetuating the animosity will end badly. I have no prior involvement with either of you or with the topic in question. Best of luck with it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I note Benlisquare that you failed to advise Blueshirts of this discussion, one of the clear instructions on how to use this process. I regret that I did not check this earlier - well that is a lesson I have learned. The lack of notifying the complained about party seems like a clear lack of good faith on your part. You came here to complain about the behaviour of another editor, but I agree with Duae Quartunciae that your behaviour has been the most at fault. You should in future make sure your own house is in order before you criticise others.

BTW the issue of your sig is a matter of courtesy to others in the English Wiki. There is no attempt to try and take your name away, I don't care "what it means", I just cannot recognise it since I don't read Chinese characters and nether do the overwhelming majority of editors here. There is no reason you could not for example make your sig look something like this: Benlisquare 李博杰. That way you keep your chinese characters and English speakers have something they can read. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

PennySeven at Talk:Inflation

Resolved

 – User blocked. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 23:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would appreciate it if someone would talk to PennySeven about Wikiquette, about using editor names in section headings, and about proper use of talk pages. He/she seems to be getting carried away at Talk:Inflation. (In case it gets changed, this is the version of the talk page that I am referring too.) I'm hesitant to approach Pennyseven myself, as that might set off another string of accusations and talk page posts. I'm afraid the behavior will intimidate anyone who may wish to disagree with Pennyseven in the future. Thanks, LK (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• User has been blocked for disruptive editing and advised by others to discuss content, not contributors. --Taelus (talk) 07:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• The talk page has also been cleaned up by other editors, and I renamed one section heading to be more neutral, rather than attacking. Hopefully this should all cool down now. --Taelus (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Am I in the right place...

Resolved

 – IP blocked by Chillum. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 23:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

to make notice of "Gross Incivility" on a Talk page. I'll put up with it once, but twice from the same IP range is getting a bit much. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The best approach to moronic IP edits is to ignore them unless they reach a level that impairs your ability to edit. It is of course a breach of wikiquette, but there is no percentage in trying to impose sanctions on unregistered editors with dynamic IP addresses. Feel free to remove the messages from your talk page if you want to, but paying no attention whatever to them works better in my experience. Looie496 (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Abuse from anyone should be first prevented and then ignored. If you ignore it without preventing it then you really have not accomplished much. I have blocked this specific IP. I will make an offer to Exit on his/her talk page to semi-protect it. Chillum 23:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user:Slp1 changing others' comments

Hi. User:Slp1 has changed my comment twice [35] and [36]. I asked him not to do this [37] however he keeps doing it. Slijk (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

He is editing correctly. Editing other contributions is what we do on wikipedia. You need to engage the discussion in the talk page. This is not a matter for wikiquette. It is normal business of editing that changes get reverted in some cases... and this is one of them. You need to engage the discussion at the talk page; and it seems to me that there is a very good case for removing your additions to the article. It's certainly not appropriate for you merely to ask people to leave your changes in place. Talk about it on the talk page; not here. Good luck with it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 17:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, but he's editing my OWN comments. Something that I sign with signature. I don't think it's ok with the policy. Slijk (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I merely refactored a section heading,[38] as required by WP:BLP. Your comments were left untouched. --Slp1 (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Usually the first comment begins with a heading. So they're one part. Slijk (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Slp1 is correct to refactor the heading. He has explained why in the talk page. This discussion belongs in the talk page, not here. I see you are still fairly new to wikipedia. Welcome aboard. Slp1 is a very experienced and helpful wikipedian, who will not hold any grudges over this and will be a good guide to you on what is appropriate in wikipedia. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TALK#Others.27_comments. What of those conditions where meet so he changed my comment? Slijk (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details". Slp1 has explained very clearly - given the context that the claim appears to be an unsubstantiated slur (which means we might be repeating a slander) - how the heading comes under WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (their bolding). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, in the WP:TALK guidelines, the very section that Slijk links to, it is explicitly stated that section headings are communal and can be edited when appropriate... as it most definitely was in this instance. Here is the relevant paragraph:

• Section headers: Because threads are shared by multiple users, the original title becomes communal property. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss changes with the editor who started the thread, if possible, but it is generally acceptable to change section headers when a better header is appropriate. This is under the purview of threads themselves being shared property rather than a single editor's comments.

This is an exceptionally clear cut case; Slp1 absolutely did the right thing to alter the heading. You do not own the headings in the same way that you own the comments. They are not the same. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

But his alcoholism is discussed. Slijk (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That is completely irrelevant. Good grief, read the responses you've been given. It doesn't matter how badly you want to get this alleged alcoholism front and center. It doesn't matter that you have the poor taste and poor judgment to continue to harp on it here and in the talk page. It is not going into the article, or into the heading, because of the policy on biography of living persons. OK? Give it up, please. The person who edited your heading is one of the administrators here. You have been given good advice and it is now time for you to take that advice and move on. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Duae Quartunciae is entirely right: Slp1 broke no rules, and properly removed claims that did break rules.

Slijk, alcoholism is generally considered a "loathsome disease" in the context of libel law. You must stop trying to force this assertion into Wikipedia's pages, even under the guise of 'just talking about it'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Unwarranted accusations of disruption

Stuck

 – Parties advised to take it to RfC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I cannot explain the whole context of the underlying dispute in a few sentences. So, before I do that, let me start by giving a few diffs that point to the problem as it exists right now:

User:AGK accuses me of disruption:

see here

User:Jehochman did the same:

here

Ok, so two Admins are accusing me of disruption, so I'm doing something terribly wrong, right? Wrong!

The problem is a direct result of the outcome of an Arbcom case in which User:Brews ohare was topic banned from all physics pages. We don't need to revisit all the details of that Arbom case here. The most relevant aspects of that case are that Brews was seen to dominate the talk page of a few physics pages far too much to get his way against some consensus. In the technical dispute about the physics I disagreed with Brews. In the Arbcom case I argued against a total ban on all physics pages. My reason for that was that Brews did have many good contributions to physics articles. He is an expert in applied physics who so far had only contributed to physics topics. A topic ban would not directly address his problematic behavior, the problem was not inherently caused by the physics Nature of the topic he was editing at all.

Anyway, right or wrong, the topic ban has been implemented and Brews has to stick to it. As an answer to a clarification of the topic ban requested by William Connelley, the Arbitrators said that Brews cannot engage in any discussions about physics, not even on his own talk page or on other editor's talk pages, not even if he is invited to do that.

Again, as much I disagree with that, I have to accept this ruling. Until it is modified on appeal, the topic ban will stay as it is.

Now, the dispute I'm finding myself in now started a day before the end of the Arbcom case. Brews created pages on his user space Which irked User:Jehochman but I didn't see what the fuss was about. If these were attack pages, then they should be deleted but in principle, Brews had the right to do that. So, I started a thread on AN/I about this.

User:Jehochman can say that I was wrong to raise the matter at AN/I. Ok., but he used quite strong language against me in that AN/I thread. If from his perspective I was wrong, then that does not mean that I was deliberately undermining the Arbcom proceedings or was intending to otherwise do something improper. But he assumed bad faith here.

Then in the last few days, Brews and I were discussing on my talk page about dispute resolution. Brews was quite interested in contributing to that on Wikipedia. In principle, there is nothing wrong with that. There could be some potential problems, given Brews history. But then that also true for anything else that Brews could decide to do on Wikipedia.

Brews then made some edits to an AN/I thread discussing User:Likebox and on that thread Jehochman wrote: "Brews ohare was recently topic banned from physics. Does this discussion relate to physics? Why is one editor who was sanctioned for tendentious editing commenting repeatedly on a discussion about tendentious editing? To me this looks like disruption or very poor judgment".

And on Brews' own talk page his involvement on that AN/I thread is now under discussion

Now, if you read that discussion you see that some editors are advising Brews to keep away from contributing to AN/I threads. User:Finell says:

I am not complaining about Brews' behavior. I am trying to keep him out of getting himself into more trouble.

And AGK explains here that:

I did not say that your participation in the discussions in question was in violation of your topic ban. What I did say is that those discussions are prone to be controversial and/or heated, and are therefore likely to bring trouble your way.

