Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive100

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Roscelese

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – use article talk, rfc, third opinion, et. al.

Gerardw (talk)

I placed a tag on the article to indicate there is an issue [1] which is being discussed on Talk, and she removed it[2]. I explained the tag is important to alert editors to the ongoing discussion and requested she restore the tag. She refused. I'd like to have the tag restored and the editor warned against further disruption. Also, this Abortion-related article is on WP:GS and disruption such as this is completely unacceptable. I think a block is in order. Lionel (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:WQA is not meant for sanctions. If you have a reason to believe a block is warranted, then you either need to file an WP:ANI (must be urgent issue) or an WP:RFC/U (need at least 2 editors who tried to resolve the problem in an user talk page).
With that said, I think she's emotionally-invested and somehow fell into the trap of believing in a logical fallacy. Since your main dispute is about content and complaint is about WP:DISRUPT instead of WP:CIVIL, then I'd say this may not be the place for you to resolve the problem. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
A word from you, an uninvolved editor, might help get the tag restored, which would resolve this. Lionel (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
In that case, you should've posted this on an RfC or NPOV. This board is mainly for WP:CIVIL issues. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Bob is correct, not a civility issue. Made an edit to the article which might help. Gerardw (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:HOUND by User:Aleenf1

[3] (2017 Asian Winter Games) Less then 24 hours after I make a contribution he decided to replace it with a grammatically incorrect version of the samething. [4] - (2011 Asian Winter Games) Went after every edit I did for no reason (and removed valuable information). This user has reported at least five times Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and every single time there has been no evidence to warrant a block, and as it stands now he has reported me again! Also, he has stated he will never accpet my apology, so he is holding a grudge and I assume that is the reason he is after all my edits. [5]. Also opened up a false sock puppet claim against me [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Intoronto1125]. [6] Moreover, the 2011 Pan American Games, in which this user had not edited before, decided to remove links that were important to the article, in which I had put a lot of work into. And guess what this edit was done after he had reported me to the boards after our first edit war. We were also engaged in a back and forth tustle over "calendars" on mutli sporting event pages in which after a concensus I was deemed wrong for leaving the word ceremonies centralized, but before all this he would go and undo all my edits for formatting the calendars [7]. I am getting sick and tired of this please stop this nonsense. Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I will look at the diff's later, but my first impression is that you have to bring this to an admin's attention. I know you tried WP:ANI already, but this seems way over the jurisdiction of WP:WQA. Other than starting another WP:ANI, you can also post this on a trust admin's talk page and see if whether or not he/she can give you some advice. Try User:Magog the Ogre. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Apparently has already attached admin attention [8]Gerardw (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
My feeling is that the warning to disengage will not do much, but that's just me. By the way, you sure you don't want to comment on the WQA I filed? Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Offensive comments by WikiManOne

WM1 has placed this banner across his talk page calling a handicapped Afghan who was sexually assaulted and is about to be executed by the Afghan government for his religion "an idiot".

WN1 has also placed a (historically inaccurate) banner across his user page demeaning Christianity along with other similar behavior.

Needless to say, all of this is extremely offensive, particularly the sexually assaulted handicapped Afghan who is about to be put to death by the state for his faith. Is there any way to get have these comments removed from his user space? - Haymaker (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The first step would be to ask him to remove it. Gerardw (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Good suggestion, I would further add that you could suggest to the editor that the basis of your request is the Wiki guidelines for User Pages such as WP:UPNO.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It would also be polite to notify WikiManOne about this ongoing discussion so he can give his input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
WM1 was informed of this discussion previously. Thanks for the guideline, I have never actually encountered something so offensive posted by another user so I had never gone hunting after userpage info. I have asked him to remove the material. Here is to hoping it works. - Haymaker (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It appears to be a record-setting sort of attempt. Collect (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep, it's just flame bait, completely unrelated to the encyclopeida or any attempt to improve the encyclopedia. He has a right to express his opinions, however unpopular, but not at Wikipedia's expense, and not when they're unrelated to the goal here, and actually distract from it. Blog space is cheap; let him pay for his own.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
"have never actually encountered something so offensive" -- um, how long have you been here again? That's pretty darned mild.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
On a user page, bemoaning a crippled rape victim who is about to by martyred for his faith is a new low for me. - Haymaker (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, the tone of WikiManOne's statement, if not the sentiment, is rather similar to the tone often used by the Daily Mail itself, a very extensively used RS in Wikipedia. Seems ironic. Polemics abound in the hotspots of article space. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, no, it isn't. WMO's page says, "Why is this Christian such an idiot? Better yet, why do we give them coverage for being such idiots?" In other words, "them", meaning "Christians", are idiots. There's no way in heck that's appropriate here. --B (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
That's clearly not what he said. Once again User:B misinterprets what an ideological opponent is saying, then argues against that misinterpretation. Is it deliberate? Christianity is a big umbrella, it has its share of idiots and extremists like any other big group. I'm not defending what he said, but I agree with SoV that it is only mildly provocative. Anyway, I believe that WMO has already said he is a Christian. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, no, that is what he said. However, he has now reworded it, rendering the issue moot. (He's still wrong about his point, but he has a right to be wrong.) --B (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
No, he did not say "them", meaning "Christians", are idiots -- which is what you inferred. The original point (of whether his banner was offensive) may be moot, but your mischaracterization is not. Nor is it isolated: at the FRC talkpage you linked one of his ANI comments, then jumped to an offensive oversimplification: "To some of our left-leaning friends here, conservative Christians = the KKK." [9]. I attempted to address the issue at your talkpage but you ignored it. Again I ask, is the misinterpretation intentional? -PrBeacon (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
His comments speak for themselves. This issue is resolved and trying to start something is not particularly useful. --B (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually you opened the door here by continuing to distort his words. By not responding to my question, we can only assume you are deliberately attempting to twist his words into something far worse, thus adding fuel to already heated topics. That seems highly improper behavior for an admin. -PrBeacon (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I decline to participate in your loaded questions. "Is the misinterpretation intentional" is kinda like asking, "have you quit beating your wife yet". If you interpret from my declining to answer that I am, in fact, beating my wife, that's a you problem, not a me problem. --B (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
What an odd comparison, and not the first time you've used that faulty logic to deflect and distract. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you are trying to pick a fight. You seem to be trying to provoke a reaction from your comments here and with the ones on your talk page. I decline to participate. --B (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Wrong again. Now you're twisting my words. Shame. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the talk page would have not gotten significant exposure if it had simply been ignored. Lacking a clear consenus that the item must be removed, I recommend just ignoring the page Gerardw (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well this almost unpublicized event is finally getting some coverage. I can only hope my moral outrage expressed on my userpage over the issue was the immediate cause. At least the thing is getting some recognition. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It appears that quiet diplomacy involving many nations has been the strategy at work behind the scenes, and that it has proved effective. He was released several days ago, per these articles.[10][11]Slp1 (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The user has refused to removed the statement from his user page against community consensus and has replaced the original polemic on his talk page with two more, of equal tastelessness. - Haymaker (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to warm him and point him here - WP:UP#POLEMIC.Griswaldo (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a guideline, not policy. If he doesn't want to remove the statements, so be it. Nobody died. It's not "extremely offensive" and allegedly the "Wikipedia community is generally tolerant". There are thousands of editors whose ability to edit isn't impaired by people having things like that on their user page, or statements about how the planet is only 6000 years old, or that they support removing abortion rights from women, any of the large number of contentious things people like to say on the user pages for some reason. Ignoring it and moving on seems like a sensible approach. Or perhaps, as a compromise, if someone asks him nicely he could replace it with the following from the Ruth Hurmence Green article.
  • “There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the Dark Ages.”
—Ruth Hurmence Green, quoted in Annie Laurie Gaylor, ed., Women Without Superstition, p. 469
Sean.hoyland - talk 04:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. All polemical nonsense geared to rile up one's political opponents should go in the trash. There are ways to state your opinion on a political issue clearly without taunting the opposition. Such statements would go unnoticed and bother no one. BTW, my own political opinion is much closer to WMO's, than to his opponents, but that doesn't mean that I think he's not actively trying to pick unnecessary and disruptive fights here. He's been virtually living at AN/I for the last month. Someone needs to tell him to chill out. I tried several times to no avail.Griswaldo (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think Wikipedia could do with less opinion-posting generally. Another editor, quite recently, described pro-choice people as "pro-death," justifying this comment by saying that it wasn't a personal attack because it wasn't directed at a specific user. And how many editors have userboxes advocating discrimination against gay people? Compared to that, "The Dark Ages is one name for a period during which Christianity was the dominant historical force" is extremely tame. Perhaps it is a problem, but it is a far lesser problem than others. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

An administrator removed the polemics on his talk page during the application of a topic ban but the content on his user page still remains. What would have to be done to remove it? - Haymaker (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Gerardw asked me to comment here as the admin who removed the junk from his talk page. I'm comfortable with the compromise of taking the taunting comments off the talk page, but leaving for now what's on the user page. We're not guaranteed the right to go thru life without seeing things we object to; if you don't like it, don't look at his user page. In my mind, a polemic directly related to the subject he's been topic banned from, on a talk page that opponents may have had no choice but to visit, with the obvious intent of taunting and pissing people off, is different from the more general idiocy of the quote on his user page. Would I want to have a beer with someone so smug about the superiority of his world view? No. Indeed, there seems to be alot of smug superiority about everyone's own world view in abortion-related articles; I doubt I'd want to have a beer with anyone who regularly edits those pages to the near exclusion of anything else. Do I think it's necessary to force him (or others) to hide the fact that he's/they're smug? No.

    He hasn't edited in a while, and I'd like to see this whole thing de-escalated, and right or wrong, he'd see removal of that quote as a provocation. How about everyone go back to their corners, and let's see how things go with the topic ban in place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Screwball23


User seems to view article talk page as a personal battleground. He gave a barnstar to the editor who made the precise edits he seems to decry.

[12] 18:16 4 March Collect has never given reason as to why he believes the word magnate is not good, and seems to think that being the one to revert an edit makes him the "consensus giver". This is ludicrous and delusional

[13] 18:30 4 March Collect, all you have ever done is delete things because according to you, they did not have "consensus." I know you fight with every editor you can, and routinely abuse policies and canvas on Project boards to get your way, but I am telling you straight up that there is no reason for you to change the word. Magnate is well-referenced, and furthermore, you have never gone on to defend your use of the word entrepreneur, which I think is too general and does not fit her as well.

[14] 18:46 So where is your consensus to delete all the information? (note the edits had been made by the editor Screwball gave a barnstar to!)

[15] 18:50 54 March What are you trying to say? I should be like you and delete 10,000 pages rather than add information and develop a single page?

[16] 19:39 4 March Collect, you are not getting it. All I've seen you do is delete and claim that my edits have no consensus. But the only person who has come out and given any problem is you. And you haven't even had the guts to state what your problem with the material is, only that I need consensus to put something up. According to your convoluted logic, anyone who puts a change on wikipedia needs to ask for consensus first. And your only definition of consensus, since you say I am "anti-consensus", is that you don't agree with it.

Your claims about how great an editor you are has shown absolutely no weight here. You are attacking me personally, trying to use the number of edits I make to a page against me. Why? Why is that relevant to this discussion? You won't answer that because you can't answer that. Your attempts to get Lfstevens involved are also equally disgusting. I thought the copyediting job Lfstevens did was excellent, and I understand Lfstevens wanted to adhere to the reference that used the word novice. I do not agree with the use of that word because following the convention, all politicians who have run for office only once should be called novices. And when does someone stop being a novice? Either way, I don't need to agree 100% with someone to commend them for a job well done. I also want to remind you that I asked Lfstevens for his/her opinion regarding the move for political positions, and was given a go ahead. Your accusation that I removed the political positions without consensus is an outright lie. I have not seen you ask for any consensus on whether it should be moved back, all I see you do is attack me personally. You are an absolute hypocrite, and if you have a problem with me, just come out and say it.

I replied in measured tones, by the way: [17] 18:43 4 March WP policy requires consensus. Not I. All I do is point out that the policy is clear - even if you make 28 times as many edits to this page as I do. In fact, nearly twenty times as many edits as the second most active editor on the article

And [18] 20:51 4 March Perhaps the WP:NPA was insufficient. Repeat The edits you reverted were by an editor to whom you gave a barnstar Clear so far? You seem intent on making personal charges when none belong on this, or any other, Wikipedia page. Ever

Note that there was a prior complaint by me at [19] for which he was blocked for two weeks. [20] a complaint by another editor. [21] another complaint. [22] more complaints. A long block history. A huge percentage of all edits on the article are from the single user. Who called a current arbitrator "Collect's lackey" (also in archive 639)

In short, sufficient evidence of incivility, chronis edit warring, WP:OWN, personal attacks, violation of WP:BLP etc. If more examples are necessary, I shall be happy to oblige. Thank you. Collect (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

SB23 notified at [23] 21:16 4 March

Adding (this is a warning placed by a known administrator, and is not from Screwball23 or from me) [24] You're free to rant all you want, but the next time you place BLP-violating material (either directly, or by reverting someone else's removal) into the article, you will be blocked from editing. You don't appear to be understanding the entire point of the WP:BLP policy. I'd encourage you to read through the noticeboard and see what other sorts of problems come up and how they're handled, to get a better perspective on the topic. If you don't want to do that, I don't see how you can contribute positively to Wikipedia articles involving living people. One thing you don't appear to be getting is the spectrum of viewpoints represented in the variety of editors who have reverted you and/or told you that you are proceeding in a manner against consensus. While it's certainly possible for everyone in this corner of Wikipedia to be ganging up on you, it's far more likely that you're simply not understanding consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I managed to scan through Linda McMahon's article talk page, since it is pretty short. Here's what I noticed:

