Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

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

Active alerts

User:Soxrock's alleged disruptive editing pattern

Stale

Note: This issue was archived without any attempt at resolution. I have restored it back here with hope that someone will try to come to a consensus on this issue. Thanks, Caknuck 00:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite pleas from several editors, User:Soxrock persists using a highly disruptive method of editing articles that, while technically not against any specific policy, is disruptive and detrimental to the database as a whole. Specifically, the editor in question has been making rather minor changes to articles (typically dealing with sports statistics) as a series of several dozen tiny edits instead of one or two large edits. Several editors, including myself, have urged Soxrock to stop this primarily through the use of the "Show preview" button. We have explained that his editing style has major negative impacts on the project's servers: the server load and bandwidth required to update the pages for every single edit he submits, the clogging up of edit summaries and the wasted extra storage space required for the thousands of intermediate pages he leaves in his wake. None of this has dissuaded him from this pattern.

For specific examples of this behavior, please see the following diffs:

1. [1] — List of managers for the Cincinnati Reds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 218 consecutive edits over the course of 27 1/2 hours.
2. [2] — 2007 Tampa Bay Storm season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 47 consecutive edits over the course of 14 hours.
3. [3] — 1961 American Football League Draft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 250 edits (plus 5 edits from another editor who was trying to demonstrate how to accomplish the same amount of work with only a handful of edits) over the course of two days.

These are only the most egregious examples from the past week.

When confronted about this disruptive behavior, Soxrock has been alternatingly duplicitous — by saying he will change his ways (see here and here)— and indignant (as with here).

For some reason, this only seems to be problem that has surfaced in the last two months. Per my comments here, I think that Soxrock has a bad case of editcountitis. (See here for Soxrock's edit count and edit summary usage.) What we need to impress upon him is that in the long run, he is doing more harm than good as far as the project goes.

Thanks, Caknuck 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

His main purpose for doing this, as Soxrock himself has admitted, is to avoid edit conflicts. But in reality, he makes these series' of edits on articles in which he is the only editor, if not one of the very few editors, who edits that article, reducing the risk of any edit conflict arising dramatically. --Ksy92003(talk) 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe his main purpose of doing this is to drive up his edit count. I questioned his editing techniques before, here: User_talk:Soxrock#Small_Edits_on_ATH_Stats. Just looking at his contributions, I see that the situation hasn't gotten any better. The last 37 edits (all on June 25th) of this article 1999-2000_NHL_season are his, including an astounding 29 edits in 17 minutes. Bjewiki 12:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(←)I think the reason no-one responded when you posted this previously is that it does not seem to be an issue of civility or editing disputes. Now all the information is almost a month old, so it does not seem like a situation needing immediate attention. Considering that Wikipedia has millions of articles and something like 75,000 editors, plus high-speed editing bots doing maintenance and cleanup, I don't think his edit count is significantly burdening the servers.

What is it that's bothering you about this? Is he violating WP:CIVIL and causing trouble to you personally, or to another editor in particular? Is he inserting material in the articles that does not conform to WP:V, WP:CONSENSUS, or WP:NPOV? If any of that is happening, please provide some specific examples so we can take a look.

But if he's just editing fast, why is that bad? Think about how many edits bots make every day, where they add things like tag dates and other minor corrections to templatges. Those must create many times more pages than the editor you are reporting. If you think I'm wrong about that, you could post a request at the Village Pump (Technical) and I'm sure you'd get a quick reply to the tech question. If his edits are vandalism, that's different and would be an important issue. If so, we can refer you to where to report that.

Also, I reviewed his talk page and he seems to have productive and civil editing relationships. Please clarify what you're looking for here. I don't mean to make light of your report, I just don't understand why you see this as a problem. Thanks. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't even get this all. Laleena^{Talk to me} _{Contributions to Wikipedia} 13:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I can metaphorize it (Yes, that is a real word. I just typed it, didn't I?). In recreational car racing, there are those with little money that "win" because of large amounts of skill, skill that is gathered by long practice. They love to drive just to drive, and there is no better feeling than to continue improving. Then, there are those that just want to drive faster than everyone else, and have more disposable income. Those that win due to a large amount of money spent upgrading their car instead of practicing their art are often very irksome to those who drive for the love of driving, rather than the love of winning, as it cheapens a beautiful thing. Or, as I should have put it, it's like using a gameshark or a code to get lots of gold or the ultimate weapon at the beginning of the game. Cheap. Yeah, it kinda bothers me too, but no, I don't think he's hurting anything other then our sensibilities. Surrogate Spook 00:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you; it may be annoying to some, but it's not a policy violation and unless someone posts a clear problem statement here in the next day or so, I'm going to archive this alert. --Parsifal _Hello 22:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[the below paragraph was moved from the top of this section, where it had been placed out of chronological sequence. Therefore where VisitorTalk wrote "below" in this comment, please consider it refers in this case to "above" --Parsifal _Hello 22:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]

The complaint below implies that making a series of small edits to the same article, over a short period of time, places an unreasonably great technical load on Wikipedia when compared with batching the edits into a single edit. In addition, the complaint implies that making a series of small changes, rather than a single edit combining those changes, is disruptive to the community. In addition, the complaint implies that it is inappropriate for an editor to reach a high edit count through these small-edit techniques. As a new editor, I would like to see the documentation of these alleged policy issues. VisitorTalk 21:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello VisitorTalk. The key word in in your comment here is "implies". While there are implications here, there really is no significant problem that I've been able to find. If you read my response above, (it starts at the ← symbol), that will give you a good summary. In my comment I provided several links that begin with the letters WP. Those are links to the policy issues you are asking about. In addition, here is an article that explains that the server load is not a problem: Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance.

As I mentioned above, it's possible for someone to use an editing method that is "annoying" to some other users, but that is not the same thing as "disruptive." Disruptive editing has a particular meaning, and from what I saw in reviewing this situation, it does not apply here. Others may disagree with me about that, but no-one has said that, so I assume there is no ongoing problem here.

I suggest that as a new editor, you read the basic policies and then focus first on editing articles before getting involved in dispute resolution pages like this one, unless you find yourself in a troubling situation and need help. Here is a good place to start to get a full overview of the Wikipedia policies, guidelines and help systems: WP:WELCOME. --Parsifal _Hello 22:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links and clarifications, Parsifal. VisitorTalk 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:jebbrady (and puppet?) versus WP:SOCK, WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, etc.

Stuck

Even without a specific example for each charge, this list of particulars is unfortunately long. However, this is at least the third attempt an editor has made to get an effective intervention in this situation before getting tired and moving on. A comprehensive intervention seems to be the only way the Herbert W. Armstrong biography will ever be permitted to contain basic biographical data for more than fifteen minutes. These are the problems with Jebbrady at Talk:Herbert_W._Armstrong and the article's history page:

• He may be in violation of WP:SOCK, as apparently one individual uses two identities, user:jebbrady and an anonymous identity located at 69.115.162.235. (This is being reported to Wiki's sockpuppet investigators).
• He has apparently been blocked for misbehavior regarding this article before, see User_talk:Jebbrady, but still has not conformed with Wikiquette in any of the discussions on the article's talk page. The Armstrong talk page also shows that someone sought the third-party opinion option, which has had no impact on him at all.
• He has violated WP:OWN by demonstrating vigorous ownership of Herbert W. Armstrong and related articles on Armstrong's associates and splinter churches. See the article's history page and then see the edit/contrib histories for both identities in the links given in the sockpuppet bullet above. He also asserts the right to control what sources editors are permitted to use: "As a history grad, I know how citations can and are abused. I'm not accepting the use of web sources--I'm sorry".
• He violates WP:NPOV when he repeatedly deletes even innocuous material (e.g., that HWA was married twice and had four children, cited to a mainstream source; that the divorce was a difficult one, cited to four sources, including TIME magazine). See the most recent example. He permits no material at all from sources of which he disapproves, ranging from mainstream news outlets to webpages or books critical of the subject of this biographical article. He refuses to allow even an internal wikilink to a fuller explanation of one of Armstrong's key beliefs, Anglo-Israelism, see diff. His determined censorship over a period of months deprives Wiki users of the most basic, routine family info about the biographical subject, much less the significant controversies and schisms in which Armstrong was involved.
• He violates WP:VERIFY by deleting sourced material without explanation, while failing to replace, augment, or contrast it with sourced material to the contrary.
• His violations of WP:NPA are too numerous to recite; please see anywhere on Talk:Herbert_W._Armstrong. Aside from imputing dire motives to everyone he's interacted with on the talk page, there's another problem. According to the NPA policy, "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored." His statement "If any Wikipedia editor cares to debate here the appropriatenes of relying on Time magazine when it comes to American religious groups (read "Christians"), the Bible, or social issues, they'll get their clock cleaned." in his response to Wiki admin Andre is almost certainly not meant as an actual physical threat. However, it demonstrates the level of perspective and maturity he brings to the discussion. The legal threats he makes re a church group suing for libel are apparently directed at Wikipedia itself rather than at individual editors, but are meant to silence and intimidate. See, e.g., here and here.
• More than once, he has violated WP:SKILL by asserting that other editors are incompetent, unscholarly (search the talk page for "sholarly" and "sholarship"), and unprofessional (search the talk page for "unprofessinal"), etc., because he disagrees with their choice of sources or their attempt to include any POV from any source not entirely congruent with his own. He repeatedly cites his undergraduate degree in history as the reason he knows best, and as the reason he has the expertise to overrule all other contributors.
• He routinely violates WP:EQ. He often fails to sign his Talk page comments, does not bother with the indentation protocols, and more than once, has put his entire lengthy comments in bold to dominate the discussion. He does not provide edit summaries on any of his edits.
• His violations of WP:GF are demonstrated by his attacks on every person who has responded to anything he has said on the Talk:Herbert_W._Armstrong page. Please note his declaration that courtesy is proof of bad faith. He made a similar accusation on that page in December of 2006 against User:RelHistBuff.
• He violates WP:CIVIL by being sarcastic, denigrating, overwhelmingly prolix and tangential, and sometimes perverse, as in his accusations that courtesy is a sly ruse. He responded this week to an admin's one-sentence affirmation of TIME Magazine as a mainstream source with a with a nine-line diatribe concluding with a threat.