Now,I saud to Brews that I dd not see any problems with what he was doing at AN/I. It is neither a violation of his topic ban, nor did he behave in a problematic way at AN/I. I also addressed some possible issues that he should pay atention to:

What you have to be careful about is to stay focussed on the particular problem under discussion and to be as concise as possible. Make your point once, avoid repeating it over and over again. You can give clarifications if someone asks you, of course.

So, I do not think that I'm that out of line with what others are saying, just that I come down on the side of being more positive about Brews participating in dispute resolution.

The issue I'm now complaining here about is not about who is right or wrong in the dispute about Brews making some edits to AN/I threads. Rather it is that two Admins who would rather see Brews not editing there and who would like to see many people giving this advice to Brews, cannot expect that everyone would have exactly the same opinion on this matter. When they find that someone has a slightly different opinion, they should not see that as "disruption" and certainly not make explicit comments saying that it is disruption.

Instead, what User:Jehochman and User talk:AGK should have written is that they disagree with me explaing how (according to them) things could evolve in the wrong direction. That would have been more civil toward me and it would have been more effective from the their POV of trying to keep Brews out of AN/I threads.

Count Iblis (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you have just used a wall of text to say not very much. If you can be brief and stick to essentials, you might find it easier to get people to be responsive to you. Looie496 (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

First 6 lines of my post: Incivility by User:AGK and User:Jehochman and then the last paragraph: "Instead, what User:Jehochman and User talk:AGK should have written is that they disagree with me explaing how (according to them) things could evolve in the wrong direction. That would have been more civil toward me and it would have been more effective from the their POV of trying to keep User:Brews ohare out of AN/I threads." Count Iblis (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Looie496, you can still rewrite this section, BTW.

First of all, copy and paste what editors say here, why force editors to click on those links?:

For example:

AGK: "Please stop involving yourself in matters relating to Brews ohare. You are becoming a disruptive influence." 25 October 2009

Is much better than:

User:AGK accuses me of disruption: see here

Second, don't ask questions and answer them.

Third, write in a neutral tone, let the reader draw ultimate conclusions, not you.

Ikip (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Fourth: Stop diverting attention away from your own conduct by dragging the name of the involved administrators through the mud. This complaint is not at all a valid one. AGK 11:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And what is the issue about my "own conduct"? Count Iblis (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't hijack this thread to talk about you. I've asked a fellow administrator, AGK, for his opinion about your conduct,[39] and depending on how he answers we may or may not follow up with appropriate dispute resolution processes. Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• This dispute cannot be resolved without properly determining the extent to which the concerns raised are justified (or not). In other words, whether incivility occurred or not is unclear in such cases as this one, except if the case for disruptive editing is successfully made out. Unfortunately, a case for disruptive editing (or otherwise) cannot be presented as effectively at WQA (even if it is an early step in dispute resolution). However, RfC/U (the next step) is a venue where it can be presented more effectively, so I recommend that it be escalated there (by either party) so this dispute moves towards resolution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC/U is a waste of time. I will not participate with such a circus. Count Iblis (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I find it questionable (even a waste of time) that you filed this if you weren't going to participate in further dispute resolution or take on the feedback you were given. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree: The comments, in context, may or may not meet Wikipedia's standards for civility. I am able to read them as helpful advice to an editor that is less adept at Wikipedia's dispute resolution milieu; I am able to read parts of them as unfriendly efforts to exclude an editor. This is a complex dispute, and this page is not suited for unraveling complex disputes. The dispute can be taken elsewhere, or not, as the complainant chooses. The complainant's apparent dislike of the appropriate forum does not mean that WQA quits being the wrong forum. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conduct of discussion in a proposed article move

Stuck

 – Parties were advised, warned, blocked, etc. - noting also that this isn't formal mediation venue.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I started a discussion at Talk:George_Gordon_Byron,_6th_Baron_Byron#Requested_move suggesting moving the article to Lord Byron. The subsequent discussion has been tendentious and filled with accusations of incivility and assumptions of bad faith. It would be nice to have a neutral editor take a look and try to mediate, because things are only escalating. In fact, it'd be best if you don't have an opinion on the matter at hand; it's the civility issue I'm worried about now. Powers ^T 01:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The argument was pointed out as being inappropriate as 1. the claims that there was a "common name" were completely debunked that no reasonable person could honestly continue the claims and 2. that precedence was on the matter since 2002 and falls under a standard that applies not only to thousands of British peer articles, but that anything else would be completely inappropriate. The unwillingness to accept these is the very definition of tendentious, especially by three people who have -no- actual interest in Byron and can only be seen as disruptive when it was pointed out multiple times that their claims were 100% false. The above is merely LtPowers continuing on yet -another- forum to drum up support for what would go 100% against our policies and guidelines. It is pure disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the fact that LtPowers didn't even have the decency to notify me of this is further evidence that they are not actually contributing to this encyclopedia or following our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