I'd say User:Screwball23's overly aggressive and should be careful about what he says. However, I'd also sympathize with him that his chief opponents, User:Collect and User:FellGleaming, are not acting in a helpful manner either. While evidence has already shown that User:FellGleaming has a problematic editorial history, I'd say User:Collect's also not helping matters by mis-using WP rules, using bad arguments, and not trying to start a civil discussion. Given his knowledge of User:Screwball23's volatile behaviour, he should've considered posting discussions to discuss materials he had problems with instead of going straight into the article, delete whatever he wanted, and then wait for User:Screwball23 to scream. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Um- try again. I have not abused any WP policies on that page, and your edit history starts only five months ago, and is mainly involved with the Senkaku Islands. This WQA is about absolutely clear incivility, and your post implies that you are familiar with the policies involved - making strong judgement calls on content disputes. You are a clear SPA on the Senkaku Islands dispute to all appearances, and Wikipedia:Editor_review/Bobthefish2#Bobthefish2--.3E.2A shows significant problems of your own. [[36]] also alerts others to your position. I would like someone who is not an SPA in a contentious area to note this problem on your position. Examine your problems on Senkaku before casting aspersions about others and your differing opinions about WP policies as shown on that topic, please. Collect (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
This is absolute Gaming the system. Collect asked for a review, got one he didn't like, and suddenly wants to attack the reviewer's credentials. Maybe he should be schooled on wikiquette.--Screwball23 talk 01:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Um -- the review was reasonably supposed to be of current events involving extreme incivility by you. Not months-old content disputes, especially when the "reviewer" appears to have some major problems himself with content disputes. This noticeboard is for editor behaviour and not for stale content disputes in any case. Meanwhile, I have not attacked you personally, whilst you repeatedly attack me personally. Were you aware of what WP:WQA is for? Do you recall your specific warning from Jclemens about your behaviour on BLP articles (You have been edit warring against multiple editors to include poorly sourced BLP material. Even if such material were properly sourced, it would violate WP:UNDUE. You have repeatedly reverted other editors without cause, when those editors were attempting to improve the NPOV of the article's wording. You are now (as if you weren't already) formally on notice that any future edit to this article which has the net effect--intended or not, revert or new material, today or some point in the future--of a BLP violation, broadly construed will result in your being blocked for such action. The sole defense against such future blocking will be demonstrated evidence that you have reached consensus for the edits on the article talk page) ? A warning which the "reviewer" seemed not to notice? Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Collect, it appears your response revealed a lot of issues about you that your initial complaint did not.
Despite your complaints of otherwise, I actually did cite the fact that User:Screwball23 was sanctioned twice for edit-warring in another page. I also did not say you abused WP policies. Rather I said you "mis-used" them, especially in the case of WP:COAT which others had pointed out in the talk page archives. In short - I believe my assessment was fair.
My overall impression is that I wrote a rather balanced response that scrutinized the behaviour both sides but I guess you didn't want that - Rather your response suggested to me you wanted the reviewers to buy your stories, ignore your own contributions to the problem, and make this a lynching session that exclusively targets User:Screwball23.
You are correct in that I was subjected to WP:WQA before for my own behaviour. Since my reviewers back then refused to scrutinize other parties in that particular WQA, I took it upon myself to do so for the WQA's I review so that others will get a more fair opinion than what I might've received for mine.
Now with all of this said, let's see what else you accused me of:
  • Being an WP:SPA
  • Unable to make good judgement calls
  • Having significant issues
  • Not being a suitable reviewer
It's actually convenient that our conversation is taking place in a WP:WQA you filed - meaning others can simply comment on your own Wikiquette violations in situ. In 2 posts, you've managed to make 4 personal attacks to a friendly reviewer who tried to help. Good job. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Update: It appears User:Collect stalked my contrib history, went to an RFC/U I co-filed, and decided to offer his own input. While it's entirely possible that he did a lot of research on that wall of text and had been following the event for a while, the more suspicious side of me feel that this may be evidence to a continuation of his WP:BATTLEGROUND as a result of a review he didn't like. After all, I've never met him before and he appeared very incensed about my review. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
!. The WQA ia sbout incivility. Not about content disputes where you appear to have decided your position is not that held by others (such as Jclemens, inter alia). 2. Your editing background is a valid point - and is not a "personal attack." 3. Content disputes dating back several months have no impact on whether or not Screwball made uncivil personal attacks. 4. You elided mention of the specific warnings given Screwball in the past for such incivility and positions on BLPs contrary to WP:BLP. I intended no personal attack, and did not feel I made one against you. Is this reasonably and civilly clear? Collect (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The fact that my opinions on some others have been disputed by a few does not mean the others are right or that I am unable to make a fair judgement. Your act of trying to undermine my opinion with that is already in itself uncivil, because I actually too the time to read through the talk page and tried to help.
Your long history of disputes with Screwball is directly related to the predicament both of you are suffering from. Repeated mis-use of WP policies despite criticisms and repeated reverts of other people's edits without a prior discussion can be considered as uncivil acts as well due to a lack of respect being shown. If you do not want to agree with me on that, that's fine.
Lastly, four things you've said about me: (1) WP:SPA, (2) unable to make good judgement calls, (3) having significant issues, (4) Not being a suitable reviewer; definitely violate WP:CIVIL. If you want to prove that your accusations of me are correct and not slanderous, you are welcomed to open a new thread about me. But for the time being, it's obvious that you've thrown a Wikipedia:Boomerang and shot yourself in the foot in one of the most awkward way possible -> Attacking a reviewer who was trying to help. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: I looked at a page User:Screwball23 asked me to bring my attention to. One obvious thing I see is the possibility of User:Collect mis-using WP:CONSENSUS when he did this reversion [37] without a seemingly appropriate reason. While he might've done it in good faith, it's actually not recommended as per Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_to_"no_consensus". Unless WP:BLP requires all new content to BLP's have to gain consensus first, I believe User:Collect's reversion is unnecessary especially when no specific concerns were given (Collect's reason for revert was "get consensus"). If the only concern is about whether or not others would agree to the new content, then it's actually better to allow the said content to remain - especially when it is known that User:Screwball23 is likely not going to respond kindly to this for good reason (see WP:BAIT).
Unless requested otherwise, I will not look at the contribution history of either user. I hope this part I added is useful. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The post to which I responded has been "updated" which makes my response one aimed at a "moving target" alas. I can not follow such alterations of prior posts which can affect how others read my own posts, so will not even try to address any alerations and additions. Accusations of "stalking" are unwarranted here, and seem more aimed at justifying his position that Jclemens and others were all wrong wrt BLP concerns regarding Linda McMahon. I invite anyone at all to review fairly the entire edits listed as apparent incivility on 4 March, well after all other content discussions (which are not relevant here in any case). Collect (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I understand it is a lot to read through, and I thank you for taking an honest look at what was happening. I must thank you for your comment because I have been attacked unjustly again and again by Collect and no one has ever stood up to help me. I just want to ask you this: bottom line, what do I do here? I want to proceed with moving the political positions section from Linda McMahon to the Linda McMahon for U.S. Senate campaign, 2010 page. But I know right away Collect is going to abuse some policy and edit war me if I do. Is there a solution? Can you help me?--Screwball23 talk 23:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem. In many ways, I have faced situations you've encountered, since I also edit in contentious pages. As User:Collect pointed out, I have had been subjected to a WP:WQA as well. My word of advice for you is to be careful about making vicious personal attacks even if you feel you are completely in the right, because that can get you into a lot of trouble. If you feel some people are trying to game the system, then you definitely must not get into an edit-war or major shouting match with them. Rather, you should try to bring matters to RfC and NPOV. If your opponents do not respect the outcomes to these discussions, then your next step would be to bring this to WP:Mediation or an admin's talk page (or possibly WP:ANI). I realize you guys seemed to have tried these steps and failed, but it doesn't hurt to re-state the process just in case.
With that said, I don't consider all your opinions about the content to be right and do feel you might want to take a step back in the face of criticisms and reconsider whether or not your opponents are actually right. I know this can be a hard thing to do especially when disputes become personal, but one of the worst things you can do is to be stubborn about some idea that's obviously wrong (and in which case, your opponents would have a legitimate reason to consider you to be disruptive in a civility-independent manner). Hope this helps Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
As I never attacked you personally, and you have repeatedly attacked me personally, including several times within a matter of hours on 4 March, I find your response interesting. The case at hand, moreover, is about your iterated incivility, and not about months ago content disputes. Collect (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
It might be helpful to restart this discussion. My observation is that things have gotten a bit tense, and my first suggestion to the two editors involved (Collect and Screwball23) is to let a few more editors review the circumstances and try and be positive about the outcome. We're here to help resolve the situation so that both of you can have a positive experience. I'm going to take some time to look at things and try to come up with some reasonable suggestions for the future, but for now, if both of you could take a break from the Linda McMahon article, it probably wouldn't hurt, and also remember that we all need to be focused on the material in Wikipedia, not one another. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Note the edit history. I am not an active editor on the topic. Screwnball23 is. I was not chastized for repeatedly violating BLP. I have repeatedly sought consensus on the article talk page. SB23 made specific, and explicit personal attacks ("hypocrite" is one of his most mild attacks!). Now as to Btf's claim that I stalked him -- read the current top of this page ... he posted over six thousand words on his own WQA. It is hard not to have noticed that :). Collect (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Well now you are putting words into my mouth. I didn't say anything about my WQA being stalked. Rather, I noted how you suddenly went to a RFC/U I co-filed and seemingly used that as a means to get back at a review you didn't particularly like. Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I put six thousand words in your mouth? And the fact that the RFC/U is intrinsically related to the current WQA which takes up a large deal of this entire page? I think that seeing a mountain in front of you and noting that mountain does not qualify as "stalking"! ROFL. BTW, I have edited on the order of two thousand articles, which would appear to be enough to establish my credentials. Collect (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The WQA actually didn't involve the subject of the RFC/U, but you are welcomed to keep trying to use it to discredit my assessment. Even if I've been uncivil exchange with a couple of parties in the past, I don't think that does anything to impede my sense of judgement.
Secondly, the fact that edited on two thousands articles has little meaning. It simply implies you have spent more time in this community. While you are certainly free to be proud of it and wave it around in your user space, I somehow don't think it will make you more right than others.
Anyhow, I believe this WP:WQA has revealed much and I have served my purpose in this. Bobthefish2 (talk)
I do not see any reason to continue this discussion thread. Screwball23, if you find yourself having problems with other editors, then you should use content dispute resolution, bringing in new users. Unfortunately, if editors wish to interpret content policies differently from you, that is your only option. Making personal comments about them is ineffective. TFD (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Phoenixlanding/PhoenisMeanis

Alright, I have changed my user name due to badgering about it matching some company. It is now PhoenisMeanis. I have added in userlinks to show what I do from this point forward.PhoenisMeanis (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Phoenixlanding is a new user and has not been making efforts to resolve disputes at Sex and psychology. He/she reverted my last effort to modify his/her change and called it "vandolism." (example) Phoenixlanding often makes reverts or controversial additions while discussion is still in progress.(example 1example 2) He/she makes bad faith accusations and has said that he/she "is not willing to budge."(example) I've tried dispute resolution but no one else has participated in these discussions. Thanks for any help/advice. Aronoel (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What I am trying to do is make sure the page accurately represents available information and that it does not suffer from any biases, especially biases of feminist origin. Aronoel has gone out of her way to censor information that is clearly representative of sources and has repeatedly misrepresented what is being said in sources in her edits, as well as to decrease the accuracy in edits that I have been making. For one thing, she claimed that stereotype threat has been "confirmed" in 300 studies even though the study does not make that claim in an emotional response to a source I added that criticizes stereotype threat studies. She also wished to censor that criticism by deleting the source and claiming that it was "not credible." This source was a well written review from an established academic at a major university. It would not be appropriate for me to allow her to censor this information, which of course is why I can't budge. Most of my edits have judiciously made use of direct quotations. My last edit in fact was predominately direct quotations yet she accuses me of inserting "my interpretation". A direct quotation is not my own interpretation for obvious reasons. You will have to ask her why she dislikes what the authors in that report say. I have made a number of efforts to resolve disputes including messaging her on her talk page, and I also directly asked her to not delete additions I make to the page before discussing it with me, something I am more than willing to do, and still am. After I reverted her delete, which fits the definition of vandolism ("Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" deleting info that is important to understanding this topic reduces the integrity of wikipedia), I specifically asked her to discuss it and any other edits I make before deleting them. Rather than attempting a discussion she has reported me here. It seems that aronoel feels that this page is her own private project and no one else should be able to contribute to its improvement. In the case where I was defending the stereotype threat criticism source, she failed to continue the discussion before coming here as well, although she has now responded only after complaining. Aronoel does not have the right to delete edits I make simply because she does not like them. My major goal in making edits is to increase accuracy and to concisely give all the important information on the issues in question. I am more than willing to work with her, but in cases of extreme censorship I don't how we are going to be able to agree.Phoenixlanding (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Phoenix, regardless of whether you agree or disagree, if editors cannot legitimately agree on content, then take it to the Talk page of that article and allow a consensus to reveal itself before pressing on. It might take time (just look at the Taco Bell talk page for an example), but unless there is something seriously libelous or harmful, then allow the process to work. If there is a particularly bad section, and it can be temporarily removed, then maybe that is a useful option also (until consensus is reached), but editors have to be collaborative and helpful. In looking over the edits above, it didn't appear to me that Aronoel was intentionally engaging in vandalism, but was simply trying to make a useful (good-faith) edit. Since there is some disagreement on the material, it might help to invite other editors to review the material and make suggestions, but above all, try to be patient and let things run their course. There are 3,577,302 content pages on Wikipedia, and there might be other articles that could occupy you focus while you wait on other editors. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm concerned about Phoenixlanding continuing to accuse me of bad faith, like this edit on the reliable sources noticeboard.[1] Avanu, do you have any suggestions on how I should approach these kinds of accusations? Thanks. --Aronoel (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Some of the things that you have done and the reasons you have offered seemed to suggest bad faith. I will try to hold my opinion back in the future, but I would appreciate if you would spend some time studying critical analysis and objectivity. PhoenisMeanis (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenixlanding (talk • contribs)

Comment: After a brief glance, I don't think User:Aronoel made any notable mistakes. He respected criticisms and tried to be helpful. My impression of Phoenixlanding is that, his arguments tend to have good points and he is probably an academic. Since his account is only 2 weeks old, I don't think he has a chance to learn that WP has a culture that is completely different to the academic world (where brutality can often be a justified response to mistakes *snicker*).

