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 discussions

Jayjg accusing me of wikihounding

Stuck

 – No resolution is, or is likely to, occur here. Editors' with concerns are encourage to initiate RFC/U Nobody Ent 10:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In a nutshell, editors do not get to harass other editors and then come disingenuously to WQA to complain when they are called out on their behaviour. Following an editor around to comment on other discussions they are having with other editors on unrelated matters is extending your dispute by other means and is the definition of WP:HOUND. That page exists for a reason, and that reason is amply explicated by the editing patterns of those who brought or support this complaint. May I remind editors that it is itself an abuse of wikiquette to use WQA in this manner and filings of this nature should be referenced in the future in the event of further disruptive or uncivil editing. I will now close this discussion as not only frivolous and without merit, but further an attempt to game the process. Eusebeus (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Richard_Feynman (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Richard_Feynman|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Links: [[1]] [[2]]

Jayjg has repeatedly accused me of wikihounding when I have contributed to articles with active RFCs. I recently had an RFC on a page I edit and decided to comment on other active RFCs. I commented on many RFCs. Jayjg was involved in two of the RFCs I commented on. He accused me of WP:HOUNDING, WP:STALK and made other untrue accusations. When i explained what happened he asserted that I took him for an idiot, and accused me of hounding again.

I would like Jayjg to stop accusing me of wikihounding and remove his comments. it is disruptive to the thread and my discussion.Gsonnenf (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah he does it to me too. When all other arguments fail? Also note that the use of words stalking and wikistalking was abandoned. Jayjg is an experienced editor, and him juxtaposing the two terms indicates he is aware of the issues with the latter, and that he willingly seems to accuse people for what IRL would be felonies. -- Honorsteem (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe all these frivilous complaints we keep seeing here regarding Jayjg are just that...frivilous.MONGO 16:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

and maybe they are not Mongo. Dismissing other editors complaints as frivolous is disingenuous and counter productive to this talk page. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping we could archive the Jayjg threads, but here we go again! He's done it to me too, as here where I edited something in the news and forgot - mea culpa to look at history or talk page where I would have noticed his recent edit. If I had SEEN he edited there was I NOT supposed to edit cause he thinks I'm stalking him? He edits dozens and even hundreds of articles a week, often in the Israel Palestine area. Is everyone editing in that area supposed to be very careful NOT to edit an article without his permisson so he doesn't accuse them of stalking? One finds out about/becomes interested in articles in all sorts of ways besides following Jayjg's contributions list! Sorry, this isn't frivilous. It's just really annoying. CarolMooreDC 17:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please notify editor of discussion. Nobody Ent 17:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is getting a bit ridiculous. What is wrong with this complaint? Let me count the ways

1. No-one informed me of it. Gsonnenf knows he should do this.
2. Regarding the complaint about "the use of words stalking and wikistalking was abandoned", WP:STALK and WP:HOUND point to the exact same location. The term that use to be used on Wikipedia for following someone around to oppose them was "wikistalking", apparently in the past couple of years it was decided that "wikihounding" was gentler phrase.
3. I first encountered User:Gsonnenf on January 20 at Talk:Circumcision, where his viewpoints were generally the opposite of mine. Within 3 days he showed up to oppose me at Talk:Jews, an article he'd never edited before, and topical area in which he'd never before shown any interest. He also opened a frivolous WP:WQA complaint here, where he was told that there was no WQA violation - and, in fact, warned of WP:BOOMERANG. Unsurprisingly, CarolMooreDC (an editor with whom I've had many content disputes over the years) also showed up there with her complaint, the exact same one she has brought here again, only to be told there was not violation either. A couple of weeks later, while the discussion/dispute at Talk:Circumcision continued, Gsonnenf showed up to oppose me Talk:Richard Feynman, another article he'd never edited before, and topical area in which he'd never before shown any interest. A couple of days after that, Gsonnenf showed up to oppose me at Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates, another article he'd never edited before, and topical area in which he'd never before shown any interest.
4. I first encountered User:Honorsteem at Daniel Pipes, where I warned him of BLP violations. Three days after I first warned him, he showed up to oppose me at Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates, an article he'd never edited before, and topical area in which he'd never before shown any interest. A few days after that, he showed up to oppose me at Talk:Circumcision, an article he'd never edited before, and topical area in which he'd never before shown any interest. Meanwhile, after a discussion on his User talk: page with me and others about WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, he decided to move the entire concluded discussion, warnings and all, to Talk:Daniel Pipes. When I objected to his edits, which made it appear I had been commenting at Talk:Daniel Pipes, he eventually complained about me at WP:ANI, in this discussion. During the discussion it became apparent that Honorsteem had been banned from Dutch wikipedia, and from what I can tell from the conversation, has at least one other live account on en-wiki. When the discussion there started turning against him, he stated it was now closed, and subsequently disappeared from it.
5. Regarding CarolMooreDC, as noted before, she and I have had many editorial disputes over the years. As a result, I can now rely on her to faithfully show up whenever my name appears on a board like this, to either make vague complaints about me, suggesting I need to be taught some sort of lesson, or to repeat accusations already rejected by this board (see double jeopardy), or both!

It appears that these editors have decided that, not having achieved success in their editorial disputes with me, they can (in the case of Gsonnenf and Honorsteem), instead follow me around and oppose me on other pages, and when I call them on it, bring various at best marginal, at worst entirely spurious accusations about me to WP:WQA, in the hopes that if they throw enough dirt, some will stick. I have no intention of pretending that something else is happening here. I now fully expect any other editors with whom I've had recent editorial disagreements to come here also complaining (and when they do, I will point them to this prediction). In fact, User:Garycompugeek has already done so. This board is supposed to assist with actual "Wikiquette" issues, rather than being another means of attempting to win editorial disputes. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ladies, please, do we really need to engage in this much wikidrama? It seems that all the involved parties here are hard at war with each other. Let's quit hurling accusations at each other, lest others hurl accusations against us. Amen, sisters. -- Y not? 00:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, please do not bring what are essentially editorial disputes (as best I can see through the thick tl;dr) to this Board. Let he who is without stalking cast the first stalk, etc. I am out of religious mumbo-jumbo. Just quit the drama. -- Y not? 00:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This probably is the most serious of the three complaints (the other two still can be archived.) Jayjg wrote: rely on her to faithfully show up whenever my name appears on a board like this Where in WP:Wikihounding does it say you can't comment on someone's behavior - especially when three separate complaints happen on the same board in the same month or so? Of course, I haven't even noticed/participated in all of the complaints vs. Jayjg on all the various boards over the years. But when there are three in a month on the same board, come on??

