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 Personal Attacks

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

Jayg has been using personal attacks on my religions beliefs to discredit my opinions on talk pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Jews&curid=1506019&diff=473273960&oldid=473271723 yisraeldov (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That does not seem to be a personal attack. Note that Yisraeldov resumed editing four days ago after a two year break and has not informed Jayjg of this request. Mathsci (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't remember seeing where it said that if you don't make edits every day then you are vulnerable to personal attacks ? If you read the article on personal attacks it state

"Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."

Jayjg has repeatedly launched personal attacks against me in Talk:Circumcision. Some examples include, 'Regarding whether there should be a tag, the views of Wimp O'Pede, a banned sockpuppet, are not relevant. Also, when it comes to broad policy and the proper use of tags, the views of Therewillbefact, tftobin, Robert B19 and Chevara, four editors who essentially joined Wikipedia this month, edit exclusively from an anti-circumcision POV, edit essentially one article (this one), and have a combined total of 9 article edits among them, carry little weight. In addition, Carlossuarez46 hasn't stated the article should be tagged. Finally, there's no "pro-circumcision argument for "cost-effectiveness" in the lead". "Perma-tagging" an article because one cannot insert policy-violating POV is an old tactic, and this article has been a particular target for it, but it's WP:DISRUPTive, so you'll have to come up with an actual and specific policy issue, because this won't be tolerated for much longer. Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)'

'If I were to speculate, I would guess that people who hang out at "intactivist" fora, and who come here as a result of encouragement to do so in those fora, would be far more likely to be "true believers" promoting a POV than regular Wikipedia editors who are here because they support Wikipedia, and who have edited thousands of different articles besides this one. And given the persistent sockpuppeting on this article, the "unless" you mention is a significant concern here. Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)'

'Perhaps they do exist, I wouldn't know. However, they don't really seem relevant to what happens in this article. Whenever new editors show up at this article, they inevitably edit from an strongly anti-circumcision viewpoint, so the scenario you suggest contradicts the reality of this article. And when I "take a hard look around me" and "check a little", I find literally thousands of posts on various fora made by various anti-circumcision activists, maligning one specific editor here - saying (as one random example) conspiratorial things like "He trolls the internet late at night, looking for vulnerable parents to influence, to surgically alter their kids, while pretending to be neutral. This is a technique he picked up from feigning a neutral point of view with Wikipedia, all the while slanting it to a pro-circumcision position, but not enough so that those protest against his manipulations have arbitrators come down on their side. He collaborates with other circumcisers worldwide." These are the kinds of comments that indicate a profound misunderstanding of both this article and how Wikipedia works, and seem more like personal vendetta than anything else. Jayjg (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)' Another exammple is, 'I'm sorry you feel that way - although I must say, what happens on this talk page is not one-hundredth as hostile and vitriolic as the stuff I've seen over the past few days looking through various anti-circumcision fora and postings (random example provided in my posting above of 16:31, 3 February 2012). Jakew is extraordinarily patient. Jayjg (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)' I also find this reply rather snide, in its original context. 'Wikipedia welcomes all people who are willing to edit in accord with its policies. Having to edit in accord with Wikipedia's policies makes some people feel very unwelcome. Jayjg (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)' Additionally, I am not the only person who is experiencing difficulties with Jayjg.

'Jayjg, you mentioned the "literally thousands of posts on various fora made by various anti-circumcision activists" In your opinion, do they offer any evidence that is currently not in the article?Chevara (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)' 'I can't vouch for everything they say, but based on a small random sample they mostly seem to contain a) personal opinion, often of a quasi-religious "good vs. evil" nature; b) personal attacks; and c) highly selective (and often misinterpreted) use of primary or non-scientific sources. Jayjg (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)'

'I would appreciate it if you both refrained from putting words in my mouth going forward. Jayjg said HIV-related content once consisted of 25% of the lead, and also mentioned that this percentage has drastically reduced since. Allow me to quote it: "Beejaypii spent literally weeks arguing that the lede devoted too much attention to HIV, because 25% of it (since significantly reduced) was on that topic (...)" Did Jayjg not just say here that 25% of the lead was previously devoted to HIV, and has "significantly reduced" since? Now what I was saying is that HIV coverage still consists of roughly 25% of the lead. The previous coverage of HIV content in the lead was actually closer to 30%, for what it's worth, and is now about a quarter. Jakew, the next time you ask someone who informs someone to get their facts straight, I politely ask that you've also done the same. '

This sets up a totally hostile atmosphere to anyone who comes onto the Talk:Circumcision page, in a way I don't see with the other editors. Thank you for your attention. Tftobin (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

How should I go about informing him? I requested that he refrain from using personal attacks and referenced him to this link. --yisraeldov (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That diff isn't a personal attack --Guerillero | My Talk 14:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

From the diff

Please accept that the view of American Jews held by a haredi Jew living in Israel will be narrow at best.

better than the personal viewpoint of any individual whose knowledge of Jewish history and culture apparently begins and ends with late 20th and early 21st century Haredi Judaism.

There are other such comments on the same page that are belittling my opinion because I am a Haradi that lives in Israel. Why is that not "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" ?14:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs)

There is nothing belittling in his comments. He simply was trying to explain that your view may not be shared by others outside of your own scope of experience. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"better than the personal viewpoint of any individual whose knowledge of Jewish history and culture apparently begins and ends with late 20th and early 21st century Haredi Judaism."

That is extremely belittling, he is assuming because of my affiliation, that my knowledge is limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs) 10:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please close this thread before it goes into an infinite do loop? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Entropy and Miszabot terminate all WQA loops. Nobody Ent 13:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I find this wikipedia snobbery very troubling. First that some one continually used my religious affiliation to belittle my opinion, and second that everyone here seems to agree with him, and no one is willing to address my comments seriously. yisraeldov (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

We're not saying we agree or disagree, just that you haven't provided evidence of personal attacks requiring sanctions. As of the time I'm writing this, I'd say that Wikipedia is barely civil but not overly polite. (The Arbitration Committee has accepted a case regarding the issue, so it's possible there may be some changes.) Each editor has to decide for themselves if this is an environment they wish to participate in or not. Nobody Ent 16:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand. He said that because of my religion I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic ? Why is that not a personal attack yisraeldov (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Because decisions made on Wikipedia are determined by consensus. Multiple editors have volunteered their time to reply to your request and we've explained the policy to the best of our ability. Nobody Ent 12:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's good to provide a link to the Arbitration Committee case which I assume is about general civility and not this dispute, as an FYI. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 00:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement Nobody Ent 03:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying link. @Nobody Ent wrote: Each editor has to decide for themselves if this is an environment they wish to participate in or not. The problem I see is that there are a few Admins who really push the envelope on incivility, but if one were to be half as uncivil back, one would get "in trouble." (Not in this case but in other past ones involving this and other admins.) Admins really do have to live up to a higher standard of civility, and be careful of the threats (no matter how subtle) they wield when in contention with other editors on an article, or it makes other editors feel like second class citizens. This evidently has been an issue with User:Malleus Fatuorum, who is subject of the civility enforcement, in the past; though not clear from his user page if he's still an admin. CarolMooreDC 16:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

He is not an admin ([1]).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not hard to understand the complaint. Yisraeldov is complaining that Jayjg is construing as minimal Yisraeldov's "knowledge of Jewish history", and this is certainly a legitimate complaint. In fact Jayjg does not know the extent of Yisraeldov's knowledge of Jewish history consequently Jayjg should not be commenting on Yisraeldov's knowledge of Jewish history.

WP:TALK applies here: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

I am referring to "Google is not a great metric, but it's a starting point, and certainly better than the personal viewpoint of any individual whose knowledge of Jewish history and culture apparently begins and ends with late 20th and early 21st century 'Haredi' Judaism." Jayjg should not be commenting on another editor's "knowledge of Jewish history." Bus stop (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Asking if someone is qualified to edit an article (or implying they are not) is an example of WP:OWNER behavior and should not be done.

I ended up here exploring options for dispute on circumcision pov tag. Jayjg has accused people of being disrupted 3 times for support of a NPOV tag, and claims he does not see any relevant POV disputes. Though, Jayjg has made contributed to 3 topics active in the past 5 days [ 1 ], [ 2 ] and [ 3 ], where WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE are under discussion. there are more of these in the archive (the talk page archives at 5 days old)). I can't possibly see how Jayjg could have read and contributed to these topics and not seen that authors have POV disputes, when he himself is arguing to correct a POV or that someone else is adding POV. I find his disregard very uncivil if not a breach of policy. Gsonnenf (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg is famous for doing as many as 60-70 edits a day, though looking at hist last 500 contributions, he seems to have slowed down. It's hard to properly work toward consensus on articles when one does that much editing. It's easy to get into incivility and edit wars when one doesn't listen properly to others. I've done it from time to time when doing only 15 or 20 edits in a day. Jayjg needs to slow down. This is supposed to be a fun diversion, not a job where one is under pressure to produce, civility and consensus be damned :-) CarolMooreDC 00:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This was the situation here too, most of the changes were made when I was unable to be on the computer, and I also have a job, so I can not invest the time answering all of his repeated claims. 16:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs)

I just looked at the given diff (in original report and repeated above): Mathsci, Guerillero, OhNoitsJamie, and Nobody Ent have indicated above that the diff does not show a personal attack. I confirm that it is not a personal attack—in fact it is not a wikiquette issue at all. It is much better to speak plainly at Wikipedia because hiding a problem with circumlocutions or euphemisms does not help the encyclopedia or any of its editors. Please respond to the issues raised, not some imagined insult. Jayjg took some trouble to explain their point, and did not violate any guideline or policy. There is no evidence of a problem due to frequency of edits. The long post above regarding issues at Talk:Circumcision does not show any wikiquette issue either (suggestion: it would be better to show a single good example of what you think is a problem, and briefly explain why it is a problem). Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing my complaint ( Disregarding my opinions because of my religious affiliation ) with the other complaint. Please don't mix them up. yisraeldov (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please be specific as volunteers cannot spend time decoding hidden messages. Are you talking about your first diff posted in the report above? What text in that suggests that your opinions are being disregarded because of your religious affiliation? Bear in mind that while editors add their opinions to a discussion, what counts are reliable sources. What text have you suggested for the article, based on what reliable source, that has been disregarded because of your religious affiliation? Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This thread has been going for over three weeks. It's time it was archived. Mathsci (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Could a Haredi Jew living in Israel not be an expert on the subject? I would have thought such could be. Writing: "please accept that the view of American Jews held by a haredi Jew living in Israel will be narrow at best" seems to me to therefore be clearly an ad hominem attack. Why this protection of Jayjg and rush to archive without properly adressing this?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In the context given by the full message from Jayjg, there is no problem—the full text clearly explains a position and the words quoted above are consistent with the point being made. No one is claiming the language is warm and embracing, but what is the attack? If the person addressed happens to be an expert on Jews in America, they merely have to reply that Jayjg is mistaken (however, scanning the article talk page suggests that Jayjg is on the side of consensus and common sense). Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The context clearly was that PRECISELY BECAUSE of the editor's ethnic origin and their country of residence they therefore can not know what they are talking about. That is a classic ad hominem attack as it does not deal with what the editor (in this case yisraeldov) is writing but is directed only at who is writing it. It is in effect stating that the ability to have any knowledge on this subject of ANY AND EVERY "haredi Jew living in Israel" can only be "narrow at best", that being a logical corollary of who they are and where they come from. Which is an obvious logical fallacy. C'mon. This is serious. And its not a one-off from Jayjg. Ad hominem attacks should have no place in Wikipedia and condoning and justifying this merely adds to the transgression and emboldens the perpetrator.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Your argument would make sense in some other discussion where, for example, it would be uncivil to suggest that an editor does not know something because they are a haredi Jew living in Israel. However, the discussion in question is quite different: the whole point is that an editor wants to insert certain information in an article about Jews in America, and Jayjg is claiming that the proposed changes are undue, and that a haredi Jew living in Israel may only have a narrow view of the general picture concerning Jews in America. That argument can be refuted (as the user proceeded to do, with a hint that they might have lived in the US for over 20 years), but in the context of the discussion at Talk:American Jews, the comments are not an attack. Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