Maybe the best outcome of this is to simply advise him to WP:AGF on User:Aronoel (who again, didn't seem to have notable behavioural issues) and try to bring any unresolvable content disputes to a WP:RFC (where he'd learn a lot about the art of WP:LAWYER hehe...). Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I did try to notify Phoenixlanding of AGF[2] and I tried to open an RFC, but no one ended up commenting. --Aronoel (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you were in an easy position to offer him feedback since he considered you to be an obstacle (that's basic human psychology, after all), which is why I am making this same suggestion as an uninvolved party. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense, thanks. --Aronoel (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The only obstacle here is having to deal with Aronoel's obvious lack of scientific training. It is extraordinarily tedious to have to explain to her basic scientific premises and proper critical analysis for every single improvement I try to make. She can't tell the difference between a well written article and a bad for herself and has to rely in character attacks on individuals who write these articles. Individuals with decidedly impressive credentials at top schools who have their papers available from reliable places. Aronoel does not have the credentials to make such accusations and refuses to understand the well founded arguments placed in defense. Aronoel needs to make a more concerted effort to improve her scientific literacy in order to make this improvement process go smoother.PhoenisMeanis (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
As you can see above, these problems are still continuing... Help please? --Aronoel (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I do see PhoenixLanding's point. We academics can get annoyed when we get contested by editors with say... a Bachelor's of Arts in History on say... a science matter. The WP:RS standard is also not that sufficient, since the criteria of a good source differs from field to field.
Since I haven't followed the discussions too closely, it'd be interesting for PhoenixLanding to show me good examples of User:Aronoel that she's not suited for this. Even though Phoenix appear to be knowledgeable, one can't simply take yhis word for it without evidence. If there is clear evidence that Aronoel is indeed unsuited for at least parts of this article's editorial process, then being rude about it will not help things. Conversely, Aronoel would also needs to ask herself if she's a suitable editor for science articles. If she isn't but insists in taking part, then she may become a magnet of incivility. On the other hand, if a substantial amount of Aronoel's disagreements with Phoenix's were actually well-founded, then perhaps she isn't that unsuitable after all. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
In addition to the APA edit that she is currently addressing(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_psychology#Intelligence), we are also actively engaged in determining the validity of a source. Here is the original material: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_psychology#Mathematics
The long discussion can be found here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Law_article_on_possible_fringe_viewpoint_in_psychology_article
I should not be have to go to such lengths to defend articles such as this. It is an extraordinary waste of my time. I could be actively improving the article but instead I am embroiled in discussion with ideologues with no scientific background. It is like arguing with a creationist.PhoenisMeanis (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I feel that I am suitable, because actually I do have a scientific background. However, because I don't really want to give out identifying information about myself, I don't really want to discuss the details of my background or give any proof of my credentials, and Wikipedia doesn't require that I do so. I think that my comments and edits at Sex and psychology should speak for themselves. Even if I wasn't suited to participate in science articles, I feel that incivility and personal accusations are not justified. --Aronoel (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
"I don't really want to discuss the details of my background or give any proof of my credentials" Very Persuasive. Kind of like how Carol Gilligan has never actually produced the data for her assertions, we are just supposed to take her word for it. Scientists also like to flamboyantly display their grammar preferences and make special note of how much they like writing on their user pages. Makes sense to me. Grammer is of course the most important thing to any scientist, even more important than scientific literacy. Things would be more civil if you would use better judgment in what to make a big deal about. Relevant and true information needs to stay in the article.PhoenisMeanis (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Although a comprehension to some degree is necessary for editing any article, we are not here to be originators of information. (See Secondary source and WP:OR) As such, extensive academic credentials are helpful, but not required. Some of the tone makes me want to send people to their rooms here. *wags finger*
Regardless, Phoenix, as you said, "relevant and (supported) information" needs to be in the article. (We don't deal in Truth, leave that to the philosophers please). One thing that doesn't belong in the article is attacks on the editors. Even Einstein made mistakes. Focus SOLELY on the material. If an argument is unsound, attack that argument if you feel it is necessary, but not the person. I hope the reasons for this make sense. -- Avanu (talk) 05:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A review of the Wikipedia Founding principles might be in order, particularly the anyone can edit provision. Attacking a user's argument based on one's interpretation of their perceived qualifications is not appropriate here. Gerardw (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem discussing with other editors in a reasonable way what should and should not be in the article. What is inappropriate is a challenge to material that is obviously supported, and to wipe out my edits that she doesn't like outright by falsely claiming it isn't supported. In the APA edit, I included two sentences which were direct quotations, then gave a one sentence summary of the rest. User Aronoel challenged this of being my interpretation and being too long and dragged me here when I am understandably annoyed with her conduct. A quick read through it shows what I put is fully supported by the source. It is also extremely important to understanding how to interpret other parts of the article. She also went and challenged a source which quite obviously met appropriate standards in the way I had cited it and then insisted on a long drawn out argument about its validity (she has since conceded that I was right after extraordinary efforts). I don't mind if she comments and makes appropriate edits, but if her lack of training is going to pose such a huge obstacle to improvement then she needs to listen to bobthefish "Aronoel would also needs to ask herself if she's a suitable editor for science articles." She shouldn't have unreasonable expectations and expect me to spend hours and hours for days defending something that would be obvious for most people. Someone who double majored in english and feminist's studies may not be in the best position to edit this article. It is difficult to evaluate and properly utilize science articles if you have no background in it. Moreover, there is the obvious conflict of interest in someone with feminist political views controling the content of an article dealing with science about gender differences.PhoenisMeanis (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, I'd remind you that civility is the key here. Now, I'm going to challenge what you just posted. You say "obviously supported". How is it 'obvious'? You use the term "falsely claiming". This could legitimately be her point of view, doesn't make it false, just different.
Direct quotations without the proper context can be interpretive, biased, and original research. Discussions about validity are just part and parcel of Wikipedia, please understand that.
"her lack of training is going to pose such a huge obstacle to improvement", again, this is attacking the editor, not the argument/material.
"something that would be obvious for most people" -- if the conclusions are obvious, why is there so much debate among academics on it?
Again, my perspective here is that the material arguments need to be the focus, not whether an editor meets another editor's idea of proper credentials. My brief inspection of the edits seems to support that both of you are editing in good faith and have a willingness to help improve the article. -- Avanu (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for everyone's help. For the record, I disagree with Phoenix's characterization of my edits and my participation at the reliable sources noticeboard discussion. However, people are free to look through my contribution history to see for themselves. Also, I'm concerned that Phoenix's personal attacks are escalating and it makes me uncomfortable that s/he has begun attempting to "out" details of my personal identity, however far off they may be at the moment. --Aronoel (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Username side comment

I believe Phoenixlanding has a username in violation of WP:USERNAME. I'm assuming they didn't realize it since they are new. However, there are both for profit and not for profit organizations of that name - [38] and [39]. I suggest you consider getting a user name change since promotional usernames are explicitly prohibited.Griswaldo (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it is, it sounds like every other weird username on Wikipedia to me, and really its not relevant to this page or the issue posted above. If you do need to make an issue of it, please take it to a relevant forum, and I would ask you to remove this section, since it would only serve to skew the conversation. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Offensive behaviour by User:Cindamuse

User:Cindamuse started an AFD on brand new stub article Bullying in academia. In the AFD he makes all kinds of strange accusations and personal attacks such as "The POV editing has gone on for five years. This is nothing new for him. Rather than bring offense, he probably expected it." which i find very offensive. It is a mystery to me why he has slapped an AFD on this stub article, when there are thousands of stubs on Wikipedia but this is one of the very few that include a long list of reputable sources which can be used to expand it and prove its notability.--Penbat (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that he has crossed over into incivility. I also don't like the claims of expertise being made, unless he has disclosed his RL identity and that can be confirmed. Figureofnine (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking it would have been appropriate to contact me first, per WP:Discussion. I certainly apologize if the comment offended you, it was certainly not my attention. We are a wide group of personalities from varied backgrounds. I'm a chick and find it amazing that you would refer to me as a him. No offense, really, but I digress. AfD discussions can sometimes get a bit heated, unfortunate, but true. I learned a long time ago to let things just roll off my back. I'm not personally invested in this article. Just honestly, following the process of editing by consensus. This is what Wikipedia is all about. I'm not easily riled, really. It's all just a testament to diversity. Sometimes it helps to simply walk away or take a break. That said, I was responding to another editor that commented and questioned about your length of time as an editor, along with the subject matter in which you tend to edit on Wikipedia. We were discussing the NPP guidelines in regards to "Additionally, it may be helpful to check the editor history to be sure that you don't offend an experienced editor who has a set plan to create a valid article." I simply stated that I followed the guidelines accordingly, to ascertain the history of the editor. Based on the editor's history, and involvement with POV discussions based on his edits in similar articles, it was clear that the other editor was more likely than not, used to having his edits questioned. Really, it's nothing personal, it's just my observations and interpretations of the facts. Please note, once again. The nomination has nothing to do with being a stub article. The article was nominated due to POV/content forking. In the future, please feel free to contact me if you have questions or concerns or feel offended in any manner with anything I have said. Bringing offense is honestly the furthest thing from my mind. Best regards, Cind.amuse 17:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
This is just a minor offense. It's very common for accusations to fly around in a contentious article.
I consider it overkill to file a WP:WQA at the first sign of incivility (come on, grow a thicker skin). At the same time, I actually agree with User:Cindamuse on the content part of the dispute. The page's not really about "bullying in academia", it's more about "school bullying". In case people are confused about what "academia" is, here's a definition. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Prior to Cindamuse's response, the poster said things like 'you don't seem to have done your own analysis' [40]] and 'it was you who made a snap judgement' [41]. Comment on the contribution not the contributor. Making comments about another editor's behavior begets comments about yours. That said, Cindamuse would you be willing to strike out your comment The POV editing has gone on for five years. This is nothing new for him. Rather than bring offense, he probably expected it? Gerardw (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Striking out a comment would fail to bring resolve to this issue. The editor brought a complaint forward and I responded in kind. No other response is necessary. Best regards, Cind.amuse 19:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any offensive behaviour by User:Cindamuse, but I could see how someone may. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • While there are plenty of examples of POV pushing, bad faith editing, and general tendentiousness by Cindamuse, this isn't one of them. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Double standards, some CN added, some info removed

User editing large portions of the article using double standards. User adds "citation needed" template and also removes some info, arguing that per WP:V info without a source "may be removed". My complain is that after telling him to add a citation needed (something he's familiar with) instead of plainly erasing, he just wouldn't do it. It is clearly a double standard. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like content debate. Go to an RfC. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I have complaints of my own about your conduct, Alex. In chronological order: you reverted my edit, where I removed a fair-use image used on false grounds on the Mexico article, because of violations of the fair-use rationale policy. Your edit summary: "Image is fine, it is there for a reason. Just because you don't like it you shouldn't remove it". You later belatedly admitted that I was in the right ("Removing fair-use image"), so I let it pass.
Next, you reverted another edit I made because by removing what I deemed to be an excessive amount of images from a small section, but leaving in one showing a desert landscape, I was being "racist". You also removed a template message requesting additional references in the same edit.
Another registered user later removed an image from the same section, probably because he also believed that the section included too many images. You reverted his edits by misrepresenting it as ""anonymous IP vandalism" when it clearly wasn't vandalism and certainly not from an anonymous IP. When I tried to point this out ([42]), you simply reverted again without providing any explanation.
Alex here, after being the subject of two Rfcs (I was involved in neither), continuously complains of "harassment" by other editors, yet he has no qualms about opening this Wikiquette alert against me even after, to avoid an edit war, I let him keep his edit though I still believe he was misrepresenting wiki policy. As he admitted himself, he doesn't assume good faith in my edits, accuses me of using "double standards", and promised me to "be around to revert whatever need to be reverted". The full exchange can only be found in this old revision of his talk page, since Alex has the habit of removing certain discussions from his talk page.--LK (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The second RfC is still open here . Since it seems you are basically experiencing the same problem that lead us to file that RfC in the first place maybe you have some comments and diffs to add.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I have not much to say about this "comments", just acclarations. I do not "often" complain of user harassment. I have never had a harassment problem, until recently. This user surely read that in my user talk and is trying to portray that negatively against me, which is a very low move, because harassment must be taken seriously.
Also, he's just trying to misslead the reader by saying "I don't assume good faith". You should add a link to what I really said to you[43], followed by the THANK YOU note I left in your user talk [44].
I always assume good faith, but your attitude and consistent edit pattern is that: a pattern. That's not a one time only mistake, when actions become repetitive, they are a tendency, a pattern. So even if one wants to assume good faith, you just can't because of the evidence of the edit pattern. I surely will fill a RfC regarding racism and article disruption. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 18:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

False accusation

Resolved

Gerardw (talk)

In the Franklin D. Roosevelt article, I change one infobox to another streamlined infobox, changing nothing therein. Also, I removed what appears to be remnants of an image that no longer appears in the article, display details for an image. User:Philg88 took the time to point out how nonconstructive and useless my edit was, warning me to avoid this in the future, and went on to call the removal of the useless information "vandalism" [45]. This is a ridiculous and exaggerated accusation--nothing was vandalised and, while not the most constructive edit on all of Wikipedia, it was certainly not deconstructive in any way. When I pointed this out to the editor, he dismissed me and accused me that responding to his accusations was equally useless and nonconstructive. I find his behavior very uncivil, and would like him to apologise for the dismissive attitude and retract the vandalism statement he made.
Η936631 (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The edit in question did not include a summary and the infobox was doing no harm. The WP:VANDALISM template I used was a friendly warning that says, and I quote, (unintentional vandalism/test). Therefore, reverting the edit with the word "vandalism" in the edit summary was not a criticism or slight, it just happened to be the WP policy that applied in this case. Where the idea that I took "the time to point out how nonconstructive and useless my edit was" came from I have no idea. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 08:51, Wednesday March 9, 2011 (UTC)
If the old does no harm, and the new is the same as the old (made by the same editor), then the new does no harm either. It is certainly not vandalism. And removing remnant image display information is not vandalism, either. And no policy is in place that requires such a minor edit to be called nonconstructive. Nor is there a policy that states a nonconstructive edit must be called vandalism. As to the interpretation that Philg88 said my edit was nonconstructive, it comes from him saying my "edit to the Franklin D. Roosevelt page was not constructive" [46]. The editor is dismissing this all; first as something not worth his time despite him taking to time to point it out in the first place, and now as a misunderstanding that policy required of him. If this were all true, why not simply apologise for the poor word choice and retract the statements?
Η936631 (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The template is softly worded to avoid biting newcomers, but the policy makes it clear vandalism means intentional harm. It's an uncool thing to put in an edit summary unless it really is intentional harm to Wikipedia. Gerardw (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Gerardw. According to policy, vandalism is defined as "...any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." In order to revert something as vandalism, it must be indisputable. Otherwise, if you disagree with an edit, you can follow the bold, revert, discuss system. If you revert something, you specifically tell them why you disagree with the edit and try to work out a solution. Swarm X 19:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, the comment was uncool and could have been worded better. It did look like vandalism by a "red" user but in hindsight the comment was inept, sorry. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 22:00, Wednesday March 9, 2011 (UTC) 22:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) continues to refer to the arguments made by other editors as "Essjay" style arguments or the "Essjay approach", despite being told how insulting this is since it insinuates that those editors are frauds.

  • Here he starts a whole section called "Essjay Wikipedia credentials vs Margaret Clunies Ross".
  • The editor he's targeting, User:Maunus calls this "condescending", and Norton responds by snidely calling him "Essjay" again.
  • Maunus calls this a "personal attack", and asks Richard to get back to the real argument, which sort of happens until Norton decides to tell Maunus again that his comment is not condescending.
  • That is where I stepped in to tell Norton that calling someone Essjay is still an insult.
  • In response Norton immediately strikes the last Essjay mention and sarcastically replaces it with "my esteemed and honorable colleague".
  • Once again I try to explain why this is an insult.