I don't know how to resolve conflicts with someone with a multiple-incident record of conflict resolution failures and an abiding belief that the use of courtesy is a nefarious bad-faith strategy. Help. Lisasmall 13:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for completeness, the previous block that you can see a discussion of on User_talk:Jebbrady can be seen in the block log of a different IP account, 67.80.157.45 (talk · contribs · logs). There are also some warnings still visible in the Talk page of that IP. This account is in addition to the IP mentioned above, 69.115.162.235 (talk · contribs · logs). EdJohnston 05:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Update ten days after filing this WP:WQA:

• on the sockpuppet situation, see two admin interventions on User_talk:Jebbrady. The second intervention occurred after I told the admin handling the situation that Jebbrady had added yet another IP address, evading the block the admin put on one of the IP sockpuppets. Since I thought Jebbrady was making at least some effort towards identifying himself, I asked the admin if he could handle it informally instead of leveling additional formal charges, and the admin kindly did so.
• However, even after two warnings from the admin handling the sockpuppet report, Jebbrady still will not cooperate with the tilde signature protocol, and is manually typing in a "sig." While this cures the identity problem, it continues to aggravate the user history problem for anyone working on this WP:WQA by spreading his activity over multiple IP's plus his regular account named Jebbrady. He will not log in consistently, which would provide a comprehensive, coherent record of his contribs and deletions no matter what IP he is using.
• on the WP:EQ issue above, he's still having problems with signatures and still does not provide edit summaries (see Edit Summary Tool). However, he has agreed to use the colon-indentation protocol on talk pages, and to stop using bold for his entire posts. If he adheres to this agreement, it's improvement.
• on the WP:CIVIL issues, they seem to be staying the same or getting worse, still repeatedly engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT after an admin has told him, twice, that TIME magazine is a reliable source, and lapsing into WIKI:LAWYER more frequently than before. He continues to assume bad faith, use provocative and insulting language, and issue what he calls "challenges." Also, despite correction from EdJohnston and a request from me, he continues to try to spread the conflict to individual user pages instead of keeping it on the article page.

This situation is not resolved yet, but EdJohnston has been working on it, and other Wikipedians have contributed too; thank you, please keep trying. This case is still active and should not be archived yet. -- Lisasmall 02:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to additional comments to this Wikiquette alert. I have had horrendous problems with this user. I originally had a fairly neutral version of this article which I was working on in October 2006. User jebbrady started editing it at the end of that month. I tried to reason with him but he could only bring in his POV, continuing to revert all my suggested changes. In December, as seen in the article's talk page, I asked for a third opinion to resolve the dispute amicably. Even with the support of the third opinion, User:Amatulic (see the diff here), jebbrady refused to cooperate. I decided to not take it up any further and let him keep the article in its current degenerate state. This is a terrible weakness in Wikipedia. A controversial article on a well known topic has the possibility of getting something resolved. Something less well known is left in a terrible state in the hands of a POV warrior who has a lot of free time on his hands. I would like to get this article out of the "ownership" of jebbrady and back under the control of Wikipedia editors in general. Some kind of intervention is requested. --RelHistBuff 08:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Update after 10 more days: WP:CIVIL is still a major issue. Editors who provided cited material were chided for not citing existing text (that he put in) instead. When an editor condensed his references to multiple points in the same chapter to a single <ref name> tag followed by other references to the same, he accused him of deleting his cited material. He repeatedly puts down a user who has chosen not to sign up for an account, calling him a "masked marauder" on one occasion. Also, I'm not "allowed" to summarize his multi-screen screeds into something that's actually readable: he reverted me twice, taking out parts of someone else's comment in the process, before he was told by EdJohnston that I could summarize if I wanted to.

As far as formatting issues go, he'll put in a pretty-much-random number of comments to indent his text, and he signs at the top and bottom. If he signs as an anon, he may come back days later and re-sign as Jebbrady, changing the timestamp radically. He recently moved a talk page section that he felt had gotten lost in the middle of the page, and changed the timestamps on it.

I have asked him to set the preference that reminds him about missing edit summaries: he apparently hasn't bothered, and he doesn't seem to be using the preview button, either, which leads to long chunks of Jebbrady (or one of his IPs) in the edit history.

This is starting to look like RFC territory to me.--SarekOfVulcan 13:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Add to that the fact that he's still using two different IP addresses, 69.115.162.235 (talk · contribs) and 208.253.158.36 (talk · contribs), in addition to his registered account. 24.6.65.83 14:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Update:

And another thing is his constant mentioning of Raising the Ruins, and his insinuations that there must be something wrong with us for not using it as a reference. For example,

(Concerning Raising the Ruins, there’s still no comments on this discussion page after six months about this treasure trove of fist rate source material). Kind of amazing. It definitely is a sad commentary on the level of professional sincerity among the editors of this article, and it will be brought to the attention of Wikipedia Staff if need be—all the way to the top if necessary)

That's a post from June in Worldwide Church of God -- today, he posted again to Talk:Worldwide Church of God, asking an anon if they were familiar with this book, a reference of his to which was copied to the same talk page on August 3. I asked him several days ago to please stop bringing it up at every turn, but to no avail, apparently.--SarekOfVulcan 19:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is very interesting to me...He likes brusqness, does he? I'd like to try and learn some more about him. Perhaps if I just ask him directly, in the fashion that he demands, I can hold a conversation with him. Even with the most unusual people, there is always a way to relate. Surrogate Spook 00:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please do. He seems to demand a kind of interaction that I'm unwilling/unable to provide myself. If you can connect with him and get him to understand what we're about here, that would be incredibly useful. Thanks!--SarekOfVulcan 02:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Further update:
I have taken the above discussion as a mandate for restoring factual details to the Herbert W. Armstrong article that have disappeared from the article between 15 April and 12 August. If you have opinions on that point, feel free to comment at Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong.

There may still be a need to add a Criticism section, and I believe that someone could create a draft of such a section in their user space. It could be reviewed on the Talk page before adding it to the article. EdJohnston 16:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Update August 17, 2007 by original complainant Although I've taken a voluntary step-back from the article for over two weeks, problems continue:

• WP:ICA (a new problem) In courtesy, when Jebbrady said he wanted a few weeks to do a rewrite on the article, I told him I would step aside so he could do so without me complicating the process. That was the last week of July. I have not read, edited, or done anything with the article since for two weeks, voluntarily stepping out of his way contributing to other articles not related to the contested article in any way. Today, I was made aware that despite my absence he recently accused me of creating a sockpuppet to WP:RFD the contested article, see here. Any comparison of the person who allegedly made the RFD and I makes it obvious we are two different people with vastly different approaches to spelling, syntax, and contributions. To make the unfounded accusation adds a WP:ICA violation to the ongoing WP:CIVIL problem he has. He was also uncivil to the admin who pointed out the WP:RFD source was not likely to be me, "yeah right."

• WP:NPOV He asserts a personal animus and vendetta against himself or Herbert W. Armstrong that just isn't there, and inflicts that attitude not just on me, but on every editor who... well, on every editor. Here: "there is going to be a major debate, and those who take up that side [the non-Jebbrady side] in it are going to get creamed." He wants that article written with only his sources, only his words, and only his POV, and anyone who varies from that one iota is gets dumped on, something he threatens/promises to do quite openly. I glanced today at the contested article's talk page and found that in the two weeks+ that I've been away, Jebbrady has continued, almost without exception, to denigrate editors and admins who try to interact with him.

• WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT The glance at the article talk page shows he's still denying the use of TIME magazine and other mainstream news sources, although administrators have told him more than once that they are acceptable.

• WP:MEAT This is not an accusation; it's an invitation to draw your own conclusions. Checking Jebbrady's userpage today to see if there had been additional attempts to work with him there re the ICA or earlier SOCKS & CIVIL violations, I found a barnstar apparently related to this article dispute from an unusual new user. It might be a meatpuppet, it might be a sockpuppet, it might be entirely innocent. It might be one of those remarkable situations in which a brand-new account on Wikipedia has an editor who knows what a barnstar is, knows how to give them out, and goes immediately to grant one to some deserving individual -- and makes no other contribs at all.

• WP:SOCK and/or WP:GF: Jebbrady continues to engage in a form of sockpuppetry which has been explained to him more than once. He still won't sign in. By itself, that might not be a violation of WP, but there's more to it in these circumstances. See Forbidden uses of sock puppets:Avoiding scrutiny from other editors.

He uses IP addresses and then merely types in "jebbrady" rather than using the tilde sig which would produce user:jebbrady. This superficially gets him past questions about his intent to deceive people who can observe the manually typed signature, but it does not resolve what is actually a very serious problem in conflict resolution, where it's important to use article history pages and user contribs pages to know who changed what when, and to see what a particular user has done.

Anyone trying to review this user's conduct has to check several "contribs" pages, and of course can't use the article history page at all, because his typed signature doesn't appear there -- only a series of different IP's which he's used. It gives the impression of, say, four editors making eight edits apiece, instead of one editor making 32 edits all alone. (That's a hypothetical illustration; I haven't gone back and counted.) Furthermore, he's been warned so many times by so many people in such detail that at this point, even the most generous reviewer allowing for the maximum of innocent ignorance has got to consider that he's doing it on purpose to dilute and disperse his record.

Since he's typing in his name manually, refusing to sign in and use the tildes, he is effectively (and possibly intentionally) concealing his own contributions on article history pages, article talk pages, and all the contribs pages for his multiple identities. Clearly the article is headed towards mediation or arbitration, and the user may be headed for WP:BAN. His continuing use of multiple IP's as well as the user:jebbrady account is going to make reviewing his behavior very hard on the admins who adjudicate the mediation/arbitration and/or ban.

In the heading above labeled update after 10 more days, 24.6.65.83 listed two of Jebbrady's IP aliases which he uses in addition to User:Jebbrady. This illustrates what I mean by Jebbrady's dispersal of his activity record. Not logging in is not itself a violation of WP as far as I know, but refusing to do so when repeatedly requested to do so to help keep the record clear for conflict resolution is a clear violation of WP:SOCK's "avoiding scrutiny" provision.

• WP:RFC Updating the heading above labeled update after 10 more days by Sarek, the article's talk page now has a an RFC. This is not the first time that Jebbrady's behavior on this article has gone to RFC. It didn't work before and I don't expect it to work this time.