So by that logic, I should be able to have ultimate authority over articles about haradi jews in israel ? A chinese persons view should be considered less informed about the civil rights movement in the US ? A persons religious, ethnicity, and country should be irrelevant to the discussion. This is really absurd. The comments are clearly an attack, and it was repeated. Scanning the article only gives you the impression that he is on the consensus because he has the time to make many edits a day and continues the thread before the original poster has had a chance to read the replies. I don't know how you define common sense, but at least 1/12 of the jews in the us is a haradi, common sense would dictate that one of the boxes should be for some one recognizably haradi, but here is not the place to relive the argument there. The fact is that my personal information was used to marginalize my opinion, and this is not acceptable. I should not have to provide credentials to make edits on wikipedia, it should be enough to backup my arguments with facts ( in the end the consensus was with my suggestion) 16:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs)

Danjel and school AfDs/improvements

• Danjel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Fmph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has continually affirmed the notability of primary schools. That would be perfectly fine...except that he has repeatedly called users who disagree with him "incompetent", "flat-out wrong" and "trolls". This when Purplebackpack89 cites WP:COMMONOUTCOMES vis-a-vis schools; a perfectly acceptable reference that has been reaffirmed numerous times. True, common outcomes can be ignored, but it's a bit of a stretch (to say nothing of being quite incivil) for someone who's ignoring common outcomes to call someone who's abiding by them "flat-out wrong'. Danjel also suggested Purplebackpack89 follow BEFORE...on articles he didn't even AfD. Danjel would also bring up Purplebackpack89's stances on deletion in discussions where his stance was tangential (for example here and elsewhere; note that the so-called "non-existent" consensus is actually what is said at COMMONOUTCOMES); virtually always to mock or berate them. Another issue is his attitude at school articles that are being improved; this often with Users Fmph and Epeefleche. This involves content disputes over the use of maintenance tags for articles that need to be improved. The most recent example of this was Lyneham Primary School. Another user had first suggested this be brought to dispute resolution, but an admin informed me that WQA was the better place. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The suggested course of action I am looking for is for it to be mandated that Danjel be asked to step away from school-related articles, and maybe Wikipedia in general, for a time; and perhaps also that he be forced into mentorship Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this recommended action. Danjel is a helpful and courteous editor. He has been responding in sheer frustration at the school AfD campaign launched by Epeefleche and supported by Purplebackemperor, both of whom mistakenly seems to be of the opinion that all primary schools are non-notable which is not at all the case. Epeefleche nominated over 150 schools for AfD within the space of a few weeks. The sheer scale of the nominations has created endless problems for Wikiproject Schools. Regular editors have not had time to contribute properly to the debates and notable schools have been deleted in the process because editors haven't had the time to add the appropriate sources to articles. The discussions can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. Dahliarose (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dahlia, going out of his way to slight me, as he has repeatedly done (there are edits where he starts talking about something else, then digresses into criticizing me or Epeefleche) doesn't suggest "helpful and courteous". Also, my name isn't "Purplebackemperor" Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89, I'm sorry for getting your name wrong. I shouldn't edit Wikipedia late at night! I've now corrected the spelling. I've looked at the Lyneham Primary School article and I think you've completely misinterpreted the situation. Epeefleche's edits to this article were not at all constructive. He added a ref improve tag to an article which already had 11 references, far more references than many other articles on Wikipedia. The other editors on the article quite rightly reverted his edits. It is not surprising that Danjel got somewhat annoyed, especially as Epeefleche's entire edit history currently consists of tagging articles and nominating articles for deletion, often with only minutes between each edit. It would be more helpful if there were other editors like Danjel who spend time adding content and sources to articles. Dahliarose (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89, it seems to me that you've ignored the whole WQA process which is listed in the table near the top. You're not going to get what you want, which is having Danjel topic banned, since WQA "is to request assistance in moving disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour". To me you wanting Danjel to be topic banned or wanting him to have a Wikibreak, seem more like removing someone to make the AfD noms more successful. Bidgee (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There's not much here for me to respond to. Purplebackpack89, you've quite failed to represent the situation neutrally. And you have gone further to suggest bans from school related discussions (i.e., the primary area in which I edit, according to my userpage), from wikipedia generally and asked that I be "forced" into mentorship in direct contravention of the text at the very top of this page which states: "Avoid initiating a request if: ... You want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures." That you have completely stepped out of the guidelines of WQA and the measures you call for are outrageously disproportionate for anything less than severe disruption to the project shows that you have, from the get go, acted in bad faith.

To respond to your complaint about my view of the way you interpret WP:OUTCOMES (that you also raised at DRN: [2]): (1) WP:OUTCOMES is an essay, not a policy; (2) WP:OUTCOMES details the outcomes that have occured in the past and therefore talks of consensus in the past, and Consensus Can Change; (3) Your stance, that you say above derives from WP:OUTCOMES that primary schools are "inherently non-notable" is a "flat out" incorrect understanding of the sentence: "most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD" (quoted from WP:OUTCOMES#Schools; emph. added) where, you will note, that it does not say anything about the notability of primary schools; (4) Most of this has been said before when I tried to discuss this (and other issues with your conduct at AfD) with you at your talkpage ([3]); (5) and, yet, despite all of this you still persist in your belief that that sentence given above equates to saying that all primary schools are non-notable; and (6) because you vote '''delete''' at all Primary School AfDs on the basis of this completely flat out wrong interpretation, there is a significant WP:COMPETENCE issue in your conduct at AfD. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, this just illustrates the problem. The problem is that you keep saying I'm completely wrong and incompetent over and over again. You respond to my thread by saying...I'm completely wrong and incompetent. That completely illustrates the problem, as a) I'm not completely wrong and incompetent (recall that many editors have agreed with me in Epeefleche's AfDs; and that <<10% have been closed as keep, indicating that consensus hasn't changed); and b) even if I was, you shouldn't be bringing it up hither and yon like you're doing Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right that "this" illustrates the problem. It's been pointed out to you ad nauseam that your interpretation of WP:OUTCOMES is fundamentally flawed and that this impacts on the process at school related AfDs. So this is a situation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

There's nothing further for me to say here. There's nothing productive to be gained from continuing to participate. So, again, I'm out. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain why it's acceptable for you to say I'm wrong, wrong, wrong over and over again, preferably with policy? Your assessment of the situation is quite biased, and you seem to be the one who's not hearing it. If I was flat-out wrong, how come almost all the AfDs I'm participating at where you claim I'm wrong are closed in favor of the arguments I put forth (i.e. not kept)? And even if I was, I'm entitled to my opinion and you saying it so fervently and so often (ad nauseum by your own admission) is disruptive and in violation of several policies. You keep missing the point that even if someone is wrong, it's not OK to say it over and over and over again!. So you and Dahliarose (who I might add is embroiled in a heated argument with Epeefleche and Fmph on Epeefleeche's talk page) need to keep assailing me, Epeefleche, and Fmph. Or you should be forced to step away from Australia-related articles Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Saying it over and over again" is exactly the situation, but it is Purplebackback who is doing that. There is absolutely nothing wrong in challenging established consensus in a reasonable way, or in bringing an AfD to test whether the consensus still holds. At least I hope there's nothing wrong, because I've done it a number of times myself. But to continue insisting, after the great majority of decisions supports the consensus and runs against you, is not productive behavior. It's hard to keep equanimity when confronted repeated with an editor doing that, I think Danjel has dealt with this pretty well. That Purplebackback should come here and ask that his opponent in AfDs , especially his successful opponent in AfDs , stop participating in them seems an attempt to intimidate opponents, and to when by specious complaints what cannot be accomplished otherwise. I consider this not a good faith WQA--which is not unique at WQA, and why I rarely come here. However, even one like this does usually indicate a behavior problem, and , as often, it's the behavior of the complainant. Not just IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but BOOMERANG. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

and btw, how does Australia related articles come into this? ` DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute on German cruiser Emden

Resolved

 – Nobody Ent 23:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved from ANI per (tentative) consensus it belongs here Nobody Ent 13:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I realise problems of inappropriate behaviour are not normally aired here, but this problem concerns one of Wikipedia’s sysops. Sysops are fully familiar with Wikipedia’s code of conduct so I have bypassed Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance and come here directly.

On 20/21 January User:Parsecboy nominated two articles for Good Article. On 5 February I volunteered to do the GA Review on both articles. Both articles contained numerous minor errors and omissions; I noted these on the Review pages and Parsecboy repaired them. See Talk:German cruiser Emden/GA1 and Talk:SMS Nürnberg (1916)/GA1

I also used the Review pages to make suggestions and point out problems that I saw as worthy of repair in order to elevate the articles to GA status. Parsecboy has been reluctant to discuss my suggestions and has become increasingly diverted away from the task in hand. When I saw THIS post I realised Parsecboy was unlikely to help me resolve one particular problem so I decided to ask for a second opinion. I left a message for Sturmvogel 66, asking for his assistance. Sturmvogel 66 is one of the co-ordinators for the WikiProject Military History and has not been involved with German cruiser Emden. Here is the thread I started for Sturmvogel 66: User talk:Sturmvogel 66#Request for assistance.

Parsecboy has become increasingly angry at my attempts to resolve the problem I see. He used Sturmvogel’s Talk page to leave an angry message for me: diff

The GA process does not run on anger and intimidation. I am a volunteer. My objective is the same as Parsecboy’s – to raise these two articles to GA. I would appreciate it if one of Parsecboy’s fellow sysops or admins would leave him a message reminding him of the things he should be aware of about the GA process, but has apparently forgotten. Dolphin (t) 11:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If you would stop playing games, we can have a perfectly polite discussion. If that's not something you can do, then I suggest we clear the board and let someone else review the articles. I refuse to entertain someone who apparently has no grasp of Wikipedia's core content and requires blatant violations of WP:V and WP:OR to satisfy their requests. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

*blink* That little piece of WP:ABF is really what you want to reply with here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have repeatedly pointed out the policy problems of what Dolphin is insistent I change, and s/he has consistently failed to address them. I see nothing wrong with pointing it out. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if Dolphin has behaved badly (I haven't looked at the evidence in enough detail) you should still be responding as calmly and courteously as possible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The diff you provided does not reflect proper conduct for an admin or any editor. However unless Parsecboy has used his admin tools to gain advantage during this dispute, then this is not an admin matter and should be raised via WQA. Manning (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, on both counts. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Further, the 13:04, 10 Feb edit clearly rises to the level for which civility/disruption warnings are given. We simply cannot speak to each other in that manner. Further², Dolphin51's opening of this thread was a thing of beauty: clear, concise, courteous. *tips hat* Is there further backstory at all? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Caveat:Have not looked further than those diffs yet.

How about this:

1. I point out that what Dolphin is requiring is OR
2. Dolphin completely ignores it
3. I state as much a second time
4. Lecture about dealing with contradictory sources, nevermind that there is no contradictory source, and still no comment on citing his claim
5. I point that out
6. Dolphin goes to Sturmvogel with a similarly one-sided summary like the one above. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest you take a moment and re-read those diffs as if they were someone else's, and see if they match the descriptions you've just given? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please point to where Dolphin engages with the issue of original research?

His objection is that the Germans could not have installed a degaussing coil on the ship between the outbreak of World War II and the operation the ship participated in on 3 September 1939, since Wikipedia states the war began on 3 September. Nevermind that many historians use 1 September as the start date, which easily explains the imagined discrepancy, because Dolphin summarily dismisses it. What this dispute boils down to is that Dolphin thinks Williamson is wrong and wants me to change it, despite not having any sources to back it up. How is that not violating OR and V? Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What you're calling "original research" is actually good GA review. He's correct, that the 1st-to-3rd chronology is a remarkable claim. Remarkable claims require a higher standard of evidence. He's actually being very calm and kind in this discussion. - Aaron Brenneman (talk)

Please, do explain how requesting that something be changed without a source is anything but OR? In what manner is it a remarkable claim? It's the installation of a degaussing coil, not a complete overhaul. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) (edit conflict)There are five WP pillars and editing requires balancing all of them. WP:V does not mean we print untrue things (as the perennial discussion on WT:V regarding rephrasing "verfiability not truth" indicates). Dolphin appears to be trying to reconcile different sources; when it became clear Dolphin and Parsecboy were just not going to agree, they requested help from additional editors, which is the right thing to do per consensus. This [4] is the wrong thing to do per our civility pillar. It's okay to disagree and strongly argue a position but personal attacks are wrong. If parsecboy truly thinks the situation is unsalvageable then a new reviewer for the article should be appointed.