Apparently none of this sunk in, because just today he likened me to Essjay, here. I'm not having it. Norton is poisoning the atmosphere at this entry and in the current disputes related to it. Someone needs to tell him to stop.Griswaldo (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Essjay is a style of argument where personal knowledge is used to trump reliable sources. That is the style being used at the AFD for Norwegian diaspora where reliable sources are being dismissed and no contradictory sources are used in their place, just the weight of the individuals arguments. It is not meant as a personal insult, but is the correct name for this style of argument where reliable sources are dismissed because the arguer says they are do not carry as much weight as their arguments. I am making no comparison that the arguer is faking his resume, he has not offered any credentials and none have been asked for. That came much later for Essjay when he was working for Wikia and stopped editing in Wikipedia, as I said previously, that was just icing on the cake. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Richard you seem like a reasonable and intelligent person and you have described a style of argument that you refer to as Essjay. Since other editors have given you feedback, saying that they find the reference offensive, why not call it something else? Why not call it the 'personal knowledge over sources' argument or something? You could even let your co-editors know that you are going to abbreviate it and call it the PKOS argument. Does this seem reasonable?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec)@Richard Norton - No such arguments are being made (by Maunus or myself). It saddens me that you claim they are, but it really offends me that in claiming that these types of arguments are being made you find the need to repeatedly compare me and others to Essjay. Your claims about what you intend by the comparison do not lessing its insulting nature. I'll let someone uninvolved comment on this. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is my last Essjay reference: "Again you are taking the Essjay approach in that you are arguing that your personal knowledge trumps Wikipedia style and reliable sources and consensus, because you know the truth despite reliable sources saying otherwise. Wikipedia style as well as Encyclopedia Britannica use the modern political entity to name the entry then discuss the history of that geographical area back to prehistory. So we have the article on Iraq discussing 5,000 years of history before the modern country of Iraq was formed after World War I. We have 8,000 years of history at Egypt despite the modern state being formed after World War II. And yes Iraq is in Category:Mesopotamia even though as entities they are separated by thousands of years and have no continuity in government or religion or language. So if you want to start an RFC to move all 254 diaspora categories to "migration" please do that, but stop changing just the entries for Norway and Sweden, they are not exceptions to the Wikipedia style." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate him calling you out on your confrontational editing behaviour and telling you that it is not ok to act that way. I admit that at this point I have a personal animosity against you and that I have responded with personal commentary in kind, but would also like to make it clear that I had no such animosity before I was subjected to the behaviour Griswaldo as supplied examples of. Frankly I think that your rude behaviour (as well as that of your anti-deletion allies) is the primary motor in the diaspora related disputes - I believe that if you had been reasonable about it we could have had a compromise or consensus within hours. I am saying this because I am open to burying the hatchet if and when you show an understanding of your responsibility in the escalation of the dispute and an honest will to make amends. I for one am not proud of the snide comments I have admittedly made at you, and I would apologize if I had any reason to believe that you realize that part of the responsibility for the current level of animosity is also on your shoulders.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no personal animosity towards you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
So what are you implying? that you act like an WP:DICK against everyone in equal measure?·Maunus·ƛ· 17:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
People interested in the entire debate can go here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian diaspora (2nd nomination) --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sidenote: WP:DICK is a Wikimedia essay and states: "The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as 'a dick'" .....and goes on to say...... "Implicitly or explicitly calling people dicks is a dick-move: don't use this essay as a justification to do so." I that referencing this essay in this conversation shows poor judgment and is unhelpful in fostering progress towards the resolution of what appears to be a protracted dispute and animosity between editors.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. To address the original complaint, I would think it would be a good idea for all to cease labeling other editor's arguments with the name of a disgraced Wikipedian; Argumentum ad Essjayam, if you will. Tarc (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Concur. The behavior RAN wishes to address would appear to fall under WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH, so he can reference these impersonal guidelines in lieu of making what are perceived as implicit personal attacks. Gerardw (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This Wikiquette page is here for editors to present issues to the community and get advice on how to proceed with them. I have given my advice. You may choose to heed it or ignore it. As you wish. Good luck all of you!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Who is that directed to?Griswaldo (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It's directed to everyone in this thread.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Then in the interests of the community weighing in, I have to say, in the interests of maintaining peace, it sounds like Richard should just lay off the Essjay thing. It's a legitimate logical fallacy you're talking about here, but why not just rename it for the time being? FYI, I came here researching the WikiManOne thing, but was saddened to run into this dispute. I remember you Richard, you got my back in the HeLa species disputes! You're a good editor, why not lay off something that offends someone else, whether they should be offended or not?
--Qwerty0 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Having only encountered Richard once, and in his first and, so far, only comment about me, he decided to call me a troll, I have to wonder if tossing 'nicknames' at others is just his approach. It is probably highly unproductive and really isn't what Wikipedia etiquette prescribes for editors. My suggestion would be to lay off the personal descriptions of others, and simply focus on the material at hand. -- Avanu (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

<--As a late-arriving participant in the "diaspora" arguments that generated this WQA, I feel that <sermon>the personal bitterness arising from whoever-insulted-whom-first-or-last has repeatedly disrupted efforts to find a good, policy-based solution to our actual collaborative problem of finding good names for articles. People who have been called rude names like "Essjay" or "Randy" or "WP:DICK", or insulted by various other means, just don't feel like letting the bum who did those rotten things "win."</sermon> Pardon my sermon, but maybe I will live better by those words myself having uttered them. I hope. Sharktopustalk 02:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I would hope the motives here are simply about getting everyone back on track to being productive. If it is instead, a 'contest', about being able to take insults or give them, then we're probably on the wrong page. :) -- Avanu (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The reason this was posted is that RAN's insulting approach was, and apparently still is, escalating the levels of animosity within the dispute. It would be great if people (myself included) took the high road and didn't let these immature insults bother them. But you know what would be even better? If we didn't have to brush them because RAN stopped making them. I'm fairly certain that this was the message from all the uninvolved commentators here when the WQA was first posted - stop calling people names. Doesn't look like that advice was headed very well from RAN's latest comparison of a newcomer to the debate with an unflattering aspect of president Clinton. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record

While this WQA has remained open RAN has continued with his insulting, and dare I say immature, behavior in this content area.

  • Here he mocks a newcomer to the debate who does not share his perspective, and is chastised by another newcomer.
  • Here he sarcastically mocks an IP who posts a completely innocent question, and again is chastised.

This editor's general attitude appears to be that those who disagree with him do not deserve an honest discussion, but instead deserve mockery. This WQA has done nothing to convince him to leave his childish behavior at the door either. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Guyonthesubway

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – tolerated behavior

Gerardw (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The user has included a template into his user page with a comment running "This user loves Drugs, Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Immigration", thus combining obviously negative items with such that are—and can be—earnestly debated about, as well as endangering human dignity through his comment on abortion. In my eyes, the user should be urged to remove, or change, that template. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The userbox is actually here, in 8thstar (talk · contribs)'s space, multiple editors are including it [47], and a past nomination for deletion is here [48].I'm not seeing any evidence you discussed the box with Guyonthesubway before posting the WQA? Gerardw (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a userbox that states their liberal political beliefs. [The right of] drug usage, [the right of] gay marriage, [the right to get an] abortion and [supporting] immigration are not "obviously negative items", they're fairly mainstream political opinions. You're free to your opinions, and that user is free to theirs. Whether or not you agree, expressing political opinions with userboxes is accepted and tolerated, and there's widespread consensus and precedent for allowing such userboxes. Swarm X 19:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it can only be understood ironically to refer to an abortion as something which would not obviously have to be seen as negative. An abortion can be seen as positive only in a restricted, relative sense—as something which prevents something even more negative. The right to get something positive in such a relative sense is something different than "loving" it. Indeed, within a certain—Zen, pantheistic or the like—view of the world one can love even such things. But such a view can`t be expressed by a little Wikipedia template of—usually—about 2x10 cm. The tone of the statement in this template is that of a practically polemic sentence, as it rows four items which should—on the basis of a general social consensus—usually be discussed about at a certain—scientific—level, in a sentence of eight words. This, together with the use of the word "love" within such an unusually cursory and, therefore, practically polemic statement, brings about the clearly palatable ironic character of this template. Thus, this template ridicules and endangers the fame of earnest liberalism. In the template, the comment is not made as the user Swarm has replenished it, above, but decisively shorter. As I have said, problematic appears to me, here, namely that what Swarm calls "fairly mainstream political opinions" is combined in a way which could easily be avoided to the obviously unpleasently sounding word "drugs" and the obviously negative item of "abortion" as such. There is not said "This user loves the right to get an abortion", but: "This user loves abortion". That is clearly something different. One cannot refer to a German consensus, here, because attacks at human dignity are prohibited, in Germany, by law. Even if an according law should not exist in Great Britain, the United States, or elsewhere, one should assume that there exists an acknowledged according legal practice and that according laws lack only because that practice is so much a matter of course that such laws aren`t necessary. It would, therefore, easily be possible to ban this template from Wikipedia—even if about 68 users should link to it, at the moment—on the basis of common sense. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:DISC Gerardw (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Please also see hyperbole, regarding the userbox. Swarm X 17:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I still advocate to strive to get that template out of Wikipedia. A hyperbole is a device of rhetoric, i.e., something different than such a tiny, sign-like mark to a person`s conviction. Such a template is not embedded into a speech so that its irony would be explained before or after and, thus, neutralized. Adding to what I have said above I`d like to stress that marriage is mentioned in the template really closely to abortion, which quasi unequivocally shows the template to trespass the borders of what can be tolerated on the basis of respect towards bonos mores. This vicinity of those two terms would easily suffice to explain to users who have included the template into their user pages why the Wikipedia administration had come to the conclusion the template wasn`t tolerable. One could, for sure, easily create templates hinting to a liberal conviction of a user without such an unearnest connection to a medicinal subject. Coincidentally, I don`t want to partake in such efforts because I have other political views. If other Wikipedia administrators shouldn`t see a possibility to do something against this template, I would think of contacting Jimmy Wales to ensure he gets to know what`s going on, here. Such a template can also do harm being included into user pages namely by younger users who could later easily repent to have included it. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your discussion about Florida law you may want to peruse WP:NLT. Gerardw properly labeled this thread "Not a wikiquette issue" yesterday. Further posts here are not going to change anything. Feel free to pursue other avenues in this situation though I fear that you may not gain the outcome that you are looking for. MarnetteD | Talk 19:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Correct. Swarm X 20:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed my comment on how I estimate the legal situation in Florida according to the principle that on should not even say things in a discussion which could be misunderstood as a legal threat, as explained on Wikipedia:No legal threats (WP:NLT). I want to make clear that I do not plan to consult a Florida court or to do something similar, in this thing. Nobody should feel intimidated. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

user Lokyz

I'm going to risk a small scale Streisand effect by bringing this up here, but I would rather have it dealt with sooner rather than later and nip the potential problem in the butt.

Basically, I started my account in 2005. While still naive and unworldly in the ways of Wikipedia, I started it under a username that could be easily linked to my real life name. This was fine for awhile until lots of controversy happened - basically the EEML arb com case. As a result of the publicity generated during the case I was subject to off-wiki harassment in real life the details of which I do not wish to go into here, for obvious reasons. Hence, I changed my username in November of 2010, and asked users that I frequently interact with not to use my former username. All those that I've asked had no problem with it.

One of these editors was User:Lokyz. I made this request of him here [49] and at the time he complied.

However, recently we had some disagreements, and he has decided to go back on his promise and apparently purposefully used my former username in an edit summary here [50]. The reason why I think it was purposeful is that he even went to the trouble of wiki-linking it - I could understand if this had been a slip in a middle of a talk page conversation or something. But since this was done in the context of a particular dispute, along with a wikilink, it's hard not to think that this wasn't an instance of bad faithed, though low intensity, harassment.

To be specific here, I am not considering this to be an outright violation of WP:OUTING, so I am not asking for a long block or anything. However, I do want the user to be clear on the fact that such behavior is inappropriate, violates WP:AGF and is a form of a personal attack. Particularly since the user had just been warned by User:Shell Kinney, about similar block-worthy attacks on other editors [51], and then followed up with calling another user's edit, which consisted of nothing but a wordless notification [52], "trolling" [53]. Basically, I don't want this to happen again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The user did not chose the right to WP:VANISH, and did not informed about his name change despite being under EEML restrictions, so for a quite long time it was a mystery, who was the editor (newn ame for the time) commenting on my talk page. My patience grow thin after comments like this sorry to get all psychologist on you - it's pretty obvious that you are struggling with yourself. But that's fine. After warning that the editor is violating WP:PA [54] I did get a responce like this[55].--Lokyz (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not under any EEML restrictions and I did in fact inform Lokyz of my name change, as indicated above [56], and this was after he posted my name back in December [57] - hence his claim that he was not informed of the name change and that "for a quite long time it was a mystery, who was the editor (newn ame for the time) commenting on my talk page." (i.e. that he did not know who I was) is an obvious lie (especially since the request not to use my former username was the only comment I made as VM on his talk page until then). It appears Lokyz has no intention of changing his behavior here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
When you did change your pen name, you were still under restrictions. And also - I did not make any promises, as you did suggest earlier.--Lokyz (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
No, actually I wasn't. And that is completely irrelevant here anyway. Here's, the relevant diff, for the third time [58].Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
This one is exactly irrelevant - if you want prove me wrong, you may provide EEML restrictions and timing, and also the time when you did change your pen name. That would make anything clear.--Lokyz (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, so I had to go look up what EEML is. (hello more Wikijargon) So after reviewing all of this, Lokyz' edits and Marek's edits, it seems clear that there are some problems with being able to collaborate.
My advice to Lokyz is to drop this immediately. There's really no reason AT ALL to engage in Baiting-style behavior here. 'Volunteer Marek' is not current under any penalty (and neither is his former self), and unless there is some recidivism, there is no need to act like a Wiki cop. If you need to contribute, I would suggest that you find another topic for a while before this escalates (please see WP:GAME).
As for Marek, you might be better off as well for a short time to avoid common topics with Lokyz. I typically prefer to see people just work things out together, but after reviewing the edits, it appears you have been attempting that to some degree to ask for peace, but it might not be immediately possible. Rather than get into a bad situation again, fair or not, avoidance might be reasonable, and might show good faith on your part also.
My 2 cents. -- Avanu (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
So you are saying that the best solution for dealing with an incivil user is to let him be incivil and just remove oneself from the articles he edits? :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

So, let me sum up the situation:

  • Marek changed their username for privacy reasons in 2010. They requested that Lokyz no longer use their former username. Lokyz gave an answer clearly indicating that they would respect this request.
  • A user added a Polish translation to the article.[59]
  • Marek stated that Lokyz was "struggling with themselves". Lokyz was clearly offended by this statement and considered it a personal attack.
  • Marek apologized for any offense but went on to try to justify and/or clarify their comment.
  • Lokyz removed the translation from the article "per talk", but it was re-added by Marek, who claimed that the "per talk" rationale was completely invalid.[60]
  • Lokyz removed it again, invoking Marek's old username despite promising that they wouldn't.

Now, my comments on the issue:

  • Marek changed their username in November 2010.[61] Their topic ban was rescinded in June 2010. No problems here.
  • Lokyz understood and acknowledged Marek's request, evidenced by their saying "done." If Lokyz did not intend to respect Marek's request, they should have given a negative answer instead of an affirmative one.
  • It was inappropriate of Marek to say that Lokyz was struggling with themselves, and Lokyz was reasonably offended. While Marek apologized for any offense, this apology carried virtually no weight because Marek continued to advance that viewpoint in a subsequent comment. Right or wrong, the spirit of no personal attacks is "comment on the content, not the contributor". This is what both editors should have done.
  • Those comments, combined with the edit war over the translation resulted in Lokyz getting extremely heated.
  • Their invocation of Marek's old username doesn't appear to be an attempt to violate Marek's privacy. In fact, Marek never made it clear that they changed their name for 'privacy issues'.

It seems to me that Lokyz suspected that Marek changed their username to avoid editing restrictions. Invoking Marek's old username was a way of "calling them out." Of course, Lokyz was incorrect, but, rather than a malicious personal attack, this was an invalid (but fairly understandable) bad faith assumption. It was caused by (unintentionally) inflammatory remarks by Marek, combined with a very heated content dispute (that manifested as an edit war involving multiple users).

