Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

Wtshymanski and the transistor AfDs

• Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This stems from a series of thirteen deletions for electronics component articles. A convenient list is here. The disparaging comments are Wtshymanski's.

These were PROD'ed, rejected, than AfD'ed. For the purpose of WQA it's not just the behaviour to this point that is at issue, but behaviour since. This has been an unusually ill-tempered (and single-handedly so) set of AfDs with a tenacious amount of flogging a dead horse afterwards.

The basic premise behind these deletions is that, "parts list articles are not notable". These components are all real electronic components, with a huge range of references behind them from any number of standard parts handboooks. Yet this does not, allegedly, confer notability. The problem is some variant of WP:MILL: simply existing and being recorded as such is not notable, in the way that a phone number is not notable, despite being well catalogued. Only components with some real claim to distinctive novelty could be said to be "noteworthy", and thus considered WP:Notable.

The strange part is that no-one, even at the AfDs, seems to disagree with this principle. The dissent is that these components are, by and large, reckoned to be that handful of components that do meet the more stringent criteria for being noteworthy.

AfDs

Most of the debate seemed to take place on this AfD, the rest being somewhat repetitive.

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2N3055

These in turn gave rise to a centralised discussion

• Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Mass_deletion_of_electronic_components

Behaviour during this AfD was far from ideal. In particular, I don't believe that AGF extends to comparing other editors to a psychotic murderer.

Talk page comments from other editors, re behaviour

• User_talk:Wtshymanski#2N3055
• User_talk:Wtshymanski#transistors_and_stuff
• User_talk:Wtshymanski#Component_article_deletion
• User_talk:Wtshymanski#Voicing_concern (another electronics article, an undiscussed redirect)

Some rare support:

• User_talk:Wtshymanski#Thank_you
• User_talk:Wtshymanski#Group_behavior

The AfDs have now mostly closed as keeps. There is some support for deleting a couple where it's agreed that they are indeed just "parts list" items.

So far, process seems to have worked just as it ought and an excess of zeal by one editor has been compensated for. However behaviour since really is getting beyond a joke. They seem incapbable of making any comment without a sarcastic edit summary, they refuse to recognise that there is any other valid viewpoint:

• Just not notable
• Ambles off, humming Every Sperm is Sacred
• Nothing is constructive here, if you get right down to it.
• Meanwhile, the guys in the Spock ears are saying "Get a life!"
• Let's mention that they are usually black, and have wire leads while we're at it.
• Fraudulent excuse of an item that pertends to be an article

Shortly after one AfD closed as keep, they re-tagged it for notability - yet isn't this what was just discussed?

• Tagging BC548 for notability

This is an editor who refuses to respect consensus, or that he might be "right yet outvoted", and that in the interests of the encyclopedia it's time to put the stick down and leave the horse be.

This is not the working atmosphere we're supposed to have to put up with. This editor's behaviour is intolerable. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bad articles need to be improved. Un-notable topics need to be removed. The edit summaries are my relief from endlessly typing "rv v" and help to remind me later what the nature of the edit was. And I'm not plural, there's only one of me. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand the "rvv" thing. I do a lot of that myself, it's not a good atmosphere to work in because first you start to see every anon IP as a vandal, then every editor, then every edit. It's all too easy to forget that some edits to WP are actually constructive and that not every editor is a poo-obsessed twelve year old.

However the edits here are not vandalism. It is wrong of you to approach them in that way. Leave the vandal patrol be for a day or two if you have to and work on the good stuff instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to the notability tagging; I do that somethings on articles that are kept after AfD, to remind editors that evidence of notability still needs to be cited. The problem is just that Wtshymanski won't lose the attitude. His calling everything a "parts list item", "Radio Shack catalog", and such is just pouring on negativity, where forward progress is possible. If he can't accept the decision, it would be best to just walk away from these articles. Dicklyon (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, we're either writing an encyclopedia, or something else. If the only substantial facts in an article are breakdown voltage and current rating, and the JEDEC package number, coupled with some praise words and ad talk from some hobby magazine or TAB book, then it's a parts list entry masquerading as an encyclopedia article. I'm not calling everything a parts list entry, I'm calling these rather useless items parts list entries. Forward progress is not possible, sources either don't exist or are unsuitable for Wikipedia usage, and all we've got is repeated appearances in parts lists. If there were sources, they would have turned up before or during this Article Improvement Drive. If you were grading an assignment on, oh, say, "Silicon diodes" or "electronics" or "The Semiconductor Industry", you'd have to give a failing grade to this sorry collection of inaccurately copied data sheet parameters. This is aside from the rather undignified obsession with minutia that so characterizes many Wikipedia topics; learn all about the printing of menus in the dining car, but nothing about the railway. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

We're not writing an encyclopedia — at least I'm not — instead I'm sat here with the IEEE paper on the 2N3055 in one hand (a very good read) and thinking that I should be writing an encyclopedia, but then I think "What's the point?" because someone is being such a persistent negative jerk about these same articles. Your attitude is a major disincentive to anyone bothering to do the very fixes you claim to be wanting done. You're not doing it (you're too busy carping), I'm not doing it because I don't want to work on articles under those conditions. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Tragic. Then let's delete the rubbish until someone more resolute feels moved to properly write an article. That should happen, oh, say, around 2037 or so if we're lucky, based on zero progress in 3 years and 1 sourced fact added this month. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The good news is, no one was working on these articles before the AfDs, either, so at least the situation is no worse. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been concerned about the pattern of Wtshymanski's edits and talk page comments ever since I first saw the behavior pattern on List of 7400 series integrated circuits. There appears to be on ongoing pattern WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:CIVIL problems. Especially troubling was his response when I expressed the above concerns on his talk page: "And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."

Also see:
Search Wikiquette alerts:Wtshymanski
User:Wtshymanski/parts
Special:Contributions/Wtshymanski
User:Wtshymanski/Griping
Search Administrators' noticeboard: Wtshymanski
Guy Macon (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Still is editing against consensus (See WP:MOSNUM), and Still being reverted Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: I recently decided to bookmark Wtshymanski's contributions page and review them every so often. This was not to stalk or harass, but because he is a rare combination of (1) Being interested in the same sort of technology articles I am - I already run into him again and again as I edit. (2) Personally likable (you know how some people just annoy you? For me, he is the opposite.) (3) Makes many edits and comments I strongly disagree with. (4) Makes many edits and comments I strongly agree with. (5) Rock solid technical contributions.

My observation from this is that he is following Wikipedia policies and guidelines a lot better, and that he appears to respond well to criticism or warnings that are backed up by citations to policy. There is far less sarcasm and baiting in his talk page and edit comments, and he appears to be rapidly improving in the area of choosing what to nominate for deletion - he has been finding some real stinkers that other editors missed. In my opinion, this is a good example of the old saying "It is easier to teach a smart person to be nice than it is to teach a nice person to be smart."

Because of what I have observed, in my opinion this Wikiquette alert should be closed. If it is closed, I advise any editors who have a problem with him to put a polite warning on his talk page - but please be 100% sure that the warning is valid, and pay attention if he says it isn't, because there is a high probability that he is right. Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Awww. It's like having my very own hall monitor following me around and handing out smiley face stickers for not running in the halls. I really haven't reformed, you know, and parts list items must die. Luckily the last couple I've nominated for deletion haven't had a legion of fans to defend them. Some day the Wikipedia will be parts-list-entry free, perhaps. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you need another time-out for this one. Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is about content. The above comment "I really haven't reformed, you know, and parts list items must die." shows me that Wtshymanski thinks that I am talking about his views concerning content. Wikiquette alerts are about behavior. I am talking about behavior. I still believe that I am seeing improved civility. I have no problem with him trying to mold Wikipedia into what he thinks it should be as long as he does so while following the standard of behavior we are all required to follow.