This situation is taking up hugely unreasonable amounts of time from numerous good editors and admins. A long-term solution needs to be found. Using article talk pages to indulge Jebbrady's desire for midnight-in-the-dorm-type discussions of the "thought-provoking questions" he wants us to discuss, or worse, "debate," isn't it. The article talk page isn't a chat room. Neither the talk page nor an article itself should be propaganda or proselytization. Wikipedia isn't Conservapedia or Jeb-apedia. Jebbrady's history at Wikipedia in the past ten months is limited to editing a narrow range of religious articles to launder or smear certain figures and sects, and bloviating at, and reverting, anyone who changes a word. Kind words and coaching haven't helped. Formal RFC's, THIRDs, WQA's, SOCK warnings, and even suspensions, haven't helped. Good editors have exhausted themselves and moved on, and the article remains a puff piece with a guardian zealot. Enough. I'm not an admin; will some admin please take the next step, or tell me what it is so that I can initiate it? -- Lisasmall 06:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

He was also uncivil to the admin who pointed out the WP:RFD source was not likely to be me, "yeah right."

Two mistakes here: I'm not an admin, and the full quote was something to the effect of "Yes, I already knew that (yeah right)". Jeb misrepresents us often enough: let's not return the favor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 13:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Sarek, I'm sorry, I thought you were an admin because of how you became involved. I assumed or misremembered that everyone at Editor Assistance was/is an admin; my mistake. I'm new at conflict resolution. As to the incivility, I still think my interpretation is the correct one, but it's good you pointed out there is another way to look at it. Even if I am correct, it is the least of his incivilities, so I don't mind dropping it. Anyone who wants to see it themselves can find it here. -- Lisasmall 17:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I filed a request for arbitration.--SarekOfVulcan 17:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I filed a new sockpuppet/meatpuppet report yesterday to try to get compliance with the audit-trail creation referenced in 2.2 of WP:SOCK to help support the arbitration and clarify authorship of future edits by Jebbrady. -- Lisasmall | Talk 12:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As we seem to have exhausted the possibilities of this WP:WQA, and we are now moving to arbitration, unless anyone objects, I will close this WQA with a "stuck" notice in the next day or so. The record would not be complete without noting that Surrogate Spook did attempt to provide a newcomer's input as he said he would, and it had no effect on Jebbrady's conduct. -- Lisasmall | Talk 12:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've placed the "stuck" template. The request for arbitration is open for comments here. Thanks to all the editors who stepped in to ASSIST, THIRD, or RFC, or who joined in after working on the SOCKs. -- Lisasmall | Talk 13:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Tezza1 disruptive editing pattern

Stale

User:Tezza1 persists using disruptive editing Railpage Australia. The user is strongly anti the subject of the article, has openly stated he does not believe the article should exist and campaigned for its deletion in an AfD. The AfD decision having been keep, the user engaged in disruptive editing to devalue the content by adding unencyclopedic content, and "warning" that the article could be nominated for deletion again for containing unencyclopedic content. Further actions include repeatedly adding and restoring unencyclopedic content, demands not to remove unencyclopedic content, accusations of COI for anybody adding new information to the article, threats to invoke WP:3RR for users removing unencyclopedic content he has added, unilateral reverts of collaborative edits to a non-consensus version, agenda pushing, WP:POINT and listing an article for speedy deletion immediately after it was unprotected. The Null Device 02:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Null. I am looking over the edit history and am responding to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tezza1. I see clear evidence of numerous policy violations by this user, as well as possible sockpuppetry. I believe that, for the most part, you and the other editors in that article have remained civil and have kept the discussion on topic, and for that you should be commended. I did leave a note in the Talk page against one set of comments that stepped over the line with respect to WP:NPA, but otherwise, I agree with your assertion about Tezza1's disruptive patterns.

If the RFC/U against Tezza1 fails to resolve the conflict, your next step may be to take this to Arbitration. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it sounds like you all have taken reasonable steps to resolve this issue already, and they haven't worked thus far.

Good luck, and let me know if I may be of any further assistance. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish, It's a content dispute about a commercially owned site passing itself off as something else.I've only said it should be encyclopedic. As it stands parts of the article could be considered as spam WP:SPAM. As for the user The Null Device, he is only a recent participant (from 23rd July) in editing this article [4], no doubt because I submitted the article for independent Peer Review on the 19th July as his flood of edits occurred after 23rd of July which I consider was a blocking strategy. My complaints about this users editing "flood" and report to the COI noticeboard, probably explains why he posted his complaint here. This user has yet to follow the first three steps of the dispute resolution guidelines [5]Tezza1 13:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll attempt to respond to this point by point:

1. There is a longer history between you and other editors on that page than has involved Null Device - this is true. However, it appears that Null Device is simply continuing the dispute resolution process against you that was taken up by previous editors - therefore, he is not required to go through other methods first. Plus, WQA is actually listed as one of the first dispute resolution methods anyway, so I need to ask, what's the problem with what he's doing?
2. COI is a serious allegation - almost as serious as harassment and libel. As such, you need to have significant proof that a person is in a conflict-of-interest situation when you go to report them to the COI noticeboard. Given what I was able to see in the situation, you've leveled this accusation against quite a few people in the Railpage article, and that seriously detracts from our ability to assume that you're editing in good faith.
3. As has been pointed out multiple times, whether a site is owned by a commercial company has no bearing on the site's own profitability status. Non-profit organizations are very frequently owned and overseen by commercial companies, but that does not automatically make them for-profit, commercial organizations. I don't know the specifics about Railpage Australia, so I can't speak to this particular situation from a content standpoint.
4. It appears that there is a strong consensus among other WP editors there, and you appear to be consistently rejecting that consensus, resorting to WP:NPA and accusations of WP:COI in an attempt to discredit those editors. I would strongly advise that you stop going along that route.

I hope this helps clarify the situation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Null Device has been a participant since March, not 23 July.[6][7] The article is not considered WP:SPAM as it has been nominated for {{db-spam}} on several occasions (including by Tezza1[8]) and this was rejected by administrators. His actions display many of the characteristics of problem editors. The COI accusation against the regular editors of a page he actively campaigned to get deleted is bordering on harassment. This seems like a campaign to discredit not just the regular editors but anybody who doesn't agree with him, including Wikipedia itself. He did not take the RFC seriously, described the dispute process as "BS"[9] and did not accept the offer of mediation. Thin Arthur 00:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I have to repeat yet again that the so-called "flood" of edits were collectively a series of collaborative bold edits taking into the account the collective opinions expressed in the then most recent AfD debate and on the talk page. Tezza1 then unilaterally reverted these reliably sourced changes. To quote WP:TE, "There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption."[10] That is the basis of this WQA. The Null Device 08:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment In response to KieferSkunk coments.

1. Maybe someone can jump into recent discussion and lead the dispute resolution process. I'm not an Wikipedia expert in this, but one administrator has said this was premature and other had the The Null Device withdraw [11][12].
2. Yes COI is a serious allegation, but recent edits and discussion about technical details is more than a passing interest in the article. It's more than "the average man in the street would know" or be of interest to.[13][14]
3. True, many commercial organizations have "non profit" ventures. But the difference here is that it is usually the norm to set up an separate transparent structure such as a trust and register for non profit status under Federal and State Government laws. Railpage seems intertwined with its owner [15]. An example of a commercial organisation setting up a non-profit venture is Ronald McDonald Charities [16] - interesting to note they have an "written like an advertisement" tag in their article (03 Aug). I have asked other users to provide evidence for Railpage "non commercial status" [17]. To this date they have not. Asking for "donations" by a commercial organization like Railpage Australia [18] , is technically a "voluntary payment for service". There is no transparent disclosure process where the donated money actually goes, and any "donations" would be classified as income generated by Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd [19] and subject to tax. I have even tried to compromise, stating "Commercial - Yes, Free membership, Voluntary payment for service"[20]. ALL this discussion, just for ONE box [[21]]in the top right hand corner of the article!!!!
4. I consider the number of active "contributors" in the Railpage article could be counted on one hand.

Tezza1 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot respond directly to point #3, as it involves more detailed information about Railpage Australia than I have handy. But I'll respond to the Wikiquette issues:

2: There is a difference between being well-informed and having a conflict of interest. Let me give you another example: I am heavily involved in WikiProject Video games, and I have made a lot of edits of a highly technical nature to many of the game articles within that project. I have what you can call much more than a "passing interest" and "street-level knowledge" about many of those games and the machines they run on. However, that does not automatically mean I have a Conflict of Interest in those articles, as I do not work for any of the companies that made those games (I did work as a tester on Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge, so there's POSSIBLY a remote COI there, but not within the scope of WP's policies), and furthermore I have no vested interest in publishing any specialized content that only I would know about.

The editors you've accused of COI on the Talk page have all had reasonable explanations about their involvement with Railpage - namely, they are members on the Railpage forums and/or they've volunteered some of their time with the organization; they found technical details straight from the Railpage site itself or from other publicly accessible sources (in other words, the information they put up was NOT insider info); and they have made it clear that they are not intimately involved with the organization's inner workings.

4: The number of currently active contributors to the article does not have any direct bearing on the state of consensus. Looking through the history of the Railpage Australia article and related articles, I've seen more than a dozen different people contribute, and it appeared until fairly recently that they had reached a consensus on much of the article content there. Now, just because a consensus exists doesn't mean it can't be changed - WP:CON is very clear on this point. But when a consensus exists, the onus is on you to change it through meaningful, fair and balanced discussion, and what I've observed from you, Tezza1, is a tendency to simply reject the consensus and attempt to discredit the other editors, rather than to discuss the matter in a civil and fact-based manner. In effect, you have put yourself in a possible position of Conflict of Interest, but more to the point, you have made it difficult for discussion to take place there.