If editors can't work on answering a bunch of RfCs or AfDs or MfDs or BLPNs or RSNs or adding new info to topics of mutual interest without being accused of being a "wikihounder" by some editor they may have had a dispute with in the past, there really is NO hope for civility in Wikipedia, is there? If Jayjg can quit the drama of accusing people of wikihounding he will resolve this issue. CarolMooreDC 05:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Gsonnenf and Honorsteem, please try to stay away from articles or forums in which Jayjg has a stake in the outcome, unless it's an issue you were already involved in. If you keep at it, you will probably have your editing privileges curtailed at some point. Jayjg, please don't be so quick to accuse others of Wikihounding. Wikhounding happens. If you look at my contribution history over the past five days or so, you will see several discussions in which editors who don't appear to appreciate my contributions too much have suddenly appeared and taken contrary positions to what I was asking or suggesting. What am I going to do about it, confront them about it every time? I don't think so. Please wait until gets really bad before throwing out an accusation and forcing a confrontation. Cla68 (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to accuse an editor who makes a single comment on a RFC posted article as wikihounding. That said, the most effective and least disruption action is for Gsonnenf to point out the RFC in progress and walk away. Regarding the pattern of Jayjg being mentioned here repeatedly; the focus of WQA is to resolve individual misunderstandings. Discussion of long term patterns would be be handled by an RFC/U. Nobody Ent 11:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that some contributors above were too fast to dismiss Jayjg's complaint of Wikihounding as the evidence that he brings above, particularly in point 3 and 4, is strong. From experience I know that it is very unpleasant to be Wikihounded and by speaking out my opinion I know I take a risk to be attacked and hounded myself. It is Jayjg, not his hounders, who ought to receive assistance from this board and from all concerned Wikipedians, who are not afraid to speak out and care for the neutrality of the encyclopedia. That is why I add this reaction. gidonb (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: There seem to be some thin skins around. I think I found the comment Gsonnenf objected to (though it isn't linked well), and yes, Jayjg accused her of wikihounding. (Aside: that's such a better term than "wikistalking", I'm glad it has gained currency.) And it sure looks like Gsonnenf was, indeed, wikihounding Jayjg. Even if it was a bizarre coincidence, it's not out of line at all to say that it looks a lot like wikihounding, and I can't see why Jayjg should be forced to retract his comment as requested. That said, Cla68's point above is a salient one: this kind of minor hounding goes on all the time, especially when one edits controversial topics. We should all probably develop a tolerance for a limited amount of it, until it gets blatant, rather than calling it out or, worse, involving mediation at every turn. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Clear case of wikihounding poo poo'd: Just to show how hard it can be to make a case, obvious sock of someone who disagreed with me on an article started an account and two of his first edits directly followed edits of mine here and here - he then argued for weeks with me on the article in question. When he was threatened with banning for bad behavior it looks to me like he started a new account and three of his earliest edits were directly after mine at here, here and here, before arguing with me for months on the article in question. Yet complaining he might be a hounding sock was dismissed as "fishing!"

Maybe I'm just an editor so when I complain I'm not taken seriously, but admins who complain are?? In any case, saying some Admins have first dibs on articles and other editors with whom the admin may have had past disputes should stay away from the article(s) is NOT wikipedia policy is it? If it is, let's put in writing on WP:Wikihounding, WP:Administrators, etc. CarolMooreDC 18:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note that Honorsteem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked and is in fact an alternative account of Eiland (talk · contribs). There is currently a discussion about this on WP:ANI. As pointed out elsewhere, the editing history of Gsonnenf (talk · contribs) is odd: after a long break, the account suddenly became active as a single purpose editor, after a brief period editing with the IP 174.28.162.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Mathsci (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Now you are talking issues I can identify with since run into them frequently. Guess someone should check that sort of thing out immediately so that the complainant can confirm or deny - or get appropriately blocked. To save everyone time and energy. (Not that I take back my comments about Jayjg's questionable behavior; but I didn't want to waste time arguing them out here at the time; only other's seemingly legitimate complaints prodded me. Of course, one more in that recent time period and I might have come here with diffs galore or even ad nauseum. And I do have a couple article where we've met up recently I intend to make edits to; just been too busy lately.) CarolMooreDC 21:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

On the comment, "stay away from articles or forums in which Jayjg has a stake in the outcome", I will point out that vested authorship on wikipedia is a violation of wp:owner. There are no authors with legitimate stake in a wikipedia article outcome.Gsonnenf (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This thread is about Jayjg's behavior, not the dispute events he has with others, even if they comment in this thread. Jayjg is involved in a great number of disputes, and I have commented on a large number of RFCs. There will definitely be overlap in RFC, this is not hounding. If he disagrees with my comments posted in response to a requested comments, he can explain his disagreement without making accusations. Jayjg has also followed me around in the past, once going to a policy page where I was asked for an outside opinions, and stating his opinion as if he was an outside author. If there is a group of people who have problems with Jayjg, we should look at his past history to determine why. There is clear evidence of his past misbehavior. In 2007 he was caught canvasing and in 2009 he was sanctioned by administrators for bad behavior. In the same way Jayjg claims there is a mob of people following him around to appose him, there is also a core of usual suspects who popup to support Jayjg in his dispute.