As for the edit Dicklyon cites. There is a proper way to handle content disputes of this nature. First Wtshymanski should have been politely informed that another editor disagrees with him on content and invited to discuss the matter on the article talk page. If his edit removed recently introduced material, keep it out while discussing. If the material had been in for a while, revert and keep it in while discussing. Seek consensus on the talk page, and if anyone involved in the content dispute edits against consensus, apply user warning on the editor's talk page. If the behavior persists, walk your way up the steps clearly explained in the dispute resolution process.

Again I must emphasize that it's perfectly OK for Wtshymanski to think that Wikipedia is too much like a random collection of non-notable parts and to advocate that view. The only issue is that he behaves properly while trying to get those parts off of Wikipedia. If he doesn't behave properly, the correct response is to follow the steps listed in dispute resolution, starting with polite requests to be civil and seek consensus on his talk page and in edit comments, and ending (after all other steps have failed) with a topic ban or a total ban. But I don't think it will come to that. Ignoring all warnings and ending up blocked is something that happens to stupid editors, and Wtshymanski is not stupid. Guy Macon (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

He can think what he wants, but his actions are continuing to be obnoxious, to the point where it's difficult to WP:AGF. His removal of material from 2N7000, and his proposal to merge it out of existence, into an article that it has nothing to do with, are not appropriate reactions to his AfD failing. He should just leave it for a while and let his emotional reaction against "parts list" articles die down a bit. Dicklyon (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to know which parts should be included in the rather long and rambling list at 2N7000. What is the criterion for inclusion in that article? I was told it was supported by a reference, but when I check the reference I see a number of other parts that aren't included in the 2N7000 article. I'm told we can have an article called 1N4000 and 1N5400 series diodes because they are related parts. Obviously my respected co-editor has extremely precise notions on which parts go into which parts list entries on the Wikipedia. I'd like to see the definition so that other editors have a guideline. Where do I put the 1N914? Does it go in with 2N7000, with 1N4148, with 1N4000 and 1N5400 series diodes? I'm editing articles, why is this suddenly considered obnoxious? This particular emperor is looking rather chilly. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, obnoxious. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

These edits, to D Battery and N Battery, after seeking, and failing to get, consensus for merge ([1]) are extremely problematic. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; and his non-constructive discussion and pushing to do away with articles that he lost the AfDs on already is just tiresome, and brings out the worst in me. I've admitted to no longer being able to assume good faith with guy; I've called him xenophobic; I've used words like "crazy," "lame," and "fuckage" in my edit summaries; I'll take the heat for that, but can someone help this guy understand that his attention would be better directed at something more constructive than tearing down articles just because they're not as solid as he likes? Dicklyon (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, are you sure that you didn't mean to write "with the guy" instead of "with guy?" Like another well loved entity who has a three-letter name starting with G, I don't want my name taken in vain (big smile). Guy Macon (talk)

Looks like I may have to re-evaluate my opinion. Those are obnoxious. So, what should we do about this? Guy Macon (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:AN/I is the next logical step, to get Admin involvement. I considered it when the above redirs of the battery articles occurred but still hoped some amicable resolution could be reached before it came to that. Unfortunately their reponse to my note on their talk page suggests no change of position. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

OhioStandard

• Ohiostandard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Prescott Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has made repeated personal attacks on me in several articles. In the case at hand, I shortened an extensive quote which had nothing to do with the journal, and was greeted with this sort of comment: user Collect (talk · contribs), who often follows my edits and who had no prior involvement with this article, and with whom I'm currently in contention over an unrelated matter at AN/I, deleted the quote, saying it was a violation of NPOV. Partly because Collect claimed at AN/I that this journal is a reliable source and Collect is perfectly welcome to try find sources that claim this web site represents a sterling and unbiased example of the highest standards in medical research publishing, and . I will not be debating the question with Collect, however, as I've learned from previous experience that doing so is invariably unproductive. (all in [2]. I would hasten to point out that I became aware of the article at AfD, and not by following anyone around at all. And that Ohiostandard also !voted !keep for the article. [3].

Further examples: [4] *Comment. Collect apparently doesn't understand the word "retain", and I've reverted his deletion of the passage. Shooterwalker, Fred, do either of you have any changes you'd like to propose to the language, at all?  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC) To make this one clear see [5] Herostratus (talk | contribs) (52,998 bytes) (remove contentious unproven material per WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, see talk ("re collectables")) (undo) precisely confirming the correctnes of my position.

[6] where he indicates that he is actually following me Sorry, Collect; I understand the concerns that motivated your edit, and I have some sympathy for those concerns, but you've introduced too marked a deviation from long-established policy, and I've reverted your change. You'll note that at the top of this talk page there's a notice that says, in part, "Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus." We're at the "D" stage in WP:BRD at this point; if you find a great majority of editors strongly support your desired change that's one thing, but right now it's just you. You'll need pretty broadly-based support before your changes can become policy.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And at AN/I: [7] et seq. Again he managed to follow my edits <g> but accuses an admin I'm sorry to have to bring this here, but it seems pretty clear that Rklawton won't tolerate any critical information being fairly represented in this article if he can possibly help it, and that he's perfectly willing to try to bully other editors to prevent that from happening. I know he's an admin, but he's still obliged to conform to our policies disallowing personal attacks, battleground behavior, and article ownership, and I'd appreciate it if the community would take whatever steps are necessary to try to make him understand that ... [8] Gamaliel, I've never interacted with Rklawton before that I can recall, although Collect has been pretty unhappy with me since I took part in a discussion last year that ended in his being blocked etc. (OS has been after me a number of times, and the "block" was soundly berated by other admins bythe way), etc. Then the hubris of [9]. Yet another attack: I think it'll probably be more productive if I refrain from responding to any further accusations from Collect, if I can reasonably do so. I'd appreciate it, though, if an administrator would take a look at a recent development

Ohiostandard is apparently unable to post anywhere on Wikipedia without attempting to demonize me personally. [10] represents yet one more article where his first edits were well after my edits. Heck [11] he even admonishes me for posting a new subject flush left! Especially, please don't post at flush-left, since doing so prevents others from using normal threading protocol to reply to posts.) [12] Is it really so onerous a burden to refrain from posting at flush-left, Collect? What would be the harm in extending the very simple courtesy of allowing others to respond to the original post without being prevented from doing so by your post? I've again indented the above to preserve other editors' ability to reply to the original post. I'll not insist on the point, but is it really too much to ask that you allow them the right to do so?

In short: Ohiostandard appears quite totally obsessed with me, and I am just getting tired of it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

and also: [13] Likewise, the Eridu-Dreaming account exhibits the same tendencies toward formatting and placement of posts that Collect also employs with the effect of setting off talk page contribtions more prominently in a thread than is usual. As I said, I sincerely doubt Collect would ever try anything like this. OTOH, I also think it's better to initiate an SPI when one has any doubt than to just wonder, since socking is such a huge problem on Wikipedia. I imagine Collect will take this personally, given our negative history, but for my part, I'd want anyone who had any suspicion I might be socking to initiate an SPI. Anyway, he asked me to stay off his talk page after I took part in a discussion that led to his being blocked last October, so if it's required to inform him of this, would someone please do so on my behalf? Thank you which is an overt accusation that I am a sock puppeteer. I expect Collect will respond with his usual misstatements of my actions, but I'm not going to try to correct those that I'm sure will be coming, and will trust instead to the diligence of other users to just examine any claims he makes, if they care about any such claims. More generally, because he's been so extremely reactive to me since I took part in a discussion that resulted in him being blocked last October, I'm not going to respond to Collect any further here, to try to keep the drama level as low as it can be in this. But I'll of course be glad to respond to any questions or comments any uninvolved user or SPI admin might like to direct my way. If anyone has any, any comments or questions about any of this, please post them after the e-mail that follows so this post and that disclosure remain together on the page. Thanks same accusation. I acutally considered repeated accusations of that nature without even a wisp of evidence other than hatred to be a violation of Wikiquette as well. His mileage appears to differ. Collect (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I find reading Ohiostandard's communications unpleasant for several reasons - chief among them would be his vociferous complaints should I actually presume to list them. We're all unpleasant at times, and many of us started off as clueless noobs. However, if we use "unpleasant" as our standard for removing editors, we wouldn't have any. And if we're not proposing to block him from editing, then we're just wasting our time here. And no, I'm not proposing we block him. If he wants to continue behaving as he does, then people he offends will continue to point it out and eventually he'll get tired of it all and go away on his own (this happens all the time). Or he'll learn to work more cooperatively and we'll all be better off. Either way, the problem will solve itself. Rklawton (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not looked into what was going on at all, but your behaviour in this incident RKlawton is not commendable, that is certain. Passionless -Talk 01:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Gamaliel (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why this dispute started, but judging from what I've seen on Talk:Prescott Bush and Wikipedia:ANI#User_Rklawton_.22A_dirty.2C_rotten.2C_low-life.2C_disruptive_trick.22, no one has acquitted themselves well here and there's great examples of boorishness all around. Gamaliel (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Passionless and Gamaliel, for your comments. Gamaliel, I'm sorry that you've been exposed to this through your participation at the Prescott Bush article. Of course, I know it's hard to recognize how one might have contributed to a conflict when one feels (correctly or incorrectly) that he's being attacked, so I'd value any perspective or suggestions you can offer as to how I might have been able to deal with this conflict more productively.