So, to conclude, I feel this is an issue both users should move beyond, and continue to communicate about content only. Neither user should comment on each other in any way whatsoever. This is important because Lokyz is wide open for civility blocks and Marek isn't. This results in a situation where Marek can make inflammatory comments (intentionally or not) while Lokyz can be blocked for responding to them angrily. Therefore, it's best to just focus on the content. If I can clarify anything let me know. Regards, Swarm X 20:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Very nicely done, Swarm. I agree with your assessment here, the best way to handle this is for both parties to disengage from each other. No more poking at each other, just go back to working on the encyclopedia. Both sides would benefit from disengaging. Dayewalker (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, that was much better phrased than what I said, and makes great points. -- Avanu (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Per Dayewalker, agreed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to all for the comments. There's quite a bit of background context which some of you are missing, but overall I'm fine with the above suggestions. However, my basic feelings on the matter are that I simply don't want this situation repeated. From Lokyz or anyone else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, when you write about another editor, "his claim...is an obvious lie", it makes me disinclined to comment on that editor's etiquette". That is considered unparliamentary language. TFD (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fleetcommand

Resolved
 – FleetCommand said he won't do it again. Fleet Command (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

FleetCommand has showed incivility towards me on Talk:Windows MultiPoint Server. With [62] and [63], he replied to a very obsolete thread I had posted months ago, and he called my editing habits irritating. But what's worse, he deleted my requests to redact the attacks on his talk page twice ([64] and [65], even marking the latter as "vandalism"). He has been unwilling to collaborate with me in previous discussions. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like this results from negative past encounters with each other, so the best solution, in my opinion, is simply to not communicate with each other. Just stay away. If you're in a content dispute and you have to communicate, focus solely on the content. Don't even mention each other directly. Anything less is not appropriate. That being said, replying to three month old comments with "Well, looks like this is a case in which you should have looked better" and "But your habit of deleting things...is irritating" is completely unnecessary and only creates drama. A simple "content re-added with citations" would have sufficed, and FleetCommand should know better. That said, those comments themselves aren't really a big deal. I don't think they require "redaction". But a responsible user would acknowledge that they were inappropriate. As an aside, Jasper should take a look at don't template the regulars. Swarm X 20:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Fleetcommands comments are inappropriate. Gerardw (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Swarm has hit the nail on the head. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, Jasper Deng did not tell the whole truth; in fact he is hiding a good lot of truth here. I left this message on his talk page and he replied with this message. I immediately alerted Wikipedia Administrator Stifle of Jasper Deng's message on my talk page (see User talk:Stifle#A penny for your thought...) and he confirmed that Jasper Deng's message was unfriendly. Therefore, I deleted his messages per "Don't Feed The Troll" rule. And now, he is here pretending that both his notices are related to one incident? As for my comment in Talk:Multipoint Server, please take note that he says that he has changed his editing habits; well, I don't refuse to believe him, but this comment itself is a confession that he had bad editing habits that irritated us. Hence, I think he should not complain. Fleet Command (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
You mean Jasper left the first comment and you replied with the second. You made the same error on Stifle's talk page, strangely enough. Anyway, I don't see how this affects anything. You're talking about a content dispute. As an aside, blogs are generally considered unreliable sources. Notability doesn't have anything to do with that. Swarm X 09:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I am afraid you completely misunderstood. I was the one who sent the first talk page message to Jasper; it was about WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY and was very polite. Then Jasper started his barrage of "don't attack me" messages, first about his talk page and then about MultiPoint Server article talk page. But since I doubted that I did anything impolite I asked Administrator Stifle. (He in turn confirmed that what I did was OK.)

Now, about the MultiPoint Server talk page, if informing someone about his "irritating" edits is impolite, then what you and Jasper are doing her is insulting me (which is not the case)!!! Let's be rational: Saying "your edits are irritating" is absolutely OK unless repeated ad nauseam. If one Wikipedian tells the other that his edits are irritating, the second must assume good faith and find out what's wrong. If Jasper don't want me to tell him that his edits are irritating us, well I won't. But I can't guarantee that he will not one day suffer the consequences.

And as for you Swarm, please read WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY: Use of blogs as source in Wikipedia is perfectly allowed, so long as it is no in contradiction with WP:SPS. In fact, right now, Wikipedia is using a lot of blogs as its source. And "notable" is not a trademark of Wikipedia and does not necessarily refer to Wikipedia:Notability. If you are not native English speaker, please check "notable" in a dictionary. Fleet Command (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

  • All I meant is you got your diffs mixed up.
  • Whether you believe it's civil or not, you've offended another editor by calling them irritating. On the contrary to what you say, saying, "your edits are irritating" is not okay because it causes offense. You can say, 'your edits are wrong', either in terms of policy or in terms of factual accuracy. You can say 'I disagree' with your edits for <this reason>. Or, you can say your editing is disruptive so I've <taken the following action>. However, irritating is a negative and unhelpful word that only serves to hurt feelings and cause drama.
    • This very message of you is a violation of what you say. Obviously, you have taken side with Jasper and do not have a neutral point of view because you simply ignore the fact that I said I won't do it again and keep beating the dead horse. Fleet Command (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Calling someone names (what you did) is not the same as calling someone uncivil (what I did). There's no contradictions here. And while I'm not taking any sides, the fact is that you can either be reasonable and responsible, apologizing for any unintended offenses, or you can simply ignore this discussion. Swarm X 15:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
        • That's why I think you are not being neutral: 1) Irritating refers to his edits, not himself. 2) Despite the fact that I said I won't do it again, you marked this topic as unresolved and are continuing to batter on me ad nauseam. Really Swarm, what else do you want me to do? Apologize him? He will probably open up another WQA case titled "Insult in guise of apology". Fleet Command (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm not going to lie. An apology would be ideal. However, recognizing that you caused offense and resolving not to do it again is the next best thing. I don't intend to harass you. Swarm X 02:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You made the claim, "citing from a blog or forum is okay as long as you have a way identifying the person from which the quotation comes as a notable person," which disagrees with WP:BLOGS, using the word "notable" in the context of Wikipedia or not. Swarm X 11:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
    • WP:SPS and WP:BLOGS are the same thing. It is time you actually read what you cite from. In any case, keep repeating this for as long as you wish and keep ignoring the phrase "self-published"; we in Wikipedia are citing from blogs of notable people. That is the consensus. Fleet Command (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Er...yes, the links are the same. I thought it was pretty clear: "For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." Swarm X 15:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
        • That's right! Now what if the blog in question is not personal or self-published? For instance, a corporate blog that announces the release date of notable book or software application is the most reliable source for saying "On YYYY-MM-DD, company A announced that B will be released on DD MMMM YY". Also to the best source for the statement "Scientist A, winner of Noble Award in Physics, believes that Albert Einstein's theory of relativity is ..." is Scientist A's blog, so long as we can confirm that the blog is his. If you object, I think we can continue this discussion elsewhere and put a link to it here, so we can close this discussion. Fleet Command (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The user warnings on FleetCommand's talk page were in response to the MultiPoint incident, not what he posted on my own talk page. And FleetCommand, while you're at it, don't call any of my habits "irritating" which is what you were reported here for.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter if FleetCommand is watching this or not. He has had a history of not cooperating with me.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. WQA is a forum for discussion that requires the effort of both participants. We've established that FleetCommand's comments were inappropriate, but if they're unwilling to cooperate here it really serves no purpose. However, the thing about WQA is that even if a user remains stubborn in their words here, they often still "get it" and it will reflect on their actions in the future. Swarm X 21:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Calus

Stuck
 – Gerardw (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Calus accused me of bad faith editing. I asked him to apologize, twice, and Calus says he refuses to apologize. He deleted the 3RR notice on “his” talk page immediately upon asserting that he would seek mediation, and then continue to edit war [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]. He deleted the disruptive editing notice on his talk page and he being disruptive. He is a subject of the multi-SP/MP investigation. PPdd (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

  • This looks more like an issue with disruption. Calus violated 3RR, which should have been reported to WP:AN3. However, it looks like things have settled down now. If you have more problems, I suggest taking it to WP:ANI. To be quite frank, I don't think a WQA discussion would help this user (14 article edits in over 3 years, 75% talk page edits?[72]) Swarm X 21:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It has not settled down. In fact Calus' new accusation of bad faith is an escalation, that just occured today. He had many previous accusations against me and WP:CIVL problems, and letting it go on is making a hostile editing environment for me. The editor knows what he is doing and cites policy constantly, e.g., his calling me a wikilawyer and vandal and his extensive citing of policies and guidlines. PPdd (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I stand by my assertion.Calus (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not editing in bad faith. Please apologize. PPdd (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Calus, your constant assumptions of bad faith must stop. If you can't AGF, then please stop editing. You're poisoning the atmostphere here. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Brangifer, please look at the history. If anything, PPdd is the one who has poisoned the atmosphere by constantly attacking anyone else trying to improve the TCM page. The more frustrated PPdd seems to get with the common sense repudiations of his edits, the more misrepresentative his edits become, making the article look ridiculous. He persists in labeling anyone trying to improve the article as "SP/MP" which is very insulting. It is PPdd who should take a deep breath, allow other editors to bring the TCM page back into a faithful representation of the subject, and then comment on it in the talk page without deleting everyone else's work.Herbxue (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Calus, while I have not looked closely at the situation at the TCM article, I am not surprised you find PPdd frustrating. I find him very frustrating myself. I have the impression that he edits articles on topics that he doesn't like and doesn't want to learn about, merely in order to make the articles say that it's not worth learning about the topics. Or something like that.

Actually, I have done it myself and I would defend it as proper, when all of the following apply:

  • It's a fringe topic.
  • The fringe is currently being presented as if it had higher acceptance than is actually the case.
  • There are no scientifically-minded editors available who actually know the topic or are at least sufficiently interested that they are prepared to learn about it.
  • You have reason to believe that you can control yourself sufficiently to present the topic somewhat fairly.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most of these conditions don't apply for Ppdd's editing in the area.

All that said, editing such a topic anyway is not what we usually understand by bad faith. If you continue to use that term you can easily become the target of sanctions. But the good thing is, you don't have to. Just express as neutrally as possible what it is you don't like about Ppdd's editing and his talk page contributions. This takes a bit more effort than using a blanket negative term that almost fits. But it's also much more effective, as well as less likely to get you into trouble. Hans Adler 00:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hans, you need to AGF too. You wrote - "I have the impression that he edits articles on topics that he doesn't like and doesn't want to learn about, merely in order to make the articles say that it's not worth learning about the topics." You just implied I was editing in bad faith and almost just directly stated it. If I am editing these articles in bad faith, then in cases when there are not disruptive WP:SPA edit warriors like Calus, how do you explain this, this and just yesterday this, if I am editing in bad faith as you implied and almost directly said? If I am editing at articles I did not want to learn about as you say, then how could I have made almost 600 edits adding RS content at TCM alone? Please stop constantly implying bad faith on my part. You are wrong, and I am editing in good faith. PPdd (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
What is the definition of bad faith? It sure seems to me that may be what happened when PPdd chose to exploit an obscure source to say that TCM uses the souls of hanged criminals to treat disease. You say it is only following the source. But editing should also require competence to be able to tell the appropriateness of material in a source for the subject of the article. PPdd either lacks the competence needed to edit TCM appropriately, or is not editing in good faith.Herbxue (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Bad faith. Please stop implying I am "not editing in good faith". I did not choose to "exploit" any source. I did not give one source but I gave three. They are not "obscure', but are reliable secondary RS, and the primary source they report on is the prinicipal TCM classic Materia Medica'... which is the farthest from "obscure" one can get. The "material soul of a hanged criminal" is Chinese Theology 101, widely discussed as an example, even in Europe. I am not editing in bad faith. Please stop accusing me of editing in bad faith. PPdd (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is a case of calling the kettle black. None of you should say the other is editing in bad faith - and I'm referring to the Wikipedia meaning here (i.e. deliberately misrepresenting or cherry picking sources to give articles a spin, not because of incompetence or self-deception). Calus should definitely stop accusing PPdd of bad faith editing, but perhaps some background (as I understand it) can give uninvolved editors an idea how this came about.
For a month or so, PPdd has edited Traditional Chinese medicine and while some of his work has been good (such as removing unsourced, controversial statements), he is editing at a very high rate and over time the article was turned into something that I wouldn't see as neutral, reverting back to his preferred version often without discussion on the talk page and with questionable edit summaries [73], [74], [75]. PPdd himself often failed assuming good faith, calling deletions and changes he didn't agree with vandalism, even though they are not considered that: [76], [77], [78], [79], ..., [80], [81], later complaining when Calus followed his lead and started calling PPdd's undos vandalism [82]. Both of them were at this point edit-warring and both had done more than three reverts. I don't think PPdd intended to do so, but his edits (that still continue) make this article look very unbalanced; when negative voices start piling up one should stop editing and discuss the whole thing at the article talk until problems are resolved, NOT call everyone on “team-contra” (I'm not implying they're teaming up, just don't want to name PPdd's opposition individually) a sock- or meatpuppet. Another editor has already said he will work on the article this weekend and I think it would be a good idea for both PPdd and Calus to stay away from editing the article for now - constructive edits at the article talk are welcome of course. Besides that, both should assume good faith or, if they feel they no longer can, take a wikibreak. --Six words (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC) P.S.:While I was writing this comment, PPdd was busy being inappropriate. He should definitely know better by now.