Again, I hope this clarifies the situation somewhat. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You were willing to comment on "commerciality" before, so why can't you make a comment now? Yes, you are correct, that I reject the "consensus" on the main point (commercial) even though I disagree strongly with some elements (not all!!) of the article, If you look at the recent history I have refrained from editing content in the actual article. The purpose of the discussion page is the discuss and debate!!!! Arguments against the consensus should be allowed even if people don't agree with a POV. As long as its non defamatory, and backed up by creditable online references, it should be allowed. Even the editing war back in March 2007 was about an incident was supported by documentary evidence (newspapers and the Railpage Forum itself), I did not originally post that information on Wikipedia, but I supported and argued its inclusion. Look at my comments on the discussion page, have I not put references and links to support my arguments?. On a closing note, to use a legalistic term, I have stepped out of the "arena" in the Railpage article, KieferSkunk, based on some comments made, you unintentionally seem to be descending into it.Tezza1 20:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I was discussing commerciality from a general standpoint, and simply pointing out what other editors had already said in the article. However, I am not qualified to make a judgement about whether Railpage Australia IS commercial or not. That's the distinction. And I am purposefully limiting my comments to discussing the manner in which you pursued the discussion, not the content of the discussion itself. That's all I am attempting to do. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This WQA has been sitting idle for a while. Anything more going on with it? Or should I mark it as stale? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This user has been very disruptive with a negative POV, does anybody have any idea's or further comments? Is WP:PROB too early at this stage?203.122.101.142 09:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than what's already pointed out above, can you cite any specific examples? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tezza, there is an FAQ article on Railpage that states where the donations go to. Read it: http://www.railpage.com.au/faq-1.htm#80 Doctorjbeam 01:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving this comment on Tezza1's User talk page, as he may not be reading this WQA anymore. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Alleged article ownership and personal attacks by User:Chrisjnelson as posted by User:Jmfangio

Stuck

 – Recommend posting an WP:RFC (Request for Comments) - see notes below

User has failed to respect the desire to discuss. He has engaged in personal attacks here and on Template talk:Infobox NFLactive. He has also aserted WP:OWN on throughout the Infobox talk page. Repeated requests for polite discussion have been ignored even with fair warning that the behavior is doing nothing but aggrivating me. The majority of the content is at the infobox talk page. Most of it is in sequential order. Both user's talk pages (that is mine and his) show signs of this as well. Jmfangio| ►Chat  04:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I probably did make some things that would be considered personal attacks a few days back (where the profanity is). I was pretty pissed. If I have to be reprimanded for that, I'll completely understand. As for this business about ownership, I've done nothing of the kind. Given those kind of unsubstantiated claims, as well as the fact that Jmfangio was told he violated WP:3RR by an admin and still claims he did not, I question his knowledge of Wikipedia policy. And when it comes to "refusal to discuss", that's simply not true. Without dragging you into the specifics, which you can see for yourself on the infobox's talk page if you're interested, I'll tell you that Jmfangio is simply mistaken on one subject. I have proven myself and my related edits to be factually correct, and have since said I will not discuss the issue further because of this. I have done all the discussing on the issue that is necessary, and it's not my fault if he has failed to grasp it.

Like I said earlier, I'll definitely understand if I'm reprimanded for any personal attacks a few days back. I shouldn't have said some of those things and let the emotions get the best of me. That stuff is pretty much over and won't happen again, but if you want me to take some time off I can do that.►Chris Nelson 04:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither editor has bathed himself in glory on this matter. I have tried to provide perspective as a WP:3O and have witnessed enough intransigence to suggest that at minimum both individuals need to take a break as they have dug in their respective heels and hardened their positions. In no particular order, there have been violations relating to incivility, edit warring, personal attacks, and article ownership. The editors have effectively trammeled over informal 3rd party efforts to assist and a recent RFM was not accepted by one of the parties. Jddphd 12:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE Would someone who is willing to take action please get involved. This is spiraling out of control. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

←Jmfangio, after reviewing the discussions, and considering that the efforts of Jddphd and WP:3O were not well received, it does not look like we can be of assistance here with any kind of direct intervention. It's up to you and the others to stop taking things personally and discuss the content, not the editors.If the editors continue to engage each other on personal issues, no progress can be made. Chris Nelson has already apologized and that's a good start, it would be good to see an apology from you as well. Try to be extra polite to each other - beyond the politeness you would normally need, so that way, it's really clear to everyone that the discussions are done with mutual respect.

Also, it seems like there might not be enough editors working on this to form a consensus that can get past the edit warring. When there are more editors, it's easier to make a consensus because you don't have to convince any one person to change their minds, all you need is to read and follow WP:CONSENSUS.

My suggestion is to file an WP:RFC to attract more editors and seek consensus. Carefully format a description of what the dispute is about, on the template talk page, then post the link at WP:RFC (more on that follows). You could also invite editors on the talk pages of related Wikiprojects. What you need is enough editors discussing the particular question, in an organized fashion, so you can develop a clear consensus. Then ask the administrator that protected the page to review the RFC consensus and unprotect the page so the edits can be made in accordance with that consensus.

Go to WP:RFC and look at how other requests are formatted. Some are messy and some are well-done. Look for good examples and copy the way they are set up. Make sure to have separate sections for the involved editors to make their initial statements, a section for supporting references, per WP:V, and provide sub-sections for uninvolved editors to enter their comments after they review the situation. Make the link on the WP:RFC page go directly to the correct section of the talk page so visiting editors don't get distracted by all the other discussions. And, most important: when you set up the WP:RFC - absolutely avoid any discussion of editors' behavior. The Request for Comments is about the content of the template, not about the way the editors are interacting. If you go off into that stuff, it will just get messy again and you won't find the results you want. Focus on the content, don't talk about editors, be extra polite, format a clear RFC,... invite other editors to bring their comments, and then - respect and implement the consensus decision. Good luck! --Parsifal _Hello 05:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Multiple disputes involving B9 hummingbird hovering

User:B9 hummingbird hovering has been warned numerous times over the past several months by multiple editors about WP:OR, WP:V, and personal attacks, but continues to have frequent conflict, often inserting the same contested material on multiple articles. I am requesting some independent opinion on this matter.

Here is a current example of conflict-oriented editing on Mantra involving a content dispute over a book by Bucknell & Stuart-Fox (1986):

• 2 August (5:02) User:B9 hummingbird hovering inserts the Bucknell et. al. book into the References section, but it is not used in any footnote or otherwise mentioned: [22]
• 2 August (5:04) Since WP:LAYOUT calls for the References section to contain only works cited in Notes, I remove the uncited book: [23]
• 2 August (9:27): Book is reinserted, this time with a quote: [24]
• 2 August (12:56) User:IPSOS removes the quote as irrelevant to the article: [25]
• 2 August (13:23) Book is reinserted: [26]
• 2 August (15:44): User:GourangaUK reverts insertion as inappropriate and requests discussion on talk page: [27]
• 3 August (1:51): Book is reinserted: [28]
• 4 August (04:50): I remove the materia as irrelevant and note that it is being inserted on multiple articlesl: [29]
• 4 August (13:18) Book is reinserted, with personal attack on me: [30]
• 4 August (13:55) User:IPSOS removes the content as irrelevant, noting lack of consensus: [31]
• 4 August (14:15) Material is reinserted: [32]
• 4 August (22:51) I remove it, categorizing it as content spam: [33]

Regarding the book involved in that conflict, B9 hummingbird hovering is inserting Bucknell et al. on mulitple articles, many with the same pattern of insertion of the book with no quotation or other citation that would justify placement in References (according to WP:LAYOUT). E.g.:

• 2 August: B9 hummingbird hovering Creates page for the book The Twilight Language: [34]
• 2 August: Five_Dhyani_Buddhas: [35]
• 2 August: Om_mani_padme_hum: [36]
• 2 August: Chakra: [37]
• 2 August: Mandala: [38]
• 3 August: Yantra: [39]
• 4 August: Mudra: [40]
• 4 August: Mantra: [41]

If you review the edit history for this user various other articles where similar conflict has taken place can be found. Any opinions on how to handle this situation? Buddhipriya 02:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(I'm responding to this case after confirming with User:Buddhipriya that he'd still like assistance, despite the age of this alert.)

This case is what is known in technical circles as a "doozy". The user's edits all appear to be good faith edits, but there's no question that he is (or was at the time of this alert) ignoring consensus. He seems willing to discuss the issues but I tend to agree with User:IPSOS that most of his arguments don't make sense (and I don't mean that they're weak arguments - I mean they don't seem to mean anything at all). Moreover, his recent edits seem to be primarily violations of Orwell's second, third, and fifth rules.

As for how to handle it, he seems to be reluctant to accept the word of two editors, especially two editors who he sees as allied against him, as consensus. Making use of WP:RFC to get more people involved in specific cases would likely be useful, since this is, at its heart, a content dispute. The specific issues involving that book seem so to be stale, but if there are any specific issues going on now I'd be willing to try talking with him, as an outside party, to see if an understanding can be reached. Sarcasticidealist 21:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I hope you will clarify that by "he" in the above remarks you are referring to User:B9 hummingbird hovering and not to me. Since the posting of this report the editor has reduced their attacks, but has continued to press issues in ways that may involve failures of policy. I would appreciate it very much if you would dialog directly with the user to get their side of the story and provide an independent opinion on the policies of WP:OR, WP:V, and the need to avoid personal attacks. I also have found it difficult to understand what the editor is saying at times because the editor uses language in what is perhaps a metaphorical or poetic manner that I sometimes find simply incomprehensible. This has limited my ability to engage in direct dialog. I chose to use a Wikiquette alert rather than an RFC as a first step because I was wanting to begin with the least invasive method for getting independent opinion. Buddhipriya 21:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - "he" indeed refers to User:B9 hummingbird hovering. I'd be happy to talk to him, but I'd first like some more recent examples of issues that he is pressing; from what I can tell, the one you cited initially, while it was certainly a problem when you cited it, seems to be largely resolved. At that time, I will also explain that, in article talk pages, clarity is perhaps to be valued over beauty. Sarcasticidealist 21:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Here is a fresh example of WP:OR: [42].
• Here is a fresh addition of unsourced content which conflicts with the basic facts in the article: [43]. Buddhipriya 21:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have left some comments on his talk page. Let's see what happens from here. Sarcasticidealist 22:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Belligerent behaviour from User:Gilabrand

Resolved

 – —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In this edit, User:Gilabrand reverted an edit of mine, and in the comment chose to claim that I had "no authority" to make edits to that particular page. I'm a relative newbie but I'm pretty sure this isn't acceptable behaviour, or an acceptable view point for Wikipedia. Is there any kind of censuring procedure for editors who behave like this? Robert Ham 21:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Only if there is a lot more than this, I think. In this case, the most relevant guideline is probably WP:COOL. In other words, you're best to relax a bit and try to settle by example rather than by trying to get a beat up of other editors. After all, you are editing Jerusalem. You are removing it from the category Cities in Israel, for reasons mentioned in the talk page but not with any consensus. Given the lack of consensus for your changes, there is likely to be a bit of irritation expressed when you get reverted; as you undoubtedly will. The edit comment replacing it was not really appropriate, but not worth getting upset about. Relax, carry on calmly. Trying to get an official censure will make matters worse, I suspect. What you need is consensus for the changes. Just my feeling on the matter... —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I did have consensus. Evidently not. Robert Ham 09:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Filll, User:Orangemarlin, User:Jim62sch