LtPowers... the title you have chosen for this report is not really as neutral as would be appropriate for a Wikiquette alert; and belies your words that your major concern is incivility. Ottava Rima, the dispute is not worth this level of aggression. The content dispute on the proper name of the article belongs on the talk page, not here. But you in particular need to calm down a bit; and it is not appropriate to call this disruption. There really is a problem with incivility and assumptions of bad faith; and those are certainly against policy; and a proper issue for asking the opinion of other editors. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am 100% calm. All of my posts and entries portray complete rationality - I cite evidence, I quote language, and I deal with facts. The responses from the above and others to my entries "I say so" or "my mysterious knowledge says otherwise" or "your expertise doesn't matter" or "who cares what the library of congress says". I have not made any personal attacks or been incivil. I am very careful in my language and take pains to be completely precise. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I am going to be bold and fix the heading of this alert to be better aligned with the proposed focus on civility. I hope this is okay with everyone. Ottava Rima, your initial comment above looks to me that you can do better assuming good faith, and I further think that there is every reason to assume good faith here, even though you disagree strongly on the suggested move. But that's just my reaction to the talk page and to the exchange above; and I'll leave it at that for now. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith is not 100% nor is it permanent. Once they started dismissing the Library of Congress as meaningless and saying that scholarship was pointless, they no longer had any claims to not being there for disruption. Misquoting policy, fabricating numbers that were proven as wrong, etc, are further evidence of disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at the responses - I state how it is, RegentParks puts out a falsely inflated number. I point it out along with pure cold facts, and he claims I am "ranting". Then he goes on and on about "George Byron" when he knows that it would put up false results (quotes conditions the responses, as he proved by quoting as opposed to without quotes in the previous comments). He quotes WP:NAME when WP:NAME says at the top to follow the specific guidelines, and Peer's guideline was already quoted. This is a way to dodge what he knows clearly contradicts him. This is a winning comment - "perhaps the readers of your numerous articles in the Keats and Shelley Journal expect no less than George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron (though, looking at the references in the article, I find none from that august poetry journal!)". The number one journal devoted to Byron's poetry and he attacks it as being meaningless merely because it contradicts him. This is egregious misbehavior and the fact that these people continue such actions and yet have no interest in editing the articles or working on them verifies disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The average reader is most likely to look under "Lord Byron", which takes the reader to the actual page, which is his full name and title. There is too much time spent on wikipedia debating the names of things. Let's say I want to look for the article on a well-known Swiss flower. So I enter "Edelweiss", which is the name everyone outside the botanist community knows it by, and it takes me to Leontopodium alpinum. Oh, yeh, right. That was my next guess. The same thing with this. But why does it matter? The average reader doesn't care what the specific name of the article is, he just cares that he can get to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The average reader of what? As pointed out, the Library of Congress system does not have a "Lord Byron". Thus, if your claims were truly then there would be no readers of his works and no one would be able to find it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm defending your viewpoint and you're yelling at me. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I was pointing out that there are no readers if there was even an issue with the name to begin with. :P If you want to see me attack you, I can show you. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The average wikipedia reader is more likely to have heard of this guy as "Lord Byron" than George-whatever-Byron. My concern is that too many debates occur over "common names" and such. Who cares what the article is listed under? As long as the reader can find it, that's all that really matters. "Common names" debates are a waste of time and energy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Got some sources for that? As I already pointed out, Norton and all of the other collections clearly state "George Gordon Byron" in their text books and such used by students. Besides that, there is little exposure. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying the article name can just as well stay as it currently is. You got a problem with that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, you are ranting. And calling everyone liars. You;ll just work yourself up into another tizzy, you know you will. No-one's going to move the article - redirects and pipes are there for instances such as this where the proper name is one thing, and the word on the lips of the hoi polloi is another. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Elen, your comments are completely inappropriate and incivil. There is no -rant-, nor have I called anyone a "liar". I have stated that they have put forth things that are completely untrue and even verified that. For instance, over 300 articles do not simply and magically disappear. Pointing out that using the wrong terms to come up with a false number as misleading is also perfectly correct. However, Elen, your following me to various pages as of late and involving yourself in such issues is very interesting. It makes me curious as to what other names you may have used, because there is no history in your current contribs that would explain such. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Elen. Ottava, you are not assuming good faith. Not here, not in the talk page. You should. The way you are engaging, including the repeated accusations and imputations of dishonesty, is pretty much guaranteed to get people mad at you. It doesn't help. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith no longer applies when it was proven that numbers were falsified and that people were being purposefully misleading. Please read WP:AGF. It does not mean that you are not supposed to point out directly problematic behavior. Per the policy: "If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, then please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence so that people can understand the basis for the concerns" I proved those concerns. As such, your comments above are inappropriate. Furthermore, Elen's behavior has been suspicious and I am not the only one who has stated such. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I expect that you will retract your claims above per the policy stating "and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut." Since I have provided evidence as per the previous statements, it is clear that the policy states that I am acting appropriately under AGF and that your concerns would be the direct violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, it looks to me that you have a significant problem generally problem with failing to assume good faith. My comments above are my honest attempt to identify some changes which I believe will improve your engagements with wikipedia if you can address them. My exhortations to assume good faith are indeed an indication that you are not doing so at present, in my opinion. Your opinion is, apparently, that you have sufficient justification to drop the assumption of good faith. I disagree, strongly, with respect. That probably puts us at an impasse. But there you go. My comment on the wikiquette issues remains as given. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Duae, I pointed out above that WP:AGF states that you are 100% incorrect and your reiteration of the claim after this is incivil. I will once again ask you to refrain from these incivil comments and to strike your policy violating post. The policy is -very- clear on the matter and you are violating it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottawa, I disagree with you on how you are reading that policy; it does not rule out all admonition and in this page especially it is more than usually appropriate to comment on wikiquette issues. But I agree that further continued harping on AGF is counter productive, and would become a case of being aggressive about citing the policy; which is against the policy. I love the recursion of that. My advice remains as given, but it's time for me to leave it at that and let others comment.... on how any one of us can engage better with wikipedia. Good luck and farewell. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"I disagree with you on how you are reading that policy" - I quoted very simple sentences that are not ambiguous. If you would like me to break down the individual words, supply definitions, and the rest, to elucidate how these are very straight forward sentences, then I will be willing to do so. However, it seems that you are selectively misreading all of what AGF means to make a point that AGF does not support, which is a violation of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies all around for the incorrect focus in my original section title. I would prefer it if further comments related to the renaming were kept to the linked thread, so as not to split discussion between two locations. The reason I did not notify anyone of this posting is because I expected comments to go there, or to individual users' talk pages, not here; if that was mistaken, I apologize again. Powers ^T 03:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, just picking at random from your posts on the article talkpage - "That is completely bogus." "If you are going to play these games, don't do it with someone who is an expert" "I straightforwardly proved that you were spreading blatant falsehoods." "Your comments are filled with 100% incorrect information" "Lying is incivil." "Your arguments are so incredibly wrong that you must know that they have no basis and is further proof of your intentional disruption". Given that the opposing argument to yours is that the poet is most frequently referred to as Byron or Lord Byron, and not by his full name, this escalation of abuse is absolutely astounding. Calm down already - nobody is proposing to do anything horrible to your teddy! Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

By "abuse" you mean pointing out contradictions while linking to actual reliable sources and proof for it? Furthermore, how can I "calm down" when I am calm? Merely making an assertion does not make it true, and your constantly claiming such on multiple pages in which there is clearly nothing "passionate" about my actions, along with your clouded background that makes it seem like you have probably used another name or some other to establish this relationship that you seem to be continuing really reveals a troubling matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I have read your posts here and on the article talk page with utter disbelief. When everyones else says one thing and you another, has it not occured to you that you may be the one in error? The question here is about the name of an article, not the correct, formal name of the person who is subject of the article. Wikipedia policy is pretty clear and your slant on it it is disengenuous to say the least. It is high time for you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and accept that the consensus is not what you want it to be. Build a bridge and get over it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

By everyone else, are you ignoring the two people who agreed with me? "The question here is about the name of an article" And it was proven that policy upholds the standard, that "common name" is completely false. You can say "Wikipedia policy is pretty clear" but I have already completely debunked it. Your pursual of the matter is quite telling. Furthermore, naming is not -consensus- based. The policies are. The names are -verifiable- based. I have already proved that all major libraries and groups classify the author as "George Gordon Byron". No one can debunk that. There is no recognized author "Lord Byron". There is one common use, and you cannot selectively ignore 90% of policy and all of reality to claim otherwise. The mere fact that YobMod and Peterkingiron are ignored in your post above is just evidence that there is something very troubling with your statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you any idea how ironic it is to hear you talk like that in the Wikiquette alert forum? I thought not. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth; there have been proposals to move the article in the past, and they have failed. I would expect this new proposal to fail as well. For reference, here is a link to a fairly comprehensive archived discussion of votes on an earlier similar proposal: Requested move archived debate Oct 2006. The consensus was easily to keep the current name. There have been a couple of other such proposals which did not get as far. All the same reasons continue to apply, and I do not expect this new move proposal to do any better. You can debate that on the talk page if you like; though I don't think the discussion will go well. The real problem for wikiquette remains how the debate is engaged; the proposed move itself is not the topic for discussion here at wikiquette alerts. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I also think the suggestion to move is not appropriate. The current title sits within an information structure - redirects, dabs and piping are there as tools to aid navigation. The manner of the debate and the conduct of the parties is the issue to be examined here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk like what? My comments are 100% straight forward, civil, and to the point. Furthermore, you selectively ignored 2 people that agreed with me. Seeing as how there were six individuals and half were opposed to the issue, your claims that there was consensus or that everyone was against me are demonstrably false and reveal that you were making claims without evidence. Your response to it was incivil and inappropriate. When pointed out that you are wrong, it is only appropriate to admit such things. Wikipedia is not a game, nor are there "winners" or "losers". There is right, wrong, and articles that are supposed to be the best. You do not "lose" if you admit that you were wrong about a situation. It would, however, go to prove that you are here with the encyclopedia as your primary concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, we're not talking about the content dispute. It doesn't matter if two or twenty editors agree with the sentiment that the page should not be moved. We're talking about your aggressive, escalating, furious, uncivil, uncalled for and totally over the top attacks on the two or three people who disagreed with you. You called them liars. You called them disruptive. At one point you called one of them a troll. Your behaviour in the current debate is simply unconscionably, unbelievably rude. There is no need to behave like that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Elen, my comment was very clear. He stated that I was being disruptive by not looking to consensus that was 100% against me. I pointed out that his statement was factually wrong, as the split was clearly 50/50. Your response above is wrong and inappropriate. You have been rude above and incivil, and your statements are clearly incorrect. Elen, you have done this at many other places too, and you are starting to violate WP:HARASS. The fact that you would try and claim that I was off topic is only further inappropriate and revealing of this. Your actions suggest that you are not a new person, but a user who had another account with interactions with me. Your pursuit of me has clearly crossed the line, and your comments are inappropriate. You were asked to back off multiple times before, and yet you continue. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, your characterizations of me, such as "furious", are highly inappropriate and a major violation of WP:CIVIL. This is your warning to stop, as you were warned multiple times before to not make such blatantly false claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, please stop tossing around assertions without taking steps to back them up. Either open an investigation, or stop accusing us of being sockpuppets. Either take steps to have us blocked, or stop accusing us of editing in bad faith. In short, please start interacting calmly and rationally with your fellow editors, or this situation is only going to escalate further. Powers ^T 18:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Us"? When have I accused anyone of being a sock puppet, let alone -you-? I have stated that Elen is a restart account or an alternative account. Sock puppetry is something very different. There are many individuals that have arbcom approved secondary accounts. Elen is most likely one of them. However, what I made explicit is that as such, her pursuit in the manner that she has done since the RfC (and during it) crosses what is acceptable per the secondary account rulings, so she must stop. Finally, I have already provided evidence for all of my statements, so your claims are blatantly incorrect. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yay! You know you've really made it on Wikipedia when Ottava accuses you of being a sock. If anyone wants a good laugh, they can take a look at how long I've had this account. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