If you also choose to comment on the examples that Collect brought here, I'd only ask that you don't look only at the diffs or quotes he provides, but at the full context in which they occur. Seriously, I'd value any constructive criticism you might be able to politely offer, especially on the part of this that your already familiar with, and will do my best to hear that and not to respond defensively.  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(Comment deleted by author. While my advice (stay cool, always make sure your own behavior is above reproach) is good advice for anyone involved in a dispute about wikiquette, the attempt at humor fell flat and it may have looked like I was implying something I wasn't, so I deleted it. Again, I have no opinion as to who, if anyone, is at fault in the matter.) Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

OhioStandard's response to comments made above

Okay, I'd wanted to give time for third-party opinions to be expressed here before I replied, myself, but I guess I'll go ahead add my own reply now. First I'd like to say that I'd be glad to address each of the many points raised here if I could reasonably suppose that this had been filed in good faith, rather than as a retaliation for my having initiated a now-archived thread at AN/I that was politely critical of Rklawton and Collect. As will appear from the following, though, I can't reasonably do so, and thus won't be taking the very significant amount of time that would be necessary to reply to each of the many points Collect raises above. I do hope, however, that anyone who's inclined to accept any of the accusations made above will take the time to examine the diffs he presents carefully, and especially to look at the original context in which I made the comments he cites above, rather than merely relying on his own characterizations and commentary. For anyone who does so, I believe a very different picture will emerge than the one he presents here.

This began when I had the impudence to perform a single revert of one of Rklawton's edits to the Prescott Bush article, and to propose some impeccably sourced (NYT, CNN, AP, FOX, etc.) content on the article's talk page that he didn't like. For exactly that, and for very politely citing the policies that support that content for literally days on its then-current talk page, I was told by Rklawton that I'd be reverted on sight, that my behavior was "dirty", "rotten", and "low-life", and called "sneaking", "disruptive", "a wikilawyer", a "clueless noob", and "an ass". I never responded in kind; not once. His "clueless noob" comment was made here, actually, just above, which is really pretty ironic if you think about the venue we're in.

Collect's part in all this was to support Rklawton to the maximum extent possible, first at the Prescott Bush talk page, then in the AN/I thread I began (concise summary), and finally, in my view, by filing this frivolous report. The article in question is evidently dear to not only Rklawton, but also to Collect, who has been fighting for almost five years to keep any negative content out of that article. Since my single reversion restored the last mention in the article of content they apparently loathe, my single reversion touched a nerve with them both, and they both responded as if they'd been personally attacked, which was absolutely not the case. Collect and I have had conflict previously; as he notes in the text he cited above. It's my impression that that conflict has been largely motivated by my having commented extensively in a matter last October that led to his being blocked. He felt and feels that the block was hugely unfair, and I doubt he's ever likely to let go of his evident anger at me over that.

Alright, that's the sordid background for all this. Since I don't consider this WQA report to have been filed in good faith, I'm not going to devote much more of my time to responding to it. I don't mind responding to the first point Collect raises here, though, which I think is actually a pretty fair example of the rest.

In the first point of Collect's complaint, he objects to my comments on the talk page for our article on an astroturf/stealth web site that presents itself, falsely, as a typical, NPOV medical journal. That he would try to use that particular interchange to try justify his actions and discredit mine demonstrates a degree of cynicism that's astounding to me. It really amazes me that he could try to use something in which he's so indisputably and egregiously in the wrong to try to accuse me of incivility, misconduct, and (at AN/I) of copyright violation. It's a regrettably harsh thing to have to say, but his strategy seems to be to fling whatever mud he thinks might have a chance to stick.

As Collect wrote right at the outset of this report, "In the case at hand, I shortened an extensive quote which had nothing to do with the journal," and goes on to object to my response on the corresponding talk page.

I can only guess that Collect is hoping users won't bother to click a link to examine his accusations. I'm hoping you will. If you don't examine any other claim he's made, please examine this one.

If you don't want to click the link to investigate his claim on this first point, I'll provide it in brief, here. After he followed me to the page and deleted the passage I'd added there, Collect then performed his "shortening" of the restored quote which, he says, "had nothing to do with the journal". The words that are shown below as strikthrough text represent his deletions:

Also referring to this journal, authors in the Canadian Medical Association Journal wrote,

Efforts to undermine the science specific to HIV prevention for injection drug users are becoming increasingly sophisticated. One new and worrisome trend is the creation of internet sites posing as open-access, peer-reviewed scientific journals. One such example, funded by the Drug Free America Foundation, [this journal] contains a review of the research supporting needle exchange program and declares that the "effectiveness of NEPs [needle exchange program] to reduce HIV among IDUs [injection drug users] is overrated;" it further claims that the WHO position on needle exchange programs "is not based on solid evidence."

Collect's edit summary for this was merely, "wp:undue". Please note that this change radically distorts the meaning of the passage from its authors' intention. Nor was the intact passage "verging on copyvio", either, as he claimed at AN/I. Again, please look at this in its context, if you have the least doubt about the propriety of my actions, and to determine for yourself whether Collect's accusation holds up, and also to see what a third-party had to say about his actions there.

It's my opinion that anyone who's capable of making so egregiously cynical an accusation, where the example he uses to do so actually documents a misrepresentation on his part that any RL encyclopedia writer would be fired for on the spot, is not to be trusted with respect to the balance of the complaints he makes here, either.

I'll close by saying two things: One is that this was the first time that anyone has ever taken any complaint against me to any of the dispute resolution boards. I sometimes miss the mark, of course, but I usually try hard to keep things collegial, and to try to understand anyone's objections or complaints, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. Second, I've had more than enough strife with Rklawton and (especially) Collect at the now-archived AN/I thread, already, and I'm not going to provide any further defense, here. I have no more time that I'm willing to spend in that way: This has cost me far too much time and trouble already.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

My sole response: [14] Collect (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Excessive trivia at List of Shake It Up episodes

• List of Shake It Up episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As is often the case with episode lists, most of the episodes listed here are followed by unsourced trivial notes that would be better suited for a site like TV.com. Given that, I removed all the trivia [15] [16], but IPs restored the information. I then removed the trivia a second time (followed by a broader explanation on the talk page), but then IPs restored the information again. I didn't remove the trivia a third time because I didn't want to violate WP:3RR. Since there is no trivia noticeboard, does anyone have any solutions? (It isn't vandalism, so WP:RPP is out of the question.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this is just the case of an unregistered user who doesn't know any better. I can put a template on their talk page for you. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Kizayaro Incivility on Talk:Aline Griffith, Countess of Romanones

• Kizayaro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Aline Griffith, Countess of Romanones (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Aline Griffith, Countess of Romanones|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

[Edited for easier reading and relisted] Kizayaro has reverted edits about questions concerning the truthfullness of Romanones' memoirs without providing explanations in edit summary, until I created a section on the Talk page, in which he responded back, aamong other things “please see the National Archives…before you revert back.” (S)he also said “I will stay close to this to support a national hero who was recruited and trained by the OSS, and sent into the field.”