Stale

 – No comments have been added in the past week. EdJohnston 15:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel that I have been grossly insulted by a group of editors. My attempts to resolve an issue that Orangemarlin had with a new editor resulted in a series of personal attack by three editors, another has joined the chorus. The worst of it was wikilinking part of my comment to holocaust denial. This sort of thuggery should not to be allowed to continue. I am requesting that someone attempt to resolve the situation, I have no wish to continue contributing until it is. Should I supply diffs for this? Fred ☻ 12:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC) added another Fred ☻ 12:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And in the meantime you're vandalising other editor's user talk pages by removing content, assuming personal attacks where there are none, and being utterly tendentious. Of course, we can all supply diffs to take this to another level: Wikiquette is hardly the big issue here. Cheers. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I gladly and without reservation produced a long detailed copious apology on your page and on my page, which you promptly deleted. I am stunned at this continuing behavior. I do not understand...I am missing something here. Was my apology not long enough? I would be pleased to produce a much longer apology in a further attempt to placate you.--Filll 14:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Amended heading. Fred ☻ 14:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If no diffs are supplied there is nothing to investigate. EdJohnston 15:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Even with diffs I suspect you'd find this is a storm in a teacup, I think frede shouldn't be so quick to take offense. ornis (t) 15:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sufficient indication of incivility is on the talk pages of those above. Some delving into the history may be required, User:Filll has revised many comments in the meantime. User:Orangemarlin has changed my comment to insinuate that I deny the holocaust. My simple questions have been answered with aggressive statements denying there was ever a problem. The supposed apology is the history of my talk page, the much preened, but no less sarcstic, version is on his page. I would remind ConfuciusOrnis that to malign an individual, on the basis of his nationality, is bigotry. If diffs are still required after a cursory glance at the situation, I will supply them. Fred ☻ 16:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And obviously, the burden of proof if on the accuser, so feel free to provide diffs.

In fact, I demand that the diffs of the alledged offences and the diffs of the explanations to Fred be provided post haste. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

to malign an individual, on the basis of his nationality, is bigotry. Eh? Now you're just making stuff up. ornis (t) 16:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologise, if your reference to an australian, a thug, was coincidental. I made an assuption, something we should avoid. I do not make things up. Can an uninvolved party have a look at this, thanks. If there is no insults, then it is as [they] say, and I will retire. Fred ☻ 16:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC) & [insert] Fred ☻ 16:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

He's a kiwi actually. ornis (t) 17:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad people know that, makes me less embarrassed to be australian. :) Fred ☻ 17:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I am not allowed to correct posts I made myself on my page for grammatical mistakes? To clarify my points? There is no secret conspiracy here. If I find my wording was unclear, I modify it, on main pages, on talk pages, and wherever. This is now inappropriate? I am not allowed to correct my own mistakes? And you do not feel my apology was appropriate? Not heartfelt enough? Would you like it longer or shorter? Would you like me to just leave Wikipedia to make you feel better? I do not think this is an appropriate response for the good of the project, given our relative contribution levels. If you prefer, you can write the apology yourself that you would like to receive from me and I will copy and post it under my name. Fair enough? How far do I have to go to make you feel better? I really am sorry. I had NO idea that me wikilinking a username in your post on Orangemarlin's page would upset you so much. I really did not intend to upset you or anyone else with this. How can I explain this?--Filll 16:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The alledged offences were those of inference, not of implication. Jumping to contusions is always a very risky practice -- for the jumper at least; it is a nuisance to the rest of us.

At the same time, true offences and violations of WP:VAND are being cast aside in the interests of placating someone who wilfully inferred argumenta ad hominem when there were none. Quite the waste of our time and bytes. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay everyone, step back. There is obviously quite a dispute going on here between all of you, so I would strongly suggest that you all disengage right now and cool off. Please go read WP:COOL, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and make sure that you're familiar with them, and in the meantime, please let the WQA mediators (whether myself or another person) spend a bit of time to catch up on the issue so that we may provide guidance. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Acually, the dispute is pretty one-sided. Also, one could easily debate the civility of this apparent fiat, "so I would strongly suggest that you all disengage right now and cool off." I'm quite cool, gelid in fact, however I have little tolerance for nonsense. Cheers. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is that this thread went very quickly from an initial complaint to a full-blown argument here on WQA, before anyone helping out with WQAs had had a chance to respond and investigate. Trust me, we'll be able to piece together the history and provide guidance, but having an active argument continuing in WQA only hinders our ability to help. That's why I said everyone involved needs to disengage - it doesn't matter how one-sided the argument is. The fact that there's an unmediated argument going on here makes it more difficult to resolve the matter. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My edit conflicted. Having read the above, I will withold my comment. I look forward to resolving the matter to everyone's satisfaction. Fred ☻ 18:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Fred, I'm afraid it's unrealistic to demand as much original research ("Some delving into the history" is putting it rather mildly) of uninvolved editors as you're doing. If providing examples and evidence of your enigmatic accusations is a problem, please see Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide or Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide. Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 19:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC).

In the absence of diffs, I can only guess at the reason for the dispute, but if anyone is desperate to figure this out without help from the submitter, you can check out User_talk:Orangemarlin#discourse, User_talk:Macdonald-ross#Confession, or even possible complaint about Jim62sch?. This is a very esoteric complaint, and if we could just stamp 'Rejected' on it in big red letters I'd be tempted to do so. EdJohnston 20:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I must agree - it's very difficult right now to see what any root causes of this issue might have been. At this point, I'd say let's give Fred some time to more clearly explain his complaint, with diffs or stronger pointers to discussions where he feels the issue has gotten out of hand. Right now, we're not in a position to help much, except to tell everyone to keep their cool (which I already did above). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say - this is all very confusing and it's not the job of WQA volunteers to do intensive investigations to figure out what the problem is. Therefore, I suggest we consider this alert on hold, until someone provides us with specific diffs, showing a specific example of what they consider to be a problem. We can't help if we don't know what the problem is. --Parsifal _Hello 23:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

please restate the problem, if it still is active

Please let us know if you consider your dispute resolved or not. It seems there has been an apology, so I'm a bit confused about why it's still a problem.

If it is still a problem, we're willing to help. But we can't take the time to be detectives. We need a clear and concise problem description, with specific diffs, showing where and how the problem is happening. (If needed, refer to Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide).

If more than one of you wants to make a statement and provide example diffs, that's fine, you're welcome to do so. But please refrain from using this page as a place to argue about it further.

Help us to understand the situation, that way we can help you resolve it. Thanks. --Parsifal _Hello 23:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion. I followed the instructions above to avoid turning this into a court. If evidence is required:

• I made an enquiry of Orangemarlin here: (section) He made bad faith comments on another (Mcdonald Ross) ending at my talk with "As for keeping him around, he's ruined several articles because he's pigheaded. Not sure I want him." I removed his initial posting and replaced it with a permanent link here
• Filll changed my comment on that page, wikilinking the users name (MRs). As I deliberately avoided that, I expressed my feelings and asked a question: here up to here where my edit comment thanked a third party's post, namely "Filll, my friend, you should not have said the first sentence of the above paragraph ... Consider this a serious warning for NPA." His next few posts were to give me his "apology", as he has misrepresented it.
• This does not constitute an apology [44]. His satisfaction, with his stream of sarcasm, prompted him to post it to all concerned - presumably to intimidate others. [45] and four more to polish his prose. This is his MO, I have since been informed. He was preening this comment for sometime, delighting in his own talent for dramatic irony.
• Not wanting to miss the fun, Jim62sch joined in with, given above and, later, possible pathology ":I surmise that you detect the odoriferous smegma of putrefaction emanating from the patient's corpus collosum."
• OM decided to have another say. Various edits by them followed.
• I demanded (pretty annoyed by this stage) that Jim62sc remove his insult. His response was "Insult? Insult You've yet to see a true insult. In fact, you see them where there are none. There's a medical name for that, y'know, starts with a p."

The users did not leave it there, it was Jim62sc last post and his next post after logging back on. Please let me know if more diffs are required, or I can create a sub page and lay the whole thing out flat. They seem to act with an assumption of impunity, I am continuing with this because it will very likely happen again. My efforts will make the next editor's defence a little easier. Fred ☻ 01:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is sadly and completely biased. I am very sorry that Fred.e has decided to continue to push this. I am totally astounded that he wants to waste so much time and energy in this exercise. We will have to respond with one or more versions of diffs with other sides of the story.--Filll 03:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about providing more diffs. We have enough information now. Those diffs show all the sides because it's all connected.

If you have diffs you feel will make a difference in case we didn't notice everything, OK, go ahead and add them, but I don't think it's needed.

I don't have time to reply right now -- I or another editor will post a reply in the next day or so. In the meantime, please avoid posting on each other's talk pages or doing anything else that might escalate your conflict further. --Parsifal _Hello 05:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor. This is feedback from someone who doesn't know any of you. If anyone doesn't agree with my comments, you're welcome to explain what you feel I missed. If you do, please be specific, with diffs.

• Fred's WQA report appears to be accurate. The others described him as uncivil but I did not see that. His actions were not perfect, but overall, he stayed polite even as the situation escalated.
• On the other hand, Fred's removing Orangemarlin's comment from Macdonald-ross's user page was inappropriate. He did it in good faith, in that he saw the comment as a personal attack, but it almost always works out better not to edit or remove the comments of others, except in extreme cases.
• There were a variety of inflammatory and uncivil comments from Filll and Orangemarlin, including outright insults, and some especially "colorful" language from Jim62sh.
• It was inappropriate for Filll to edit Fred's comment to add the wikilink; not a big deal, but modifying others' comments is generally a bad idea on talk pages. Fred responded with a polite question that Filll later described as a "demand".
• Filll's response to that question earned him a serious warning for NPA from an administrator.
• Filll's "apology" was a sarcastic provocation. If it had been a real apology, the story would have ended there, but it was not even close.
• Orangemarlin's creative wikilinking of Fred's initial comments, especially to "holocaust denial" is clearly a personal attack, even though Orangemarlin calls it being "passive agressive".