An non-publically disclosed secondary account is not a sock. I stated that you were either a secondary account or a restart. Your early contributions suggest that. Your beginning activity starting in 2009 is a classic example of a name created to be a restart account. It happens quite often. Your claims on Bishonen's RfC about my history with her and making declarations about my intimate feelings when you have -no- contributions to suggest any background or history with me, only further verifies that. Your claim that I am "furious", a word that could only be used with strong intimate knowledge of a personality, only verifies that you are acting on a presumption that you know me in a manner not verified by your contribs. Your continual acting in such a regard in multiple areas verifies that. It was already revealed that Unitanode, who did 100% the same thing, was a restart account. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, who woulda thunk it. Ottava doesn't know how to use the "earliest" button on a users contribution page. Try again sir. How long have I had this account? Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Elen, did you bother to click on the link? It is clearly the "earliest". Your statements in every single response have been factually wrong. Why do you keep making 100% wrong statements which are easily pointed out as being wrong? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh? When I clicked on that link, it was the earliest contributions. Why do you think it isn't? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, Elen has been doing this in regards to me on many, many pages. They purposely through out things that are 100% opposite of what I say without any verification if it is correct or not. Hence the problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, I assumed he hadn't read right down to the bottom. I am still inclined to think he hasn't. I have been here since May 2008 - around 18 months - but Ottava seems to think my account is new. For the record, I haven't edited with another account, and I am not a restart, and I don't really know why that would be of any significance. I only interacted with Ottava in any confrontational sense for the first time a few weeks ago. He's right, we don't interact on articles - it was I think the last RfC on Bishonen that brought him to my attention - but this isn't because I'm a new account. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC) ETA oh, and many many pages are about half a dozen, here, Ottava's talk page (couple of comments), my talk page (one comment) ANI (re Bish) and the 4th Bish RfC (couple of comments), all within the last few weeks.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious from my statements above and from your earliest contribs that I pointed out that you started editing in 2009. Anyone who looks at your contribs will see that you actually begun as a serious editor in 2009. A classic secondary account/restart account action is to create an account, make a few edits, and then let it drop so that when you abandon your old account there is no way to chronologically connect it to a brand new account. This is well known. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that it is usually considered a wise way to start one's career as an editor. Make a few small edits, perhaps discuss something on a talk page. Read talk pages, see how other editors do it. Read policies. Investigate the various other activities going on - anti vandalism, dispute resolution. I'm not a teenager, I'm a 50 year old local government officer so I'm naturally cautious. Like to see the lie of the land before I pitch in. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And yet you some how have the ability to claim to know my inner most thoughts with no demonstrable connection to me until a few weeks ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I don't know anything about you, and I wouldn't presume to speculate. All I know is what you put out. I have no idea why you do it, but a lot of people do rather wish that you wouldn't. There's no need to be so aggressive you know. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar and all that - I really think you really could have persuaded the other editors if you hadn't gone at it the way that you did.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If you, as you admit, know nothing about me, then strike your claims about my inner psychology that you have made above and elsewhere. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Calm down" is not a "claim about inner psychology", Ottava.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, are you suggesting that Elen has the ability to claim I am "furious" even though I have made it 100% clear that I am calm? Do you know me? Do you see me? How can anyone here claim anything about my psychology? Texts don't reveal such things, which is even stated in our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Elen didn't claim you were furious, but rather that your attacks were furious. Since m-w.com states that one of the definitions of "furious" is "intense", it seems like a fair characterization. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite. AGF, I have to accept Ottava's assertion that they believe they are calm and rational. All I was trying to do was to reflect how his behaviour appears to others. I have no idea of his mental state. However, this hasn't worked, and I think perhaps I should not comment further.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, if that is the case, then the descriptive is purely inappropriate hyperbole, and WQA is not accepting of such things. Either way, the comments were inappropriate and everyone knows it. My statements are extremely mild, and I never cuss, use insults like "stupid" or the rest, and I also back up my statements of conduct with diffs. If you want to suggest that any of my statements can be considered "intense" or "furious", then that is an absurdity that has no place on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Sarek, if you want to pursue the path, then you are defending such rhetoric that is side by side with "Calm down already - nobody is proposing to do anything horrible to your teddy!" Such uncivil sarcasm has no place at WQA, nor do your insinuations. This is not a battleground, and such conduct as you have defended in Elen is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And you're defending "Your statement above is blatantly wrong", "That is completely bogus", "Funny how 300 articles suddenly vanish in a few hours", "I straightforwardly proved that you were spreading blatant falsehoods", "If you want to continue wasting your own time, you can feel free", "Your comments are filled with 100% incorrect information and yet you are trying to be snide about it", "So cut the nonsense already", "You've heard of a library before, right?", "Anything to the contrary is imaginary BS. I'm done with your games. You have no argument, and your pursuit is against the MoS, against standards, and against logic", "Lying is incivil", "Your refusal to accept the vast majority of use is unbelievably inappropriate", "This isn't some children's game so your actions are inappropriate", "You have no legitimate argument and you pushed absurdities", "Do you even do anything around here worth while", "You have made it clear that you have utter contempt for our standards and for any kind of encyclopedic integrity, and you have been belligerent, tendentious, and abusive from the start", "Are you done wasting our time?", etc. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read our policies. Contradicting people is not incivil. Saying they are wrong is not incivil. Those comments are not incivil and it would take a complete rewrite of WP:CIVIL and a complete bastardization of common English to make a claim to the contrary. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the 'teddy' comment was because if I said "no-one is threatening to kill you", I thought there was a good prospect from previous evidence you would immediately have reported I was threatening to kill you. So I went for the absurd instead, and picked something that you would find very unlikely and, who knows, maybe even amusing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Elen, WQA is not for you to make such comments. Wikipedia is also not for you to claim that words are based on some emotional response. You do not know what is in the mind of others nor can you judge feelings from text. Hence WP:AGF starts out with such statements and why you must assume good faith. As such, your comments really do cross the line, and you have made such personal attacks when making such comments. It is highly inappropriate and you've been asked to stop before. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I offered to stop. No one asked me. However, I did want to explain that I wasn't intending to imply anything uncivil, rather I was searching for something sufficiently absurd to accompany pointing out the excessiveness of your overreaction. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, after reading through the move discussion, I agree that you've gone too far with personalizing the debate. Please tone it down a lot. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is -personal-, but I have provided plenty of objective information that contradicts individuals and it is met with pure hostility. When I mentioned that the Keats Shelley Journal would be the journal to look for the naming, it was met by snide comments even though the journal is the number one journal for articles on Byron. Pointing out the standard naming convention used by the Library of Congress, most libraries, and even google books for the author listing was also met by hostility. Showing that WP:NAME was being misleadingly quoted by ignoring the statements at the very top that the particular guidelines are to be looked for and having them ignored was met by severe attacks and hostility. I have worked on many of Byron's pages, am an expert in the field, and even have an FA on a Byron topic. These individuals have -no- work in Byron, have little encyclopedia contribution in general, and have offered nothing on the talk page except ignoring of policy related concerns. This is an encyclopedia, not myspace, not a playground, and not anything else. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In particular, it's not your playground. While it is probably true that "George Gordon Byron" is the name most critics use, and that the Keats Shelley Journal is definitive, questioning this does not automatically make other editors disruptive. The "common name" is a valid topic for discussion, and should be arrived at by community consensus, not dictates from on high -- especially when the "on high" isn't backed up by real-world data. Enough people have claimed high credentials here that claiming them as loudly as you just did sends up red flags -- and you've been around long enough to know that. So present your case without attacking other editors -- you'll likely prevail, as the page seems to be at the most reasonable place for it at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The strange thing is, I think Ottava is right as far as the page move issue goes - I think the page is in the right place. It's the mode of arguing that's the concern, and the inability to see anything wrong with it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in your opinion on the page move, as the discussion on that has gotten bogged down in arguments over who said what to whom and how. If you choose to comment, though, please do so there rather than here. Powers ^T 22:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was -my- playground. The disruption came after people persisted in -attacking- what was clearly demonstrated fact and aspects of the policy. It is one thing to disagree, it is another thing to claim that legitimate statements explaining -why- 7 years of precedence existed were meaningless. That is what they did, and they did so with attacks, incivility, and snide comments. That is inappropriate behavior. "claiming them as loudly as you just did sends up red flags" My credentials are verified by ArbCom and I cited my -wiki- credentials on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware ArbCom was in the business of verifying credentials, and even if they were, that gives your opinions no greater weight. Powers ^T 22:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how I have an FA on a Byron article, I have a lot of weight when it comes to matters dealing with Byron. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ottava Rima, Wikipedia is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia. That 4 or more users here have implicitly/explicitly suggested/asked/told/reminded you to calm down, and that 0 (than you) disagree, suggests that people are finding it difficult to collaborate with you due to your own approach. I suggest you take more drastic steps to address these concerns before expecting others to address yours. Your content work is good, and many users have acknowledged that often. But to have an admonishment or sanction alongside that for frequent conduct issues is not something anyone would like to see - especially when it is avoidable and something as novel as the way you choose to write your comments. Being more civil (that is, tactful) in your postings would make the world of difference - I hope you take this advice on-board after your current sanction (1 week block for such conduct) has expired. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question Time British National Party controversy: user MickMacNee destructively edit warring