I found the direction to “see the National Archives” but not cite a particular document to be uncivil. It would be as if someone said “A book in the Library of Congress says I am right, so there.” Furthermore, I found the comment about staying close “to support a national hero” to be problematic for several reasons.

1. It is an implicit threat to edit war should I change anything.

2. It presupposes that Romanones is a hero, so leaves no room for openmindedness about discussion about their truthfulness.

3. Stating his reason for monitoring and editing this page as to ”support a national hero” is an open admission of POV-pushing.

I shared these concerns on the talk page, and now Kizayaro has come back with several scurrilous accusations.

1. He has accused me of “creating” this controversy (questions about Romanones’ OSS) career) when I merely edited based on sources I had found. Basically, he’s accusing me of POV-pushing and original research, even though I have included two sources, including an LA Times story that references a third source, all questioning the veracity of Romanones’ memoirs.

2. He has falsly accused me of Page Ownership by claiming I "instruct[ed] the Wikipedia community not to revert back, as if I am the sole manage of the site," when what I actually said was "please see [source] before reverting" - a request, not an instruction, to read something, and in no way did my statement tell people they could or should not revert, only asked them to take into consideration a source before they made the decision whether or not to revert.

3. He accused me of not wanting to investigate the National Archives (as if that is my responsibility to look through the whole of their documents to find a source he makes vague reference to) and also not wanting “to even check the actual contents of McIntosh's book.” The last statement is an outright lie. I found the page in question on the Google Books version of the McIntosh book, and made explicit reference to what I found there in a Talk page post, making it clear I had actually read the page, before Kizayaro made his accusation.

4. Finally, he said to me “You already have quite a reputation on this site and I really don't know who you think you are to tell me that I'm ‘incivil and unconstructive’." I consider this to be slander. I am an occasional editor, too infrequent to have created a reputation of any kind, good or bad, on Wikipedia. I have never had any blocks taken out against me, nor have I even been officially warned. Kizayaro is making that aspersion upon my reputation without any evidence at all, or at the most digging for dirt on me to find the kind of disagreements we have all had here to “create” a reputation for me so that he can try to create the impression that I should be considered a problematic editor to anyone reading the Griffith Talk page discussion. (also note that Kizayaro's user contributions only go back to February 17 of this year, and only relate to the Aline Griffith article, which show that he would have had no foreknowledge of my alleged "reputation", and also tend to support the concerns I have about his lack of neutral point of view on this subject).

Per policy, I have informed Kizayaro that I have initiated this Wikiquette Alert. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

LedRush

• LedRush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Murder of Meredith Kercher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

LedRush stated that I was "unnecessarily combative," and told me to "settle down and try and be constructive," on an article where he had pledged to "try [his] best to avoid comment on the behavior of other editors." My attempt to get him to stop was reverted by him with the comment "being combative is not civil." I would appreciate assistance. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you wish to defend edit summaries such as Remvoing extranious details from lede. People who added it never had consensus to do so; consensus also shows it is supported to be removed. Only rampant WP:EDITWARRINGing retained it, and your removal of your name from the "Dramaout" with the comment Pledges only work if pledges follow them. The choice of others to comment on editors makes it inappropriate for me to remain here. seem at odds with your post here, alas. Granted the article is going to be totally unmanageable by anyone at all due to the intensity of emotions involved. I think your best best is to re-sign the DRAMAOUT pledge. Collect (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Collect, thanks for you opinion. I removed my name from the Dramaout because other pledges determined that it was ok to call others "unnecessarily combative" and tell them to "settle down and try and be constructive," whilst their name was on said dramaout - the dramaout would only work if everyone followed it. Since the dramaout I have not engaged in problematic behavior, but I certainly was on the receiving end of such. I don't see how removing my name from the pledge is relevant, nor how conduct before the pledge is relevant. Thanks, though. Any comments on the subject at hand? Hipocrite (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Excision of the entire article would be too much to hope for? Collect (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hipocrite has a long history of harassing me and of engaging in personal attacks. Below please see some of his insults: a detailed attack blaming a world of problems on one editor [17], accusation of grandstanding[18], purposeful misrepresentation of another's position [19], insultig an editor for not making the least bit of sense [20], insulting a specific editor, and others at the same time [21], calling another editor's contributions a "word salad" constitution "grandstanding" [22], says editor is listing random factoids and says "who cares?" 4 times [23], accuses an editor of "bloating Wikipedia and distorting the facts via selective presentation" [24]. A completely unsubstantiated personal attack by Hipocrite on Wikid77 and me, misrepresenting our positions and edit histories and imploring us not to edit the article any more.[25]

• Hipocrite opened up a Wikiquette alert on me earlier, an alert which garnered no support at all. I believe that was also another example of harassment as the edit in question wasn't uncivil, wasn't directed at Hipocrite, and the person it was directed at didn't seem to mind. [26]

• Regarding Hipocrite's most current complain, I am shocked that it rises to the level to be discussed here. We had an ongoing discussion on the MoMK talk page where some editors were asking for some new paragraphs be introduced. Other editors were suggesting ways in which it could be improved. Hipocrite went into the original proposal and added tags behind virtually every sentence with these six edits [27] and then changed the original text with these 4 edits [28]. I reverted his second set of edits and moved his proposed changes to the original text at the bottom of the discussion [29]. Before I could finish (after the explained revert, but before the move), Hipocrite attacked the proposed language as an "unencyclopedic linkfarm" [30]. He then attacked me for moving his text (I called the text "Hipocrite's proposed revisions") asking me not to speak for him, implying that I somehow misrepresented his view.[31] I thought that this was uncivil, and I wanted him to know that I did not intend to misrepresent his views (and I in fact think it is impossible to interpret my actions as misrepresenting his views, but, whatever), and I said "Settle down and try and be constructive, please. I was merely trying to make your edits more easily accessible so your proposed revisions, (the "compromise" if you want to be unnecessarily combative) could be discussed without ruining the other people's work (and making the conversations impossible to follow)." [32].

• Finally, Hipocrite did not warn me of this Wikiquette alert...I had to learn from someone else. This despite that we know Hipocrite knows that he must inform me because he did when he made his last unsubstantiated and harassing claim against me.

Personally, I find this whole thing a non-issue, other than the fact that Hipocrite has seemed to make it his policy to pursue a vendetta against me through personal attacks and harassment. I believe he tries to anger me on the talk page and then takes any chance he can to try and catch me in a "gotcha" moment of not being 100% civil. LedRush (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

1/10 the amount of material would have sufficed to make your point here. More simply amplifies Hipocrite's points. Collect (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I feel like his individual comments are barely uncivil, but uncivil nonetheless. Unless you see the scope of the harassment, it's hard to demonstrate harassment.LedRush (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, he continues to represent that he is not allowed to make proposals regarding text[33], even though I explicitly requested that he merely make new proposals under old ones. It's an ongoing pattern of overly dramatic behavior (like unsigning the dramaout petition) coupled with deliberate instigation and harassment.LedRush (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• (just discovered this ANI thread) As I have viewed these events over the past weeks, I believe that User:LedRush has been more than cordial (and friendly), but there is a limit to how much harrassment a person can endure and remain civil. On the other hand, User:Hipocrite has launched numerous personal attacks, especially against me (User:Wikid77), so consider this latest attack by User:Hipocrite against LedRush as just another case of "crying wolf" against LedRush to distract matters. I think this is painfully obvious, but I am just stating that conclusion here, in writing, for the record, to keep an eye on User:Hipocrite as promoting a WP:BATTLEground mentality, which is disruptive in his intense focus on article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" when most of us do not have time to fight over one article, among 3.6 million. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeated uncivil postings in AfD discussion

Resolved

 – User:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry warned for edit warring. No relevant personal attacks/uncivil conduct were shown.