That's what I saw. If any of the involved parties provide diffs showing I am wrong, I am willing to retract anything that is not accurate.

So - what next?

• Just drop it; let it go. Pretend it never happened.
• Get back to editing articles. Talk about content, not editors.
• Anyone who currently has on their talk pages a personal attack comment regarding another editor should remove them. If you choose to keep them, you will be displaying for anyone who visits your page that you are a person who maintains attack comments on display. If that's how you want to be perceived, well go right ahead and leave them there, you're only damaging your own reputation, not the reputation of the one you're attacking.
• If someone has an attack comment about you on their page, just ignore it. If they post an attack comment on your page, remove it, or use strike-through markup. If you reply, just make your reply a polite request that no uncivil comments be posted on your page.
• If an attack comment is posted on an article talk page, don't let it get to you, don't take it personally, just respond with extra politeness and request that uncivil comments be retracted and omitted in the future. Or just point out that it was uncivil and move on. Don't argue about it. Don't reply in kind. Don't punch the tar baby.

That's about it. Just let it go. If the situation continues, then additional dispute resolution procedures may be needed. Those are all a big hassle, so I hope you can avoid them. If it gets to that point, let us know here, and we'll suggest the next option. --Parsifal _Hello 09:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My language is always colourful.  ;) In any case, as this entire "dispute" was blown out of all proportion it's best if everything is dropped. Filll's non-apology was exactly what was merited as there was nothing for which to apologise; my comments, while "colourful", were certainly appropriate given the conext that an editor saw insults were there were none, and seemed quite intent on stirring up trouble for the hell of it; OM was clearly disgusted that his edits had been assumed to have some sinister aspect (so much for AGF), when they clearly did not. Quite frankly, this is a waste of everyone's time.

As for my "reputation", I have three FA's and a larger number of GA's to my credit, and it is well-known that I do not suffer fools -- the same basic modus operandi I follow IRL: I get my job done quickly, superbly and to the satifaction of everyone involved, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to look kindly on the intransigence and wilfull ignorance of others. Obviously, in Wikiland this latter aspect might be seen as a negative (and a bit arrogant) but so be it.

In any case, I don't expect to cross paths with Fred.e again, so as far as I'm concerned this matter is closed. Cheers. 13:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My only comments: 1. What a waste of the project's time. 2. Fred.e should apologize to everyone for wasting their time. 3. I won't even dignify some of his sad accusations with a reponse. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Moe Epsilon

Resolved

 – The original complaint was frivolous, and the page in question was protected. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please provide some guidance on how to deal with someone who insists upon re-inserting an unwarranted and unfriendly personal attack? The edits can be seen in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Darlin history. Burntsauce 21:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I see it, Burntsauce, but WP:NPA states: "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited." And especially so, on an AfD page, which is marked as "don't modify this". Sorry.--SarekOfVulcan 21:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This one is dead easy. Moe is doing the right thing, and Burntsauce should leave the page alone. The "attack" is pretty mild, and it must be left in place as a good faith contribution that is part of the record of discussion, even if it does not assume good faith itself. Sorry Burntsauce, but it stays. I'm not editing it back myself just yet; and I may not need to. Just providing comment on the complaint itself, as an onlooker. And Moe... please try to assume good faith in your comments. There's no reason not to, no matter how many deletions are proposed. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I see I wasn't notified of this. Sorry, but it's not an illusion that he put many notable biographies on AFD, i.e. Jessica Darlin, Rodney Anoai, etc. — Moe ε 22:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt it. It looks like a poorly conceived campaign to improve the encyclopedia as he sees it. Hence it is in good faith. I see you replaced your comment; as is appropriate. Burntsauce... leave it alone. Thanks. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That isn't a reason to assume that he's doing so for the purpose of harming the wiki. If his reasoning for nominating as many biographies as he did was that they weren't notable, or that there was some logical reason for doing so, then there's plenty of reason to believe he did so in good faith. If his reasoning was that he doesn't like those particular people, or he just wanted to give other editors a hard time or devalue their work, that would be a bad-faith nomination. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Who says he's not giving editors a hard time? Certainly not the Pro Wrestling WikiProject which has been struggling do to his overly essentric bursts of blanking articles for WP:BLP violations, which weren't accurate. As you will see now on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that he is trying to get one of the best professional wrestling sources blacklisted. The only hope for professional wrestling articles are external links like these, and his is blatantly keeping the progress of this encyclopedia down by suppressing articles being created and then nominating them for deletion thereafter. No malice intended, I think not. — Moe ε 23:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be greatly appreciated if you would stop assuming bad faith. My efforts to uphold WP:BLP are in the interests of improving our encyclopedia, and nothing more. Burntsauce 23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't even mention IMDB, and thats off-topic, onlineworldofwrestling isn't user generated, so you're point is moot. Blanking articles, which have been repeatedly reverted, nominating clearly notable bios for deletion and making phony claims of policy are not for the best intrest of this encyclopedia. Any time someone goes to your talk page and tries to discuss something you don't like you blank it out without a response. — Moe ε 23:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as an FYI: My response about WP:AGF was a general comment, but I have not done as much research or gotten as involved in this alert as Duae has. I made that comment from a general standpoint - as with all policies, specific cases can call for different interpretation of those policies. I'll leave the rest of this alert in Duae's capable hands. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note. Burntsauce has yet again tried to modify the official discussion record, despite having been told on this alert that he cannot do this. Moe is clearly in the right here. Assume Good Faith is all very well; but it becomes really hard to sustain in the face of this kind of behaviour. Moe; I take it back. You're right: there is a major problem here with this editor. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My only problem is with willful ignorance of WP:BLP and it seems that only one specific group of Wikipedia contributors are under the belief that they can get away with it. I treat all articles the same. Burntsauce 23:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You now also have a couple of other problems. You have the problem of approaching a WP:3RR violation on the deletion discussion record. You have the problem that inappropriate modifications of this official record are now getting a bit of wider notice. You have the problem that your most recent edit comment on that record itself failed to assume good faith, and made a totally inappropriate accusation of vandalism. And you have the problem that all this poor behaviour is getting a bit of wider notice, so that you are likely to get a more more scrutiny. I'd be really surprised if that's going to do you a lot of credit. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And he calls rightful reverting of him ignorance. Not exactly the best descision-making. If you think this is a serious approach to correcting violations of policy Burntsauce you are highly mistaken. You are clearly in the wrong about the Terry Gerwin article, the "personal attack" request here and BLP claims. — Moe ε 23:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo

Stuck

 – Actually, not stuck so much as taken up at #Kievan Rus' a bit below. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo is continuing personal attcks toward all potential editors in Kievan Rus' article. He is using the word "idiot" adressing their work and reverting the information that he dislikes. See Warning: please don't add idiotic infoboxes: they will be deleted 15 August 2007, Warning: please don't add idiotic infoboxes: they will be deleted 13 August 2007, rmv idiotic box from the lead 22 June 2007 and many others. Please, make brutal User:Ghirlandajo to be civil, be tolerant to views of others and be polite! Thank you in advance.--202.249.213.38 08:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to resolve the issue in the discussion pages. There are issues there that I cannot understand, and none of you seem to be talking about them. Try to set a standard for politeness yourself when you do this. Avoid describing this little tiff as "brutal". That comes across as just a tad hysterical. You don't want that.

I think you have a fair point. Calling the infobox "idiotic" was not helpful. Ghirlandajo does not explain his concern in the discussion page, and he certainly should. I can't see what the problem is. No one is talking about it. My advice is to be WP:COOL. Keep focused on the matters of content; don't try to make a big fuss about the fact that the word idiotic is used. Try this, for example.

It will help to avoid saying anything at all about the "idiotic" remark, I think, unless it is repeated. If you just ignore it, then it has a better chance of being forgotten and not repeated. Good luck —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a member of the Project Former Countries, and I fail to see anything helpful about their activities. The idea of an infobox for the countries that existed millennia ago is absurd. What was the flag and COA of Assyria? It's a good idea for a Kurdish nationalist to seize upon. As far as I can see, the infobox is just a tool used by modern nationalists to advance their fringecruft. The agenda of this particular sockpuppet is to paste the modern Ukrainian COA, with modern Ukrainian colors, to the top of the article about a state which existed a millennium ago. It's like inserting the modern Italian flag into our article about the Roman Empire. Will it be tolerated, let alone seriously discussed? P.S. I have my reservations about the propriety of this "Wikipedia alerts" page. It reminds me of WP:PAIN which had to be closed down after it became, in essence, an attack page. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This report is entirely specious and should be closed. An unregistered user whose (very few) contributions tend to calling others "vandals" is upset over editorial comments that an infobox is "idiotic"? Give me a break. For the record I agree that the article is much better without the infobox for several reasons, but that is a content issue. Further, the insistence on irrational standardization that requires things like infoboxes is highly detrimental to the encyclopedia, but that opinion is also a content issue. Tim Shuba 07:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That was my overall impression (except that I like infoboxes, which as you note is not relevant here). I left a note at Ghirlandajo's page to let him know of the existence of this alert, and to ask his input. My advice is still to talk about content issues on the discussion page; just to keep a record of what is going on, even if it is a matter of dealing with some form of cluelessness. But hey. I am cool with closing this as a non-issue, and will do so shortly after a bit of time to allow for any other comment. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrghh. Close it already, it's ridiculous. Bishonen | talk 10:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC).