As for my activity, prior to my involvement on an article in which I have an opposition opinion to Jayjg, I would edit Wikipedia anonymously simply because it was unnecessary to login. I would typically make 5-10 contributions a month. This issue with Jayjg forced me to login in order to defend. I have every right to add constructive comments to RFCs.Gsonnenf (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Within days of resuming this account to edit circumcision after 2 years of inactivity, Gsonnenf filed a report here about Jayjg.[3] He later suggested the possibility of opening an arbitration case to another user, apparently because of POV concerns on circumcision,[4] Now there is a second report here. Gsonnenf's reference in the second diff to "opposition party" and here to "core of usual suspects", plus these references to Jayjg's editing history from 5 years ago, suggest that Gsonnenf's edits related to Jayjg are not being made in good faith, per WP:HARASS and in particular WP:HOUND. Mathsci (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It's far from the first time Gsonnenf's brought up these entirely unrelated events from 5 years ago. He's mentioned them on the article talk page, and on the pages of administrators. Another editor has already pointed out to him that it is not relevant to this article, and questioned whether it was merely a vague attempt at deflection. Gsonnenf has referred to editors he dislikes as "Puppeteers"[5][6] and "pro-surgery"[7], apparently applying both of these labels to me, and actively attempted to recruit like-minded editors to edit-war with him.[8][9] I would suggest that these actions are far more serious violations of Wikiquette than anything raised in this thread, and in my view corroborate your view that "Gsonnenf's edits related to Jayjg are not being made in good faith, per WP:HARASS and in particular WP:HOUND". Jayjg ^(talk) 08:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Like Garycompugeek, I've been involved with Jayjg and Gsonnenf at the circumcision article. Nevertheless, I'd like to draw attention to a few things. The "old" Gsonnenf appeared to be interested in computer-related topics, and has been inactive since June 2009. The "new" Gsonnenf appeared at the circumcision article together with an number of new users following off-site canvassing at Reddit (which may or may not be a coincidence).[10] At the time of writing, the "new" Gsonnenf has made 196 edits, not including those made using IP addresses. He has shown an extremely aggressive WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing, making frequent accusations, with a pattern of making frivolous, vexatious complaints against other editors; for example he falsely accused me of a 3RR violation, and mistakenly accused Jayjg of miscellaneous perceived Wikiquette issues here and in this thread. That Gsonnenf is harrassing Jayjg is clear as shown by the evidence above. For example, Gsonnenf's first interest in Talk:Jews was in the same thread as and approximately 2 hours after Jayjg's comment to that article. One of his IP edits is particularly disturbing. Jakew (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

comment This dispue further revolves around the circumcision article, so i think we also need to take that part into consideration. Pass a Method talk 15:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I now fully expect any other editors with whom I've had recent editorial disagreements to come here also complaining (and when they do, I will point them to this prediction). Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment I have known Jayjg since I started editing Circumcision back in 2008. He and Jakew have employed WP:TAGTEAM in the last 4 years that I have watched the page and Jakew exhibits the strongest qualities of WP:OWNERSHIP that I have ever come across. Jayjg frequently WP:BITES newcomers dissuading them from participating if they don't have a pro circumcision viewpoint. I have warned him a number of times and tried to have discussions on his talk page however he is always rude and quickly reverts anything I post there. As far as wikki hounding goes... I can do nothing without one or both of them popping up to try and discredit me. If your bored randomly troll my history and you will easily see what I'm talking about. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I now fully expect any other editors with whom I've had recent editorial disagreements to come here also complaining (and when they do, I will point them to this prediction). Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• If it's a dispute about content, why not go to WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. If the topic remains behavior, and previous blocks, yes old old blocks should not be brought up on talk pages, except perhaps in the most subtle way as a gentle reminder. Even people being stripped of administrative rights and/or banned from a certain category of articles should not be harassed on a talk page about this, before or after reinstatement.
• However, once behavior issues are alleged at a noticeboard like this, this information becomes relevant. The five year old blocks are not as important as the May 2009 issues of behavior where Jayjg was "stripped of his privileges". Only in Januiary of 2011 was he reinstated with the note: Jayjg is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply. Note that Palestine-Israel articles is sometimes broadly applied to include articles related to Judaism and Islam, since that is at least a part of the conflict.
• Depending on where the conflict in the circumcision article is - i.e. Judaism vs. Islam related?? - this might apply. And of course the ArbCom decision is relevant to any WP:ANI on a pattern of problematic behavior.
• And it certainly applies to articles that I have been having problems with lately where I have loudly complained Jayjg has been uncivil or threatening. So I may have been wrong about editors' first step being taking this to RFC/User. It looks like if there is enough of a problem (and I can't really judge myself in cases above because of possible other issues), editors could take it to WP:ANI or, if related to Palestine-Israel, back to ArbCom -- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria. This is what I've been hinting at when telling Jayjg to watch his act. I just hadn't been motivated enough lately to search out the actual links. I'll be keeping them on file from now on. ~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolMooreDC (talk • contribs)

Carol, neither Richard Feynman nor Circumcision has anything to do with the I-P conflict area. To now spuriously suggest they might be, and that therefore unrelated Arbcom decisions from years ago should be brought up, much less are applicable, is ludicrous. As noted in my earlier comment, "I can now rely on [you] to faithfully show up whenever my name appears on a board like this, to either make vague complaints about me, suggesting I need to be taught some sort of lesson, or to repeat accusations already rejected by this board (see double jeopardy), or both!" You are in no position to tell me to "watch my act", particularly about concerns that have already been consistently and unanimously dismissed by all outside editors commenting at this board (that is, by all editors not currently or recently disgreeing with me about content somewhere). Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

First, I carefully said I didn't think these other complaints were related -- though mine may be. However, it would be naive to think that neutral and respected editors don't remember it was just a year ago you had your sanctions lifted, should some editors eventually take you to WP:ANI on other issues.

Second, editors in confict with other editors not only have a right to complain about others behavior on noticeboard but are the people most likely to complain, including because they have legitimate cripes. I'm sure it was editors you were in dispute with who got you in to the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria mess.

Third, you are again insinuating I am hounding you when I have edited in areas of mutual interest for innocent reasons. I have a problem with your trying to insinuate otherwise and consider it an abuse. Including when I can't help but comment seeing three complaints here in one month. (Not knowing one was a sock puppet.) So do other editors. That's the real subject of this complaint, as much as you try to turn it back on people. Please stop it.