• Digirami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jmorrison230582 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003–04_Manchester_City_F.C._season/FA_Cup_Fourth_round_replay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I am requesting some sort of admin. intervention on the above identified AfD discussion page that is likely to turn hostile if things continue in the same vein.

There have been at least 4 violations of WP:CIVIL guidance so far. The first instance was this one: [34] but I'm not reporting this person because I believe my reponse to it sufficiently handled it. It is now water under the bridge, but it did set the tone for later participants that disagree with my position of keeping the article.

The next one was by Digirami here: [35]. I considered his comments to be essentially ad hominem (since he mentions me by name in order to criticize my posting style rather than addressing my arguments) and so I removed them as per WP:RPA guidance here: [36]. I did consider just removing the last offending part but felt that that might be considered to be tampering with his words, which might only escalate matters, so I removed the whole post expecting him to simply repost his vote in a more civil manner (i.e., without the ad hominem insult). This is a bit of a lose-lose situation for me because now others interpreted my full removal of the post (to avoid the accusation of tampering with it) as an attempt to simply delete his vote instead, which is silly because he could simply repost it.

Thus the following sequence of edits and reverts followed (probably best just to read the edit summary comments in the edit history for this sequence): [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], .... [43], [44]

I really don't think changing, "You are an idiot" to "You are an idiot" effects any sort of useful removal of incivility from a public page, which is no doubt why WP:RPA states remove rather than strikethrough the offending text. I have stopped adding to this silly edit/revert cycle but am not happy where things currently sit. The other user involved here appears to be trying to simply game the system rather than reach any kind of harmonious outcome.

Finally we come to this sequence of comment - response - comment - response with the second user: [45], [46], [47], [48].

The actual posted comments explain the difference of opinion here, but I feel none of this is pertinent to the AfD discussion which should only be about why the article should or should not be retained. I have posted the following comment to this user's Talk page suggesting all these comments would best be removed as they are irrelevant to the AfD discussion but the other user is being equally belligerent as the first one: User_talk:Jmorrison230582#Bad_faith_comments.

Lack of any response from this user on this front has finally led me here. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 02:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what I have done that comes under what a personal attack is. I commented on MLITH's content. MLITH created a "subpage" in the mainspace and then made a deliberate effort to keep it out of other areas of the mainspace. When it became clear that it would have to be posted within mainspace categories, MLITH then started posting lengthy rationales about how or why it should be kept as a mainspace article, contradicting the original intention. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact looking at that discussion, it appears that MLITH is starting from a position of assuming bad faith in other users.

“ It is my understanding that the two-hour consensus *rolls eyes* to originally AfD that article was attained because most of the people voting to delete (who IMO either had an agenda or were totally unfamiliar with the game so voted in ignorance) claimed that the write-up of such a match should simply be covered in the corresponding season article in which it occurred because the game was not notable enough to merit its own article. ”

Whatever could MLITH mean by delete voters "having an agenda"? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I too find it hard to see how my actions are considered a "personal attack". I addressed the AFD by stating that is goes against WP:NOTNEWS. I then suggested to MLITH that he should keep his arguments more concise in the future because other editors/readers may be turned off by overly lengthy arguments (such as this). The suggestion in no part qualifies as ad hominem since it has nothing to do with the actual merits of his arguments, but more on presentation. It's a proven fact that arguments are more effective when they are simple and to the point as compared to lengthy, wordy arguments. In hindsight, it probably wasn't the correct place to suggest it (which is why it was struck through since it didn't merit a full removal). But, how can a comment meant to help him in future arguments here or elsewhere be considered uncivil and/or a personal attack? It simply isn't. (I may also add that I am not the first person to suggest this to MLITH. Another person suggested the same, but didn't do it in the discussion of an AFD. I do not see that editor brought up for "uncivil" behavior.) Digirami (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Outside View Considering the comments and diffs posted here, I don't think any admin action is neccessary. The two editors being complained about here do not seem to have acted against the letter or spirit of the guidelines on civility.

• In the first instance, User:Digirami has commented on the length of User:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry's rationales and comments in addition to rather than instead of his deletion rationale. This is not an ad hom argument because the concerns are seperate (In the same way that 'Delete because I don't like Bob' is an ad hom argument but 'Delete because of lack of notability, also I don't like you Bob' is not). In any case this is a legitimate comment and perhaps, helpful advice, added in good faith and not a personal attack.

• In the second instance, User:Jmorrison230582 seems to have been commenting on irregularities in the construction of the article. Because User:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry was responsible for these irregularities, it makes sense that (s)he were 'called out' and I see no evidence that this was in bad faith. Perhaps the Afd is not the correct forum for this, but ultimately that's not too important.

• I think in this case User:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry's conduct needs to be addressed. Firstly I feel that you may need to look over the policy on personal attacks and civil conduct policies again. Simply mentioning another editor does not make for a personal attack, neither does an ad hominem argument. A personal attack tends to be an unneccessary, overly confrontational or vulgar and usually meritless attack on a person's character or off-wiki conduct whilst generally what you are characterising as personal attacks here are legitimate and potentially helpful comments on your relevant on-wiki behaivour.

• Secondly I do not think you should be taking it upon yourself to moderate this Afd. Voluntary redaction of comments can be a good way to solves disputes or misunderstandings amicably, this can be done either through removal or strikethrough. There are benefits to each - strikethrough gives the sense of a public apology and shows the discussion that moves on, whilst removal ensures that nobody is swayed by the withdrawn arguments - ultimately however the choice is to be made by the person who is voluntarily retracting their comments. Comments should not be actively removed by an involved editor without a very good reason, this is for obvious COI reasons, but also because it creates a more contentious atmosphere and creates more of a problem, without the obvious benefits a public apology/withdrawal gives.

• I also note that in one situation which you have helpfully provided the diffs to, you have engaged in edit warring with User:Digirami over, essentially, whether his/her comment should be striken or removed. I think in this situation it was not appropriate to revert his/her restoration of his/her own comments as they were not vulgar/offensive/libellous etc. You both prima facie breached the 3 revert rule, however User:Digirami has the quite substantial mitigating factor that (s)he was readding their own comments, and attempting to retract them. I therefore think its appropriate to warn you for violations of the rule and to ask you to refrain from removing any more content from this Afd.

• In a nutshell I feel it's appropriate to warn User:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry for violations of the WP:3RR rule and ask him/her to step back somewhat from this Afd, at least to the extent of removing comments etc. I do not feel any admin action is appropriate. If any uninvolved editors think this is the wrong conclusion, feel free to reopen.

Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Andreasedge

• Andreasegde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Beatles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Andreasedge posted a question on the Beatles talk page here, and when I pointed out that the statement in question was false, and another editor agreed, User:Andreasedge altered the original question and told me to "shut the 'eff up." Piriczki (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Very nice. I always enjoy seeing a new contender for Lamest Edit War Ever. Is it "the Beatles" or "The Beatles"? Think very carefully: the fate of the universe depends on answering correctly. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the comment and warned the user. This is probably the end of it unless the original editor escalates. Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I would note the comment I made upon User:Gamaliel's talkpage regarding the history between certain editors and Andreasegde, while of course considering the inappropriate use of language around sensitive ears. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Lack of civility from Admin: Killervogel5

I was editing the page List of World Series champions. There was a table here that listed franchises by appearance which I tried to edit. I added my explanation for doing so but the edits were promptly removed by another user, with no explanation given. I re-added the edits, this time with a more detailed description. This time my edits were removed by the admin Killervogel5. He simply stated that the table was to be arranged in a different manner than what I had been trying to do. He did not link to any policy or previous discussion that showed a consensus had already been reached on this issue; he seemingly just was making an argument from authority. (Namely, that he knew how it should be done and I didn't.) He then wrote on my page and warned me of edit-warring, which I believe was unfounded claim. I then wrote on the discussion page why I thought my edit made sense. I also alerted him and we began to discuss the issue. He told me initially that I was being uncivil, and he was probably correct since I was angry at the time. However, I calmed down and attempted to reach a conclusion on the issue and he continued to act in an abrasive manner. We both admitted to having felt "badgered", at which point he told me "Then go about your merry way." I pointed out that we hadn't reached a conclusion and he responded, "I don't need to "give you" anything. I disagree with your edits but I don't feel like arguing about it. So move on."This is how the conversation continued until I eventually gave up seeking an answer. The issue for the article itself remains unsettled, but what concerns me is the manner in which I was treated by an admin. I am not claiming to be perfect, for I certainly was not. But while an admin may correct me, no one will say anything to him if I don't bring it up. The entirety of the discussion can be found on his talk page, although I believe that he has deleted it.Talk This is where the discussion can be found. Thank you.Ultimahero (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know there Ultimahero, while I didn't research the "article" in question, I did read through the talk page discussion. I'm not sure I really see anything that breeches the civility threshold, but I am concerned about your acceptance (or rather lack thereof) to drop a matter that KV5 clearly was attempting to walk away from. If you're looking for a conclusion to the article in question, I may say that our articles are never "finished" and can be edited at any time, by anyone (for the most part). KV5 mentioned several times that he simply was not interested in bickering about the issue, and yet you continued to press him for some sort of resolution. Personally, I'd suggest that you simply allow the matter to drop, and continue about Wikipedia in an effort to improve articles. Best of luck to you both. — Ched :  ?  09:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Upon further review, I also note that while you (Ultimahero) have not technically broken the 3RR rule in any one day, the continued reverts with two other editors (User:Staxringold and the aforementioned User:Killervogel5) which puts you dangerously close to an edit war. I note that you have been warned about this, and your removal of said warnings indicates that you are aware of the issue. I do see some conversation on the talk page; perhaps asking for a 3rd Opinion would be a way to achieve consensus. I trust there are no shortages of baseball fans here at WP, so I can't imagine it would be difficult to gather a group to achieve the desired goal of consensus. Cheers and best, — Ched :  ?  09:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As for the dispute behind the edit warring, see WP:LAME. RichardOSmith (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Definitely agree with the citation to WP:LAME. This just ain't worth fighting over (whether the 2nd organizational variable for a table should be A or B). Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I can contest to the way Killervogal acts towards anyone who disagrees with him, having been in "discussions" with him in the past. I found him to be very quick to remind people to be civil, even when there is no hint of incivility in the comments. Anyone who disagrees with him is contentious by his standards and once said I deserved to be banned, even though he had little to no support for his interpretation of policy. (This being on whether or not, team names should link to a teams season or just to the team in general.) So I can understand if someone else has a similar issue with how he discusses. JOJ ^Hutton 18:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As far it being a lame edit war, that was my point. I don't believe I ever did start an edit-war on the page. So to be accused of it after 2 edits (which even stated above was not violating any policy) seems absurd to me. I believe my questions for User:Killervogel5) were not out of line; he had involved himself and I was simply asking him for a resolution to our dispute. I didn't want to walk away not knowing if he would revert my edits the next day; and I don't believe that I was out of line to feel that way. I readily accept that initially I was indeed uncivil, and will accept any correction that is due to me. I simply believe that User:Killervogel5) acted out of haste (accusing me of something, then refusing to give a simple answer.) I don't feel he should get in trouble or anything; I just feel that as an admin his behavior was a bit questionable. I would simply like another admin (whom I believe would have more credibility) to ask him to consider his tone in the future.Ultimahero (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You both do realize that admins have no "special powers" or anything? Just tools that other editors don't? Just because I'm an administrator doesn't make me accountable to any higher standard than any other editor. If this is all a problem with me being an administrator, I'll willingly relinquish the administrative tools without a second thought. But I don't have to stand the flat-out lies in Jojhutton's statements above. I was simply trying to end the unproductive discussion which Ultimahero insisted on pushing. If I didn't have an answer to give, there's nothing wrong with that, and I would think that my telling him repeatedly to "drop it" and "move on" was case enough. I have no further comments to make on this matter, and I will not return to this discussion thread. I leave it to an appropriate bureaucrat to determine whether removing my admin bit is the preferred course of action, but I will not see my good name impugned without response by baseless accusations. Good day. — KV5 • Talk • 19:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The conventional way to arrange lists like this is to sort them initially in order by column. Hence, with the first column being number of wins (descending), and the second column being franchise name, franchise name should be the second sorted item; not the year, which is the last column. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect you ARE accountable to a higher standard. Or, at the very least, more is to be expected out of you than the average editor. You have the ability to block people, and thus when you warn people it carries weight. For you to accuse me of an edit-war, despite the fact that I only made 2 reverts in a day (thus not violating any policy) and gave good reasons for them, all the while not warning the person who changed my edits without explanation, is inappropriate. If you had been anyone other than an admin I would have ignored such a silly accusation because it's obviously false. But, since you are an admin I had to pay attention because I don't wish to be blocked. As for the discussion we had it was only unproductive because you refused to contribute. You boldly involved yourself and then simply walked away when I asked you for an answer. I simply asking other admins, who carry more weight than myself, to explain that such actions BY AN ADMIN are not okay.Ultimahero (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Administrators there is a list of expectations for admins, which proves that indeed admins are held to a higher standard. Most notably for our purposes is this line: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others".Ultimahero (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Once you get reverted, you should go to the talk page instead of getting into an edit skirmish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, that's what I did. There was no edit-war. That was my point. I made one edit and explained why I made it. It was reverted without any reason given. I made the edit again with a fuller explanation and it was again deleted. So then I edited the talk page and this problematic discussion ensued. I appreciate your desire to help but please familiarize yourself with the issue before offering a critique.Ultimahero (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:3O and/or WP:RFC would be a step in the right direction. To be honest Ultimahero, after reading a few of your posts, I honestly can understand where someone might be taking your efforts as being aggressive, which seldom works well here. Yes, I an understand that you simply want to "improve" the article; but, it's rather difficult to find fault with someone who has simply walked away from the issue. To be perfectly frank, I just don't see that there's anything actionable here. While it's true that admins should endeavor to adhere to high standards, I just don't see that Killervoge did anything all that wrong. In fact, since the table is sortable by whatever column you wish simply by clicking on the title, I honestly don't understand the big "ta-do" over it. (but then again, it's not my area of choice either). I wish you luck in all your efforts, but it just seems like a mountain/molehill thing to me. — Ched :  ?  06:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I've been unclear. I'm not frustrated over the table arrangement. I am frustrated that an admin would accuse me of edit-warring after a mere two edits. I am frustrated that I alone am chastised, even though by definition it would take multiple people to revert a page back and forth. I am frustrated that when I went to discuss it with Killervogel5, he refused to listen. Walking away from the issue would be fine, but telling me things such as "go your merry way", "move on", as well as the general combative tone he employed are beyond simply walking away. These are certainly not the types of things that one would define as "civility", right? You state that he didn't do anything "all that wrong". So then it was wrong, just not REALLY wrong. Forgive me but that makes no sense to me. If it was wrong, in any sense, then it deserves some level of correction, does it not? I said from the beginning that I didn't think that he should be banned or anything; I would simply like a fellow admin to take two minutes to remind him how administrators should lead by example.Ultimahero (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, personal attacks and ignorance of consensus