  • Sixwords, I acused a group of being SP/MEAT SPA, and lying about it. I was right and accounts were shut down and their story changed. Calus accused me of bad faith, and reconfirmed it multiple times. I did not accuse anyone of bad faith. Why did you say I did?
  • I was not edit warring. Edit warring does not including undoing vandalism, which was clear from multiple blank edit summaries, which I might not have called vandalism at first out of politeness. Nor reverting WP:C. Nor does it include undoing blatantly sexist edits based on an editor finding a woman should not show any skin and wear a lab coat. Nor violations by admitted SPs.
  • "A case of the pot calling the kettle black"? What does that mean. I am bringing an ettiquette violation here, as I resent Hans constantly implying it, and Calus outright acusing me of bad faith, and multiply confirming it, then repeatedly refusing to aopolgize. Why do you find that acceptable? PPdd (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The editor who said he would work on the article also objected to listing TCM medicines at all, since he said they were not relevant to TCM. He appears to knows nothing about the subject. PPdd (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I already said it's not acceptable that either of you is implying or outright saying the other is acting in bad faith. It is obvious to me that Calus didn't edit the article to make it worse, so calling his edits vandalism and reverting them as such is an implicit accusation of bad faith. You did revert/restore content more than three times, which is a violation of the three revert rule - that you thought it was “right” to do so goes without saying, but guess what - the other party involved thought they were right, too! My advice stays the same: stop editing the article, provide useful, carefully worded suggestions at the talk page and above all: stop being incivil, both of you!--Six words (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
"The pot calling the kettle black" basically means you're accusing another user of disruption while being equally disruptive. You're accusing someone of being uncivil while being equally uncivil, you get the idea. 'Saying, 'they were the ones who were edit warring with me'. You know...a pot calling a kettle 'black' when the pot is black itself. You get the idea. It's a fairly accurate example, too, you're blaming another user while ignoring your own role in the issue.
The purported "etiquette" issue is so closely linked to the content dispute that it's absurd you're bringing it up here. If the other user is a vandal as you claim, why the hell are you complaining about it here??? Take it to the appropriate noticeboard and quit stirring up drama. This is not a WQA issue, it's a disruption issue. Swarm X 10:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Calus admitted to putting wording in that he copied "exactly" from the source, which is WP:C. When literally 10 new editor suddenly appear, start by making the same edits with no edit summaries, get caught lying about their identities, admit to creating SP/MEATs, and Calus appears at exactly the same time with exactly the same edits, beinginning with no edit summaries, it is fair to assume he is part of the vandalism. Calus wrote that he does not know Herbxue or his former name. And declaring an article to be unbalanced as was done re toxins, when being toxic is considered good under TCM, only shows ignorance. It is never good to edit to intentionally introduce POV, as one might not know what they are doing, as when Ludwigs2 objected to having any medicinals section, in complete ignorance of what TCM was, claiming that all the toxic stuff made TCM "look bad". Now he states he is going to edit with the specific intent of introducing his own POV, in total ignorance of what TCM is. That should not be done. Undoing vandalism is not 3RR. Undoing WP:C violations is not 3RR. PPdd (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
And we don't deal with those issues here, so take it to ANI, and if they decide that there's nothing actionable, work it out some other way. Swarm X 10:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec) This is what I brought up here - User:Calus accused me of bad faith editing. I asked him to apologize, twice, and Calus says he refuses to apologize. That's it. All else is responding to what others bring up. Calus please apologize. PPdd (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That's to be expected from disruptive users. This board is generally helpful for users acting in good faith but have acted uncivil. For users who are blatantly acting disruptively, edit warring, etc. you can't expect them to apologize, of all things. In fact, once a user becomes disruptive civility issues are rendered obsolete. Second, this is meant to be a discussion where both editors want to resolve a dispute. Since Calus already said that they weren't going to apologize, surely you can recognize that this discussion isn't going to accomplish anything? This user needs a block, not a heart to heart. Swarm X 10:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel PPdd has edited the page with maliciousness. He purposely used the word cannibalism as I said i found implying TCM endorsed cannibalism to be wrong on talk pages. When i have more time I can defend myself further. I apologize if my accusation is inflammatory, but obviously i am not the only one to suspect such a thing. As to being a meat puppet, i created this account in 2008 expressly to work on TCm related pages- which you can see if you visit my user page. I had no prior knowledge of any edit warring. The fact that I objected to the same issues as others merely shows that we are all Competent in the area and that PPdd lacks competence. When PPdd made me aware of previous issues already being discussed I removed my objections so as to not be picky or pointed or whatever the terminology is. I have edited mostly on talk pages, not directly on the actual article. I wih to operate in good faith and be rational. Only after talk page was ignored, did i step in and actually alter the article. I sincerely apologize for any distress over my accusation. Perhaps, I am using too strong a word, in ignorance of its inflammatory connotations. However, I have felt bullied by PPdd and I do feel he has been malicious, editing the page to make inflammatory statements about TCM in order to punish me for my critique of his editing. He admitted on his own talk page to going out and specifically finding sources to justify his use of the word cannibalism because I objected to implying such a thing. This was after disagreements about NPOV. This is how I understand operating in bad faith. Calus (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for apologizing, Calus, I was under the impression that you unwilling to do. There were inappropriate actions on both sides and both sides were offended by the other. This happens in heated content disputes. If you guys can both apologize for unintentionally causing offense to the other, you can move past the civility issue and focus on the content issue. Now, again, WQA isn't the place to bring the content dispute, but there are many other methods of dispute resolution that are at your disposal, but at the very least it looks like both editors will be able to remain civil in the future. Swarm X 22:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Swarm, thanks for the good "both" suggestion. Apologies, Calus. PPdd (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for being so reasonable. Are you satisfied with Calus's above apology? Swarm X 11:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, he is again being very uncivil. And worse, regarding the sock/meat case involving him and "another", with 5 of the 10 socks/meats shut down so far, he just explained that they were all reacting to this[83], but it turns out that all of their edit warring was before the date of that article[84]!!! As you just saw, I tried to give a fourth chance here, and I apologized for claiming sock/meat, and 3RR when there are really about 15RR, and one more by Calus on the same thing today, but then this "explanation" just got offered by Calus with the dates contridiciting him. Are you satisfied? Where should this be taken? PPdd (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
PPdd, you are grasping at straws. I pointed to the article as an explanation of what brought my attention to the sorry state of affairs here at WP. I never said "all" were reacting to that, how can I know what those people are reacting to, i have no idea who they are! And the fact that the date is after "their" edit warring just goes to show that I am not part of any sock/meat conspiracy. PPdd, you need to stop accusing everyone who does not agree with you of being a sock or a meat, its very disturbing. Calus (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Note: There is an there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding this issue. The thread is Problems at Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).The discussion is about the topic Traditional Chinese medicine. The debate has moved there, and as I am sorry for letting my inexperience result in inflammatory accusations, this is not really an issue of etiquette anymore. Calus (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Calus, your recent statement that PPdd needs to be topic banned shows that you are going to be unable to communicate in a content-focused way. As long as Calus is preaching that PPdd is disruptive, PPdd is going to accuse Calus of being uncivil. Calus: either start a topic ban proposal at WP:AN or assume good faith and stop commenting on the user. That's the only thing that will resolve this. Swarm X 01:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami

At Talk:Ritual_Decalogue#"disambiguating term for one of three lists identified as the Ten Commandments in the Bible", User:Kwamikagami has stated "you're a hypocrite". When politely asked to strike his personal comments, he has responded "Why? They're accurate. You're still being a hypocrite", "If you find it offensive when I point out that you're being a hypocrite, I don't much care", and various other personal comments. Jayjg (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've scanned through that particular thread and it appears he accused you of being a hypocrite without providing proof. At the same time, my impression is that you are following WP:BRD guideline that he somehow doesn't understand.
In absence of his defense, I'd say his accusations of hypocrisy is unsubstantiated and slanderous (thus rude). However, I felt you and your associates might've been able to do a little bit more to help him. Maybe you should've told him what WP:BRD was all about instead of demanding an apology/strike-out from him when he obviously did not understand your apparent purpose.
With this said, I'd note that my comment on the situation can change if the accused does bring evidence that you were in fact being hypocritical. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way, you should notify User:Kwamikagami of this WP:WQA. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
It's an article talk page. He shouldn't be making any insulting comments about me, per WP:TALK and WP:NPA, which explicitly says "Comment on content, not on the contributor. This is simply policy; in fact, it's actually the "nutshell" of the policy. Comments should be about article content, nothing else. Jayjg (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The definition of a personal attack is tricky. Here's what I consider to be of interest from WP:NPA (under "what's a considered to be a personal attack"):
  • Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.
So, if he did provide evidence that properly supported the fact that you were being hypocritical, then we'd have a different story. Hope this helps. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
No he didn't, but that's really not the point; "Comment on content, not on the contributor couldn't be more clear, and all else is secondary when it comes to article Talk: pages. Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
As Bobthefish2 and several others have tried to communicate to you here, policy is never applied inflexibly, especially when there's a good chance that doing so would be detrimental to the project or more particularly in this case, to the topic/article in question. These sorts of content disputes should finalise by agreement, not exhaustion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a content dispute, this is a request that he use the article Talk: pages to "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a content dispute operating underneath this and all of the users who have commented here are very aware of your conduct demand. As I suggested below, perhaps mediation should be tried (because the approaches you've adopted so far have not been working and are unlikely to work in the long term). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The exasperated comments by the subject of this complaint (K), as well as the demands to strike-out those comments by the filer of this complaint (J), were never going to move the dispute towards resolution. I see both of you (K and J) making accusations towards one another, so what Bobthefish2 said is generally applicable to both of you. The only thing that makes K's conduct slightly more concerning is the additional personalisation: calling J a hypocrite as opposed to referring to J's behavior as hypocritical - to that extent, K may need modify that wording to reflect the intended meaning (which I think was the latter). Still, we all come to an inevitable conclusion: this is a content dispute which is getting a bit heated, and perhaps mediation and/or article RfC should be tried. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Which personal comments and/or insults did I make? Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

NOTE - Two days ago Kwami stated at ANI that he was going on vacation and would be away from the Wiki for some time. "I'm going on vacation and don't know when I'll next have an internet connection". I'll accept on good faith that Jayjg didn't read that comment, because filing a report like this at a time when the accused cannot respond is absolutely not the right thing to do. I suggest we table this discussion until such time that Kwami returns to the Wiki. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's rather unpleasant to be presented with this kind of innuendo, even couched politely with "accepting on good faith" that I wasn't aware of it. I hadn't edited since the 3rd; of course I was not aware of that. Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
When someone explicitly says they accept your good faith there is no reason to pick a fight with them. Do you want me to rephrase the message? It was merely meant to indicate that continuing the discussion is not the right thing to do but that I don't think you started it in bad faith. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, for the record, I tried to help out from an outside perspective, and was treated with hostility immediately from one of Jayjg's POV compatriots. The user apologized, and I'm entirely satisfied with the apology, but my point is that it's hardly only Kwami who is causing problems in this content area. What this dispute sorely needs is more outside input from editors with some understanding of the topic. I tried notifying all relevant Wikiprojects, but nothing has come of it yet.Griswaldo (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There's no need for language like "one of Jayjg's compatriots"; I have no "compatriots", and I have no control over what other editors do on that page. This is supposed to be a board about solving etiquette issues, not creating new ones. Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
You are misquoting me. I said "one of Jayjg's POV compatriots". I'm sorry if you failed to understand what I meant by that. It was just a way of saying someone who shares your POV on the topic. Would that be and incorrect assessment? Again do you want me to rephrase the statement? Looks like you're making several mountains out of a couple of mole hills and not assuming good faith while you are doing so. The point was simply that there is a lot of less than stellar behavior going around from people on both sides of the debate (others have said as much as well above, mind you). It is clear that you are all frustrated with each other and that some outside voices are sorely needed. If that assessment offends you to the lengths that your reaction here implies then I'm sorry. Geez.Griswaldo (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure his views are far more in agreement with mine on this topic, but there's really no need to bring him up, as if I were somehow responsible for his views or actions, or that his actions towards kwami somehow justified kwami's towards me. Jayjg (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Those actions speak to the generally poisonous atmosphere of the editing context that Kwami's remarks were made in. Did I say that they were your actions? No I didn't. Did I imply hat they were your actions? No I didn't. Did I say you were responsible for those actions? Again the answer is no. You've asked people to look into Kwami's comments. Knowing more about the context they were made in is helpful. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • comment It doesn't make much sense to me to complain that "you are a hypocrite" is a personal attack. It is clearly used as a shorthand for "you are applying a double standard in regards to me". That would never be a personal attack but is rather pointing out unfair treatment, which is of course a way in which it is allowed to make comments about others. In this case I disagree with Kwami because he is clearly in the worn in trying to suggest that the "stable version" needs to stay in place untill there is a consensus between himself and the four editors who faor the other version. BRD does not give veto right to the guy who likes the "stable version" when confronted with several editors who argue for change. Calling you a hypocrite is however not a sanctionable personal attack, it is an expression of frustration at being requred to present sources, while the opponent is not himself presenting any. This issue requires ample amounts of tea for all involved and then I would suggest following the normal dispute resolution process, instead of turning it in to personal issues. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • What I don't get is why people need to make this kind of personal statement at all. What of value could it possibly add to a discussion? And why would anyone defend it in any way, particularly on the Wikiquette alerts board, of all places! It's rather astounding. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Are you going to be astounded by every reply to your query that doesn't satisfy you? I'm having a hard time understanding how, after the rude manner in which you are reacting to the uninvolved parties who are trying to look into the situation for you, you have the tenacity to lecture others on etiquette. It is that activity that is astounding if you ask me.Griswaldo (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't think User:Jayig was being rude in this discussion at all (unless I missed something). I believe the meat of the dispute is whether or not "hypocrite" is considered a personal attack. I'd say it is if unsubstantiated (in the same post or in the recent past), because it is a slanderous comment that attacks the editorial integrity of a person. With that said, is this something that is worthwhile enough to file a WP:WQA? I'd say definitely not, since WP is not elementary school. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Jayjg, what's being suggested isn't that calling you a hypocrite was civil, it's that the level of incivility is in the WP:Gray Area such that kwami is unlikely to be officially sanctioned for the statement. As he's offered to refactor the comment, would you be willing to accept such refactoring as resolving the incivility concern? Gerardw (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm not asking for him to be "officially sanctioned", I'm just asking him to remove the personal comments. If I posted to kwami on an article Talk: page "You are a c--t", "You're still being a c--t" and "If you find it offensive when I point out that you're being a c--t, I don't much care", and then offered to "refactor my comments to say that his actions are c--t-like rather than that he's a c--t", would the response here be "As he's offered to refactor the comment, would you be willing to accept such refactoring as resolving the incivility concern?" Jayjg (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
But Jay, not following the standards you apply to others *is* hypocritical. It's the definition of hypocrisy. I stand by that: you demand that others have sources to change text that you approve of, but you don't require sources to change text you disapprove of. This isn't a one-off, but a long-standing pattern of behaviour. — kwami (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears that at the article talk page, your attempt to bring attention to Jayjg's approach as you perceive it has not accomplished anything useful at this time. I think that you, Kwamikagami, and another user who is involved in the content dispute, should go to User talk:Jayjg and attempt to resolve the conduct concern you've described; that's more in line with wiki's dispute resolution mechanism. In the event that attempt doesn't work, then escalate to the next appropriate step: WP:RfC/U. For the content dispute on the article in the meantime, perhaps informal or formal mediation are worth considering. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Article Talk: pages are for discussing article content, not what you claim is a "long-standing pattern of behaviour". Comment on content, not on the contributor, and Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

On hold

Can we agree to put this on hold until the accused party is back on the Wiki? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  • comment I have internet access for this afternoon.
If Jay would like me to refactor my comments to say that his actions are hypocritical rather than that he's a hypocrite, I'll be happy to do so.
What I find hypocritical is that Jay et al. require others to have sources justifying changes to articles they're happy with, such as Holocaust Denial. They do not feel they need sources to revert unsourced changes. That is of course correct. (And I'm quite satisfied with how we've been able to address my concerns about that article.) However, they do not apply that standard to themselves: they will make unsourced changes, and then demand sources to revert them. That's the hypocrisy. As for focusing on the content, that becomes impractical when different standards are applied to content from different editors. Jay et al's content does not require RSing, but RSs are required to revert it; my content does require RSing, and RSs are not required to revert it, or even to delete my sources. Until that imbalance is addressed, we cannot have a balance debate focusing solely on the content. For example, in my last restoration of content, I supported it with nine RSs. They were deleted without comment.
I'm going to see what's going on at that page now. — kwami (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It continues

Unfortunately, though kwamikagami has (for now) stopped calling me names, he appears to have taken the discussion here to mean "you can use article talk pages to call people hypocrites". Slrubenstein just asked kwami to stop calling Slrubenstein a hypcrite, and kwami's response was "I'll stop calling you a hypocrite when you start holding yourself to the standard you expect of others." Can someone please figure out a way of convincing kwami to "Comment on content, not on the contributor", and more specifically to "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.", per policy and guideline? Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Big Ten Conference#Which new logo version?