FYI, I always tell people you are the ONE editor I've learned the most from about editing. But I also try to avoid some of your behaviors. CarolMooreDC 19:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Carole, first, this is the Wikiquette board, and the issues here are not on I-P related articles and have nothing to do with the I-P conflict - indeed, they aren't even Wikiquette issues, according to all uninvolved editors commenting here. Thus continually bringing up sanctions related specifically to editing in the I-P topic area is not only unwarranted, but actually a Wikiquette violation itself, whether Gsonnenf or you does it. Second, continually encouraging editors to, for example, "eventually take you to WP:ANI", or continually insinuating that this should or will be done, is needless provocation. Third, I haven't accused you of hounding me; I do note, however, that in the past two months you have only commented on this board on sections about me - no other sections, and no other editors. And finally, the issue here clearly has nothing to do with actual Wikiquette issues, since all uninvolved editors have dismissed the complaints as not being violations of Wikiquette. Rather, they are quite obviously examples of editors trying to win content disputes through other means, as I noted in my comment above of 00:26, 22 February 2012. That's the "real subject of this complaint". You continually fail to address the point that all uninvolved editors have seen no Wikiquette violations. I conclude by saying thank you for the compliment re: learning from me about editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC, how is Richard Feynmann connected with the Israel-Palestine conflict? You have been reminded by many users in the thread above that this is not a Wikiquette issue. Please find time to contribute productively by writing articles rather than beating a dead horse. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, to finish off. 1) I started watching this page in December because I needed assistance on an issue. I didn't bother to unwatch it. 2) I did NOT comment when there was this January issue an editor had with Jayjg. Then January 23 the latest three sections vs. Jayjg were opened and since I also during this period was being treated uncivilly and accused of wikistalking by Jayjg I replied, including to disagree with what I considered inaccurate statements. 3) Again, since I am referring to personal incidents that may be related to Israel-Palestine, it has some relevance to me. 4) Again, if people are constantly brought here because of concerns about their behavior, one does have to wonder. Hopefully, enough of this topic for now so I can unwatch the page :-) CarolMooreDC 20:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The two threads above about Jayjg are as completely frivilous as they get and need to be archived...this one looks just as frivilous. The bottom line is that some articles are going to have people in disagreement and I see no evidence here that Jayjg is a problem. Not to include you on this list, but it does seem that there are several editors trying to misuse the dispute resolution process to gain an advantage in a content dttispute....so if you're also piling, it would certainly have all the appearances to most that Jayjg is indeed being stalked/hounded.--MONGO 01:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Various editors are misusing this noticeboard to make bad faith comments about Jayjg. The articles involved here, e.g. circumcision, have nothing to do with the topics covered by WP:ARBPIA, not even "may be". Mathsci (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Mathsci nails it, above. This really isn't the place for "I don't like Jayjg in general" issues, and it's becoming increasingly clear that's what's going on here. This initial complaint of "He said I was wikihounding, make him take it back!" is unrelated to ARBPIA, as should be self-evident to anyone acting in good faith. I think the main issue above has been adequately addressed, and further "Yes, but I still have negative opinions about this editor!" comments are a waste of everyone's time. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This is a page about behavior and past behavior is discussed, including the 2009 disciplinary action and the 2011 reinstatement. Discussing behavior is legitimate here, that is what this section is about. Other authors have come forward with issues related to behavioral concerning Jayjg. These are relevant.

It should be clear to everyone that behavioral issues almost always accompany editorial issues, and thus those editors that have a different view than Jayjg are often subject to his behavior. It should also be clear that when you are repeatedly uncivil with people, many authors will post regarding their experience. It is only in aggregation that sactioning action will be taken against an uncivil author, and all such posts describing minor infractions help identify this.

I have found Jayjg's behavior extremely hostile. He also has a terrible habit of wiki lawyering, then demanding his opponents wiki lawyer. This behavior is discouraged on wikipedia and is often the causes of many disputes. Jayjg's hostile editing extends to articles related to Judaism. Perhaps a discussion should take place about his behavior in this category as well.

I have made an effort to good faith for a time, but I am a bit tired of the hypocrisy, wherein Jayjg cries "YOU MUST ASSUME GOOD FAITH!" when others criticize his behavior but then accuses other people of wrongdoing. I think its time for this behavior to stop.Gsonnenf (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have been watching these proceedings as they have unfolded and have chosen so far not to become involved since others have said what I would have done. However, Gsonnenf, you need to drop the stick right now lest this matter boomerang on you. You are treading a very fine line and leaving yourself open to very legitimate complaints against you for wikihounding - the very thing you complain about being accused of. Well, we get it that you don't like Jayjg but that is no excuse for your behaviour which is not acceptable. If you find that you cannot accept legitimate criticism perhaps you should refrain from doing the things that you are being criticised for. Jayig has not committed breaches of civility in the instances you have provided and bringing up irrelevant issues from long ago that have been properly dealt with elsewhere does not reflect well upon your willingness to act in good faith. The best advice I can give to you now is to let this thread die and avoid interacting with Jayig in future. Further attempts to continue this discussion as you have done so far may cause you to be in the position of having to defend yourself here or potentially at AN/I. Reflect on that before you bash out your next post to this board. Oh, and learn how to indent your posts correctly. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

To Nick Thorne I find it surprising and deeply disappointing that you are attempting to reduce this complaint to issues of mere personal sentiment. And on top of that you threaten people to try and silence genuine grievances. As usual, a complaint against Jayjg has become an attack of the person who made the initial complaint. (Is there perhaps a 'Jayjg supporters' cabal in effect here?)

As Gsonnenf very clearly pointed out this is a discussion about behaviour: disruptive behaviour of Jayjg. And we have not just one but THREE editors complaining here. The advice to "avoid interacting with Jayig in future" goes against all sense of fairplay as it would in effect mean being unable to contribute to a great many topics, and avoiding them because Jayjg is allegedly behaving disruptively there. This advice would therefore be rewarding the alleged disruptive behaviour. What sort of fair solution is that?! :-0

Finally, this forum is designed to function by persuasion, reason, and community support, not threats and blocks. Therefore please stop threatening editors for legitimate use of this forum.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We cannot here help. Jayjg is not being persuased (as near as I can tell) and there's no evidence of community support. Editors with concerns about Jayjg's long term edit pattern should initiate Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jayjg. Nobody Ent 10:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, so I am now looking at two accounts with short editing histories on Wikipedia continuously targeting an established and long-term contributor to the project. There are serious contributor issues as well with one of the accounts. I suggest that interested parties continue discussion by starting an RFC on User:Mystichumwipe. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Only an idiot would ...