Hello. I spent a great deal of yesterday evening editing this piece, which had known problems. Before finishing last night, I posted a polite 3RR notice on user MickMacNee's talk page, since he had persistently reverted most of my previous work.

I also tagged the page with the multiple issues and weasel words tags. And I tagged another section with NPOV. I had found, and annotated, evidence of multiple unsupported/unattributed statements. In one case, there was reference to research that was wholly unattributed, but controversially so.

This morning, I found the article reverted back to a far earlier version - wiping out tens and tens of very thoughtful and annotated edits on my part. The £RR notice had gone from MicMacNee's talk page, and all the tags I put in place had been unilaterally lifted. It is clear to me that MickMacNee is now engaged in a personal attack on my work - a unilateral edit war. I had already politely warned him about this (see article talk page)before putting the 3RR note on his talk page last night.

Please read the history on the talk page and see that I have consistently broken deadlock over problems on the page by coming up with solutions that move the position forwards positively.

I can't find the version of the page which is the very latest that I worked on. This one (and I don't just mean the highlighted sections I mean the whole body text ) - must be close to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Question_Time_British_National_Party_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=321990942

Please note that in the current version, all sorts of problematic material has been reinstated. I propose locking these pages until somebody sensible has had a chance to comment on the last version I produced, and to compare that with the wholesale reversion by MickMacNee.

I don't have all the time in the world and will simply walk away from this page if it continues to produce poor behaviour in this editor. This is a shame. I do have under my belt the completion of a page that reached Good Article status, and am solely motivated by achieving the highest editorial quality and accuracy possible.

This is an article dealing with controversial material, and requires the highest standards of judgement and consistent attention to accuracy and clarity of expression. Opinionated as he is, MicMacNee has so far failed to demonstrate these qualities in his edits.

Thank you for your help.Astral Highway (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't notify me of this report as you are required to do so, but not to matter, I fount it anyway. I had already replied in part on the talk page [40], but to simply address some of these points - the article has already been praised by multiple people for its quality - see ITN/C. Astral highway seems to think he is an expert editor, but I've already seen multiple examples of basic lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy or procedure, such as wp:lede or wp:talk, let alone wp:cite. Just to pick two examples of these 'controversial' tag removals - he wants to know who The Times used (presumably the name of the research company, or indeed person) to analyse the camera work [41], or exactly 'who' in Hammersmith and Fulham council asked the BBC to consider another venue, also reported in the Times. [42]. Maybe Astral simply doesn't like The Times, because there was nothing controversial about these parts of the article from an attribution point of view, they were already adequately backed by high quality references. I am just bemused by comments like "Note: a reference does not replace an inline citation", when the article only uses inline citations! There are no general references. This highlights what I think is serious problem - it seems to me to be that Astral Highway never even reads the article references, and seems to want to impose his editorial opinion on the article, for example, even though the BBC in its own words called it a 'policy change' [43], he thought that that did not justify a header called 'BBC policy change'. On this flimsy basis, he believed could blank that entire section, half of which wasn't even about the BBC. Unsurprisingly then, multiple people revert these sorts of changes, not just me. I too have time pressures, I cannot update the article in a timely manner, or properly source new additions from others, while I am dealing with these edits of Astral's. He charges edit warring, but none of his specific concerns, which are quite obviously disputed, have been raised on the talk page. He seems to think that edit summaries alone are the only justification needed, and if people disagree, it is an 'attack' on him. MickMacNee (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be my natural preference to be up front about this, but I didn't tell you, because you frankly ignored two explicit earlier warnings and several hints. You even covered up the existence of the 3RR tag I placed on your talk page by completely removing it, along with a number of tags on the body text. You haven't behaved civilly and I was running out of patience with your rather subversive editing tactics.

The reason I want proper attribution is because it's what enables readers to verify the importance and weight of an opinion. It actually isn't an alternative to add a reference. References are necessary, but they have a completely different function. You're completely speculating when you say I don't read reference material: I analyse it very carefully. Rather than deflecting my note that you are edit warring, please try to understand this point. I have expanded it, mainly for your benefit, on the talk page of the article. One of the edits you reversed last night was my note that an unattributed survey on the composition of the audience did in fact need attribution. Again, you took issue when I pointed out that a paraphrase of Griffin in the recording section did in fact need proper attribution. Astral Highway (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Astral, a user is entitled to remove warnings from their own user page and talk page. If they remove it, that means that they've seen it; and that is all the warning is required to do. They are not obliged to leave it in place. The idea is simply to pass on the warning. See WP:User_page#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Added to which, the user in this case didn't remove it! MikeManNee simply moved it to its proper place in chronological order. See [diff]. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to note a literal interpretation of that policy. Perhaps a user isn't strictly required to leave a warning in place. But surely, they're suppposed to do more than see it? The behaviour is supposed to change. Don't you think it would be constructive to acknowledge the behaviour that gave rise to the warning before removing it? And don't you think it would be wise to stop further edit warring until the underlying issues are resolved? To bury the warning and then mass-revert edits anyway isn't very constructive, to say the least. Note that I'm not the first to have raised edit warring as an issue for this editor on this pageAstral Highway (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(Astral highway, the above addition is not a "minor edit". You should only mark an edit "minor" if it is completely trivial, like a spelling fix or something. See WP:MINOR. You are using the "minor" far more often than you should.) —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I left it in place, I just moved it to the correct position, per wp:talk. this is about the fourth time this has been explained to you. The main issue for me is that I am not doing any mass reverting of your edits, I leave plenty of your changes intact, and I work to the bold, reverse, discuss model for resolving disputes on all the reverts I have made, which were all explained, because I have legitimate issues with them. I will note that you have failed to raise a single actual edit on the talk page with a view to resolving why it was reverted. It appears here we simply have B-R-... and then make a complaint here. I don't work that way, and as already said, you insisting your edits are simply good and thus right, is never going to make me accept any edit you make, particularly when you demonstrate such shockingly poor understanding of basic things like how talk pages work. It really gives me no confidence in your understanding of the more complex policies you keep suggesting I don't understand. Some of your edits are being legitimately disputed, you need to accept it and deal with it in the proper manner. As for edit warring, if you have specific examples of specific content being added / removed / added / removed in a clear behavioural breach, then by all means give me an example, or take it up on the appropriate noticeboard. Given that also in many of these disputes, there has only been one person taking your view of the content issue - you, while there have been multiple people taking my view, I suggest you break things down into specific manageable issues on the talk page, and if necessary, seek third opinions to back up your case with consensus, before even attempting to repeat what are clearly disputed edits. General complaints about mass-reverting and that you are being attacked, or vague and borderline offensive polemics like this are not going to cut it with me, and I suspect it won't with others either. MickMacNee (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User David A

Resolved

 – Parties sorting it out.