2 Ghirla. Where did you find Ukrainian COA at the top of the article? There is only the one of Rurikid symbol of 10th c. - the trident. Blue and yellow are not "ukranian colours", but just "blue" and "yellow". Now the trydent is an image from the coin which you have downloaded, but your commrades still removing the infobox. You are fighting with natioanlistic stereotypes of your own. Infobox provides short information about the country and is very convenient for readers. Also, I would ask you to calm down your accusations in sockpuppeting. Its not the matter of anon-users but users who have got many accounts. --133.41.84.206 08:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Further comment directed to the alert below at #Kievan Rus'. One alert on this is more than enough. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Continued incivility from User:Scorpion0422

Resolved

 – Seems to be a non-problem. I'm marking it resolved, since there was nothing to do and it's now old. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I first reported on what I felt was a pattern of personal attacks and vigilante-style editing from this user back in June. [46] He refused my efforts to discuss differences with him, as suggested by the mediators and since then, he has continued to revert my edits to any Simpsons article without any valid reasons [47] [48] [49], and I have taken good faith in working with this user, but he continues to ignore evidence I have presented [50] and continues with personal attacks on my talk page and in edit summaries [51]. I notice that he has a pattern of being inflammatory and disruptive to editors that he disagrees with.--Folksong 00:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC) [52]

Like I've said, you keep editing GA articles, which are supposed to have an elevated level of prose. It has nothing to do with you, I'm just trying to keep these pages at the level they were when they were promoted. As far as I can remember, I've only reverted you on three articles (two of which you have reported me on, the other you nearly reported me) and I'm sure you've edited many more articles than I've reverted you on. And why do you keep bringing up stuff that I've already been disciplined for? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

At a quick look though all the submitted diffs and a check through the nearby history, I do not think there is any case to answer here. The old stuff should be water under the bridge, and the later changes are minor content dispute, being carried on without any big problems from Scorpion0422 with incivility or failure to assume good faith that I can see. Scorpion, it would be desirable to try and take ten minutes to try and modify an edit rather than just revert it, even if you think the effect of the edit was detrimental to the article. It would probably save time in the long run. Folksong, you need to assume good faith and be careful with that word vandalism. You guys are just going to have to continue to keep cool and keep talking.

If this escalates at all, then the winner will probably be the one who manages to keep the coolest, and shows the best assumptions of good faith. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Continued hostility/personal attack from User:Misou

Resolved

 – The user in question has received corrective action as of 17 August, and there don't seem to be any further issues with their recent edits after the block expired. --Darkwind (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Incivility: "you are running out of some 5 year old confusion"
• Personal attack: "if you want to just edit here or try to contaminate this place with hate propaganda."
• Incivility, along with assumption of bad faith: "hooked on collecting negative information on Scientology since (which is your COI point)."

I can't talk for other users, but I noticed that the incivility has been persistent. The sarcasm and disparaging tone already makes it difficult to discuss issues on respectful terms. I take offense as being described as an individual bent on 'hate propaganda'. All considered, it's difficult for me to imagine that the points I bring will be considered honestly by the user. Raymond Hill 15:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing ArbCom on if a Scientologist (COFS) has a WP:COI because she is editing Scientology articles. This is obviously a question to be asked for Raymond Hill as well. He is running an anti-Scientology site which is being used as "reference" also in those articles he is editing reguarly. This is the background for the above. I apologize if I went over the acceptable way of presenting this. Misou 15:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule of thumb, if someone said the same to you and you would feel attacked or offended, change how you say it. Politeness gets one a lot further in this place. Regardless of the merits or accuracy of your descriptions, if you can phrase it neutrally you get a lot further. Also, remember to comment on content, not editors or thier motivations whenever possible. Best of Luck! --Rocksanddirt 15:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the basis of Misou's "lack of good faith" is rooted in the fact that several editors of Wikipedia's Scientology articles are openly and publicly webmasters of anti-Scientology websites. While this doesn't excuse rudeness on Misou's part - especially his/her unwarranted heckling of User:Tilman on his talk page - it does point to a real problem. I could also provide a LONG list of diffs that show that Misou and other editors have been spoken to by anti-Scn editors in an extremely demeaning, sarcastic, abrasive and insulting way with no repercussions for those editors, so I can certainly see how Misou might start to think such behavior is condoned around here. wikipediatrix 16:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's quite true - there's plenty of anger and attack-fodder on both sides of the debate. Unfortunately, WQA isn't the place to fix the community as a whole. :) --Darkwind (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Kievan Rus'

Stuck

 – Overtaken by a recently returned arbitration decition. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A group of editors (see [53]) are constatntly removing Infobox Former Country from Kievan Rus' for pseudo-reasons of "original research". The article in this edition with template has nothing OR-ish, providing reader with a short information about that former country. The Infobox Former Country is used in many articles in Wikipedia stadardizing all articles about historical states, so I dont understand their stubborness in removing the template. They do edit warring without making even an atempt to disscuss the problem at the talk page of the article. They are not looking for consensus and do not give any arguments.--133.41.84.206 08:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, see the thread #User:Ghirlandajo above. This "report" is submitted by the sockpuppet of the user who submitted the original one. But seriously, a question to the regular handlers of this board. Is there a reason why this board is needed. Is it fundamentally different from WP:RFI and WP:PAIN both deleted per my urging with the wide consensus approval. AFAI can see, this is used either as a Wikipedia:Request to block or as a Wikipedia:Complaints department. Is it needed? --Irpen 06:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I'm not responding to this WQA posting right now, but I've replied to your questions about WQA in general on the talk page. --Parsifal _Hello 07:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

We certainly do get a lot of contributions from fringe viewpoins who see Wikipedia as (at last) a place where their particular nuttiness can be published in what appears to be a credible source. They usually get reverted when contributing to articles of general interest (I think); and sometimes we have extended episodes of cluelessness. Many good editors end up leaving in frustration. It looks very much to me that you and a couple of others are dealing with this issue by claiming a kind of ownership over your articles, periodically cleaning out edits back to established versions, and dismissing any need to talk about what you are doing in the discussion page. I'd like to see some kind of more formalized recognition of expert review on articles. In the meantime, I wish you guys would just for heavens sake TALK about the problems you see on the discussion page of articles. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that a discussion thread be created at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Former countries. The issues here seem too technical for the contributors at this noticeboard to come up the learning curve quickly. Either that, or just pick one article, for instance Kievan Rus' and conduct one or more article RFCs. Whichever place you choose, I hope someone will start a discussion thread that expounds the alternatives as clearly as possible. There is more heat than light in what has been posted here at WQA. If you agree to move the discussion, leave us a pointer to the place where you are continuing to have it. EdJohnston 02:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There should be no need for this board to come up to speed. This is not a venue for content disputes. The idea of discussion is a good one, but it requires a willingness for people to discuss. That seems to be the major problem here.

If I understand it right, some editors dismiss this whole dispute as being unworthy of comment. They object to the use of wikiquette alerts as being merely a way to make attacks, and just want to shut down the whole alerts system. They consider that the complaints are unworthy of comment, and that any other editors who attempt to mediate are merely being made dupes by people making frivolous complaints. They assert strong control of the page in question, and claim to have the expertise and background and understanding to justify this control.

I would like to make a strong advisory comment here. Use the discussion page. If people are making frequent major edits to undo what they see as inappropriate changes by editors pushing an agenda of some kind; you still need to say something about the problem on the discussion page. Similarly for editors who are trying to introduce major changes. You can make your statements firmly without being uncivil. Please, please, please; if you consider yourself to be an expert on the topic who is fighting off POV-pushing, you need to demonstrate that by a concise, clear, substantive comment on the problem in the discussion page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Events addressed in this alert have been overtaken by a recent arbitration decision. The decision recognizes long standing and deep seated problems relating to articles on Eastern Europe, liberally defined. The conclusion is in two parts. A general amnesty for all involved parties, and a reminder to edit courteously and co-operatively in the future. This is excellent advice, and this Wikiquette alert is immediately closed, being resolved by the amnesty. Best of luck to all concerned in a difficult situation. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:TheRingessDeleating problems

Resolved

 – —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

TheRingess keeps deleating information that I put in saying it is "urban legend" but is not! Please, help me I am going mad!

John Schnell 23:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Help us help you, what articles? what talk pages? how many times? As a hint, try to reference your material when you put it in, so that the policy of no original research can't be used to remove it. --Rocksanddirt 23:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Some diplomacy might help, but many of the items added by User:John Schnell to Cardiff-by-the-Sea, Encinitas, California seem to lack references. For example, see [54]. If John has access to back issues of a local paper, he might be able to find references for some of the facts he has asserted based on personal knowledge. Saying you were there is not enough for Wikipedia purposes, due to our insistence on reliable sources and verifiability. Editors who want to know what the dispute is about should look at the history of Cardiff-by-the-Sea, Encinitas, California since 5 July, and also see its Talk page. EdJohnston 03:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The removals of unsourced material and linkspam look consistent with enforcement of [WP:V]] and WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Simply because a web site exists on the internet is not sufficient reason to link to it. For external link policies please see: WP:EL. Buddhipriya 20:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no case here to answer. John has been given some good advice about attribution. Basically, he has been adding information to Cardiff-by-the-Sea, Encinitas, California based on his own authority as a resident. But Wikipedia requires information to be based on verifiable sources. It is that simple. A friendly word also about handling such matters. You should not try to make a Wikiquette alert until you have first tried to resolve the matter on the relevant talk pages. I'm marking this resolved. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have tried the talk page but she or he will not answer!!! She deleats stuf by me on the Cardiff By The Sea article! John Schnell 21:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding something. ANYTHING you write on wikipedia can be removed by ANYONE if there isn't any proof. And you being there isn't proof, you have to have articles or other reliable sources. DurinsBane87 22:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Blanche Poubelle and talk page problems

Resolved

 – —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This user has done a great job on Swedish Social Democratic Party and has contributed to article Neoliberalism, but I am getting irritated with this user's conduct on Talk:Swedish Social Democratic Party. After my (I hope so) rather mild criticism on some aspects of her edits, she reacted with militant comments, as if she owned the SSDP page. E.g. comments [55], [56], [57], , by which she accused me of political biases, noted my “keen censoring eye” etc. You see, she changed her response a number of times, until reaching this 'final' text which seemed, well OK (see history of the page for details). After my comment, by which I attempted to elaborate on my concerns (mostly neutrality), she responded with accusations of “authoritarian tone of your [i.e my] political complaints”, of having made her do edits I “demanded in a disrespectful way” (!), “ill-toned complaints” etc. In the end, she once again deleted her insulting comments and replaced it with a more tolerable reply. I also find unacceptable her request that I “revel (sic!) in your [i.e. my] existing achievements” in Wikipedia - she must have been aware, that my contributions don't number less than hers. All in all, this user has, in my opinion, violated WP:NPA, Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable and Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments (constantly changing her comments, hiding (removing) insulting ones). I expect your comments and suggestions. Erik Jesse 09:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for documenting your concern so thoroughly. The impression I get just from the diffs to which you've linked is of a user who has a short fuse and who hits "Save Page" first and then thinks later. All things considered, a user who regrets the kind of sarcasm in which she was engaged is preferable to one who engages in that kind of sarcasm and then starts defending it in a knee-jerk fashion when called on it. I guess my question for you is how big a deal this is, really? I agree that her initial comments violated Wikipedia policy, but then she deleted them and replaced them with more civil ones. Ideally, she shouldn't post the sarcastic stuff in the first place, but do you really feel this is harming the encyclopedia? (I ask that question in earnest and to elicit an answer, not to imply that the only reasonable answer is no.) Besides that, I don't think I agree with your interpretation of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments - as I see it, it only advises against changing your comments after somebody else has responded to them, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Certainly, coming up with six editions of the same comment isn't optimal, but I'm not sure I see it as a policy violation. Sarcasticidealist 10:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I also doubt if there's the 3. policy violation, that's why I raised the issue at the informal level. The problem with the user is that

1. she often mistakes Wikipedia for soapbox or a blog
2. lays too much emphasis on particular points of view she personally agrees with (both in case of SSDP and Neoliberalism).
3. is not coöpereative in case of criticism or suggestions, rather, 'explodes', if one dares to contradict.