It would be nice if someone warned Rrius that it's not acceptable to refer to the opinion of another user as something that "only an idiot would do." That's what I got from him on his talk page, and it's clearly a personal attack, despite his condescending assertions to the contrary. Thanks.  --Gremlint (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Rrius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Actually, that's not what I said, and I made it clear to him what I meant. User:Gremlint is merely trying to stir up trouble. My initial comment was that only an idiot would think the "they" in "should they seek re-election" meant "gay couples" rather than Republican state senators in this sentence and that he should give readers more credit. Despite his feigned confusion in his edit summary, the fact that Gremlint knew exactly what "they" referred to is clear from the context. Also, here is exactly what I said: "Only an idiot would have read that sentence and understood "they" to have referred to gay couples. You really need to give people more credit." When Gremlint decided to take my comment as having called him an idiot, I said, "I'm sorry you read it that way, but I didn't call you an idiot. Go back and read it again, and please pay special attention this time to the sentence that comes after it. Done yet? Do you see how I was saying you were assuming other readers would be idiots?" I further explained later that I didn't even mean people who had a momentary miscue were idiots, but that people who were genuinely left unable to figure out which noun the pronoun referred to were the idiots to whom I had referred. For Gremlint to now come here and act as though he still thinks I called him an idiot is disingenuous in the extreme. His initial volley in this was a snippy edit summary. For him to complain about tone is hypocritical and a waste of everyone's time. Finally, his parting shot at my talk page was to say that he was "refrain[ing] from calling you names you deserve". I too will refrain from calling him the names I think he deserves, but "idiot" is not, and was not, one of the words I am straining to hold in. -Rrius (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• No evidence Gemlint is trying to stir up trouble, appears to merely be a new editor who expects Wikipedia to be civil.
• The sentence was bad -- not that couples was the antecedent, but that it was structured as if it was, and the reader therefore had to spend additional effort to parse the meaning of the sentence out.
• The Excuse Me? edit summary was not good because of a. The unnecessary Excuse me? b. the incorrect statement of couples being the antecedent c. the "if you still have issues." In other words Rrius is correct in describing it as snippy.
• The reply containing the idiots phrasing also was not good; not because of the idiots phrasing but because of the condescending tone of parts of it I'm not sure if you don't know what "antecedent" means, -- this is especially true because Rrius was agreeing that the edit was good, even if the explanation wasn't technically correct.

Recommend both editors just tone it down a bit and specifically recommend to Gremlint:

• Be very careful with edit summaries. You have limited space with which to work and, most importantly, summaries can't be edited after the fact, so you're kind of stuck if you find you've come across as too strong.
• Article talk Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States is the best place to discuss the content (as opposed to the edit summary or another editor's talk page).
• On Wikipedia civility is best thought of as a goal to for of us to work towards rather something that can be agreed upon or enforced very stringently. Outright attacks (e.g. you are an idiot) are unacceptable, but emphatic phrasing that rubs other editors the wrong is, as it turns out, fairly common. Enjoying Wikipedia requires either editing uncontroversial topics or just let some of the snippy and snarky go by uncommented on..

This is not intended as criticism: it is good that you disengaged from Rrius's talk page and sought assistance here and we encourage editors to jump in rather than try to learn all the intricacies right away. Nobody Ent 12:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Accusations

• TopGun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DBigXray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel School Giridih
• Wikipedia:Help desk#a good school Article

This user is repeatedly accusing me of bad faith and using other personal attacks to get past content disputes. All my previous disputes with this user are long idle, however he started the bad faith accusations at the help desk [11] where he was rebutted by another user for this. Later this behaviour was continued at the AfD to try to keep the article. I nominated it at a time when it had no reliable sources present and debated on those given by this user, which seemed to be implying inheriting notability against Wikipedia policies. He in return gave uncivil replies even when I told him how he could actually find sources [12]. Now just because the consensus is to keep the article regardless of the sources and more based on the essay WP:NHS, he's started calling me a liar and repeatedly wikilinking WP:LIARLIAR to it which says the opposite. [13]. I also suspected some meat-puppetry on the Afd, so I opened an investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DBigXray with a civil note... I was met with more severe incivility there by DBigXray. lTopGunl (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by DBigXray