I would like to report disruptive editing of "Silent Hill (video game)," personal attacks and ignorance of consensus by the user Yomiel. This article is a good article, which is an extra reason for it to comply with Wikipedia's rules. The user has still not restored the correct edits, neither he/she recalled the personal attacks, despite multiple notifications of him/her by both me and another user over a period of some weeks (this is the number of notifications done by me: 8 notifications of the disruptive editing, 7 notifications of the personal attacks and 3 notifications of his ignorance of consensus). The disruptive editing involved repeated addition of original research, which is also trivia (according to the guidelines of WikiProject video games, the plot section should not include trivia), in the plot section. The personal attacks involved repeated labeling of me as a liar, vandal and attacker, without any proof, thus, these labels are unfounded. The ignorance of consensus involved deletion of the restored correct edits and addition of his/her original research-trivia, despite 2 other users previously agreeing with me that original research is present in this user's edits (one of them agreed in the article's talk page and the other in this user's talk page) and none agreeing with his/her edits. The proof for all these is in this user's talk page and in the article's talk page. Some of the proof in his/her talk page has been deleted, so it can be viewed by clicking the page's previous version. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This is getting on my nerves. First, for someone who keeps talking about rules, don't the rules listed at the top of the page say you shouldn't post about this kind of thing here? I'm responding only to clear my own name. A while ago, I made a few small edits to the article for the game Silent Hill. Golden reverted my edits and accused me of vandalism, because these edits didn't have references. I don't believe every single statement needs to have a reference. As it is, it's impossible to edit most articles here-that page included-because there are so many long references that it's impossible to tell the difference between them and the article itself. What really ticked me off, though, was that Golden has repeatedly ADMITTED that she knows the information I added is accurate. Deleting accurate information solely because it is not sourced is what I consider vandalism. There are a lot of people who try and twist the rules to give them free reign to do whatever they want. She also tried to flaunt that fact that she has been a member here longer, as if that automatically meant I had to do whatever she wanted. When I refused to let her have her way, she continued to harass me, then opened up a request for comment on the game's talk page. Contrary to what she would have you believe, there was never any agreement for my edits to be removed. In fact, pretty much no one commented at all, until recently. She has repeatedly "notified" me on my talk page, and I've repeatedly asked her to stop. Just because she doesn't like an edit, that does not give her the right to act like a moderator and repeatedly give me warnings and threaten me. And I called her a liar because just as she is doing now, she has lied on numerous pages about what has been going on between us. Various other people have pointed out how ridiculous all this is over such minor edits, and I agree, but she won't leave me alone.Yomiel (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I never used the word "vandalism" nor I harassed. This can be verified by checking out the discussions at Yomiel's talk page and at the game's talk page. The issue is not Yomiel not doing what I say, but Yomiel not following the rules. As anyone can see in my previous post here at Wikiquette alerts, I also didn't say that there was agreement for Yomiel's edits to be removed, I said that there was agreement that Yomiel's edits contain original research. Me flaunting the fact that I've been a user for longer is an unfounded claim based on personal conclusions and there is no evidence to prove it, not that there is any for the other claims by Yomiel here. The restoration of the correct edits was done after these 2 people said that original research is included, not before, so my act of restoration was based on consensus. As for the "threats," they would be considered threats if I had threatened that a block or something else bad would be applied, while I only warned of "notification of an administrator," which can, too, be verified by checking out the discussions. If the administrator will just warn or block is up to his/her judgement. May I hear the names of the numerous pages I've lied in? It can be confirmed who is lying and twisting by just checking out the discussions. It's outrageous that personal attacks continue even here, in public, and even after the report here, and it's not the first time personal attacking is done in public, the other time being at the game's talk page. The fact that various people have pointed out that the matter is minor or ridiculous, doesn't mean it's acceptable to add original research and/or trivia. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And here we go again. Yes, you have harassed me. Non-stop. The rules do not require every single part of every single article to have a source. And if they do, then that is insane. You reverted edits that you knew contained factual information, using the rules to support your vandalism. Even reading your posts is irritating. You need to stop harassing me. Now.Yomiel (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

accused of edit warring at Sham peer review by User:Rpeh

• Rpeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sham peer review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am accused of causing an edit war. I am conforming to the status quo by using a source Association of American Physicians and Surgeons which is used in 16 other Wiki articles (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=JPandS&fulltext=Search). I have already stated the obvious several times that a ruling at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is required to overturn the status quo. ‎One paragraph i used doesnt even have any relevancy to the disputed source.--Penbat (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to duck when the BOOMERANG comes back. You edit warred and ignored discussion on the talk page. End of argument. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

i contributed quite a lot on the talk page until the arguments against inclusion started going round in circles and nobody seems willing to challenge the status quo by making a case at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.--Penbat (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You were already answered on that point. WP:RS contains the following: "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals". JPandS is not peer reviewed and so is not considered reliable. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Penbat, I think that the best solution to this would be for you to post on RSN yourself. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The onus is not on me to do anything. I am just complying with the status quo. The source is considered OK for 16 other articles. Those who want the status quo changed need to post on RSN and argue for the source to be blacklisted. --Penbat (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat the point again until you understand it. "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals". JPandS is not peer reviewed and so is not considered reliable. This means that JPandS might well be used on other articles, but it is not valid where you were adding it! rpeh •T•C•E• 16:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no specific onus on anybody to bring issues to RSN, it's not a psuedo-legal process, but rather an informal way of bringing the discussion to a wider forum in order to obtain a better idea of the WP:CONSENSUS on the matter. RSN rarely operates in terms of 'rulings' 'blacklists' and (by extension) whitelists but instead operates on an ad hoc basis which is heavily dependant on context. You may also wish to note that the 'status quo' is very rarely relevant in content disputes and the WP:BURDEN is almost always on the person who wishes to add the content and that your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is a non-starter on wikipedia. If you would like to include this information and source, since consensus is against you at the talk page, RSN is the way to go. Regards Bob House 884 (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Prajwal21

• Prajwal21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Priyanka Chopra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prajwal21 is continuously striking a deadlock regarding the signature of Priyanka Chopra. He says that I have wrongly copied the signature provided by him, only changed the format and uploaded it. I can't understand that why his says that the image is ineligible for copyright... when I can't even upload a better image. He is jealous of me and thinks that I am stealing the credit when I have provided him due credit. He has already listed the image for deletion and, outrageously, even for speedy deletion!. You can also read a detailed arguement about the topic at here. He has reverted my edits 4 times as you can see over here in diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, and diff 4. I have repeatedly told him to assume good faith, remain civil, and understand the Commons transition to SVG images. I havn't seen one signature on Wikipedia which is not in SVG format. In the end of the fourth reversion, you can see that Prajwal21 has labelled me as bogus and non-sense. I've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page as you can see over here in this diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page and in this diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page. I would like this issue immidiately resolved as he is acting as if he OWNS THE ARTICLE GaneshBhakt (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor Brian Josephson at Talk:Energy_Catalyzer

• Brian Josephson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Energy_Catalyzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The above editor, failing to get his way in a dispute over article content, has made an escalating series of personal attacks, culminating in this one, directed at me: "Please don't display your complete ignorance of science any more than you have to. You probably don't even know what the term [calorimetry] means" (diff). The assertion is of course laughable, but I think that Josephson needs to be reminded that WP:NPA applies, and that continual breaches are likely to result in action being taken against him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey AndyTheGrump I would just like to point out to you that Prof. Josephson is a Nobel prize winning physicist. His statement with regard to calorimetry was entirely correct. Do you really want your only interaction with a Nobel laureate to be adversarial? Anyhoo.. enjoying the exchange on the discussion keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.179.18 (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Assuming for the point of argument that the user actually is Brian Josephson (which is not entirely implausible), that does not excuse gross incivility. And his statement is indeed "hogwash" except in the most literal sense. Rossi claims power production in the order of kilowatts. They measure this using very crude techniques indeed, not carefully calibrated high-precision calorimetry. Their claims of fusion are, to be generous, incompatible with our current understanding of nuclear physics. In particular, the lack of detectable gamma radiation all but precludes fusion. The chances that this is either a fraud, a hoax, or that the experimenters are deluded, is much greater than the chance of a scientific miracle in a garage solving the worlds energy problems. Josephson should know that. It's his prerogative to defend his opinion, but if he wants to do it here, he has to abide by our policies. That includes avoiding personal attacks and, for that matter, using iffy and self-published sources to support extraordinary and contentious claims. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

@Stephan Shultz: I can only comment that most people would consider the use of the term 'hogwash' to be uncivil language and, in effect, a personal attack. I did not start this. 'Ignorance' on the other hand is a purely factual term: it would appear that the editor concerned either did not know what the term meant or lacked the ability to see the connection; his response above does not enlighten us on this issue. Possibly my whole sentence could be considered abusive, but no more I suggest than the use of the term hogwash when the identical point can easily be made in non-emotive ways.