• Reintroducing section as offender continues to repeat. Asgardian (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. I think David A needs cautioning as he has a habit of inserting inflammatory comments in his Edit Summaries about other users, particularly myself [44]. This is at times taken to an extreme as he's taken a shot across my bow in a summary at an article I haven't even looked at for over a year [45]. Although there are disputes about some of the content he inserts, I'd just like him to tone it down in discussion and not deliberately try and bait others. A glace at his contributions and comments also paint a picture [46]

Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have used David A's Talk page to alert him or her to this post, and to encourage him or her to respond. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian is asking that he or she not be named in David A's edit summaries. This request is entirely reasonable and must be respected. In future, David A must not name Asgardian in edit summaries, and probably should not name any other User in edit summaries except where it is unmistakably a positive or neutral reference. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not reasonable and it need not be respected. If a user commits vandalism, then it is the prerogative of the person who removes the vandalism to mention the user who committed it, so that the admins can look into the matter. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had a few years and literally hundreds of instances of experiences with Asgardian's brand of systematic information-distortion, methodical deceit, and heavy manipulation, and am the type that's virtually unable to lie/filter in any way whatsoever, so when he consistently creates the same types of situations over and over again it turns impossible to not point it out. I have a major hang-up just about deceit and deliberate/the same pattern repeated over and over again information-twisting/misinformation, whereas I always speak the truth as I see it at all times. It's both a part of my lifelong medical condition, and the resulting personality stemming from it. I've had Wikipedia experiences with death-threatening stalkers, people who start chewing my head off for very little reason, and people who want to wantonly delete pages I've invested a lot of time in, sometimes in combination, but not even all of them together have given me nearly as bad an experience/impression as Asgardian to my perception unbelievably calculated "every-dirty-trick I can get away with" deceit and disinformation, which has gradually completely worn down any layers of benefit of doubt, and almost erased my energy for even helping out at Wikipedia. Not to mention that accusing me of "baiting others" (as opposed to pointing out word-by-word exactly what he does, which is what I always do. He lies, I tell the truth, it's why we don't get along) here hardly rhymes with his old tactic of calling me "shrieking, unbalanced, and unhinged".

Just to use a few more easily found examples. We are talking about a few years here after all, and as the greater amount of long-time ongoing "completely rewriting the content of fictional publications in the summaries" parts are harder to refer without you personally actually reading them all:

Asgardian being proven sockpuppet user, and that's just the one that's been discovered, which to me further underlines his overall willingness for systematic deceit, and turns especially suspicious whenever various anonymous ips have reverted to his edits: [47]

Asgardian's block page for consistent edit-warring (although he's since started to simply do one revert a day to get away with it, regardless if anyone agrees or not): [48]

Newer conflicts: [49]

User: J Greb also noticing my ongoing hair-tearer (which makes it impossible to make useful corrections or matter-of-fact logical discussion, which I've repeatedly tried with him to no avail) that Asgardian has continually written edit-summaries that have little, or nothing to do with what he's actually doing, or even flat-out contradict it, and Asgardian characteristically stating that he'll continue to do so as long as he can get away with it/until the specific regulation is pointed out: [50] "I've grown very, very tired of edits like this where the editor does multiple things and then puts in a partially truthful edit summary." Response: "As for J Greb's concern, I've made a request to be directed to the relevant rule on Wikipedia."

User: Nightscream also noticing Asgardian's systematic tendency for manipulation, i.e. the whole "drive people insane with annoyance over what I'm consistently actually doing in my edits, and not being honest in my edit summary rationalisations" and then accuse them of "incivility" simply for pointing it out, which given that he does what he always does makes it completely impossible to even respond: [51]

Asgardian recently apparently systematically vandalising page-structures just to make a point, and various other users making a plea to finally shut him down: [52] [53] [54]

Only the most recent situation of distorting profile content and deleting multiple references regardless that the information was entirely correct, and that the entire Talk population disagrees with him, and again going by my experience on other pages such as Thanos no matter the result he will eventually sneak in there and revert everything at a time when everyone else has mostly lost interest, even if he has to wait half a year to do so, previous middle-road solutions and adjustments be damned: [55]

In addition, what started to make me see him for what he is was in an old Talk (1-2 years ago) edit wherein he expressed amusement at my outrage over his lies, and considered it infantile to have that kind of perspective of decency: [56] ""insidious misrepresentation"...heh. How old are you?"

It's what he does... and I suppose getting pissed off about that he gets away with it is what I do. This is just the latest in a very long line of tactics that he uses as weapons to do so. Dave (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does any of that mean you have to take potshots at him personally in long, wordy edit summaries? Without getting into this specific situation, dealing with editors you have problems with is part of life on Wikipedia and we are supposed to deal with it in the appropriate way. Being "the type that's unable to lie/filter in any way whatsoever" doesn't give you the right to get personal in edit summaries. There are so many better ways to deal with this kind of thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not taking "potshots". That's not the way I think. I'm pointing out exactly what he's doing in them, since he's trying to hide or detract from them with his misleading summaries, and someone has to point out every instance of what he's doing. I mean, it would be impossible for me to find the time to sift through his years and hundreds of instances of this behaviour, and literally have no patience whatsoever with him anymore, so I'm pointing it out all the time instead. He's also specifically making it extremely hard to respond to him in any other way anywhere. He seems to be using the "civility" excuse towards everyone, as seen in the Nightscream comment and the Dormammu discussion. I have no idea how to handle him in any other way sicne he seems to have an inexplicable get out of jail card for things that are hundreds of times worse than anything I ever did, and he's using loopholes in regulations to make a case that lies are ok and truth isn't as a weapon. For that matter why wasn't he permanently banned after his first sockpuppet was discovered? I'm so incredibly tired of him. You try dealing with the same manipulative person several hundred times in a row dragged out over a few years and see how you like it, even without a medical condition (I have some weird overlapping Asperger-ADD-bipolar-OCD-Damp-Tourettes-Schizophrenic condition or whatever the theory I'm presented is this year. There have been a lot of variants) Dave (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this situation requires some expert advice. Dave has been asked to be civil, and despite this, remains openly hostile and abusive towards myself, as can be seen in his overall Edit Summary: [57]. I am repeatedly targeted and openly slandered in Edit summaries. I have repeatedly counselled Dave regarding some of his Edits and why they are inappropriate, he continues to revert and be abusive. I have tried to speak with him with no success. While I realize that Dave has, by his own admission (see above) a medical condition, I do not believe that this gives anyone a free pass to harass other users. I feel Dave needs to try and follow the Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy when editing. I am not unsympathetic, and will state again that I am happy to discuss almost any issue. I just want the abuse to stop.

Can someone assist with this, please?

Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, can someone PLEASE PLEASE get Asgardian permanently banned. His lies, censorship, manipulation and so forth is completely systematic and never ever stops. He's using this as yet another excuse to state that telling the truth is unacceptable and systematical disinformation and deceit is completely ok. Again, I have no other way of handling him, and multiple users are consistently making pleas to have him removed. I'm so very tired of him. And no I'm not "abusive". I'm telling the truth- Asgardian methodically abuses my nerves far more than I abuse his, and I can't remotely "assume good faith" with hundreds of experiences with him personally that contradict this. In fact Asgardian is the by far least trustworthy Wikipedian that I have ever encountered. Dave (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Making personal attacks against the other party in a Wikiquette discussion is hardly going to get you anywhere. Your first post here is a wall of words, a very effective way of getting you off-side with anyone who might try to help out here. Please be concise and leave out all the uncivil comments. I have not bothered to look behind the issues in the article that have brought this case to Wikiquette, but based upon what you have written here - and especially how you have written it - I am disinclined to accept anything you say at face value. Maybe you are completely blameless in this dispute, but given that the complaint was not about the actual content of the article so much as the way you have gone about making changes (and reverting changes), your allegedly abusive edit summaries and the way you have conducted yourself here, I am rather inclined to think that the complainant has a point. You need to calm down, stop throwing accusations around and beging to demonstrate that you assume good faith. Frankly if you continue on the way you have apparently been going I would not be surprosed if a passing admin did not block you on the spot. Whatever the merits of your case about the content of the article in question the way you seem to be deporting yourself is not acceptable. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't talk any other way. If I consider something to be the truth I will say it. I have no idea how to say the same thing in what you would consider a non-"uncivil" way. He does lie, he does manipulate, he does twist information. All the time. As linked above other users also notice this. How am I supposed to say that in any other way? Dave (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, let's not forget that he called me "shrieking, unbalanced, and unhinged" as a weapon ti be used, despite likely knowing about my disorder from the Galactus Talk, so me stating exactly what he does in each edit is far less in comparison. Dave (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Truth is not a defense, even less so your version of the truth (or indeed that of any Wikipedian). Being civil is not optional, it is policy, as Wikipedians we are obliged to follow it or risk being blocked. If you cannot say things in a diplomatic way in what is supposed to be a collaborative project then don't say them at all. If the actions of other editors on a particular page lead you want to say things in a rude, abusive or uncivil manner, then leave that page alone and go and find another corner of Wikipedia to work on. I have no idea what your post above this, time stamped at 10:00 26 October 2009 (UTC), means and frankly it is none of my business. Please confine future comments to the matter at hand and leave personal things out of it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Given this latest comment in an Edit Summary [58], I think I'm going to have to put a case to the administrators. If an editor's only response to repeated attempts at interaction is abuse, I have no choice. Asgardian (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I _don't abuse you_. I'm _reacting_ on what you do over and over and over and over and over and over, year in and year out, by stating exactly what what you do. You're abusing _me_ by consistently inserting inaccurate information which you know full well triggers my compulsion, to never let me go, undoing my hours of research for references, to replace with none whatsoever, and by manipulating and distorting what's really going on, not just with me but with everyone else. I don't lie, or use any multi-layered deceit whatsoever, so that makes me a very convenient target in the . "He made a comment about how I lied here, and nobody has the time to check my more intricate subterfuge, so that's easily solved" manner. You have plenty of choices. You could simply go for compromise solutions as I have tried on most instances with you, but no, you always sweepingly restore your inaccuracies in story content, reference-deletions to be replaced with POV-insertions, censor inconveniences, misleading edit-summaries, and so on. How in the world am I supposed to respond to that when you do it completely relentlessly? Seriously? How? It's not in my nature to say something else than what I really mean, so how am I supposed to respond? How is anyone supposed to respond in fact? You seem to use the convenient "civility" excuse towards virtually anyone, and that's people who have lost their patience with you for less than a tenth of what you have put me through. You've singlehandedly virtually reduced my contributions to minor obsessive fact-corrections rather than more ambitious clean-ups which I used to do more frequently, and really strained my nerves in that regard. So again, _how_? Is there any way I or others could respond honestly to what's actually going on whatsoever, rather than forcing people to try to say something other than what they mean? Dave (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dave, try this. If Asgardian really is removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced, revert him ONCE using words like "please discuss removal of sources" or "this appears to be OR, please discuss" or "I have reverted to referenced version, please discuss". That way, if he continues to revert and doesn't discuss, you can report him to the administrators without the first thing that comes up is your edit summaries, which are likely to earn you a block.

Ok, I'll try that again, but keep in mind that I used that tactic over and over even back 1-2 years ago, and that to my POV he ignores any valid Talk disagreements and middle-road solutions. I've also asked him again to start being more specific rather than sweeping with his edits/synchronising what he specifically does with his stated reasons, and at least try to compromise rather than delete everything, if he wants to convince me that he's trying to turn a new leaf. Dave (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dave, I agree with you 100%, and am dealing another user of similar temperament to Asgardian. (see User:Rmcnew below) The influx of habitual trolls like these is the greatest single issue on Wikipedia these days, and I think we should work together to drive them out. I'm all for civility, but since when did "being civil" mean that we had to hold our tongues when other people misbehave? Yeah I'm all for "don't worry about other people's behavior; worry about your own", but the admins are too often looking the other way. The policy just does not work, nor was it intended to allow the insane to have their way. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian isn't a troll. In fact I appreciate his efforts to structure several pages. (Not so much about the inaccuracies though) He's just been really really frustrating for me due to the sheer extent of neverending troubles I've had with his methods, and others have apparently had similar troubles with him that I haven't been involved with/don't know all the details of. So all right. I'm giving him another chance to prove his sincerity by being more specific in his edits, and I'll do my utmost to keep my reflexive responses shut. Dave (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That's good. Hopefully Asgardian will find a way to reciprocate - I don't know what that would be but I'm getting the feeling it's around clarity of communication, agreeing something and sticking with it, not surprising the other editor. All the best with editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, what I'm looking for is that he only specifically addresses the actual supposed/stated problems he has with something instead of just sweepingly deleting everything, and reinserting factual errors. Repeat that some hundred times over and it eventually creates a major annoyed itch. Dave (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. The thing that caught my eye was the slander accusation. Those are often used by trolls to intimidate other users who they think will be afraid of their legal "wrath", particularly when the troll's character comes under scrutiny. Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've cautioned Tcaudilllg about the inappropriateness of wading uninformed into a debate and calling another editor a troll. I've also left Dave a message on his Talk Page re: this matter and will continue to elaborate the reasons as to why some material is not suitable for Wikipedia. Thanks to all. Asgardian (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your "caution" appears rather self serving and is likely to make things worse. Bad move, in my opinion. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If by "self serving" you mean asking an uninvolved party to stop calling me names? A look at the editor's Talk Page says it all: [59]. No matter. Let's ignore it and move on. Dave and I are talking which is the issue. Regards Asgardian (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I mean. Posts to wikiquette alerts are a request for comment from uninvolved parties. It is rather self-serving to try and "caution" a contributor on their own talk page just because they have a negative view of your conduct expressed in this alert. I also recommend not threatening people with bans. You have no authority to apply a ban, and if past experience is any guide you might be the one more likely to be banned. My advice, in all seriousness, is that when you talk with someone with whom you have a disagreement, you are better to avoid giving "cautions" and comments about how you might have no choice but to put a case to administrators, or remarks about possible bans, or anything of the sort. Just stick to the point at issue. I can see the potential for trouble brewing again with just this kind of problem, so I am putting this response on record. I stand by my previous remark, which I made with full awareness of the page to which you linked and the user's reply to your "caution". —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you should reconsider - I would usually agree with you on this point. However, it was grossly inappropriate of Tcaudilllg to compare Asgardian to another user with whom he is currently involved in arbitration with, whom also currently has no findings to justify the "troll" claim. That the subject of this WQA, David A, also did not consider Asgardian to be a troll speaks volumes. See also my note at the Socionics evidence talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We associate names with certain behavioral patterns. I called you a troll, which is a blanket term for a lot of things. I didn't mean you were all of those things, only one or two. I just don't think you should be tossing legally-charged words around, because those create fear. Fear is completely unacceptable. Personally I think the topic of your discussion (unresolved plot ponts in Marvel Comics) is completely irrelevant and not worth arguing over. If you can't agree on something so irrelevant, leave it out. Taking a side just invites more controversy and more embarassing op-eds which do not help the encyclopedia. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Attacks, canvassing and SPAs at AfD/Bose stereo speakers

This one seems to be going to hell in a handcart...