1. User TopGun who had many content Disputes with me in the Past has been Wikihounding me again since my comment on RFC on Indians in Afghanistan (reasons below)
2. The Article Indians in Afghanistan was already on my watchlist [14] and i was not taking part earlier owing to busy schedule in real life. and when i replied the user TopGun Accuses me of coming out of nowhere and canvassing[15] when i responded about these false allegations the canvas tags were removed [16].
3. TopGun blames me of Personal attacks while in fact he himself does it first. When i forgot to login, The User ToPGun has again opened frivolous SPI cases against me and tries to deface my comments on AFD, RFC and other wiki noticeboards by stating i have old sockpuppetry cases(started by TopGun) against me . (he prefers to mislead others in spite of the fact that earlier SPI cases against me started by TopGun were rejected here) one such proof of such attack against me (accusing me of Meat Puppetry is here
4. about the AFD mentioned above Another editor has already complained about TopGuns behavior on ANI here where he calls this AFD as TG's apparently bad faith nomination for deletion. The Article already had some official and third party reliable source from newspapers which TopGun chose to ignore and i added some more to it after this AFD.
5. The User TopGun was clearly lying when he said The book cited is available online and does not render any results for even the title of the school while the realit is here[17] so i responded by saying https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Carmel+School+Giridih%22 this is in response to the Lies wp:LIARLIAR spread by TopGun the google search clearly gives the address of the school beside the book result
6. The wp:BATTLE ground mentality of the user TopGun and his special inclination in trying to get users blocked for solving his content disputes on wiki article has already been observed by various admins on wikipedia.[18] Due to the aggressive comments and edit warring TopGun has been blocked a number of times by admins and is currently on 1RR restriction.
7. its imp to note that my name prominently figures in his edits on other editors talk pages [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24][25] (clealy shows TopGun's canvassing against me)
8. In past he has made a number of failed attempts s by making up false cases and thumping up small incidents, and every time the admins have shot down his complaints, and unlike him so far I have a clean Block log
9. some of his acts directed against me are mentioned here [26]
10. the past history and several other examples show that it is always TopGun who FIRST deviates from the subject matter of the discussion to carry out personal attacks against me by claiming SPI, canvassed , wikihounding etc, (to mislead admins so that they will discount my comment) and so it becomes necessary for me to reply to it and to my reply he takes exception and mentions above
11. I would also suggest the closing admin to get the view of other admins who are familiar with his behaviour while making a final decision.
12. because of continuation of these incidents again by TopGun, I was hoping to complain on wikiquette noticeboard when i get time, but now as its already mentioned i have got an opportunity to bring to light his malpractices.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I've not hounded this user, he himself agrees that I came to the article through help desk where I was replying... that is not hounding. I nominated it for AfD as it had no reliable sources atleast at that time. He comes out of idle to support any ANI actions against me, [27] these activities are similar to those of a narrow purpose account. The canvassing tag was placed because this user never edited Indians in Afghanistan and yet came to oppose me there like the ANI discussion claiming to have it on his watchlist... I let it be when those tags were removed assuming good faith. The ANI report he has now linked to was outright considered an unfounded report against me... the fact that he linked it here itself shows how misleading his other statements are. Even this comment of his is full of accusations of bad faith and incivility. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This appears to be a case of hounding by TopGun as has already been mentioned at the Afd [28], [29]. (Whether TopGun found the article via tracking DBigXray's contribution list or their note on the help desk isn't important.) No other editor supported the Afd. TopGun made the poor choice to use the inflammatory "other crap exists" shortcut instead of the more civl "other stuff exists." DBXs reference to liar liar, while also not ideal -- "falsehood" would have been better -- was a comment on TopGun's Afd and therefore not a personal attack. It's reasonable to expect that alumni of a school would comment so filing an additional SPI simply on the basis of opposing the delete wasn't justified. DBX, it's not helpful to respond tit for tat to every comment TopGun makes; it would be best to try to stay focused on the content rather than make counter attacks . Nobody Ent 11:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The nomination was completely based on absence of reliable sources... There's no record of me following any of DBigXray's edits. About the shortcut, I didn't know another shortcut existed... the fact that it is still a redirect means that it should not be considered as incivility (add it to RFD other wise so that people don't follow the redirect)... WP:LIARLIAR states something else and is being used to outright blame me of "spreading lies" while I justified all my responses. The SPI is justified by edit timings of the IPs and this user as well as the fact that the article was idle for a long time.. IPs don't have watchlists... The users who added those comments [30] [31] do this on any discussion they encounter me, one was previously reported for it. Is this not a personal attack? [32]. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What outcome are ya'll (TopGun and DBigXray) looking to achieve here? Nobody Ent 11:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I want DBigXray to be asked not to make such attacks which go even more vigorous when there's an SPI or a report like this even though I stick to a civil tone. And he should be persuaded to stay focused on content issues instead of copy pasting cherry picked diffs of accusations to get past pure content disputes or unrelated reports such as this one where he's citing my edit war restriction (and this is unrelated to editwar) and the SPI where he's citing content disputes. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What are you (TopGun) going to do to help avoid conflict in the future? Nobody Ent 11:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The issues about my edits pointed out here were the short cut and the nomination... I explained the shortcut (that was the only one I remembered), the nomination was due to the sources.. I can try to better explain why I nominated an article or my content dispute in future (I'm open to be pointed out to anything that was missing in my nomination summary). However, filing an SPI is a formal procedure and it did not mean that this user was actually involved in socking, rather a request to investigate if he was... I explained it there as well, I can help with the issues better if I'm not met in return with accusations of bad faith and unrelated diffs and personal attacks. If DBigXray stays civil and comments purely on content in future, I can help with resolving the disputes by working towards a consensus - I've had quite some experience towards consensus building by now. An example can be taken from this nomination discussion where I pointed out that he could find dead sources through wayback machine (though that was returned with another accusation anyway). --lTopGunl (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• the past history and several other examples show that it is always TopGun who deviates from the subject matter of the discussion to carry out personal attacks against me by claiming SPI, canvassed , wikihounding etc, and so i accordingly reply to it and to my reply he takes exception and mentions above--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Filing of an SPI doesn't mean a deviation from subject matter or a personal attack. If there's no fault at your side there's no need to be uncivil with me in return, address your concerns in a civil way. This diff cited [33] is another one showing incivility on his part instead of explaining why he wasn't canvassed there. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• if TopGun takes undue benefit of the frivolous SPI (filed by TopGun) and mention all around the talk pages of articles and Noticeboards that DBigXray has an SPI (started by ToPGun) then i am forced to reply to that. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not do that, I referred to it here where it was brought up. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Another example of misleading wp:LIE propagated by TopGun one such proof of such attack against me (accusing me of Meat Puppetry is here — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBigXray (talk • contribs)

There's no accusation there. I mentioned meat puppetry and opened an SPI. Stop accusing me of lying now. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• (in response to nobody Ent) I expect the admins to carefully go through the points i have mentioned and take whatever necessary actions that deems fit either against me or against TopGun.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This page is not for admin action but for voluntary actions. If you thought this was a report to get you blocked and threw in all the diffs (regardless of relevance) because of that, you are in the wrong since start. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have highlighted all the malpractices that i feel is necessary for the admins to see. they are free to get into whatever depth of those incidents as they please, and see whose allegations holds ground and who needs trouting. Truth is sure to come out. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't help (see the description of the page on top). You can start by "striking out" uncivil comments at the Afd, SPI and here and address the actual concerns. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• which cannot be done until the False allegations/accusations against me on all these talk pages are removed/struck off first. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What are those? I did not blame you of sock puppetry on Afd, I did point out the facts and said that alumni seemed to be socks, and then reasonably opened an SPI. Show me a statement that is a personal attack? You can get the short cut to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS deleted by nominating it if you think the link is a personal attack and suggest your own redirects. Point out anything else that seems to be a personal attack. I'm sure my statements even on the SPI were on the edits and not on your intentions or blaming you of 'wrong doings'. You statement at the SPI, "this is nothing but a case of constant malice against me"... this is a personal attack. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The constant malice part is explained Pointwise on TOP, which the admins can very well see. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This is why I came here... the links are months old and are self explanatory, irrelevant to this discussion and not the excuse for the incivility by you to which you still stand by. I want uninvolved users to convince DBigXray of stopping such behaviour. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• refer point 10 above--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Also i request the admins to warn TopGun against wikihounding my contributions. (proof of wikihounding)

1. He follows my contributions and replies to my comment on HelpDesk about the article (i created) on school and goes furthur to propse it for deletion on invalid grounds. It is to be noted that there is no history of ToPGuns comment on Helpdesk (apart from TopGuns own question once [34])
2. after my comment on RFC on Indians in Afghanistan where he says i am coming out of nowhere(as he clearly seems to be following my recent contributions) while in fact the article was already on my watchlist since long