The other point is that given the gross disparity between apparent output energy and other energies involved, high precision is not necessary. I assume that the experimenters had figured this out and did not use high precision instruments for that reason. I have already made this point and wonder why you are nevertheless insisting on this issue.

Fusion at ordinary temperatures may be incompatible with regular physics as far as free particle collisions is concerned, though it is hard to prove a negative. When we take the condensed matter environment into account, the situation is up for grabs. For example, nanoparticles may both exhibit quantum order and by virtue of the number of particles involved have the right amount of energies to surmount the Coulomb barrier. A whole range of theories have been proposed. While it is true to say there is no generally accepted explanation, it is not true to state outright that the claims are incompatible with current science.

And re the absence of gamma rays, the usual calculation presumes high energy collisions. For slow processes the gamma ray component may be much reduced. Absence of gamma rays is not a conclusive argument. I'll leave it there for now but hope we can have continued constructive discussion. --Brian Josephson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC).

"Hogwash" is a very tame insult, even a tad old-fashioned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/WFVA

• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Neutralhomer
• Article name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)WFVA

User keeps removing true and pertinent data to this particular page. Citations from FCC information, station ownership and licensing that may put the station in a less than flattering image are being censored. 71.161.44.88 (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Appeared to be vandalism from my perspective. Page has been protected, and IP blocked for 24 hours. If you run into something where you're being reverted, it's always best to discuss the issue on the talk page after the revert. (see: WP:BRD). If you have questions, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. — Ched :  ?  06:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Abusive, edit-warring DeadSend4

• DeadSend4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Tenebrae#Your continous attempts at blocking my edits for no reason other than having no life? Or your personal distaste for Kidman? (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Tenebrae#Your continous attempts at blocking my edits for no reason other than having no life? Or your personal distaste for Kidman?|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Though multiple editors including myself, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, User:Nymf, and User:Crohnie have reverted his edits at Nicole Kidman, he continued to edit war, just narrowly avoiding 3RR, and as you can see by the subhead of a post he left on my talk page ("Your continous attempts at blocking my edits for no reason other than having no life? Or your personal distaste for Kidman"), he is being uncivil and abusive toward other editors.

As you can see by his talk page, he has been blocked in the past, and is currently causing the same commotion at Cate Blanchett and possibly other articles. I implore you to intervene.Tenebrae (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

He has just made a second insulting and abusive comment on my talk page, dated 20:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC). --Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And here is a third abusive post, in which he now threatens to harass me and exhibits WP:OWN:

Then leave me and my edits alone, in fact don't visit Nicole's page since all you're going to do is whine about me, like you're doing now. Again, YOU'RE COMING AT ME, so if you post on my page I'm only gonna come back and make you whine again. ENOUGH!DeadSend4 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

--Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This editor hasn't been rude to me but the comments to Tenebrae are definitely rude and violate civil and no personal attacks. The problem I have is that this editor is rewriting multiple articles. With having a low edit count and the mistakes being made s/he needs to slow down and not make such big edits. The Cate Blanchett article has a lot of mistakes in it. From overlinking to the articles not saying what the sources say, this is a major problem and a major clean up esp. if this needs to be done at multiple articles. The threatening posts to Tenebrae should bring a block for being uncivil. Also the editor usually signs first and then makes their comment (see my talk page). The comment on my talk page shows the lack of assuming good faith. I'm sorry DeadSend4 but you have a lot to learn here and you could learn a lot from Tenebrae which would be better than picking an argument with him/her. Please, slow down and don't rewrite articles. Also, notability is important for things along with biographies of a living person plus other core policies that you are not applying or do not know. Either way it can't continue the way you have been. More later if needed, I'm going ofline for now so ping me if I'm needed. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling that DeadSend4 and his socks/IPs aren't going to reason with us, considering that he has been owning/edit warring the article for well over 5 months. ANI next? Nymf _hideliho! 13:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Adhoc82

• Adhoc82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alhazen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Attacked me in pretty rude language here. Besides, the allegation that I removed his contents cannot be true, since he only registered today (on Apr 18, 2011 17:40:24), after I did the cleanup. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to tell him about this. You should try discussing with a user before seeking recourse in noticeboards. The purpose of WQA is to resolve disputes between two or more parties, but I don't sense that's why you're posting here. Focus on the content - he shouldn't have said what he did, but the most important thing is getting the article right. And he never said it was his work, actually. Fences&Windows 01:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I fully support Gun Powder Ma and the excellent work they are doing in cleaning up an egregious misuse of sources (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup—thanks very much Gun Powder Ma, and sorry I'm not helping much). However, Fences&Windows is correct about this incident. We should not bring a new editor to a noticeboard unless the issue is extreme, and while it is obvious that the comments made by the editor are totally misguided, I am afraid that we are supposed to tolerate initial outbursts. I see that Fences&Windows has left a good warning at User talk:Adhoc82 and that probably is all that is required at the moment. I am now watching the user's talk page and will respond if they show signs of not understanding the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the advice left by Fences&Windows at User talk:Adhoc82 is very apt and appropriate. Agree, this is probably is all that is required at the moment.--Whiteguru (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User: Revan

• Revan ltrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Led Zeppelin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Revan was previously blocked for personal attacks and uncivil behavior.[49] When his block ended, we was instructed to stay away from me.[50] We had interacted almost exclusively through the article on Led Zeppelin. After his block expired, he came back to the Led Zeppelin board and continued to levy personal attacks against me (like calling me biased and a fanboy, among others).[51] I decided to try and wait him out and hope that he would demonstrate some more maturity with his posts. He has not. Most recently, he stated that another editor and I have "no credibility"[52], accuses me of bias[53] and drops an F-bomb while telling me that I am obsessively preaching and condescending [54].

I would merely like the terms of his initial blocking enforced, and have him stay away from me in general.LedRush (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave this for an Admin, but having looked over the thread I see that both users have issues with each other and USER:LedRush is also capable of personalizing comments to USER:Revan.("Everything you're talking about is original research, and not very believable, either") but he seems to be showing more restraint than Revan. Neither of them have recently made what I would call a personal attack just yet, but Revan is getting close with the F word and since he has a prior block and instruction to stay away from LedRush, a warning may be appropriate.In general I would suggest to both of them that they take this and future disputes to RfC as soon as it is clear they are not making progress and let go of the personal stuff.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Keithbob's analysis. He used the quote, "Everything you're talking about is original research, and not very believable, either" to substantiate a personal comment by LedRush. But I fail to see how this is personal. Telling someone that they're inserting original research is not personal; it's directly addressing the information being presented. At the same time, though, I don't agree with all the examples LedRush posted. Saying someone is biased is not a personal attack; it would be perfectly true and legitimate for me to say that LedRush is biased in this dispute since it has affected him. There is no personal attack there. Also, saying that someone has no credibility is not necessarily a personal attack, either. The reason for lack of credibility would determine if it's personal. If he said you had no credibility because you smelled, then that's personal because it's being based on a personal reason. However, if a person vandalized a page repeatedly then they could be said to have no credibility and that would be perfectly fair and on-topic. So we need more context to establish what whether it was proper or not. But the swearing by Revan is surely out of line.Ultimahero (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)