User:Eightball made two personal attacks on User:Levdr1 at Talk:Big Ten Conference#Which new logo version?. –CWenger (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree that these comments (see below) by User:Eightball qualify as personal attacks. I have left a message on his User Page asking him to consider striking these comments and amending his behavior.[85]
    • "Levdr10 guy is an absolutely delusional moron" [86]
    • "How stupid can you be?" [87]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Great message on your part, Keithbob. I was going to reiterate the message to them, but I noticed that, unfortunately, they've already responded with yet another personal attack. I decided to leave them a warning because apparently they're not getting it. Swarm X 08:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Good follow up, thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Comment I've responded in their Talk page after having done some research and discovered that both 'sides' were accurate in stating that the logo each of them was defending is current. I agree with the other editors here who find the lack of civility unacceptable, and hopefully those who responded poorly will take a lesson from this moment that just because you're right, doesn't mean the other guy can't be right also. -- Avanu (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
              • Funny, in spite of all these personal attacks both users were right all along. I think I've taken a lesson out of this myself. Thanks for that followup. Regards, Swarm X 10:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What to do about defamatory comments by User:Tkircher

I have had defamatory comments made on my discussion page by the user User:Tkircher. He has also made defamatory statements in edit comments. It appears that it started because he had not heard the term Islamist, and was comparing it to calling people Christianists. He has since extended it to claim that I am "spewing ethnocentric nonsense", and ironically writing articles bigoted against Hinduism, despite the fact that I am a Hindu and have been awarded a barnstar for these articles. How should I handle this type of user? -- Q Chris (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not heard the term Inslamist. I guess you mean Islamist. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry that was a typo - (which I did not make in the original article!). I have just corrected it -- Q Chris (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Tkircher feels that calling radical Muslims "Islamists" is negatively biased and that "extreme fundamentalist Muslim," for example, would be better. Considering that Islamists aren't necessarily defined as "Islamic extremism," surely you can understand where they're coming from? There's about a million different ways you can say "extreme Muslim," so why don't you simply go with a different term? If I'm correct, they said "Islamist" is a bigoted term. They didn't call you a bigot. Swarm X 18:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
What about when you created a section in my talk page called "Bigoted Edits" and put an edit comment with the lie that "There are also complaints on your talk page about your other bigoted edits." That combined with saying that I should "considering the nature of your irrational fear of the 'other' before you decide to spew more ethnocentric nonsense" (see my talk page) certainly is accusing me of being a bigot. As a matter of interest what do you mean "spew more ethnocentric nonsense" and what ethnicity do you think I am centering on? -- Q Chris (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I certainly see where you could've taken offense, my apologies. Anyway, the user is relatively new so they may not be familiar with assume good faith. I've notified them of this discussion and WP:AGF so hopefully they'll avoid those comments in the future. As to "how to deal with them" my point above still stands. Compromise with them: use a different term. "Islamist" doesn't necessarily mean "extremist." Swarm X 01:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Five years is not relatively new, and he has a pattern of this behavior. Apparently, because I would dare ask for sources I am either mentally challenged or have a weak ego.MartinezMD (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) Perhaps not new in terms of account age, but in terms of Wikipedia participation, certainly. Someone with 176 edits, all to article or talk spaces is certainly still considered a newbie. Swarm X 19:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Do as you see fit; I'll put him behind me. I just find his user page revealing:

"I'm a theoretical physicist, scientific instrument designer, and part-time college radio DJ. I often create article stubs and don't properly wikify them, to see just how many so-called wiki community members make snarky and unprofessional comments about it. When I do run across articles in need of proper wikifying, besides my own, I like to fix them. Most of my edits are for grammar and punctuation and not content. I try not to take myself too seriously."

Regards,
MartinezMD (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I sincerely hope that's sarcasm. If someone can present diffs to support a history of trolling, that's quite a different story. Swarm X 20:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Scott MacDonald

Diffs: threat of block, attempted to resolve, one original issue, another issue directed at another user in the same conversation.

Not sure what to do, really. It's obvious that this user has little desire to be civil, and I cannot begin to assume that he's just new or doesn't understand. I admit that I've given in to my own frustrations at a couple points, but as a senior admin this user is frankly disappointing. Honestly, I'd rather avoid an incident, and maybe he'll block me for reporting it here anyway. SDY (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Your report is a failure to assume good faith in itself. I am sure the user has a desire to be civil, and your suggesting that the user might block you for reporting here is just your idea. If you didn't know what to do why didn't you just take his userpage off your watchlist for a while instead of escalating the dispute by reposting material the user had previously deleted from there as he is allowed to do, we all fall out every now and then. Its no biggie. Off2riorob (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Persistent incivility is acceptable? Good to know. Assuming good faith has limits. I had a problem with some of the comments and brought them up on the user's talk page and was met with hostility and disrespect. The presumption of good faith is out the window at that point. I was in the process of taking his talk page off my watchlist when I saw the "go play elsewhere" comment in the edit summary. I didn't expect an apology, but I did expect that he would not further escalate the issue by adding additional insults. SDY (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think such an expectation is remotely reasonable given your failure to avoid escalating the issue further by your own additional insults, bad faith assumptions and needlessly unhelpful escalation (as can be seen from this complaint). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not the least surprised to see Scotty MacDonald here. For aeons I have found him to be rude, brusque and clearly not a gentleman. Where would we all be if everyone was uncivil ?– Civility and etiquette are very important and “not” telling extremely irritating people to (I can't bring myself to say it: “.... off”) cannot be acceptable behaviour in any civilised society. Mr MacDonald clearly does not realise that elderly ladies with delicate sensibilities edit Wikipedia and they don't want to be confronted by his lowly vulgarities. I think he needs de-sysopping, placing on civility patrol and mentoring; the latter, a service I am happy to provide. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

SDY, this comment that you made on Talk|BLPN accusing people in the discussion of being trolls was the start of the fall out. "I'm going to stop feeding the trolls and de-watchlist this page.". - with the edit summary of "this discussion is meaningless." Off2riorob (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, there are points where I gave in to my frustrations, but in disagreeing I was accused of being dishonest, evil, and selfish because I didn't see the issue as catastrophically important. I admit my own fault in not helping the situation with that comment, but that's not where it started. Both of the last two diffs I linked at the start of this posting had already happened. SDY (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • SDY, should you throw AGF out the window prematurely and repeatedly hurl inflammatory insults yourself ("if you're going to claim to be the adult, at least act like one"), as you have done throughout this matter, you open yourself to the risk of being considered a hypocrite. Your complaint is an assumption of bad faith in itself as Off2riorob observes ("and maybe he'll block me for reporting it here anyway"). I don't agree that he threatened to block you himself; he warned you about what would happen if you continued. The level of edit-warring you engaged in on another user's talk page is close enough to a level of harassment that had you reverted again after the warning (and another admin was around), your editing privileges would have been revoked for a period of time. Your own escalation of this dispute has been disturbingly needless and your response ("I'm not "playing", and as long as you continue your incivil and insulting behavior I'm going to continue replying") suggests you had no intention of taking his talkpage off your watchlist. Given your own earlier broad attack ("Facepalm. We do have strong controls for BLPs...I'm going to stop feeding the trolls and de-watchlist this page. SDY (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)") on users who have a concern about an obviously sensitive issue, you really aren't in any position to be offended by the same term being used to describe your behavior in this context; seems relatively mild given the variety of concerns with your approach. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Tu quoque does not change the original claim, it just files additional charges. I agree that my own behavior has been less than exemplary (after I was openly insulted and provoked, though that's not much of an excuse). It is clear to me that SmD's comments were tasteless and unacceptable but it is also clear that I'm just lettng myself be bothered. Go ahead and close this, it's obvious that no one is willing to confront SmD about his behavior and I agree that my own is problematic. SDY (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything that resembles a level of provocation or insult which would justify the conduct that you have engaged in. Everything is relative; when you lack the willingness to show sensitivity towards the concerns others have, it is (to use a word you're familiar with) foolish of you to expect such sensitivity over yours. But no matter which of the two ways I look at it, Scott's behavior does not come remotely close the variety or the seriousness of your own inappropriate behavior (and your vague agreement seems less than convincing given the extent of your role in this). I'm waiting for Scott's response (if any) to this complaint; at this point, I don't think I need to address him, unless he somehow takes more time to register his role in this than you are taking to register yours. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I have apologized for the comments in general I made on the BLP page, which were poorly chosen. That SmD does not choose to engage here mostly just shows that he has no regrets over the comments he made. "More sinned against than sinning" perhaps. By the way, I don't mind "troll", the "go play elsewhere" was far more insulting, not to mention the diffs linked above. Without the blocking threat, I probably would have let it go, but since it came up I figured I needed a third opinion because it appeared to me that he was threatening to block me himself because I was annoying him by calling him out on inappropriate behavior. SDY (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It's standard practice for any user to warn a fellow user of the risk of being blocked - particularly for the harassment reason I pointed above - when the user continues to revert on the user talk despite continued contact clearly being unwelcome. It's the final resort to stopping it prior to requesting intervention. That doesn't mean he's going to block you himself (which is why I disagree with Swarm below) but he should have clearly specified he would not impose a block himself (to prevent that perception arising). Scott needs to remember his responsibilities as an admin (some of which has been touched on by Epeefleche below). Scott says he did repeatedly try to walk away from an unnecessary dispute - and that does seem to fit what I see has happened (and that part is appropriate) - but this did not require, as Swarm observes below, incivility or troll feeding. I think Scott's pledge indirectly acknowledges that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing for me to say here. Those posting have pretty much nailed it. I tried to walk away from a pointless quarrel several times, but SDY refused to take the hint. I've no desire to give more fuel to this self-lighting fire (probably even this post is unwise). If you need third opinions to tell you when your trolling, there's not much hope really. Anyway, whatever response this generates, I solidly pledge not to be baited into responding any further. Walking away now (as I tried to three times already - I just hope that's finally the end of it).--Scott Mac 16:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I concede that I overreacted and apologize. I still have some concerns, but honestly that's my problem and not anyone else's. SDY (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Nice to see SDY was righteously torn apart for their part in the matter, but Scott MacDonald's comments are still completely inappropriate. "Piss off, troll"? "bury your head"? Blocking threats? "I was baited" isn't an excuse. Try acting like an administrator and resolve disputes appropriately. Whether you're responding with incivility or feeding the trolls, I can't see what what you thought you were doing. Swarm X 19:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. That sort of language is unbecoming a sysop. Sysops have special obligations to be civil, beyond that of a mere mortal editor. Per wp:admin. This is not minor stuff, and the arb committee has made clear more than once that they take it seriously when it comes to an uncivil admin. Sysops have lost the bit as a result. This is clearly inappropriate behavior for an admin. As the guidelines states:

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. ... sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Most especially, administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.

--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks and threats by user:Brewcrewer

I added a notability template to Murder of Shalhevet Pass. Brewcrewer reverted my edit, saying "wasn't there a bunch of ANI's about you stalking?" (Zie has accused me of stalking in the past, never with any evidence or results.) On Brewcrewer's talk page, I asked hir to refrain from personal attacks, noting that unsubstantiated accusations fit that description. I also commented that a disagreement several months ago does not preclude my ever making any edit to any article which zie has touched (the addition of the notability tag was not even a revert of any of Brewcrewer's edits). I having meanwhile restored the tag and begun a discussion on the talk page as to why it was needed, Brewcrewer threatened me with ANI or ANEW if I did not self-revert, despite the fact that I was not in violation of any policies, whether general or relating to Israel-Palestine sanctions specifically. I explained hir mistake, and zie again accused me of edit-warring.

As with previous incidents where this user has accused me of stalking, other users of socking, etc. it's fairly apparent that zie is using threats to try to get people zie disagrees with to stop editing articles in hir chosen field. Perhaps WQA is a good starting-place for dealing with this problem. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Are you following this editor's edits?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Nope. BC seems to have a hard time believing that I might be editing I/P articles out of interest in the subject rather than out of some sort of personal vendetta. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
OK. I'm starting to wade through the literally thousands of refs out there on this incident, covered internationally and the subject of conversations between heads of state and dramatic changes in governmental policy. I'm a bit perplexed, frankly, that you would tag it for questionable notability. Did you do a wp:before search before tagging it?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Unless I'm much mistaken, the notability template also covers "please add refs to prove that this is notable," not just "I don't think this is notable." (See the wording of the template.) I hadn't noticed that it was full of external links (I suppose I should lower my expectations for formatting). This is off-topic, though, so if you'd like, we could continue the discussion at my talk page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
If you (as I gather you were) understand that the subject is notable, and you -- being a good faith editor -- think it would be great to add more refs to those that already existed, there is an easy way to address that. Add the refs yourself. Second-best -- mention on the talk page that you think it would be great if refs were added, see that there are dozens of books and literally thousands of articles out there on the subject, and perhaps someone else would like to add some of those to the existing refs. If you were a bad faith editor, which of course you aren't, you would just tag-bomb a clearly notable article with a notability tag -- but that practice makes no sense for good faith editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Please remain civil. WQA is a bad place to make baseless claims about other editors acting in bad faith. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Given the above, your tagging appears to be what we call "tag-bombing". In the instant case, wildly inappropriate tag-bombing, where thousands of refs reflecting notability exits. Please remember that AGF is a rebuttable assumption. Your tagging appears to be anything but good faith, and your appearance here appears to be tainted by what we might call "unclean hands"; consequently, if any action is taken, it would properly be relative to you for these issues.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
This is completely on-topic. When someone brings a complaint to this page, her behavior in the incident is reviewed as well, and she is also subject to sanctions if her behavior is inappropriate. Ros perhaps dislikes what I have pointed out above. As she has twice sought to censor it, by collapsing it. It relates to the incident and to her behavior in the incident, however. If she tags it again, I request that she be summarily blocked. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Please stay on topic. WQA is not for discussing notability of articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Typically, I ignore these types of frivolous postings, but choose to respond in this instance because of the blatant WP:BOOMERANG nature of the instant case. Preliminarily, Roscelese has mistakenly(?) not provided the full text of the edit summary, in which the stalking concern was part of a larger quote.[88]
As for the edit summary at issue, the complaint of stalking could have used a bit more tact, but I was specifically referring to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive669#Stalking by User:Roscelese and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive665#Repeated personal attacks by User:Roscelese, where stalking of me and other users were brought up for discussion. A number of additional threads concerning Roscelese's behavior can be found here. It's unfortunate that this stalking continues, unless Roscelese can explain how she again wound up at the very random article that I had just edited for the sole purpose of adding a bunch of templates.[89]
In response to my complaint about stalking, Roscelse has gone over the top including plastering my talk page with templates and snide comments ironically accusing me of being uncivil. Now he has started this baseless thread. If there is anything useful that can come out of this, its perhaps to request from Roscelse that he cease stalking and to reiterate to Roscelse the importance of staying civil. Best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
In addition, it is probably also worth noting that User:Roscelese stalked User:SlimVirgin following a content dispute until she was blocked for editwarring on one of the pages she followed SV to. - Haymaker (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Another untrue accusation of stalking. If you think it is "worth noting," perhaps it would be a good idea to provide evidence. (You don't really need to get involved in every thread I'm in, by the way - I'm flattered by the attention, but your time might be better spent improving articles.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I don't think it is right to imply that another user's comments here are not "useful" contributions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Rephrased. Thanks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that we've got some of the confusion out of the way, shall we get back on topic? Brewcrewer repeatedly accused me of stalking and threatened administrator action for no other reason than that we had edited the same article. We had not argued recently. I did not follow hir there. I did not revert hir edit there. There is absolutely nothing about my conduct that resembles wikihounding, and by continually accusing me after being warned, Brewcrewer is, at the very least, breaching wikiquette. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