As soon as TopGun stops wikihounding me and stops giving baseless allegations/accusations for canvassing/SPI etc aganst me , i feel the problem will be solved --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a help desk regular... editors there will know that. And regardless of that, this is textbook Wikipedia:Tendentious editing on DBigXray's part not giving benefit of doubt to other editors not to mention that I even explained it. His accusations were rebutted at helpdesk by another editor too. At Indians in Afghanistan as well (DBigXray has never edited that article), he's the one who got there through my edits, but I assumed good faith and didn't reinstate the canvassed tag. DBigXray should be told to keep away from such Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and replying to my each comment with a tit-for-tat counter attack to flood the discussion... this is disruptive. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to another misleading comment proof of participating in the India related article indians in Afghanistan which is also on my watchlist and have edited in past. and search result on the helpdesk --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The article does not have any editing history from your account... that's where I looked... and then I gave you the benefit of doubt. The canvassed tag is not there with your user name now, stop beating the dead horse. Your help desk search shows only the threads where some one mentioned my username and not all with my signatures, but you assume me in bad faith anyway. And you certainly don't stop till you have the last word. Is it so difficult to stop making the personal attacks? You keep adding unrelated diffs to that list of yours to suppress the issue mentioned in my first comment. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• TopGun, not discounting any action DBigXray has done, is it possible for you to stay out of conflict? I think I've seen multiple threads where you claim harassment, hounding, violations of WP policy to remove someone who disagrees with you from editing the same articles. You don't have to respond to every single injustice or untruth lobbed your direction, in fact it improves uninvolved editor's disposition to you when you turn the other cheek. I cannot speak for others but in my mind you are quickly traveling down the Drama-Diva path and as such I would be inclined to endorse sanctions strictly against you should they be proposed. Hasteur (talk) 12:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I surely can and try to stay away from all this drama, but I'm not the one claiming hounding and harassment if you read the discussion above. DBigXray is the one who claims hounding here just because I nominated an Afd (which also happens to be my first nomination of an AfD)... I filed a sockpuppet investigation and was returned with personal attacks.... that's why I brought DBigXray here, but this doesn't seem to improve his behaviour. This thread was solely about that. What do you expect me to do? Read my reply to Nobody Ent where I said I could help aviod these conflicts and then DBigXray's replies to that. It is specifically due to the claims you make that I chose WQA instead of ANI... so no, I don't intend to remove him from editing the same articles as me, I want him to be convinced that making personal attacks and accusing me of bad faith throwing in unrelated diffs in what ever dispute he gets into is not the way to go through disputes. Yet here he thinks I'm asking for admin action and is asking for one in reply to Nobody Ent. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• DBigXray, don't change or add links to my comment. See talk page guidelines. Add any links or modifications to your own comment. I opened this section about your actions, so don't change the topic either simply because you don't want to deal with it. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Dont mislead others your comments are neither touched nor edited.[35][36] the section heading is neutral enough and you were supposed to mention your username as an involved editor. plz do not edit war on this. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)--15:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
    • You've to put what you want to add with your own signature in your own comment. The starting was a part of my comment. It is not your problem what I was supposed to mention, I added this section, it was understood that I was involved. I'll not comment further on this lame editwar. Don't edit anything signed by me again. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
      • your comment is not touched[37]. See talk page guidelines. which says avoid using editor names in page headings. and your userlinks does need to be present. Do not assume holier than thou ,unless you are afraid of admins to see your behaviour --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)--15:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

To Both Editors: Your behavior here has been dreadful... Edit warring about the title of a section? Edit warring about the need for TopGun's user links to be also mentioned in the report? As a relatively uninvolved user that I'm looking at this and considering liberal application of an oily fish to both of you for looking at the trees and not the forest. DBigXray, you really shouldn't have implied that TopGun had a personal vendeta for you at the Help Desk. TopGun, your actions after the implication and the screams of abuse afterword do not help your case for abuse to yourself. If DBigXray issues an apology for the implication, will that satisfy you TopGun? If TopGun agrees to stay away from applying extra scrutiny of your articles will that satisfy you DBigXray? Let's put down the clubs and step away from the dead horse. Hasteur (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree to above. I gave normal scrutiny to the article he created, but when he started using the word "spreading lies" for me, I lost good faith... and then there were alumni appearing out of nowhere just as the article got nominated for deletion... I filed an SPI since DBigXray made it public that he was an alumni too. That wasn't a personal attack on him, but an investigation.. there was no need to return that with personal attacks. If DBigXray can refrain from making any comments on me in future, I can help him with resolving any content disputes he would have with me basing the comments on just the content. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• at Hasteur, if youll see the examples posted above, you'd find that nothing would have arisen if Mr TopGun would not have called me SockPuppet, Meatpuppet and Canvassed user (at First), for no good reason, (filing frivolous SPI) cases does not give a right to call such names to fellow editors.And I would appreciate if TopGun stops wikihounding my contributions--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not call you a sock or meatpuppet. I called the IPs that (unless ofcourse you mean they were you). And I filed an SPI with good reasons providing diffs. Filing an SPI is not a personal attack, why do you need to be worried if that was not you? I gave all the links where you canvassed all the editors of the article who then supported for keep, and I let the canvassed tag from your user name be removed. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • Yet another wp:LIE I dare you give proof of canvassing attempt by me, while nominating for afd you were supposed to mention it on noticeboard and inform the editors, somehow you chose not to do it,(and an another user had to do it) and now you are claiming canvassing. Informing editors of the article for deletion is not canvassing. I get your strategy now, first offend an editor by calling sockpuppet and canvassed and on getting a neutral reply, file a case on noticeboard for personal attack.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

DBigXray, let what has occured in the past remain in the past. Drop the WP:STICK and move on. TopGun has agreed (in principle) to treat you as any other editor. Everybody makes mistakes. The fact that the SPI has remained open for 4 days without any sort of action by the Checkuser clerks suggests that it isn't going to be acted upon. As was mentioned in the SPI archive "We don't link IPs with editors". Drop the stick, stop following each other's edits, and pretend as though each other don't exisist. If this persists beyond this current spate, I believe an administrator would have no problem handing out sanctions on disruption grounds. Hasteur (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