The nominator canvassed at Wikipedia Review, in particular with the comment "is being somewhat railroaded by inexperienced WP editors." addressed at a few contributors (myself included) who show no indication of inexperience. Also canvassed another WP editor. SPAs then started to emerge from the woodwork, one of which then silently snuck off the SPA tag from the first, an eyebrow-raising piece of AGF accidentally careless editing. Now I've been accused of being an employee of the company described in the article (incidentally, I'm not), which was struck-through with a snippet of my personal CV posted to the edit summary. That's hardly confidential information, but nor is it a GF action for an editor with only a single mainspace edit outside this AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind providing some diffs with these claims?--SKATER ^Speak. 15:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Diffs. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Orderly Conductor strongly warned regarding WP:OUTING. Other issues above remain to be discussed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Oblivious Comment - "This is going to hell in a handbasket real fast!" from Left 4 Dead's Bill. Dingley, was that an attempt? LOL. --A3RO (mailbox) 04:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In Fairford church, Gloucestershire, the great West window (installed before 1517 AD) shows the Day of Judgment in stained glass, with the innocent going to heaven and the guilty going to hell. Among the latter is an old woman in a wheelbarrow, being pushed to her doom by a blue devil. It appears that folks have been going to hell in handcarts for quite some time Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous user problems

I feel user 188.192.121.123 has been making disruptive edits and personal attacks at Battle of the Bulge article and Talk:Battle of the Bulge. He was recently blocked for this. --Nirvana77 (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Looked through the first couple of talk page edits, and saw no personal attacks. He seems to be challenging sources frequently though...I don't know much about the battle of the bulge to really make a judgment on that please provide diffs of both his disruptive edits and personal attacks.--SKATER ^Speak. 01:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I found the quote "so your edits are bullshit because u are lyer" and me being "blind" to be an personal attack on me rather than discussing the topic. Oh well, if you don't find it to be an personal attack I won't push for anything. --Nirvana77 (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said that they weren't a personal attack. I just didn't see either of those. this is why Diffs are helpful because they direct me to exactly where I'm looking at and I don't have to go searching, generally why I won't look at anything unless it has them. After seeing both of those, I will warn him for WP:NPA--SKATER ^Speak. 01:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

an external-link-related misunderstanding

a misunderstanding resulting from User:Matheisf's addition of his blues-related website to multiple articles (see Special:Contributions/Matheisf) is escalating in bafflingly unpleasant ways: User_talk:Sabrebd#Please_advise and User_talk:Sssoul#Blues.2FCountry_spam. i've tried to explain that adding a link to his own site to multiple articles is not a good way to approach this, and also pointed out better ways to go, but User:Matheisf has unfortunately decided that Sabrebd and i are conspiring against him, wielding authority unfairly, etc: [60]
since User:Matheisf is new, i understand that he isn't aware of how the term "spam" is used around here as shorthand for "linking one's own site to multiple articles, even if the site is noncommercial" (as it's used at WP:SPAM#External_link_spamming), and it seems he's taking umbrage at the use of that term. but pointing the relevant policies out to him isn't malice on anyone's part. and the fact that Sabrebd and i edit some of the same music-related articles and are aware of the same policies on external links is certainly not collusion against anyone.
if someone could convey to User:Matheisf what Wikipedia policies apply, what approaches would be constructive, and what the appropriate ways are to have his noncommercial website added to the external-link sections of Wikipedia articles, that would be very helpful.
for the record, i also listed this on WP:ELN, but since the communication/civility problems appear to be increasing, i'm moving it to this forum. thanks for any help Sssoul (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking at the link-additions, and I concur, these links fail the external links guideline, the behaviour is spammy. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

For you guys to try to make this out to be any kind of fair hearing is a fluke. This has from the outset been nothing but a lynch mob. The threat I just received from Dirk Beestra to blacklist me confirms this. Who do you people think you are? You behave like shameless thugs colluding to ostracize me despite overwhelming evidence to verify that my linking was not only legitimate but advanced the topic. There is no validity to the claims you made against me. I did not spam and the links I placed were relevant. The fact that you are able to act with impunity in this forum with this type of abuse of power is highly disturbing. If the check and balance resolution process is the likes of you,this wonderful idea has been hijacked and utterly lost to primitive fascistic practices.

Judge and jury has already brought the rope out and lined up all your pals as posse. I for one am going out kicking and screaming. Blacklist me if you want. You seemingly can act without basis of fact, and with supreme authority. I refuse to submit to your false accusations. I know when I am being railroaded. Shame on you. --71.169.42.87 (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)By Matheisf: --71.169.42.87 (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said on my talkpage, have you actually read what we say, have you checked our policies and guidelines? Please discuss further linkadditions (e.g. with a Wikipedia:WikiProject) before adding more. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparant harassment by User:Wdford

There months ago, I came into an controversy about the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy with User:Wdford. Previously, we also had a not-so-nice encounter at the article Great Sphinx of Giza. After this controversy had led to two threads at the ANI, 1, 2, but achieved no result, I let the issue rest. I think Ancient Egyptian race controversy is one of the worst articles at Wikipedia, and that a better article would be quite useful for many readers, but this issue wouldn't be worth any more time of my life. However, then I had another controversial discussion at the ANI, about an article in which I actually hadn't been involved until just now, colloidal silver. The ANI thread is here, and it is quite long. I actually thought that the discussion on the ANI is over now, but then I noticed that Wdford made an edit a the article colloidal silver, of which he presumably know that I would have to object to it and to which I indeed object.

If this does not fall under "Wikihounding" as described at "Wikipedia:Harassment", I wouldn't know what does: "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." I wouldn't know that Wdford had previously ever participated in any way at the article or in the discussion, and I would find it incredibly hard to believe that he noticed his interest in the topic just now. The problem is: If he aims at discouraging me from editing Wikipedia completely, he might be successful, because I see no reason to put up with something like this. Zara1709 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Since WQA is a voluntary forum, it's a complete waste of time to open a section on an editor without notifying them of it. Please do so, and then we can continue. Looie496 (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I justifiably feel confused when an editor, with whom I've had troubles previously, shows up at a page about which I am involved in controversial discussion. However, on 2nd though, so far this is not a case of Wikihounding, since so far Wdford has only made one edit, which doesn't qualify as "repeatedly". I've done quite a lot of work at the article, and aside from an anonymous ip-editor who makes full reverts without even an edit summary, diff, the controversy appears to have cleared for now. So, unless a real confrontation does actually arise, we can let this thread rest, and my concerns were premature. Let's hope that there aren't any more troubles.. Zara1709 (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I restate my point. Now Wdford has made a second edit at the article, which I have I again have to oppose. I'll inform him about this thread here. Zara1709 (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Zara1709 has grossly mis-stated the situation. Firstly, I’m not harassing anybody, far less her. Second, the “problems” she cites re Ancient Egyptian race controversy were largely due to her own short fuse – it’s a very contentious topic, and lots of editors took different positions. Not all of us agreed with Zara. The so-called “encounter” at Great Sphinx of Giza was actually the same issue, which happened to overlap both articles.

I noticed the dispute at the Colloidal silver article when it was locked down and reported at ANI, as I maintain a “watch” on that page. I took an interest because I was actually treated with silver for an infected wound when I was a child - with considerable success.

Based on a quick scroll-through of the two history files, it seems I made my first contribution on the talk page on 27 October, while Zara made her first contribution on the talk page only on 31 October – directly after my second contribution. The article was under protection at the time, as I recall, but when the protection was lifted I made my first contribution to the article itself (an innocent addition of valid content) on 31 October. It seems Zara made her first contribution to the article also on 31 October, but about 13 hours after my first contribution. Zara subsequently took ownership of the article, as the history page shows, and rewrote it to her personal satisfaction, including reverting my contribution on a totally invalid basis.

I don’t understand her use of the words “which he presumably knew that I would have to object to” – there was actually no reason at all to object to my contribution. I also don’t understand her use of the words “which I again have to oppose”. Why does she “have to” oppose it – the content is perfectly valid?

As the history pages clearly show, Zara is actually hounding me. I trust the admin’s will deal with her appropriately. Wdford (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, I find it incredibly hard to believe that you might accidentally have an interest in colloidal silver. From my previous experience I know that it is impossible to discuss more complex issues which involve several POVs with you. For the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy I had done some throughout research and read 4 history books, and I had everyone else at the article agree on a procedure to resolve the issues - but then your topic ban was revoked and you almost immediately had to give me an edit war, even after I had brought several sources that supported my version (the distinction between Eurocentric and Afrocentric views). Instead of bringing in any sources to support your view, you tried to frame me edit warring at the ANI - so I understandably can't assume good faith from your side any more. And here you doing it again. Ok, you tried to explain your interest in the article- but aside from that you are accusing me of several things, apparently to discredit me. This is not the behaviour of somone who has an honest interest in editing the article - this is the behaviour of someone who is on a personal vendetta against me, and I think that I am right in remaining highly suspicious. Zara1709 (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)