• Parsecboy, will you strike your personal attacks coments from sturmvogel's talk page?
• Dolphin, would you be willing to withdraw from the GA and let another reviewer finish? Nobody Ent 13:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Swearing =/= personal attack. Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The swearing shows that you aren't being calm and courteous, but the swearing isn't what makes it a personal attack. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Explain where I insulted Dolphin or made threats. I'm all ears. Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
        • This diff -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Again, where did I insult or threaten him? Where did I use an ad hominem attack? Perhaps you need some familiarization with WP:NPA#WHATIS. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
            • I'm well aware as to what a personal attack is, "Have you ever even read WP:OR, WP:V, or WP:CITE" and "Fail the article, I don't really care. I will immediately re-nominate it so someone with a basic grasp of Wikipedia content policies can review it." stand out to me as being a personal attack, and "Too fucking bad, you don't make the rules. I'm getting sick and fucking tired of this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT bullshit." is certainly a violation of our civility policy, one of the pillars of the project.
            • PS from your link These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Dolphin repeatedly ignored my objections and carried on as if I had not made them. The issue then becomes that Dolphin was either playing games or can't handle discussion effectively. I doubt it's the latter, in which case, WP:SPADE. Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you have understood Dolphin's, quite legitimate, concerns. The policy is not as black and white as you think it is.

We all make mistakes from time to time, I think User:Nobody Ent's suggestion above that you both take a step back from this is the most productive way forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I do understand Dolphin's concern, and it is not legitimate. We as editors do not get to decide what is and is not correct, at least so far as only one source is concerned. That is a textbook definition of original research. If there was a contradictory source, then yes, we would have to exercise some editorial discretion, but that is not the case here. All we have is Dolphin's insistence that Williamson is wrong, with nothing substantive to base it on.

I don't have a problem with disengaging and starting from scratch on a new review. Parsecboy (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we agree to disagree on whether Dolphin's concerns are legitimate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dolphin made a proposal which sounds reasonable to me. He suggests switching the order of the first two sentences. This proposal does not challenge the current sources in any way (to my interpretation). Since the exact date of the modification ("After the outbreak of World War II") is currently rather vague in comparison to the precise date of 3 September 1939, I believe that the poposal would adequately address both positions in this dispute. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is Williamson puts the degaussing coil before the minelaying operation in the text. That doesn't support reversing the order. Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not certain whether the discussion here is to resolve the content dispute, or the complaint over Parsecboy's incivility. I have no view on the former but the latter is disturbing. The question of him being an admin is moot as he is not using admin powers - except that if these diffs had occurred prior to an RfA I have no doubt it would have failed. Admins (I speak as one) SHOULD meet higher standards of behaviour. Parsecboy has failed to meet them, or even to recognise that he has failed (which is almost worse). Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Parsecboy is saying that I am insisting on inserting original research; and that I am insisting Williamson is wrong. I want to make it clear that I am doing neither. Wikipedia is opposed to original research, and so am I. Williamson is one of the few sources we have on the subject and we must work with the information available.

Wikipedia must present its information in the best way possible. It must not only be grammatically correct and of sound syntax, it must be arranged in such a way that it can be read easily and well, is not ambiguous and does not confuse the reader. I am looking for someone with whom to have a dialogue about the best way to present the information we have about the Emden. At present, I think the information is not presented in the best way because we don’t know the exact date on which the degaussing coil was installed. Insisting that the coil was installed on 1, 2 or 3 September is probably original research because we simply don’t know the date. Apparently, Williamson says nothing more than it was installed after the outbreak of the war. A problem I have had with Parsecboy is that he doesn’t seem to do dialogue; he seems only to do angry monologue. I was hoping to have a dialogue with someone on this subject but so far that someone hasn’t appeared. I have exercised my mind on the matter and I can say that my difficulty with the current wording would disappear if either of the following forms were used. I’m sure there are others that can be found, but these are two I have found:

1. Emden's first wartime operation saw her participating in laying a minefield off the German coast in the North Sea on 3 September. (Source: Rohwer, p.2) After the outbreak of the war a degaussing coil was installed just above the waterline to protect the ship from magnetic mines. (Source: Williamson, p. 10)
   
2. Emden's first wartime operation saw her participating in laying a minefield off the German coast in the North Sea on 3 September. (Source: Rohwer, p.2) Prior to that, a degaussing coil was installed just above the waterline to protect the ship from magnetic mines. (Source: Williamson, p. 10)
   

Dolphin (t) 04:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I do plenty of dialogue - it seems you are the one who doesn't. I have repeatedly brought up the objection that what you're asking me to do is OR, and this is the first time you have engaged the point.

Here are the problems with your suggestions:

1. As I have noted elsewhere, Williamson presents the material (the degaussing coil installation and the minelaying operation) in the order I have it in the article - he's the only source that mentions the degaussing coil, so there's no support for reversing the order.
2. Williamson specifically mentions that the degaussing coil was installed after the outbreak of war. To leave that out that would be omitting relevant details.

Changing something to contradict what a source says without another source to justify the change, or to omit information solely because one editor thinks it unlikely is a textbook definition of OR. I honestly don't know why this continues to be a problem. Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy! Are you saying it is my failure to do dialogue that caused you to post an offensive message on Sturmvogel's Talk page? If your answer is yes, please let us know whereabouts in Wikipedia's Code of Conduct there is provision for suspending the usual requirement for civility in order to administer therapeutic incivility to Users who fail to do dialogue? Dolphin (t) 07:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And here we are, back to avoiding the issue.

Did I phrase things in a less than ideal manner? Yes. Whoop de freaking doo. Grow up. People use obscenities. What is more concerning, at least as far as I see it, to the fate of the project is the fact that none of you are apparently concerned with the fact that Dolphin is set on making changes to the article based solely on his opinion that something is wrong. He has absolutely no hard evidence to back up his assertions, and continually deflects the issue. Let's just throw our editorial policies out the window because I said "fuck". This is what drives productive editors away from the project: pointless hand wringing about obscenities while actual content policies are being wantonly violated. Since none of you are seem to be interested in resolving the actual problem here, I'm done with this discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason we are not having the conversation you want is because this is WP:WQA. It's not a board for content dispute resolution (in which arena you may well be in the right) but for discussion of collegiality, civility and the disruption that is caused when they are absent. Editorial policies are not weakened when civility is enforced. On the contrary, it is easier to edit in a collaborative way when senior editors such as admins behave in a restrained, polite and respectful way. If you're done here then that's fine. I'll place a warning on your talk page and will issue a short, protective block should you disrupt WP again with similar outbursts. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You can leave my talk page alone, thank you. Parsecboy (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Too late, I'm afraid [5]. If anyone here thinks my wording is too strict, by all means post to that effect. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In perhaps simpler terms, source A says "X, then Y." Without a source B that explains it was actually "Y, then X", what is the justification for making that change? Parsecboy (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite concerned that we've yet to see any acknowledgement from Parsecboy that there was a problem? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I see the goal of WQA as to help editors move forward productively and that seems to be happening; as the conversation is remaining civil now that's good enough for me. Nobody Ent 11:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have thought of a third possibility that I can accept: Leave the sentences exactly as they are at present, and add an Explanatory Footnote explaining what the sources say, so that interested readers can see exactly what the situation is, and can resolve the paradox for themselves. Dolphin (t) 07:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that Parsecboy has withdrawn his GA nominations of German cruiser Emden and SMS Nurnberg (1916), and closed the associated discussions that I initiated. He immediately re-nominated both for GA. This has the benefit that in this thread we don't need to be distracted by the details of the article, and can concentrate on the primary issue, which is Parsecboy's resort to incivility. Parsecboy has defended his incivility by complaining about technical errors he perceives to have been committed by me. Critical readers of this thread will immediately see that this does not constitute a legitimate defence because technical errors by one User don't allow another User to resort to uncivil behaviour. In Wikipedia's Code of Conduct there is no provision for the requirements for etiquette to be suspended so that a User, or even a sysop, can administer some incivility. Dolphin (t) 04:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I’m pleased to be able to report that this thread has now fulfilled my expectations. I have no objection to it being closed.

I began by asking for a sysop to leave a message on one User’s talk page, reminding him of the need to operate in an appropriate way. Kim Dent-Brown has now DONE that. Thanks Kim!

I want to acknowledge the following Users who devoted some of their time and intellect to grappling with this problem, and trying to resolve it:

• Eraserhead1, who isn’t a sysop but who contributed much wisdom to the thread,
• Aaron Brenneman, the sysop who supplied the intellectual horsepower behind the assault on the problem,
• Nobody Ent and MisterBee1966, two reviewers who displayed courage in supporting what they believed to be right.
• Bwilkins, a sysop and regular on this page who hit the nail on the head as soon as the starter’s gun fired.

Thanks guys! The sysops on the white horses won this one. Dolphin (t) 02:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil and Unhelpful Conversation in MMS Talk Page - Need Help

• User:AndyTheGrump
• Miracle Mineral Supplement

Greetings, I hope I am in the right place. I am hoping to defuse a volatile situation on the MMS talk page. Being newer to editing on wikipedia, I have made many mistakes myself in the past few days, including unknowingly taking part in edit warring and adding fuel to the fire of arguments. I have officially apologized on the page, and have attempted to turn the discussion into something more constructive, though it appears that there are still a few whom have taken it as their personal goal to be insulting, disruptive and controlling of the information on the page. In particular, AndytheGrump has continued to use rude and uncivil language, and refuses to look at the subject from any view point other than his own. There are others as well, in the past and in the current conversation, who refuse to consider any alternative points of view and instead of contributing, they are simply reverting the page back to it's unsatisfactory condition.

I understand the controversy of this subect, but this sort of behavior seriously undermines what wikipedia is all about, and as a newbie editor (but no reader), I find that it makes it very discouraging to want to try and help out. I would prefer to avoid banning or any other serious situations, especially since I have up to now, been a part of the problem.

Can anyone help out? It would be nice to have a moderator or admin be on the talk page, to help defuse this sort of behavior so that the discussion can become constructive and relevant again. I really don't want to add anymore fuel to the flames, nor do I want to continue anymore disruptive behavior myself. So if anyone knows what can be done, or where I should go with this issue, I would surely appreciate your help. Thanks Bema Self (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

AndytheGrump is no stranger to these pages. Could you please provide diffs of the behaviour? We're not admins, we're only editors, but we can offer support. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the reason I would like diffs is that I've checked the talk page and I don't see anything that is worth reporting or acting on, but I could be missing something. The fact that he's removed the comments of others, and doing so without comment, is the only really bad offence that I see. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for offering help. Being new, I'd like to resolve this without going higher up if that's possible. Can you tell me though, what are "diffs"? Do you mean the specific ways in which he's been uncivil?

There is this statement that he left after I attempted to site WB:BITE

"Then stop trying to sell toxic snake oil.

I would like to cite WP:NEWCOMERYEAHRIGHTJIMHUMBLESTOOGEMORELIKE. I'll choose biting 'newcomers' over allowing crackpots to push bleach as a cure for AIDS, any day of the week. I have morals, unlike you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC) "

It looks like I made an error, as there is another comment, though not by AndytheGrump, but by Andy Dingley, is there a chance he's using another account? It was in the same fashion as thegrumps other comments and says:

""Research?" You mean "Drink bleach, if it doesn't kill you, it might kill something else more useful"? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I might have taken this one out of context, but I feel rather demeaned about this comment, because it suggests that I am not worthy of citing wikipedia sources because they don't fit in with his beliefs.

"You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. We do not delete articles on notable subjects because of expressed concerns over neutrality - though your understanding of what constitutes 'neutrality' is in any case contrary to that of Wikipedia policy. And neither do we consider attempts to evade our policy on appropriate sourcing regarding claimed medical products (see WP:MEDRS) to be a legitimate 'compromise'. MMS is a notable example of a bogus 'medicine' that has never been proven to do anything other than empty people's pockets - except when it makes them ill. This is what the sources say, so this is what our article is going to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)"

It only seems to continue the more I try to inject any reason into the situation.