All that was required of me was to only inform the creator of the article... I did that (I gave all the links at SPI where he requested all the editors to comment on Afd). I did not request a check user because I know it would be declined for privacy reasons, that is why a check user has not commented on it. I filed it based on the available evidence... if DBigXray is not responsible for them, I won't have any problem then either. But it did make me curious that alumni IPs start to comment on the Afd of a long idle article (and IPs don't have watch lists) - any reasonable editor would get suspicious by that. I've never followed his edits, and this is not a 'filed case'. If he simply keeps his comments to the content from now on and not repeatedly cite WP:LIE to me because he doesn't agree with me, this is settled and I'll let go any previous conduct disputes. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Calling "Jewish" a source or an article improperly and without any valid reason

• Jeffro77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John_Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1. Jeffro77 refers to the Wikipedia article Righteous Among the Nations as to a "Jewish article".
2. I have asked him to avoid this kind of remarks which I find rather abusive. I must say that I misunderstood his initial assertion: I thought he was referring to the Encyclopedia of the Righteous Among the Nations.
3. John Carter has intervened to say that it's OK to refer to that Encyclopedia as to a "Jewish article" because it is an Encyclopedia with a Jewish learning (sic!).

I have no idea what relevance these remarks have on the topic we were discussing. I perceive this as an abuse. Is there anything that can be done or shall we accept that somebody else refers to the article Homosexuality as to a "homosexual article", to Romani people as to a "Gypsy article", to National Socialism as to a "Nazi article"?

This is not essential but, by the way, both of them keep denying the simple fact that the source (the Encyclopedia) explicitly mentions the religious affiliation of two Jehovah's Witnesses as their motivation for hiding a young Jewish woman during the Shoah. How do you talk to someone who refuses to read the sources while at the same time qualifying them as "Jewish"?

--Ceci n'est pas une pipe (talk) 10:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro77 and John Carter's remarks are reasonable in the context they were made -- discussion of an article listing individuals who saved individuals of the Jewish faith during the Holocaust. Nobody Ent 11:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ceci n'est pas une pipe seems to imagine that it is somehow offensive to specify the context of an article that is plainly related to Jewish people. I have no idea why he imagines that to be some kind of indictment of Jews or anyone else. Aside from that, no one has 'denied' that the encyclopedia to which he refers makes mention of the religion of a couple of people who helped one Jewish girl. The point is that their religious affiliation is not especially notable (other than to themselves), because people of any religion are equally likely to consider their religion to be a motive for helping others. Righteous Among the Nations does not give any special attention to the religious affiliation of others who helped Jewish people during the Holocaust, including those who helped hundreds or even thousands of Jews. It seems that Ceci n'est pas une pipe's entire basis for raising this complaint may be a retributive action for his edit not being retained at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments[38] See User talk:Jeffro77#Re and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Notable Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Calling it a jewish article isn't entirely accurate but it is civil. It would be better described as a "Judaism related article". Comparing calling an aricle jewish to calling an article homosexual, nazi or gypsy is a bit over the top. It seems like your implying they are all pejorative which isn't the case.Gsonnenf (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro77—why are you referring to the Righteous among the Nations article as a "Jewish article"? Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Already answered. Nobody Ent 00:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it may be slightly more accurate to refer to a Judaism-related article, but Jewish article is entirely valid shorthand for same. The term was used quite clearly to establish context. It should be quite clear that I was not implying that a digital file on a database possesses any particular ethnicity. Sigh.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro77 —I think it is not advisable to pigeonhole articles as "Jewish articles". I think such a reference tends to be dismissive of the article so referrenced. An article is a complex entity referring to many identities including in this case non-Jews. Those who extended kindness at great personal risk to Jews during the holocaust, referenced for instance in this section, are also the subject of that article. I'm heartened by your characterization of your language as merely "shorthand" as I understand the exigencies of quickly dashing off written communication on Talk pages. Nevertheless I understand the objection raised here to the encapsulation of a complex topic covered as if it were merely of concern to Jews, as this article highlights many non-Jews as well. Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also recommend calling it a judaism-related article, 'jewish' article is not accurate as the article involves people of many faiths.Gsonnenf (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Roux at the village pump

• Roux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In a section labelled "Please clarify", study the conversation between me and Roux. Please read the whole discussion and make sure you know both of us well and see if it really makes sense that I'm as bad of a Wikipedian as Roux thinks I am. Georgia guy (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please also study all edits Roux has made since then. He even carried it over to my talk page. Georgia guy (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please drop this futile bickering. Fences&Windows 21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

1. I never said you were a 'bad Wikipedian,' I implied that you are not competent to edit here, as you are still raising the same question which someone answered for you six years ago. Fail.
2. When I suggested that you read WP:COMPETENCE, you further indicated how incompetent you are by failing to actually read the page and instead go on some weird clicking to other pages which had absolutely no bearing. Fail.
3. You were required to notify me that you had posted here. You failed at that, too, and I can only guess it's because you appear to have less than no interest in actually reading anything.
4. I will treat this nonsense with the contempt it deserves and will not be watching this page.

→ ROUX ₪ 21:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Georgia guy, why have you brought this here? You aired this at the Village pump. Fences closed the discussion as "going nowhere". And here you are wanting to go nowhere yet again?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I brought it up before the Village pump section was closed. I was sent here from my talk page as the right place to go to warn others of Roux's edits. But I have calmed down now. Georgia guy (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, this is my very first time with this particular page. So please help me nicely with good etiquette. Georgia guy (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Easy. Just let it go. Stop keeping this topic alive. Don't bring it up anywhere else. Find an article that needs improvement and edit it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Start by assuming good faith on the part of Roux. Start by assuming that other editors who appear to be siding with Roux know what they're talking about. Start by stepping back and thoroughly reviewing the policies and best practices of the community. If you don't throw the first stone and come to the table with an open mind you might just be surprised at the level of good faith other editors are willing to extend to you. Hasteur (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify what "on the part of Roux" means?? Does it mean first assume Roux is good?? Please explain. Georgia guy (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me Google that for you... It's an idiom. Are you a native English speaker? If you aren't this might explain some of the difficulties you've had in communicating with various people. Hasteur (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That's how I actually did start, for a little while, until somehow I slowly began to believe Roux was bad. (And yes, I'm a native English speaker.) Georgia guy (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)