  • As I discuss above, I think that you arrived here with unclean hands, and your edits have been tendentious at best -- even in the wake of bringing this complaint. Looking at your overlap of edits with his, it's not clear to me that he is not correct, and given that your tag-bombing suggests that you have rebutted the presumption of good faith, I see your complaint as baseless. I would suggest that you use special care when arriving at articles that BC has just edited, which you had never edited, and where very few editors in all of wp had ever edited, and where you are tag-bombing (especially baseless tag-bombing, as the above). If you fail to follow my advice, I imagine we will see your name at AN/I or elsewhere, with a diff directing to this advice. Let's simply avoid the drama, shall we? In just the past hour or two, I've seen you tag-bomb, warning-bomb, and bring this complaint -- all in what appear to me to be a desire to gain the upper hand in an editing dispute, or push a POV, but wholly without any real basis. I'll leave it to others at the moment to comment as to whether your behavior here is actionable.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
How on earth is "This user has a tendency to throw around accusations of stalking, so just avoid articles to which zie has made the smallest of contributions" good advice? What kind of encyclopedia would we be building by letting such users control entire subject areas? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand. Nobody owns articles. But--I've glanced at your overlap. And your tendency to show up at articles where your nemesis edited. And very few other people edited. And where you never edited earlier at all. And for you to then edit in conflict with him. Add to that, a tendentious aspect to your editing, such as tagging the above article baselessly with a notability tag, where the notion that it is not notable is absurd. Those facts, when taken together, begin to reflect somewhat poorly on your claim that you are not wikihounding him. Those of us who have been around know how it goes. If that sort of thing continues, he will take you to AN/I. Among the other evidence will be a diff to this discussion, where it has all been explained. You are free to ignore me, of course, but I'm just trying to avoid major headache for you, and waste of time for the rest of us, because I sense a collision course here. There are millions of articles on wp -- you might wish to stop checking your nemesis's contributions, if that is what is leading to this unusual coincidence. It will be better for all of us I imagine.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I've asked you already, but I see I have to ask you again: Please stay on-topic. Your opinion that the article already contained adequate sources is irrelevant, partly because I explained my tag on the talk page but mostly because this board is not for content disputes. Your concern is appreciated, but Brewcrewer has never marshaled evidence of stalking any of the other times zie's accused me and now is no different. As for you, kindly stop accusing me of the same, since you, similarly, lack evidence. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I know this isn't any of my business, and I probably shouldn't be butting in, but a few weeks ago I reverted Ros on an abortion article. She is really, really, really into abortion articles. She hates when I write "save the baby" and call her "pro-abortion" on the Talk page. Funny. But I digress. Anyway, right after that she removed PRODs and CSDs from a large number of articles I tagged the day before. I thought it odd since she has described herself as a deletionist. It was also odd that the order of dePRODing closely matched the sequence that I PROded them in the first place. I'm kinda ashamed to admit I was going get her back and dePROD some of the articles she tagged, but I realized I'm better, and bigger than that. I believe in the Golden Rule: "Do as to others etc." You know, Jesus. I also believe in "Do a good deed." You know, BSA. Now, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but... Lionel (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I also added sources to the articles I de-PRODed/de-speedied, so your point is rather moot. I mean, the point of deleting things is theoretically to make sure everything in the encyclopedia is notable, not to make sure coverage of LGBT people is minimized, so if someone finds sources for something you PRODed on notability grounds, what is the problem?
Moreover, this has already been brought to ANI without anyone finding any problems with my conduct, and trying to pin it on me again smacks of grasping at straws to get me blocked because you disagree with more recent edits I have made, rather than because I am actually doing something wrong. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. As an outside observer, it looks to me like User:Brewcrewer was a bit forward in his comments, but given the apparent history of editing behavior by User:Roscelese and Brewcrewer's knowledge of it, Brewcrewer's reaction could be somewhat understandable, even if not excusable. I think the specific encounter raised here could easily be resolved by both sides just voicing a simple apology and then just moving on. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that I have anything to apologize for. I did not follow Brewcrewer and I did not revert hir edits, and I don't think zie is owed a personal apology from anyone who dares to touch Israel-Palestine articles without hir permission. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, then don't expect any sort of apology or reciprocal gesture from the other side. It takes two to reconcile, and it's not a matter of being "right". Sometimes you apologize for the incident and misunderstanding taking place, and if one side does it, the other side does it, and everybody feels better. It sounds to me like you're more interested in being right than in resolving the conflict amicably. If so, WQA may not be the correct place to work on this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd love to resolve things amicably, but I think an amicable solution would include the other party recognizing that I have the "right" to edit articles on Israel-Palestine. If I had recently had a conflict with Brewcrewer that made it look like my edits were retaliatory? If I had reverted an edit that zie had made? Sure, I'd apologize for the misunderstanding and move on. But just editing another article to which Brewcrewer has made minor changes? We don't own our articles here, and particularly on this sensitive topic, I think it would set a bad precedent. It would help to hear again from Brewcrewer, to hear what steps zie will take in future. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
So you're not going to acknowledge any wrongdoing at all in any respect? Some sort of statement that you could understand how he might react the way he did given your past behavior could be helpful, but—of course—it can't be made unless you really do understand that point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you clarify what exactly you'd like me to apologize for? What you think I did wrong? I mean, you mention my "past behavior," but the incidents Brewcrewer is referring to are other incidents in which zie accused me of stalking without any evidence, which would seem to weigh against hir rather than for hir. I'm not responsible for this user's feelings of ownership. Brewcrewer's having edited an article does not automatically mean that anyone else who edits it has followed hir there or is doing so for personal reasons rather than out of a desire to better the encyclopedia.
As I alluded to above, I don't like the chilling effect that this already has, and as I said, it would set a terrible precedent. If there is actually something that I have done wrong, I will apologize for it. Editing an article that another user has edited is not wrongdoing. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I can tell you're not really getting my point. Most users who have commented here have mentioned that you are fairly aggressive overall in your editing style. This is not "wrong", but it's evident that you want the focus here to be on right and wrong. That's fine, but don't expect to get any joy out of an WQA if you take that approach. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really hoping for joy. To me, not being accused of "crimes" because I dared to edit Israel-Palestine articles should be a neutral state, not a positive one like getting a barnstar or something. I'm open to a broad view of right and wrong, of course - as I said, I'd be willing to apologize if something I'd done could reasonably be construed as hounding even if it wasn't, such as reverting Brewcrewer's edits immediately after we'd argued. But, again, Brewcrewer has accused me of stalking and threatened admin action because I edited an article that zie had also edited. I don't want to see hir punished. I want to leave this discussion knowing that it isn't okay to attack and threaten other users based solely on the fact that they edit with a different perspective in the same subject area that you (generic you) do. I think that with this as a baseline, we'd both be more able to edit collaboratively on the subjects that interest us both - Brewcrewer because zie wouldn't take any edit to any article as a rule violation, and me because I'd be able to engage more fully with articles without worrying about accusations and threats. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I was just using "joy" as a euphemism for getting a result that is satisfactory to you. This looks to me like it's going nowhere. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Can we really not even establish that it is not okay to attack and threaten other users? That's a bit disheartening. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course it is not. But what is even more discouraging is your inability to admit any wrongoing in your own behaviour as well as that of other users'. Perhaps you've reflected on it and have decided you have not done anything wrong. If so, I think you need to consider why multiple users have disagreed with you. "They're wrong and I'm right" is a theoretical possibility, but it doesn't get you anywhere in WQA. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, the wrongdoing here appears to be that I edited an article that Brewcrewer had also edited. I did indeed reflect, after being blindslided by this accusation, on whether it might have been a good idea to check the article history first to see who else had contributed, and avoid articles to which certain aggressive users have contributed. But I rejected that idea, because I think putting the burden on the users who don't throw around accusations without evidence is bad policy. Are there concrete steps you think I could take in the future that don't require tiptoeing around an entire subject area just because this one user edits there? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If it were me and I thought I had done nothing wrong, I would just leave a message for the other user on his talk page apologizing for anything I might have done that has offended him or made him wary of me and my editing, and just explain what my intent was and why I made the edits I made, and that it was nothing personal against him, and so forth. I wouldn't take this approach if I were trying to defuse things. That sort of approach will only heighten the tension. That's only what I would do, though, and it doesn't mean what you did was wrong. I just don't think WQA is going to resolve the problem unless you've first tried a softer approach one-on-one with the other user. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, perhaps this is one of those times when fuller knowledge of the history between two users might come in handy. My attempts at productive non-template discussion have never defused any disputes when this user is involved - rather, for example, my invitation to an article talkpage discussion resulted in BC leaving rude messages on my talkpage - so I don't really feel like putting out a welcome mat for more abuse. There is of course the option of just ignoring the attacks and threats and editing as normal, but as I said below to Cptnono, I'd be more comfortable ignoring the threats if I could be reasonably sure that editing an article that BC had happened to edit wouldn't get me dragged to ANI. Can we agree that this circumstance - in which I had not recently interacted with BC, did not follow him there, did not revert his edits, and did not violate any rules - did not merit the accusations and threats I received because of it? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that kind of behavior is ever really appropriate, so in my opinion no one needs to ask if it was merited. He should apologize, and really, I still think that if things are going to be smoothed over, both sides need to apologize for any misunderstandings or offence from this incident or past incidents. I'm guessing, but based on what I'm hearing about from other users, I can see that that won't happen on either side. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec x4) Me again. It's not about recent editing. It's just the odd coindidence that the articles I PRODed were dePRODed by you. Isn't this thread about following people around? I am in the right place aren't I? Not than I'm accusing anyone of anything. Lionel (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The dePRODing was retaliatory. Shouldn't I get an apology? Lionel (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Er, no? Like I said, adding reliable sources is not a sin - quite the opposite. If my sourcing LGBT-related articles "creat[es] irritation, annoyance or distress" to you, you might want to re-evaluate your goals here a bit. (Also, no, not retaliatory. I'm sorry that you believed it was, but I don't know what you expect me to do - put a little note in each edit summary "I'm not doing this to annoy the PRODer"? let notable topics be deleted?) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Your suggestion works for me, short of the apology I'm due. Lionel (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Save you didn't add reliable sources, you just followed Lionelt around removing prods as retaliation for an edit conflict. [90], [91], [92] - Haymaker (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, fancy that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
All of those edits took place after you were reported to ANI, not when you reverted Lionelt as retaliation. - Haymaker (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If you think I'm stalking someone, go ahead and report it. Maybe you'll have more luck than you had the last time you reported me with these exact same diffs. Until then, kindly consider the novel idea that writing content takes longer than blanking other people's content and that sourcing things takes longer than just adding them without sources, before you claim that it was your report that motivated the improvement of these articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

All right, chaps. Does anyone have any comments on this report, or are we going to keep on re-hashing conflicts that were buried at ANI without admin action? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "the last time you reported me with these exact same diffs"? I don't remember getting one of those "There's an issue which may concern you at ANI..." notes. Did someone report the dePRODing of my PRODing and didn't notify me? Did I miss out on testifying? I love testifying at ANI. I'm sure my testimony could've gotten someone blocked. Is it too late for me to bear witness? I have a lot to say. And the sooner I get started the better. Lionel (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I guess Haymaker didn't let you know. It's in an archive somewhere. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Does "chaps" still mean fellas or has it been appropriated as some kind of homosexual slang? Because if so I'd like to remind youeveryone of my huge crush on Lila Rose and my efforts to get a sexy pic of her (for which I probably should've received a barnstar but never did). Lionel (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I bet you're thanking your lucky stars that you chose "Lionel" as your username now - "Lila Rose is hot" and "I am totally straight, honestly" wouldn't really compute if people kept mis-gendering you the way they do me! ;) (Is "Roscelese" a particularly masculine name? I never thought it was, and I do have a "This user is female" box on my userpage, but...) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I am so giving you a barnstar if you were behind getting that OTRS. BLP standards do not prevent me from saying I completely disagree with her but they do prevent me from going into too much detail on how I feel about that picture. Insert Beavis laugh here.Cptnono (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
And just to comment: There is nothing wrong with looking at other editors edits unless you are using it to harass them. Take the advice up above and let it go maybe. Let this report be the "final straw" before esculating any conflict.Cptnono (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Luckily, that is not even what I did here, so we can avoid the discussion of when it is okay to look at someone else's contributions. :) Could you both also tone down the discussion of Lila Rose, please? As a female editor, I'm feeling a bit uncomfortable. "Rose is sexy" is totally uncalled-for, but perhaps doesn't cross the line. "I have NSFW thoughts about her picture" is just creepy. Thanks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a double standard to me. :D Feel free to remove my commment above or move it to the user's talk page if you found a pun offensive. However, refering to another editor as being creepy after making a BLP violation is laughable. But that is all off topic and not really that big of a deal. If you need for the other editor to acknowledge your "right" to edit articles then you are probably wasting everyone's time. The BOOMERANG aspect is interesting since you and stalking has come up by two different editors here. The one with diffs does raise an eyebrow but I see no problem AGF. Hopefully you guys can work it out without the other editor groveling. I do agree that apologies go a long way so BC would show some good form if he at least clarified that he did not make the best move in assuming bad faith (unless of course, it was justified to assume bad faith).Cptnono (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I certainly don't want BC to grovel. Maybe a promise not to attack or threaten me in future would do? I don't need to change Brewcrewer's mind, though it might be nice - I'd just like assurance that having the nerve to step into BC's article space isn't a blockable offense. I'd gladly promise not to stalk, though as I haven't been and he (he?) has nonetheless accused me of it, I'm not sure how far a promise from me would do towards assuaging his concerns. (I mean, I guess the assurance would be enough without the promise from BC. It would still be annoying having to put up with the attacks and threats, but if they were confirmed to have no validity, I could at least ignore them.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) Has any of the above been helpful, Roscelese? It looks like it turned into a dramafest from the very beginning, but it's TL;DR so I can't tell if you got resolution out of any of it. If not, I'd be happy to comment, but not unnecessarily. Swarm X 17:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The user in question hasn't commented since the beginning of the discussion, so I don't know what he thinks of my suggestions for resolution, but I have faith that he'll be along - everyone is busy and/or lives in different time-zones, after all. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
How about the huge discussion above? Was that more off topic or was it helpful? Swarm X 19:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
It didn't help me, but it may have helped other people (summary: "The article to which you added a notability tag is notable" - off-topic, "omg you stalker" - on-topic, but false and already discussed at ANI without any wrongdoing found). Some productive conversation with GOF over what one is hoping to get out of this discussion, but that's something we'd still need input from Brewcrewer on. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&curid=11424955&diff=417375882&oldid=417366639
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASex_and_psychology&action=historysubmit&diff=417007316&oldid=417005553
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive100&oldid=1142510044"