My other issue, is that I feel like I'm being surrounded by a pack of hungry wolves. AndytheGrump, Novangelis and Six Words refuse to see reason on the subject. I don't sell MMS, I don't promote it or encourage it's use. I am simply a regular reader and fan of wikipedia, because I can usually find comprehensive and unbiased information on whatever subject I am looking for. AndytheGrump, Novangelis and Six Words, keep trying to cite the NPOV, but at the same time they are violating it by not allowing even the simplest of changes to the article unless it fits in with their POV. Even just reorganizing the info seems to be a crime, and no matter how well I try to play by the Wikipedia rule book, it seems that I can do anything to get even the smallest compromise. By WB:COMPREHENSIVE and WB:CENSOR, shouldn't we have all the information about a subject in a wiki page regardless of our personal opinions on the particular subject?

I have tried to offer that we delete the page because of the imbalance and horrible formatting, or that we redirect or merge the page to pages like the one for Chlorine Dioxide which already has a small blurb about MMS. I have searched for various experimental uses of Chlorine Dioxide (MMS when activated), that were from reliable sources, and they still chastised what I put in there, only citing their beliefs that it shouldn't added because they perceive that to be in promotion of MMS.

Not to mention that there has only been one recent event where one of them added a small section to further the one sided bias, there has been no good faith attempts from any of them, to work with the information I provided. They just keep reverting it, which got me into my first edit war, which I stopped and attempted to talk it out with them, which has so far done no good. They keep accusing me of wanting to sell the product, when I have no affiliation with it. I'm on the fence about it. I can't say it's not dangerous, nor is there any proof it is dangerous. I just want the article to reflect that.

Is there anything I can do to help gain a compromise? I feel like the MMS article seriously undermines the corner stones of wikipedia's values to be about information and not bias. I feel horribly out numbered and frustrated, cause I don't know who to talk to or where to turn on the subject. They are being very unreasonable and unhelpful about it.

If I'm in the wrong place with these complaints or maybe I'm viewing the situation wrong, please let me know. I don't want to give up, as everyone else has done. I really feel it's worth making sure wikipedia stays as unbiased as possible, but it seems like someone has gamed the system on that page, maybe not on purpose, but that's what it looks like. I'd hate to think that would be allowed on other pages to. Any ideas? --Bema Self (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Bema Self has failed to notify me of this thread, as is clearly stated at the top of the page - I only saw this by chance. WG, you say I've removed other's comments without explanation - I don't recall doing this, but if I did, and it wasn't an obvious case of reverting vandalism, I apologise, as this is clearly inappropriate. I'd note however that there has been a long stream of 'contributors' posting on the relevant talk page, all seemingly intent on promoting this ineffective and potentially-dangerous 'miracle', and all either unaware of basic Wikipedia policy, or intent on subverting it. Several have been proven to be in gross breach of WP:COI policy, and none have seen the slightest interest in complying with WP:MEDRS regarding claims on the effectiveness of this miraculous application of toxic industrial bleach as a cure for AIDS, cancer, toothache, the common cold, and no doubt any other affliction its proponents can think of. If I have been my usual grumpy self on the talk page, and this is seen as less than helpful, I'd ask that other uninvolved contributors step in by helping keep the article in compliance with policy. This 'supplement' isn't just ineffective snake-oil it is downright dangerous, and may very well have been directly responsible for the death of at least one individual. [6][7] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note. Bema Self writes that "there has only been one recent event where one of them added a small section to further the one sided bias" - this 'one sided bias' was addition of material (not by me) regarding the death of the woman in Vanuatu. Since when has reporting the fatal consequences of bleach-drinking been 'bias'? I think this attempt to misrepresent the reality of the situation is explanation enough for my grumpiness (though admittedly I can usually find one as needed anyway ;-) ). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for not having yet notified you AndytheGrump, I only just posted the request for help a little while ago, and then it took me a while to write out the reply to GW question. And as for WB:COI, how is it that I have a conflict of interest? You can't assume everyone who wants the article to show both sides, has a COI. In what ways do I need to prove that I do not have a COI so you will know I am not jim humble or any one of his followers? And I don't want to go against the WP:MEDRS, while I also want the article to comply with WP:COMPREHENSIVE and WP:CENSOR. There is perfect reason and logic in what I am trying to achieve and you and the others in that talk page are running a monopoly due to personal opinion, not objectivity. Why can't their be a compromise? We don't have to promote a thing, as that is not the intention of wikipedia. --Bema Self (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Why can't their be a compromise?" WP:MEDRS. We don't compromise basic policy, end of story. In any case, this isn't an appropriate place to be arguing about such matters. You claimed that I've been "Uncivil and Unhelpful" - the only person who has commented so far seems to think that this isn't the case (or at least, it isn't the case enough to matter). We are discussing the promotion of potentially-lethal unproven 'cures', and I see no reason to let petty issues regarding 'civility' divert us from the real issue - which is that, COI or not, you seemed keen on 'balancing' the reliably-sourced evidence that MMS is dangerous with dubious anecdotal evidence and hype (diffs: [8][9]). Now, having failed to spin the article your way, you seem to be arguing for its deletion, on the bizarre basis that "By slamming MMS, you only encourage people to try it".[10]. I'll leave it to others to comment on what this implies regarding your 'neutrality'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I came here to figure out if there is a way to resolve the conflicts going on with the conversation on MMS talk page. As you so pointedly showed, this is not the place to discuss what is already being argued over in the talk page. I am here because it seems that you and the other regular watchers on that page refuse to even consider trying to achieve improving the article or the NPOV on the grounds your POV, and are being uncivil, including "Civil POV pushing", which is just as demeaning.

According to the five pillars of wikipedia known as WP:IGNORE (which includes ALL rules and guidelines), there can be compromise on basic policies and guidelines and we should strive for it. No one owns any wikipedia pages, anyone is allowed to edit and contribute, no rules are set in stone and no one should be made to feel as though their work is pointless because it doesn't fit in with someone elses opinion of the topic or interpretation of the policies and guidelines of wikipedia.

That being said, I came here for third party opinions about how this dispute can be resolved, and that is what I am going to continue to seek. It is my hope that others that are not already involved in the conversation may step up and offer some help in getting some civil and constructive conversation going on in the talk page so that the page can be improved and the talk page can stop going around in circles attacking everyone. It is clear that there have been others whom have also attempted to do the same (not including those only out to further the promotion of the product), and it just keeps going on in the same endless circle. It's a long term dispute that clearly isn't going to be resolved regardless of how much logic, verifiability or neutrality that I or anyone else can offer. I have all sorts of other ideas for improving the page, that have nothing to do with promoting it or violating any policies, but I feel it's useless to attempt to put them in until the issue of civility is resolved.

That is why I came to this conflict resolution, to get help for a long term problem that should be able to be resolved without so much hostility. --Bema Self (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a 'conflict resolution' page. Issues regarding article content are not dealt with here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: For instructions on diffs, see "Include diffs that show the situation" at the top of the page. There are other instructions there as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the info Gorlitz. --Bema Self (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I hope I am adding these right.... I feel that while the other contributors may be acting in good faith to "protect" others or to make "point" about the dangers of MMS, that they are refusing to see any potential ways to improve the article and are being rude about it.

[11] [12] ::::This is the one where I added fuel to the fire when I shouldn't have, and while I don't excuse my own behavior, the comment wasn't helpful either and I feel it should be noted [13] and [14]

Did I provide this diffs right? I followed the instructions on the page for newbies... Also, should I include the other contributors in the users section at the top of this request for resolution? And should I add diffs from older conversations on the talk page that have discouraged others from attempting to contribute to the page in good faith and have been treated in the same manner I have? --Bema Self (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You have provided two diffs to edits made by individuals not mentioned in the complaint - I suggest you notify them of this thread, along with anyone else you are going to comment about. In any case, only one of the four you cite could remotely be construed as personal rudeness - instead we have repeatedly explained why your attempts to provide a synthetic 'balance' to the article are against Wikipedia policy. The first diff, which I suppose might be seen as impolite, was in response to your repeated earlier attacks on the integrity of other contributors ("It makes me wonder if this page isn't left up, not for it's value, but simply as a fish hook to lure in unsuspecting people who have no idea the kind of nonsense they're going to have to deal with in order to try and help out." "That's redundant, childish, and only going to result in the continuation of problems with this page."[15] "Is that the best rebuttal you have andy [Dingley]? Really? lol" [16] "I would like to cite WB:DBN, because I truly feel that those of you whom have been on this page long term, especially Andy [which Andy?] and Novangelis, whom are not benefiting this conversation or the page with insults to the information and zero objectivity." [17]). The simple facts are that you have had multiple contributors telling you the same thing, and you have either ignored them, or replied with personal attacks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I understand what you are saying. I agree that I have contributed to the inappropriateness of the conversation on MMS, as well as on this thread. Everyone has made mistakes and quick judgments, which can happen with digital conversations. That being said, it is my hope that we can cultivate a better environment for everyone involved, which I don't feel can be properly achieved without outside assistance. The issue isn't in the correction of mistakes or any attempts to preserve the integrity of the article or wikipolicies, which we are all trying to do. The issue is the manner in which we are all handling each others responses and actions through misinterpretations of those actions and responses.

I feel our problem exists mostly with the amount of controversy and personal beliefs involved in how the subject should be written about. In such controversial situations, a certain amount of care needs be taken in order to preserve mutual respect for each other in the process of improving the article, and that doesn't appear to be happening naturally, even though we've all tried to correct ourselves. I feel that a good way to minimize misinterpretations and to positively impact the article, might be to bring in a neutral third party (or a few) to suggest ways in which we can work with each other better. I am unsure of any other way that I or anyone else currently involved in the matter can better respond and contribute to this controversial subject, in a manner that won't create even more unintentional misinterpretations.

I wish I could have stated the incident in this way, from the beginning, and I apologize for the manner in which I reported the incident originally. My intent was to get help, not to create more problems. I can see where I can improve my incident reporting in the future to give a better understanding of the situation, and I hope that this (way to long) explanation will create less misinterpretations about my goals. I will let the others know that I have included them in this conversation. I hope some more responses will come in from uninvolved third parties soon, as they might be able to see ways in which we can improve, that we might not be seeing ourselves. --Bema Self (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so I have been uncivil in pointing out that the sources you added weren't in fact about MMS and the rest of your rewrite wasn't sourced at all. I'm sorry that you feel hurt by this, but from my standpoint these are facts. Given that your very first interaction with me was a threat to edit-war “until we are both flagged for violation”, I think you already knew that this wasn't the kind of dispute resolution expected from Wikipedians and that it could lead to both parties being blocked. At that point, I had reverted merely once and given an explanation on the talk page. I would have reverted a second time on Saturday, and explained this on the talk page (in the diff you provide for my alledged incivility), but while I was typing Novangelis had already reverted.
Above you claim that I, among others, don't allow “the simplest changes to the article” - none of your edits could be construed as such, each was a major rewrite, and they all had one thing in common: adding “balance” by conflating the “uses” of MMS (which is advertised as a treatment for AIDS, hepatitis, herpes, cancer, malaria and other serious diseases) with the legitimate uses of chlorine dixoide. You seem to complain that you spent a lot of time on those rewrites, but it's pretty much your own fault for continuing on your own when I advised you to discuss and gain consensus on the talk page first. --Six words (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/Bema_Self 62 contributions, almost all highly pro-product and pro-Jim Humble edits to Miracle Mineral Supplement and already confidently verbose at WQA? Drinking bleach still isn't a medical cure for anything, but it sure washes socks clean. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Bema Self genuinely believes that in order to have a neutral article, one needs to give as much credence to the proponents as to the opponents. That's a common sentiment among journalists that unfortunately leads to a lot of bad science reporting; it's not what NPOV stands for at all. --Six words (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI is the appropriate place for sock accusations, not here. Nobody Ent 11:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I should also note that WP:IAR needs to be read in the context of Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. There are some 'rules' that are pretty firm - eg copyright, our policy on the biographies of living persons, etc. Bema Self, you've encountered another of them. Dougweller (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Rather than discuss the thread so far, I'm going to offer my take. This article has a long history of single purpose accounts trying to promote MMS. The last, MoogleONE (talk · contribs)/69.143.187.109 (talk) had been blocked for edit warring and made the last talk page post a day before Bema Self entered barking instructions. When a new account enters the fray, quoting, but misapplying, NPOV like so many accounts before, it is difficult to distinguish WP:Wikilawyering in order to promote a product from a good faith misinterpretation to "balance both sides". That said, even giving the new editor the fullest possible assumption of good faith, at no point was the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle discussed with the editor, and if it had, tensions might have been diffused. There are signs of restraint by the editors. No one invoked WP:IDHT which is often taken as biting, and no one quibbled the point that in the flood of policy quotes thrown onto the page, that WP:BEANS is not a content policy but a humorous essay reminding editors not to tell people how to disrupt Wikipedia. On the upside, I see strong indications that we are not dealing with a tendentious editor who will not back down, but merely headstrong and needing to learn the ins and outs of collaborative editing. At this point, my recommendations to Bema Self are:

1. Consider the possibility that when half a dozen editors who have numerous edits under their belts (on multiple articles) are all telling you roughly the same thing, they might know something you don't.
2. Instead of insisting, phrase as suggestions or ask questions until you have a better feel for policies.
3. Make discrete suggestions, not sweeping generalizations. Discuss one issue at a time and make sure the policies you invoke are applicable. For example, address Wikiquette as Wikiquette, and content disputes as content disputes. When issues are entangled, none get discussed well.
4. From the standpoint of Wikipedia, some things are one-sided if all the evidence in reliable sources goes one way. The Earth is not flat.
5. I you feel like you are surrounded by a pack of hungry wolves, there is no reason to assume that you are not a hungry wolf.

The editors at MMS (myself included) could be less brusque with new editors.Novangelis (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WEaPOn

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WEaPOn&action=history, Wikipedia_talk:WEaPOn – Should this be moved to the userspace? Buster7 has been targeting Joedesantis for a while now:

• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_55#Communications_Manager_managing_communications
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Buster7/Sandbox-Campaign&action=history
• Talk:Newt_Gingrich_presidential_campaign,_2012#Reply
• User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_96#Paid_Operatives (canvassing at least six editors: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23].)

Buster7 has been forum-shopping in an attempt to generate an anti-Joedesantis lynch mob, and he was failed every time. I feel that this is a case of "not knowing when to drop the stick." I don't believe that a page devoted to Buster7's vendetta against Joesantis belongs in the Project namespace; it should be moved to the userspace. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What does this have to do with this forum?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Likely should be PRODded as "attack page" from what I see - it is almost entirely about a single named editor. And it "conlicts" with WP:COI to boot <g>. Collect (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

All claims above are a one-sided partisan view of my intentions. I have always and repeatedly praised Joe, not set out to lynch him ((which is quite an outlandish claim). I have no vendetta against Joe. When the general election arrives and the Democrats have a Paid Operative orchestrating edits to all the Obama articles there will be a history of what is expected and what has been experienced. BTW, one of you should point out to Joe that he is required to put a tag before he requests a change, as noted at WP:COI. The above editors were notified of a conversation developing at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Paid operatives which is canvassing but is permitted under the auspices of Jimbo himself. The were asked to reply. They were not given instructions on HOW to reply. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL! I did not express a "partisan view" about your "intentions" - I stated the simple fact that the entire page is based on a single editor. Cheers Collect (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The intemperate "lynch mob" accusation is really rather silly here and not at all useful. The diffs show a lasting and, IMO, legitimate concern with transparency and accountability. For instance B7 suggested, IIRC (I tend more towards ADD than OCD so I can't be arsed to check the edit histories but perhaps another user will feel compelled to do so), that as De Santis is only here to work on Wikipedia's Gingrich-related communication he might disclose his job as communications director for the Gingrich election campaign in his sig; a suggestion which, I note, to his credit, De Santis has taken up.

Just to be clear. Mr. Suarez and Collect, are you both saying that the statement at WP:WEaPOn here, which rather clearly says the page is not about Joe De Santis ("Note--- This is not about User:Joe DeSantis") but about undeclared "Paid Operatives", and that De Santis's work here on behalf of the Gingrich presidential election campaign is "transparent and...available as a "template" to guide other self-identifying Political Paid Operatives" is a personal attack on Joe De Santis?

Ditto the page's inclusion of this February 2 conversation with deSantis. Are you saying B7's "As I'm sure you are aware, I don't and will not attack you [...] I respect the fact that you came forward [...] I have no gripe against you [...] I have no beef as long as you remain transparent" is a personal attack? Writegeist (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Newt_Gingrich_presidential_campaign,_2012#Reply – You have a February 2nd conversation, but here's a more recent, February 7th conservation. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

First, TY to Editor Writegeist for defending me against these unfounded attacks. And TY to Editor Suarez for adding the 2/7 conversation which surprisingly shows my attempt to be broad-based. (Surprising that it supports WG's defense rather than the Users claim). My problem is this. Editor DeSantis is the only Political Paid Operative WITH A NAMETAG. If these editors know of other political operatives that are paid to edit Wikipedia I will be more than happy to include them.....If User:JoedeSantis is going to be the only official Jimbo sponsored template for future paid operatives, then there needs to be a record of what that "template" did. All i am doing is collecting it in one place.```Buster Seven Talk 22:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's something from Jimbo to remember....```Buster Seven Talk 21:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

....."This is an important cultural point embodied in the principle of "Assume Good Faith" - we will sometimes have disagreements that aren't anyone's fault, particularly when they result from failures to mutually achieve a mental connection. The constant seeking for blame and winners and losers in debate is a poison."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

When a page says it is not about someone - but pretty much every ref in the article is related to that person, something is likely amiss. A person who makes more than two dozen edits about another editor in a short period of time, on a variety of noticeboards and talk pages, may reasonably be deemed to have a pre-occupation with that editor. In the case at hand, I invite any editor to read that page, and note its precise contents. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Due to Collects continued participation in this thread, I must, in good conscience, vacate the vicinity. Our history prevents any meaningful, forwarding, "good-for-the Encyclopedia" conversation. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, more or less. Writegeist (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Exercise for the outside observer: Why would any person "vacate the vicinity" except as a show of intense dislike for another editor evinced on user talk pages? I doubt it shows a great deal of "collegiality" in posts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Abuse from Nightw

I am a new user and not familiar with all of the WP process and I explained this to him and he acknowledged it. Despite that he is acting in an aggressive and peremptory manner. Just because I am involved in an controversial topic, surely this is not justification for his behaviour. Please view my talk page where Nightw apologises for his conduct but then continues to attack me.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You (AnkhMorpork) do not appear to be listening and/or understanding policy. Any reversion is reversion, it doesn't have to be the same edit. There are special sanctions Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arbitration_Enforcement/Israel-Palestine_articles for that article. You are going to need to discuss any potential edits on Talk:Israeli–Palestinian_conflict before editing. There is also an essay explaining how Wikipedia:Tendentious editing may be considered disruptive. I'm not seeing any evidence of incivility by Nightw. Nobody Ent 19:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that I do not understand policy, hence my questioning. But why is this relevant to to his conduct, e.g. calling me "stupid" etc
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

They didn't. They said your actions were stupid -- and this is acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. Language is not censored here; so as long as other editors are describing either edits or content it can become quite direct and blunt. If you find this objectionable editing Wikipedia is probably not for you. Nobody Ent 19:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing to my concerns. At the very least you have provided some assistance.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You might want to revisit this issue. Personal attacks such as [24] are extremely helpful. 213.220.233.192 (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The diff provided does not contain a personal attack. Nobody Ent 04:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the edit summary? Calling another editor an "idiot" seems like a rather agressive personal attack to me. 213.220.233.192 (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You've never edited that page, nor anything remotely related to it. While you're free to join whatever discussions you like, you should be aware of what constitutes harassment. If you feel slighted after our conversations together (which are well and truly concluded), I suggest you let it go and move on. Continuing to follow my edits is quite childish. Nightw 12:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, didn't see the edit summary. Yes, I'd call that uncivil. Nobody Ent 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg and 'cognitive issues'

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

User:Jayjg seems to think that suggesting that another editor has "cognitive issues" [25] and "disordered cognitive or thought patterns" [26] is appropriate for his talk page. I'd appreciate some input on whether this is considered appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I am more put off by the tone and style than by his oblique/euphemistic way of saying you're not as smart as he is. The posts read like court orders.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, my opinion of this board never recovered after I asked for assistance at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive100#User:Kwamikagami about an editor who was using an article Talk: page to repeatedly call another editor a hypocrite and liar, only to be told that it wasn't a civility issue if the accusations were true. My pointing out that the name-calling didn't belong on an article Talk: page regardless of its veracity (per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES) appeared to make no impression.

In any event, the posts on my Talk: page were the culmination of a rather lengthy series of exchanges between Andy and me (and others) about this list, most recently in the past 24 hours. During that period, aside from our disagreement, Andy several times explicitly refused to answer my questions to him regarding the list, starting with "I don't have to explain anything. You do." and deteriorating from there. He then pursued the issue on my user Talk: page. Editors are given considerable leeway regarding what they allow on their user talk pages, and I made it clear that if he didn't want to answer my questions he didn't have to, but in that event his posts there were not welcome.

Regarding the rest, I was expressing an honest concern, because I really and truly cannot understand the reasoning behind many of the things Andy is writing. I also apologized if my speculation was incorrect. I didn't mock or belittle Andy - for example, when he misspelled "cognitive" - and in no way intended to insult him, but since he's taken this as a personal attack, I've just deleted the entire discussion from my Talk: page, so no-one has to have any more misunderstandings or bad feelings about this. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So your response to me objecting to you suggesting that I have "cognitive issues" is to repeat it here? And yes, I've refused to answer your off-topic questions regarding my editing habits, and my opinion of other articles, while you refused to actually address the issue at hand, and explain why the lede section of a list shouldn't explain its criteria for inclusion, as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists seems to require where there is room for ambiguity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't "repeat[ed] it here", and I'm not sure what you want at this point. I don't understand the reasoning behind many of your posts, and it's not an insult for me to say so. I've deleted the entire section containing the material. I don't know what else could be reasonably asked of me. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

A statement that you don't understand my reasoning is of course entirely proper - but suggesting that you cannot understand them because I have "disordered cognitive or thought patterns" isn't. In any case, I see little evidence for you actually asking me to explain my reasoning regarding the issue in question (though I think I've made my reasoning clear - there is self-evidently ambiguity as to what the criteria for inclusion in the list are) - instead, you go off at a tangent by asking questions about other subjects entirely - and repeatedly failing to explain the reasoning behind your assertions that a list shouldn't explain its criteria for inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, Andy, I don't see this as a big deal. You had a dispute with Jay. He used some mildly offensive language. He says he didn't intend anything offensive. He's removed the discussion that contains the language. Yet, you're continuing the dispute here. I don't see the purpose. I suggest you let it go, cool off a bit, and move on. I also don't see that he "repeated" the "accusation" here. I don't read what he says that way.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have come to this noticeboard to see if it's the right area for discussing issues I have on three or four articles, all of which involve Jayjg as the key protaganist. So I was intrigued to see these two other current cases where editors have complained of his behaviour. Bbb23, you wrote originally : "I am more put off by the tone and style than by his oblique/euphemistic way of saying you're not as smart as he is. The posts read like court orders" Yet you now say its not "a big deal"?! May I ask why the apparent change of heart? As I see it, when Jayg wrote here: Writing "I didn't mock or belittle Andy - for example, when he misspelled "cognitive"" that was also is a subtle form of ad hominem. It does appear to me that in these two instances here, he is being allowed to transgress wiki policy WP:NPA#WHATIS without rebuke or a warning. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't have a change of heart. I didn't like the tone of Jay's post. I didn't say the tone rose to the level of a policy violation. I also agree with Andy that Jay's statements about cognitive reasoning were at best poorly crafted. As for the stuff about misspelling, really, even if Jay intended that to be another jab at Andy, it was hardly the stuff to justify continuing the complaint here after Jay apologized and removed the offending material from his Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me if it seems tiresome me continuing this, but I have also been the object of what I regard as an ad-hominem attack by Jayjg over a period of a month or two, which I have hitherto chose to ignore. But it has reached a point where I feel I should bring it to the attention of the Wiki community in some way. I'm not sure which is the best venue for that. And in searching for that I came across these TWO complaints of the exact same transgression here that are in my opinion being allowed to pass without any action [27]. I do not think this is one-off behaviour by Jayjg. Plus his apology was done in a "walking back" way that further repeated the ad hominem by implying there really might still be something mentally wrong with the editor, "but if you are in fact OK, sorry". I must confess to being rather surprised and dismayed that this standard of behaviour is being allowed and excused like this.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What concerns me more is when editor A has a series of content disputes with editor B, and after failing to gain any support for his views, editor A uses other boards like Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance to get revenge, by jumping in and trying to stir the pot, and smear editor B. In this case, your editing history here shows a series of editorial disputes with me - in none of which have you been successful - followed by your appearance here. It would have been better if you had not come here with unclean hands. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If I'd had three different people complain about me here in a month, I might consider at least moderating my tone, especially if I was a big stick administrator. I've certainly had a number of disputes lately with Jayjg that have come to a draw (IMHO), usually with me promising to provide more WP:RS info to prove my point. But the problem is that the thought of MORE such contretemps does make the various articles in question keep falling to the bottom of my Toodledo list. (And then there's the issue of his popping up on other articles I'm working on and making contrary comments when we're having a problem on another article, the excuse no doubt "administrative oversight" or some such thing.) However, perhaps it is getting to the point where someone has to do a RfC/User for him to at least take more seriously the various complaints that doubtless would be elicited. CarolMooreDC 16:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Assumptions of bad faith about ARS concerns

• Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 10

This editor has been repeatedly accusing me of bad faith and trolling ever since I posted an ANI report about the Article Rescue Squadron's rescue list. I have asked several times for editors such as Toth to stop making such accusations. Toth has been the most blatant about it, suggesting essentially that I am trying to stir up some sort of war between inclusionists and deletionists and I have repeatedly tried to explain my good faith reasons for trying to get this issue fully aired. Most recently when I commented on his user talk page asking him to stop accusing me of trolling and to assume good faith Toth hatted the discussion with WP:SPADE and points 3, 13, 17, and 55 at WP:OWB. All of those seem to indicate that he does not accept that I am acting in good faith and is insisting his behavior is perfectly acceptable. One other thing is that several of the points at OWB mention banning and driving a "troublesome" editor away, which is essentially what Toth has suggested several times at the ARS talk page since I brought this up recently on ANI. The fact is, several editors, including admins, have agreed that my concerns are legitimate with some also endorsing my evaluation of the canvassing issue. Yet Toth is persistent in accusing me at the ARS talk page and more recently implying at the DRV that I have some heinous motive against not just ARS, but Wikipedia as a whole. I would like to see these uncivil assumptions of bad faith stop so I am requesting that someone persuade Toth to stop making such accusations.The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

1. User:The Devil's Advocate is misrepresenting the facts and attempting to put words into my mouth.
2. He has also been repeatedly cautioned by others against continuing these very behaviours.

It would appear that because The Devil's Advocate has gotten nowhere with his claims and tactics of targeting ARS, he has decided to target me instead. These are of course a common tactics when it comes to disruptive editors who have been called out on their behaviour, so I'm really not surprised at all to see it here. cf. WP:OWB#64 and Cyberstalking#Definitions "False victimization"

I also note DA has chosen not to link to any of the comments made by others who have openly questioned his "good faith concerns", nor has he included links to any of the comments from others cautioning and warning him against continuing with his current behaviour.

Not once have I mentioned "banning" DA (although if he continues the behaviours he has been exhibiting, is it highly likely the community itself will ultimately put a stop to it), and it seems he is attempting to use some of the WP:OWB links that I left on my own talk page as justification for making this WQA post. DA further apparently does not like some of the discussion which has occurred at DRV which is actually a lot more general and didn't even name him.

The irony is despite DA's claims above (and he certainly can't provide diffs where they don't exist), I've not even commented on the ARS talk page in several days. In fact, the last comment I made there was 03:19, 11 February 2012 where I mentioned the possibility of filing an RFC/U for User:The Devil's Advocate concerning his behaviour, which others agreed that an RFC/U looked to be the direction to take things. This specific discussion thread can be found here. [Edit: I've now left a comment there regarding this very WQA report.]

I did indeed hat the comments DA left on my talk page. His comments on my talk page, while on their face appearing to be "civil", were a clear attempt to bait me into something he could try to report me for. Rather than remove them, I hatted them. Had I simply removed them, DA would have made a similar post to what he posted above while claiming that I was "being uncivil" because I had removed his comments to me from my talk page. (see also: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Attempts to evade detection)

I've seen this very game attempted by other editors in the past and none of them had good outcomes. I would strongly caution DA not to continue down the path he is attempting to follow. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You went to DRV and suggested "some people" are trying to "stir thing up" between ARS and its opponents, the exact same claim you made against me at the ARS talk page just two days before. When I asked you to stop at your talk page, your response was to hat it citing WP:SPADE (an essay about "calling it as you see it") and several numbered points at OWB that repeat the references to "bullying", "harassment" and other behaviors that you surely understand are severe accusations that result in hefty sanctions. Also, while you make no explicit reference to banning, point number 13 says enough:

“ As the primary job of Wikipedians is to write the encyclopedia, any user whose principal activity is to interfere with the writing should be removed from the project, as painlessly as possible. The best way is to persuade them that they will be happier elsewhere, and to wish them well; the worst is to beat them up and make them angry: but however it happens, it must be done. ”

You referenced all this in hatting my comment asking you to stop accusing me of trolling. How else exactly am I supposed to interpret that?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• How many times do you have to be pointed to WP:STICK. You have been trying for the past month to rid Wikipedia of the Article Rescue Squadron. Time and time again, you have been told to drop the issue, yet you continue to drag this issue up. Enough is enough, this continued behavior is disruptive. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Update: After a recent discussion with Toth, I believe the issue between us has been settled peacefully.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Abusive Telekom Malaysia user

I guess my talk page speaks for itself. The user in question logs in from these subnets 60.48.0.0/14, 60.52.0.0/15 and 60.54.0.0/16. I would like to ask for an intervention to stop the abuse from his side. —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

Hounding admins and uncivil admin-shopping after AE result

• MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Toa_Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pages concerned

• 9/11 conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User talk:Mkativerata#Topic ban of Tom Harrison
• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Anti-Semitism in 9/11 conspiracy theories
• User talk:Timotheus Canens#Topic ban of Tom harrison
• User talk:Wgfinley#The Devil.27s Advocate
• User talk:Tom harrison#AE case

This has been dragging on for the past four days with no signs of these editors relenting. Basically, ever since this AE result the three editors above have been letting loose at several places. They have all been making repeated mentions to the admins who supported the result of a 30-day TBAN I received back in November and accused me of filing the AE request in "retaliation" for Tom's comments at the AE request that led to it. Two of the editors, Toa and AQFK, have repeatedly been saying they want to get me banned. The first instance was Toa suggesting on the talk page of the 9/11 CT article that editors shun me. When I asked Toa to rescind that suggestion and mentioned the possibility of going to WP:DRN, the response was Toa and AQFK going to my talk page to insist that DRN was unnecessary and insisting that they wanted me banned. At the time it was because of a disagreement about a category concerning Jews being included in the article that AQFK was actually suggesting be renamed to "Antisemitic conspiracy theories" to reflect a belief about antisemitism being a common characteristic of the CTs. That discussion saw several editors other than myself saying the category about Jews should be removed, and one even took the step of trying to remove it. All the same, Toa and AQFK insisted that those opinions weren't relevant because I was the only "active dissenter" on the issue so they argued I should be banned.

MONGO became involved after the AE case against Tom resulted in an indef. As can be seen in the old version of Mkat's talk page Toa, AQFK, and MONGO all went to the admin who issued the ban accusing him of a conflict of interest because him being involved in ARBPIA (based on Mkat's willful declaration due to contributions to an RfC on settlements). On Tom's talk page MONGO made an even worse comment claiming "manipulation" of AE among other things. I advised them to stop going after Mkat like that, but they were insistent. Ultimately, Mkat has retired and turned in his tools in apparent response to this activity. Despite this all of the editors in question have continued by making comments at the pages of the other two admins involved in the case to make repeated accusations against me and Toa went so far as to blame me for Mkat's resignation. At the same time, MONGO has been going to several places insisting Mkat's resignation indicates that the AE request had been in error, while calling on all the admins involved to "resign" or get "topic-banned" from AE. He has even left a comment at Jimbo's talk page implicitly taking a swipe at these admins. Now these editors are converging on WgFinley's talk page repeating the accusations against me and with AQFK commenting that the sanction against Tom was "more disruptive" than the edits insisting that had Tom not been given that sanction the "sh*t storm" could have been avoided. At the same time they have once more repeatedly brought me up, insisting that I was acting in retaliation. I have asked all of them to stop going after the admins involved in this decision and to stop making accusations of me filing the report in bad faith, but this has continued unabated and I think some outside intervention is the only real option at this point to get them to cool off.The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Time heals. Tempers may be frayed right now, but TH, MONGO, TDA, AQFK, TN et al. each have something to contribute towards improving 9/11 coverage on WP. Space is needed for that to happen. Geometry guy 23:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Devils Advocate seems to be having problems with editors all over the place.--MONGO 00:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

MONGO, are you going to present your side? Do you have any defense for the diffs that TDA has posted above? Do you feel that what you have said or done since the AE closed is justified or appropriate? Do you have any evidence that TDA has behaved in a similar fashion? Cla68 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for using all caps when spelling my username...some people write Mongo...that is annoying.--MONGO 01:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Here is the discussion on Wgfinley's talk page. I have been involved in some content discussions on the 9/11 pages before. Although Tom Harrison, MONGO, and AQFK were polite and civil with me, I noticed that they all seemed to share an intense animosity towards the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The diffs that Devil's Advocate has listed above appear to show that this animosity is still influencing the way they interact with other editors and is interfereing with cooperation, collaboration, and compromise on the 9/11 topic articles. I don't know if Devil's Advocate has been responding in kind, and await MONGO, Toa, and AQFK's response to see. Either way, the behavior in evidence needs to stop. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Concern about hounding; edit warring, Twinkle abuse, and violations of wp:v/wp:or; Night of the Big Wind

Night of the Big Wind and I had a difference of opinion. Perhaps he felt slighted by it. I had tagged an Irish sports article, pointing out that it only used primary sources. Night addressed the problem, but left an edit summary saying: "stop you witch hunt".

Over the next hour, Night singled me out. He just now followed me to over a dozen articles which I had PRODed this past week (all of his immediately following edits were to articles I had PRODed). In each case, I had only PRODed the article after I performed a wp:BEFORE search. The articles were in various places on Wikipedia, on articles ranging from sports (including Irish sports, such as here), to malls (including Canadian malls, such as here), to music, and to a medical institution. He de-PRODed them, often with zero explanation. He admits following me to these articles. I am concerned that this could be an effort by him to repeatedly confront or inhibit my work, or cause me to be annoyed or distressed. His singling me out and de-PRODing my articles is disrupting my enjoyment of editing, and I feel it is disruptive. I requested that he stop, but received a non-conciliatory response.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Prodding a lot of Middle Eastern and Asian articles with as arguments that there were no sources on Gnews and Gbooks is in my opinion dodgy resource. It is wel known that both are strongly focused on the Western World. So if you start looking at a place that is guaranteed to yield nothing, the changes are big that you find nothing. Using that as a reason for a deletion nomination is plain nonsense. The angry and aggressive way Epeefleche replied on my talkpage and now here, robs me completely from every sympathy for him. It is a rather pityful way to get rid of someone who is in your way. Is it immediately houding when you use a critical approach? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that I am hounding him, is plain bad faith. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• when I check prods, and see one I think unjustified, I will usually check other recent work of the prodder, for the same reason I would check the recent work of someone who had contributed an unacceptable article. If I see other errors, I'll follow up on them. Though it won't be personal, I recognize it can seem that way. If the other party takes it amiss, I try to explain, but it can be a difficult situation. It's not wikihounding, but getting annoyed at it isn't bad faith either. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. DGG, in his discussion of his personal practices, simply reflects the difference between appropriate editing (his) and inappropriate editing (what we have here, I believe).

It is wikihounding when an editor singles out another editor, and follows the target from place to place on wp, joining discussions on multiple pages they edit or multiple debates where they contribute (as obviously was the case here), in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work with the apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor.

While many users such as DGG track other users' edits for administrative purposes, it is clear this should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that the target's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight (such as reflected in the edit summary immediately preceding these PROD removals). Most of this series of removals had no rationale or no reasonable rationale (see, e.g., here, here, here, and here). There was no "good cause" here. An important component of wikihounding is disruption of another editor's enjoyment of editing, or of the project generally, for no overriding reason.

The difference between DGG's edits and these is that I expect DGG's edits were both administrative in nature and supported by a reasonable rationale, reflected "good cause", and did not follow (immediately, as here) an edit summary indicating that the follower felt a perceived slight. What DGG describes as his personal behavior is clearly distinguishable.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If i remove a prod which i feel either has no substance i routinely have a check for others they may have nominated. It appears that night has done that and felt that they hadn't been looked at enough for a prod to remain uncontested and i agree Gnews and Gbooks isn't the best for searches for non western articles and as far as I'm aware he does not have to give a reason to contest it. We can all do that everyone of us. He also looked at other nominations that you made and agreed with you as he pointed in reply to the message you left on his talk page. I don't see it as wiki hounding. Im not an admin and some others may have a different view.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that: a) this followed directly the aforementioned dispute; 2) the prods were made after precisely what wp:BEFORE calls for; 3) his PROD removals ranged all over wp, including western articles -- it was one such that started his activities -- as I indicated above; 4) the wp:BEFORE search that was done is not contested. Given that this followed the indicated dispute, and given that it ranged over Canadian malls and Irish sports articles (however Night may be seeking to confuse matters), it is precisely the sort of matter that wp:WIKIHOUNDING is meant to prevent. If we cannot find wikihounding here, then we would be giving license for anyone -- say, after a dispute with DGG -- to without reason de-PROD the lot of them. Thats why wp:WIKIHOUNDING states clearly that tracking for administrative purposes may be acceptable but this should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that the target's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Night's series of de-PRODs failed in that respect. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• And — just now, another example. A few hours ago, I deleted the red-linked, non-referenced name of an American from List of speed skaters. With the edit summary: "per WP:LISTPEOPLE. There must be an article on the subject, or a ref--or the entry is to be deleted".

Hours later, Night (apparently again following me across the Project) restored the redlinked name, without any ref, and without creating an article. An act directly contrary to wp:LISTPEOPLE (which I had cited). And wp:CHALLENGED. This was manifestly yet another example of wikihounding. During the pendency of this discussion. And certainly did not meet the standard of only tracking another's edits "for administrative purposes" with "good cause", to avoid raising suspicion that the edits are being followed to cause distress or out of revenge.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• And — now, another example. I had deleted uncited text at an Irish sports article; one Night had never edited. Night reverted me hours later, and restored the text. Without supplying an inline citation, as required by WP:CHALLENGED. Again -- that fails to meet the standard of only tracking another's edits "for administrative purposes" with "good cause", to avoid raising suspicion that the edits are being followed to cause distress or out of revenge.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Come on, stop this nonsense. Are you really unable to see that on table, with the winners by county, is derived from the second table, with the winners by year? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • And yes, I check all your work by now. Too many dodgy edits to believe you without checking. Like this case] on St Peters Dunboyne GAA, where you axe out an redlinked player, but failed to see the vandalism one edit earlier. And you have been told earlier that GNews and Gbooks are unsuitable sources to find references for non-Western subjects. Still you PROD a mall in West-Kalimantan just based on that. And in the following AfD, you just start fingerpointing on that evil Night of the Big Wind. Again, my friend, improve the quality of your work and I will have no reason to check your edits and interfere. But as long as you come up with dodgy work, sorry, I have to check them. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• And — now, another incident. It is discussed in detail here. In short, after again (as he admits) following me around the Project, he confronted my work by edit warring. By again reverting me in violation of wp:CHALLENGED. By reverting me in violation of wp:OR. And by abusing Twinkle, to level an unfounded accusation of vandalism at me.

He then left me a taunting note. Accusing me of not doing my "work properly" but rather doing it "dodgy". A completely baseless falsehood. I routinely do a wp:before search. And as my AfD record shows, the vast majority of my AfD noms and !votes are in-consensus. In fact, they are far more so than are his. About 4 per cent of my AfD !votes were non-consensus over my last 250 !votes. 40 per cent of his !votes were non-consensus over the same span. His !votes at AfD are against consensus ten times as often as mine are. And yet he is following me to confront my edits (in the aforementioned manner) based on his loud assertions that my AfD work is not "proper" and is "dodgy".

He then asserted, on the basis of his false accusation, that I "force" him to do what he is doing. He closed by leaving me a taunting smiley face -- . This is disruptive and uncivil.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• N.B.--I just noticed there is a recent history of Night being accused of hounding, and being warned by sysops not to hound editors. Night's block 2 months ago followed an AN/I hounding complaint that:

"[Night of the Big Wind] has started to follow my deletion nominations around.... This guy is escalating, and frankly is getting to be a little ...."

And then there is this AN/I, entitled "Hounding", from 4 months ago. Night was accused of hounding. He admitted following the complaining editor around, writing "Yes, I follow ClaudioSantos around. That is necessary". Night was advised by sysop Qwyrxian

"stay the **** away from ClaudioSantos. It's fairly obvious that ... your "criticism" doesn't even serve any purpose, even if you mean it in a good way. And, to be honest, I don't think you do. Take CS's page off your watchlist. Don't look at CS's contributions. If CS is a terrible POV warrior who cannot collaboratively edit, others will notice and action will be taken. You don't need to act like some sort of a personal police officer. Additionally, you are edit warring ... Seriously, back away. ... Don't go searching out CS--no good comes of it."

And sysop TParis wrote to Night:

"I think the consensus here is don't even watch. Take CS off your watchlist, don't visit his talk page, and don't review his contributions. Not only should you not watch closely, you shouldn't watch at all.... Follow the advice here, just steer clear of CS."

And in July, sysop Shirik wrote to Night:

"calling an edit "vandalism" when it is not (repeatedly) can be considered a personal attack, and your actions in general today seem to be borderline hounding. Take a step back and remember that you are supposed to be contributing to an encyclopedia, not finding places to pick fights."

Perhaps there is a pattern.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Aha, you go historical! So what about your concern about hounding and harassing if you start digging through my older edits? Sorry, mate, but I have nothing to hide. I follow my own brain and that clashes sometimes with POV-pushers and guidelines. And I like to challenge guidelines, as they are not always up-to-date and/or correct. You will not be able to bully me into a corner, I am too stubborn for that. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Night of the Big Wind, no one needs to, or should be following and check all another contributors edits, not unless they are a vandal, such is harassing to a good faith contributor and referring to a users good faith contributions repeatedly as vandalism is also as stated here , a personal attack - I understand you are stubborn and your back is up here, but I suggest a good course of action for you here is to stop investigating all of the users edits and remove them from your watchlist completely for a few weeks. - the ambition in dispute resolution is to resolve and de-escalate, not to continue on in the exact same manner that is causing the friction. Youreallycan 19:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It should not be necessary, indeed. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It does look like its happening the other way around as well now though. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

@Ed—Not at all. I'm not (as he is, in reverse) following Night around the Project, to repeatedly confront and inhibit his work. Breaking rule after rule as I undo his edits and !vote against him, to cause him distress and disrupt his enjoyment of editing.

All I did was check to see if he had been warned for hounding before over the past few months. He has been warned, a number of times. By a number of sysops. His current hounding is against this background. Apples and oranges.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No, just a personal attack. A blatant action to disgrace me and save a critical look at your work. But I don't accept your baiting, how hard you try it... I want to stay a happy editor and you don't fit in that plan. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Could I just put this discussion in perspective. I think Night of the Wind has some justification for his concerns. Epeefleche has been on our radar at WP:WPSCHOOLS for a while because he mass nominated over 150 schools for deletion within a very short space of time a few weeks ago. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. He's also tagging mass of articles for a lack of references which is fair enough but he now seems to be following through by deleting material simply because no one has got round to citing any references. I've just been involved in a discussion at Talk:Karachi Grammar School. We want to help to build a collaborative encyclopaedia and encourage editors to contribute, and actions like this are unhelpful and counterproductive. Dahliarose (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Dahlia -- it is interesting that you come here directly after this interaction, in which you were just warned. I think that you are confusing matters. Night's behavior is, as reflected above, unquestionably inappropriate on a number of levels, and follows sysop warnings for much the same behavior. The issue that you refer to is a wholly separate one -- another editor and I have tried to address it with you collaboratively on a talk page an in edit summaries, without bringing it to a noticeboard, but it did involve you being warned. Please don't confuse the two. There is nothing "collaborative" and "encouraging" in Night's behavior. Hounding, taunts, abuse of Twinkle to call an editor a vandal when that is not the case, failure to abide by wp guidelines -- all of those are non-collaborative and non-encouraging, which I would think would be self-evident.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

These are relevant points to raise in the current discussion because it is an example of the nature of your editing behaviour which has provoked the reaction from Night of the Big Wind. All your edits consist of tagging, prodding and deleting articles, often at very high speed. You do not appear to read articles or understand them, and you are applying WP guidelines over-literally which is not constructive and is discouraging other editors from contributing. Dahliarose (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, an editor's misbehavior -- even if it exists -- would not as you assert excused rampant misbehavior such as that by Night identified above. Second -- I did not engage in misbehavior, and your assertions that I do not "appear to read articles or understand them" in my AfD behavior is a baseless assertion (as well as being irrelevant), given that my positions at AfDs are not in-consensus with the close only 4% of the time in my last 250 !votes. Especially, when you own record over the last 250 AfDs is that your !vote is non-consensus 17% of the time; far worse. I understand that you may disliked the consensus, and that you may dislike have been warned a few hours ago at another unrelated page by me in a completely unrelated matter. But that no reason for you to assert Night's behavior is anything other than inexcusable. And no reason for you to make broad-based false assertions as to whether I "appear to read or understand articles" as reflected in my AfD behavior, when the objective evidence shows quite the opposite.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you please stop your personal attacks, Epeefleche? Conform WP:NPA and so. I consider a rant as above as an unprovoked personal attack and I friendly request you to stop them immediately. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The AfD outcomes are irrelevant. My AfD votes are usually in accord with the consensus. On the few occasions when this has not happened I have not had time to add relevant sources to articles. The problem with your mass nominations was the sheer scale of them so that no one had the time to investigate them all, check for relevant sources and bring the articles up to the relevant standards if required. Those of us on Wikipedia who do spend time contributing content and adding sources know that it is a time-consuming process. I've said enough on this issue and will not respond further. Dahliarose (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Dahlia -- please focus on the issue at hand. The editor has engaged in the misbehavior described amply above. For which he was warned many times, by a number of sysops. You -- after edit-warring with 2 editors, and being warned for it by me, in a completely unrelated incident -- hours later parachuted in here. With irrelevant and unfounded character accusations Writing as to AfDs: "You do not appear to read articles or understand them"; while the objective evidence suggests that your participation at AfDs is 300%-more out-of-consensus than are yours. Even had that been true -- and it is clearly not -- it would not at all excuse the above-described behavior. And yet you make the foregoing wholly unsupported, baseless, irrelevant, character assassination statement? Your are raising a red herring discussion, apparently trying to deflect from the issue at hand ... as to school AfDs, if you have any concerns re my !voting, all current ones are viewable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools, but I fail to see any basis there for your off-topic accusations as to my ability to read or understand school articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

And that is unprovoked personal attack number two... Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Equalization payments in Canada

• UrbanNerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Equalization payments in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

February 2012 (UTC) User has removed sourced content from page, no consensus for removal, and has decided to insult instead of discuss. --UnQuébécois (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You should have notified the editor; I have done so. Neither of you should bandy about the term WP:VANDALISM unless what you're referring to is clearly vandalism. See your reversion. What you reverted was NOT vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted and slightly tweaked a peacock term and pov statement to which the references mentioned nothing about. But all this can be discussed on the articles talk page. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverting instead of cooperating

I wanted to add here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Leahy some figures on fundraising. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Leahy&action=history Xenophrenic broke the Three Revert Rule. I assume that Xenophrenic is in a good faith but I cannot get him. I have invited Xenophrenic to edit directly the article (and in particular the paragraph on fundraising) instead of reverting. I'm sure that with his help the paragraph can be improved. Ipvariabile (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xenophrenic&curid=9309471&diff=477072546&oldid=477071831 allowed? Ipvariabile (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

AS Nick says below, it is allowed, but it often considered unhelpful, as it can appear dismissive. Rich Farmbrough, 12:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Firstly, Xenophrenic has not broken 3RRR, he is at 3 reverts but the rule applies if a user makes more than 3 reverts, with some exceptions either way not applicable here. Secondly his reverts are not without explanation, he has provided rationale in his edit summaries and quite correctly referred you to the article talk page to discuss the edits before re-inserting them in accordance with WP:BRD. Thirdly, yes Xenophrenic is perfectly entitled to remove any post you place on his talk page. Doing so is regarded as acknowledgement of having read the content of such posts and users are not required to give reasons or enter into any discussion on their own talk page. Finlly, there is no incivility here. Xenophrenic has not engaged in personal attacks he has not crossed any lines regarding appropriate interaction with other editors. Last of all, you have not followed the correct procedure here by not placing a notice on the user's talk page as required - please read the instructions at the top of the page about how to use this board. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have placed a WQA notice on Xenophrenic's talk page - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

With Extreme Prejudice

Resolved

 – Complaint withdrawn by originator Nick Thorne ^talk 07:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Buster7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Callista Gingrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Joedesantis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Buster7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The entry below [28] (in bold) was taken from User talk:Joedesantis. I had informed UserJoe [29] of a speedy deletion of a project, WP:WeaPOn, now an essay titled[WP:Paid Operatives]] that, in a round about way, was about Joe De Santis. I informed UserJoe as a courtesy, thinking he may wish reply or have input. Absoltuely no animas was intended. I had "canvassed" my 7 or 8 wikifriends, including Jimbo, for their support and/or comment to stop the Speedy and was just beginning to "canvas" the few editors that may have been in support of the Speedy. The following edit was left after mine by User:Kenatipo. The 'BS' in the entry refers to me, Buster Seven. This is the type of conduct I am repeatedly required to put up with from this editor. Administrator Will Beback advised that I ignore the editor. But, an attack like this is very hard to ignore and needs to be dealt with ASAP. Nothing I say or do will appease him. His replies and conversations with/to me are condesending, sarcastic and mocking. Talk:Callista Gingrich#Life-long Catholic The hate he is directing toward me is palpable [30] [31] and surprisingly gaudy [32]. His smiley face does little to hide his aggression. I have asked for the advice and input of Admins Will BeBack, Chet Davis and Casliber. Maybe one of them can put a stop to it. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(If BS had been a Roman soldier, he would have asked Jesus to hand him the next nail!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ruud Koot is rude

Resolved

 – Withdrawn by request. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ruud Koot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wizard (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I prodded Wizard (band), which seemed fairly uncontroversial. User:Ruud Koot remove the prod without comment. I asked him, "Please do not remove prod tags unless you explain why." which got a very rude response of "As you clearly are incapable of determining whether a nomination is uncontroversial or not, please do not use the PROD template in the future." I could do without the attack. Further attacking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizard (band), saying I have a "bad track record" when it comes to finding sources. Cherry picking fallacy much? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that this is enough of a violation to belong here, especially since you told him "don't be stupid" on the same page. Both his comment there and yours are vaguely rude, and not of such entirely different magnitudes for scolding one user and not the other to be worthwhile. Kevin (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I redacted that, but he has continued to attack me in the AFD. Saying things like last.fm is more objective than my search skills. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I withdraw this WQA; can someone close it? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Trying to stop this before it starts

• Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Short version

• Edit to Wikiproject Paid Advocacy Watch, added comment about Facebook group, saying they were "Widely regarded as a pressure/PR group than any real attempt at neutrality, as the writer of the previous article has admitted to the Wikimedia Foundation", and had edit summary of "CREWE is not ethical, that's well, PR..! -- Added King article actually encouraging people to act ethically".
• Wikiproject Paid Advocacy Watch talk page, said CREWE was "not about ethics, they just want to try bully Wikimedia into doing things their way."
• Long comment on CREWE talk page, making a number of accusations about me.
• Edit to User Doctorow's talk page, saying "There's also some discussions around the WP:PAIDWATCH related stuff you might be interested in, basically some groups supported by Silver seren above trying to bully Jimmy and Wikimedia into relaxing the rules on paied editing it seems like while whitewashing it all as "cooperation"... I do not know Silver Seren's real name or if he is part of their group: User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Wikimania_Panel".
• Comment in regards to this WQA, saying, "I think "Silver Seren" who started the Wikipedia group is trying to stir up trouble to try silence opposition".

Long, detailed version

This feels like a situation that will eventually escalate to ANI and I want to stop it before it gets there. I guess the place to start with this is to explain that i'm the creator of Wikiproject Cooperation, which tries to facilitate the addition of proper, neutral information from users with a rather large COI, specifically paid editors and corporations. Wikiproject Paid Advocacy Watch is a similar group, though I think is a bit opposed to mine. But, anyways, yesterday I made the talk page section here, requesting that the Paid Advocacy Watch members remove the comments on their main page regarding the Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE) group, where it says next to a link to the group, "Widely regarded as a pressure/PR group than any real attempt at neutrality, as the writer of the previous article has admitted to the Wikimedia Foundation", added by User:Mistress Selina Kyle with the edit summary "CREWE is not ethical, that's well, PR..! -- Added King article actually encouraging people to act ethically". I explained in the above linked talk page section that the statement is completely incorrect, as the "evidence" was stated by a member who was removed from the group previously. Mistress Selina Kyle ended up responding, saying that the CREWE group is "not about ethics, they just want to try bully Wikimedia into doing things their way." After that discussion, Mistress Selina Kyle followed me to the CREWE talk page here, making strange accusations, saying I was responsible for the previously mentioned member being removed from the CREWE group, when I have no control in the group and had nothing to do with the member's removal. Selina's strangely formatted rant also included a list of some people from the CREWE group and their locations, copied from their Facebook pages. Selina then also followed me to User:Doctorow's talk page, where I had left a comment two days ago approving of Doctorow's article in BoingBoing. Selina posted a talk page section here that included the statement, "There's also some discussions around the WP:PAIDWATCH related stuff you might be interested in, basically some groups supported by Silver seren above trying to bully Jimmy and Wikimedia into relaxing the rules on paied editing it seems like while whitewashing it all as "cooperation"... I do not know Silver Seren's real name or if he is part of their group: User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Wikimania_Panel" These accusations are just patently ridiculous and I don't remember having any real interactions with User Selina before. I can only assume this has something to do with Wikipedia Review, of which she is an active member and where I occasionally post. SilverserenC 22:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Silverseren^C 23:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This is abusing WQA which is a longterm user you should know, it's not meant to be a form of alternate dramaboard to try points-score or something, it says at the top it's meant to be for resolving issues and that you are meant to at least try to talk to people first. I am going to state for the record that despite everything it says at the top of the page, Silver Seren has left me no other message before, ever, than this:

"Hello, Mistress Selina Kyle. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SilverserenC 22:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)"

Wikipedia Review is completely irrelevant to this, but thanks for the completely prevaricated accusation anyway for the sake of your apparent dislike of a website I'm involved in? Especially since on said website, which as you say, we have barely interacted before, the only thing I can remember is being nothing but supportive of you the only time I remember talking with you previously? When you said someone called you a fag, and said someone was offended by the accusation and wanted me to remove what you said but I said no I would not because you deserved a chance to provide evidence - I supported you as I have seen real, nasty, harassment of LGBT people, and you then said you "remembered wrong" and said sorry to said user. For the record, I didn't hold it against you, but if you want to bring that up those are the facts as on the thread which I won't link (unless you ask me to) because I don't like trying to stir up drama for drama's sake as you appear to be attempting to.

Yes I am a supporter of WP:PAIDWATCH which aims to monitor subversive PR operatives on Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc.. You can disagree with someone whilst remaining wp:CIVIL and I have done nothing but do so. Dragging your opinions onto here using it as a dramaboard with no attempt to actually talk first is showing utter disdain for the people that actually try hard to mediate and discuss issues reasonably with people...

Yes, it is my opinion that the CREWE group on Facebook are fairly malign from what I have seen so far, as has been discussed on a Wikimedia Foundation official's talk page previously: User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Wikimania_Panel and as Jimbo has said, it's a serious problem that cannot be ignored:[33] (I recognise your name from his talk pages attempting to defend paid corporate advocacy editors there, too). As you know from my criticism of them...

No, I did not make any "strange accusations" which in itself seems to be an attempt to smear me: Talk:Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement#Credit_Where_Due, anyone can see that I was replying to you, as a member of the "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement" group (which despite the name, is a lobbyist group attempting to put pressure on Jimmy to change the rules, per the discussion on Phillipe from WMF's page) who was defending the PR advocacy editors. You chose to defend that argument rather than letting them speak for themselves so as you were talking to me, I addressed you. If you do not wish to be involved in the discussion in your position as a member of the group, then why did you start attacking me when I was not addressing you in the first place?

As for my comments to Cory, I refer you to Talk:Websense where I quoted him yesterday and my comments earlier on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. that I am currently in contact with his employer The Register on a personal basis. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned Wikipedia Review because you linked to it at the end of your comment on the CREWE talk page. And you then, here, go on a long paragraph regarding Wikipedia Review where you're essentially disparaging me while trying to make it seem like you aren't.

I'm not even going to bother arguing with you here, i'm going to wait for other people to comment. Your response is self-evident for my point. Silverseren^C 23:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd encourage both Silverseren and MSK to use fewer words and more diffs. Nobody Ent 23:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Better? Silverseren^C 23:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 1) The end of your comment was a paragraph about Wikipedia Review in an apparent attempt to paint me as biased when it's a matter of public record that I have barely talked with you, and the last thing I said was defending you even when you were wrong. It isn't relevant here though, no, so I am not sure why you brought it up. You or anyone else should be able to see that I included Wikipedia Review which is as the article says, a watchdog organisation, in my signature on the CREWE discussion as relevant to why I was bringing up my concerns with them in my reply to them, which you then replied to seemingly speaking for them without being asked to, so I debated with you instead - if you didn't want to be involved in the discussion in your capacity as a member of Corporate Representatives, then why didn't you leave it for the ringleaders to reply for themselves? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I made a bunch of links to the various points already Nobody Ent if that helps, is there anything you mean that I missed --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

and this edit proves that Silver Seren has been wp:wikistalking me after I stated my opposition to the Corporate Representatives group as I had guessed. This seems to be normal tactics of the group Silver Seren founded supporting corporate editing in retaliation to wp:PAIDWATCH to try harass dissenters, as I also had a similar issue happen 2 days ago when I added Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. to the PAIDWATCH wikiproject at 9:23[34], "bob rayner" arrived at 9:58[35] along with "Bilby" at 11:13[36] to talk:Websense to defend the companies' paid PR sockpuppeting — both whom are not members of wp:PAIDWATCH, but apparently founding members (the 5th and 7th respectively) of Silver Seren's previously mentioned Wikiproject working with the Corporate Representatives PR group, which most of them including Seren - as stated on their site - are also supporters of. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 00:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Actually, I just had a tab open still with the discussion (your reply, really) on your talk page, which I refreshed to see if you had added anything else. Then I saw King asking you to respond on his talk page, so I went there to see what you were discussing and voila. Should I be watching your contributions? Silverseren^C 00:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Expanding your reply after I reply to it rather confuses things. And...um...you realize that you're sounding a little paranoid, right? There's not some sort of conspiracy going on here. Silverseren^C 01:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

wp:No personal attacks... Again...

I never said there was any "conspiracy" just wp:wikistalking behaviour in an apparent attempt to silence opposition... You and the other members of Corporate Representatives are behaving like hired thugs. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Question to both from reading through that talk page - how was the question about King relevant to improving the article? The appearance to me is more like bashing the group than a genuine interest in trying to improve the article. Ravensfire (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought and think too. I just replied to inform Selina about what happened, but it really has absolutely nothing to do with the article. Ocaasi tried to hat that part of the conversation, but Selina reverted it. Silverseren^C 02:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not that you aren't (almost) dead on-target Mistress. Like an archer one inch off the bulls-eye from the 500 yard mark blindfolded. You even cited the exact post that CREWE quoted to me as being "promotional" and it seems many users have been threatened with bans or lectured for being "off topic", which gives the appearance of corrupt behavior to shepherd the conversation. Seriously some impressive digging on your behalf.

On Wikipedia these would be some VERY serious issues. We have an ethos for openness, neutrality and ethics, but we can't enforce that ethos on a Facebook group. They have to play by Wikipedia's rules on Wikipedia, but can do whatever they want on Facebook.

That being said there are appropriate venues to address your concerns about the CREWE article specifically (the article talk page), CREWE censoring me (the Facebook Group), or concerns about CREWE in general (by collaborating with the community)

I think the issue should have (and already has?) been addressed in various Talk pages and I hope you feel the revised article I offered on the Talk page after discussions with Ocaasi is more balanced?

King4057 (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)