There is no big deal with the diffs, but I got the impression that she first expresses her views rather overtly (deliberately makes it) and then covers things up. So that I'd get both her real response and the 'acceptable' reply. I got tired with it, and wished to hear other opinions, so that she might (if she made us that favour) consider her conduct. If I find more time, I'll just start removing not neutral things she has added to SSDP article, there's little use trying to argue with her. Erik Jesse 10:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's premature to conclude that there's little use trying to argue with her (although "argue" is not the preferred nomenclature - "discuss" or "reason", please). In fact, you seem to acknowledge on the SSDP talk page that she did eventually remove the POV language to which you were objecting. I'd strongly encourage continued discussion over unilateral action at this point.

I'd also suggest that in the interests of WP:AGF, you try to avoid assuming the impression you mention above - it may have been a good faith response on her part, or it may be something more nefarious, as you suggest, but absent evidence one way or another we should assume the most innocent plausible explanation.

Finally, I think your last reply on the SSDP talk page is teetering on the edge of WP:CIVIL. Specifically, I don't think the last sentence was in any way useful. I'm not blaming you for the problems - clearly User:Blanche Poubelle's deleted posts are much less civil than anything you've written - but I think WP:COOL is very much in order as we try to sort this out. Sarcasticidealist 10:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can agree with that. The more that Wikipedia is not one of my top priorities and I readily drop the activity if I feel that the thing is not working at the moment. Erik Jesse 11:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Great. I've left a note on Blanche Poubelle's talk page asking her to be more careful with her comments before she hits "Save page", and I'll continue to monitor the situation to see how things are progressing. Sarcasticidealist 11:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Steve Dufour's personal insults to other editors.

Resolved

 – —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the latest example: [58]. - Redddogg 14:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet another frivolous alert. There's no case to answer here. The link goes to an edit that is three weeks old, which was a bit peevish but definitely not worth this alert. The real issue seems to be with other editors causing trouble. The substance of the matter was discussed at: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Barbara Schwarz (closed). This alert should be closed too. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Duae Quartunciae; the edit cited is not, in and of itself, enough to establish a problem - it's an isolated, and not terribly severe, violation of WP:CIVIL. However, User:Redddogg calls it "the latest example". If he's prepared to provide more cites that would establish a pattern of behaviour, I'm willing top listen. Sarcasticidealist 21:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

For the most part he isn't blatantly uncivil, however I think the problem stems more from a WP:COI concern re: Barbara Schwarz.

• Barbara Schwarz is a friend of mine.

Maybe WP:COIN would be a better forum? Anynobody 03:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Likely it would be. For what it's worth, though, I've reviewed all of User:Steve Dufour's edits to the Barbara Schwarz page for the last four months, and the only one I can find that seems at all questionable from a WP:COI standpoint is one. Sarcasticidealist 03:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

To his credit he does refrain from editing the actual article much, however the issue Redddogg mentions is the nature of his posts to the talk page. He tends to have problems with acknowledging the relevance certain aspects of her life have on her notability and the article. For example he feels the first sentence should not mention her nationality or the fact that she is a non-us citizen; Like he did here. After I explained to him that it's part of her notability he questioned that, Has anyone said that the fact of her being German is a part of her notability?. Since it's been pretty much confined to talk only and hasn't been overly problematic I haven't taken any action since WP:COIN is more about actual article edits than talk page discussions. Anynobody 05:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that voice of reason. The matter you raise now is a purely content dispute. The way you express it presumes that you are correct; whereas I personally think Steve's point is entirely valid, and that her nationality is quite secondary and better out of the lead. But that's really irrelevant, since we don't address content matters here. Since Steve has tackled this content matter with perfect civility in the edit you mention, and since he has let you guys keep that curious addition in the lead sentence in any case, there is no longer any reason for wikiquette be involved. Good luck with the page, and stay cool. I'm marking this resolved. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's wise. I've just reviewed the entire (non-archived portion of the) talk page, and it doesn't seem to me that he's having any real negative impact on the article; there's certainly a lot of repetition, but consensus seems to be chugging on (albeit a little more slowly than it might without him). I can see why regular editors of the page might find him inconvenient, but I only saw the one violation of WP:CIVIL (the psychiatric help bit) and no violation of WP:COI (which, as you say, deals almost exclusively with mainspace edits). I'm marking this as resolved for now, but feel free to bring up any new concerns if/as they come up. Sarcasticidealist 05:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC) _{(Duae beat me to it.)}

User:Muckrakerius using talk page to further agenda in uncivil, libelous manner.

I recently posted what I believe was a legitimate question on the Shoot 'Em Up talk page in the interest of adding pertinent information about its release and screening process. Since then I have been the victim of several personal attacks by Muckrakerius, (who has only contributed to one other article on Wikipedia). So far he has accused me of being a corporate troll, of lying about my sources, and most recently about lying about my own personal life. I am perfectly willing to engage in reasonable discussion about the film, the film's entry, and the uses of Wikipedia talk pages, but I consider attacks on my character to be "off limits" and ask that they stop. Thank you. ChrisStansfield 20:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I state that you are lying and have an agenda because you do. Please do not use the term LIBELOUS because you are thus threatening legal action. The purpose of a talk page is to discuss the article. You have been asked repeatedly to PROVE your point. You won't. Fine. But you HAVE been lying throughout the back and forth and have been proven as such. PLEASE STICK TO FACTS. Muckrakerius 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, you two. First of all, let me say that I agree with ChrisStansfield that Muckrakerius has been violating WP:CIVIL. Muckrakerius, if you plan on sticking around, I think you'll find it not only mandated by Wikipedia policy but helpful to your cause if you learn to disagree a little more politely.

That said, this disagreement originated in a conversation that was virtually entirely unrelated to improving the article. One way to avoid having people jump down your throat over opinions you express is to confine the opinions you express to those which are directly relevant to the Wikipedia article itself, rather than to the article's subject. While I think that Muckrakerius has got to change his behaviour, I think the easiest way to deal with the problems you're currently having is to just end the conversation in which they're occurring. Sarcasticidealist 21:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In my own defense, Sarcastic, the question about the subject I posted on the talk page was clearly phrased as an attempt to find relevant information to add to the entry itself, which certainly is legitimate in a film article. I did not just say, "I thought the movie was bad," nor did I state that my own original research in this case was significant enough to warrant adding it to the main entry, which is clearly in good faith. I asked if anyone knew how long the film had been held aftyer being made, which for purposes of the article is, I repeat, completely valid if you look at articles for films like The Brown Bunny and the like.

Further, need I point out the responses of muckrakerius above to underscore my point? Thirdly, muckrakerius has now continued the attack on my own user page. Considering about half of my life is fully documented on the Internet under my own name, any attempts to paint me as an employee of any studio is absolutely ludicrous. I also DID answer his allegations with "facts," by extensively quoting from the same site that is used as a reference in the article itself.I fail to see so far how anything I have done violates Wikipedia policy ChrisStansfield 21:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I worded my response too harshly - I don't think you have violated Wikipedia policy, and Muckrakerius certainly has. Moreover, I think you clearly won the debate on the talk page about whether the movie had been scheduled to come out sooner originally, and I say go ahead and add that fact (properly cited) to the talk page; if he reverts it, that's an entirely new issue. In the meantime, his accusations about your so-called "agenda" are so transparently false that I don't think they're doing any harm. It looks to me like a classic case of "don't feed the trolls".

Of course, if you feel that this *is* doing you some harm, you might want to report it to the Admin Noticeboard. Over here, all we can do it reason with people, and I'm not sure how much good that's going to do in Muckrakerus' case.

Finally, it wasn't apparent to me that your initial question was an attempt to find relevant information to add to the entry itself; it became apparent later on, of course, but it initially appeared to me that you were treating the talk page as a messageboard. In the future, you might do well to be quite explicit about your intentions in asking such questions, so that the slower editors know what's going on. Sarcasticidealist 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think it would be perfectly in order to delete Muckrakerius' comments from your talk page, if you don't want them there. Sarcasticidealist 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you SarcasticOne. I agree to try to be more patient. It is my belief that this User is employed by Lionsgate films to promote the film 3:10 to YUMA and his trolling was designed to negatively affect Shoot 'Em Up. That said I promise to behave nicer to the trolls in the future.Muckrakerius 21:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that this user is in conflict-of-interest, you can report him to WP:COIN, but you'd better have some evidence beyond that fact that he has said nasty things about a movie that happens to look awful. Sarcasticidealist 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you help, Sarcastic- I appreciate your reason and logic in responding to this, as well as your willingness to accept my good faith. As far as I'm concerned, the issue is over- at the moment, I doubt any harm will come to me, though if I find in the future that I'm being sued by a movie studio, I'll have an idea why and may call upon your help. ;) I will try to take your semantic advice, meanwhile, about talk pages. (I enjoyed the wry comments, too.) ChrisStansfield 22:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations that I am a troll and a stooge of ZanuPF for reverting inappropriate material on Robert Mugabe

I posted the following message to WP:AN:

There is persistent vandalism of Robert Mugabe. Since he is a living person, I presume the special care as pointed out in WP:BLP applies. In the last case of vandalism, User:Brian.gratwicke inserted the term "illegitimate" in the description of him as the president of Zimbabwe. I removed it, and, because he has been warned for his edits before, and has been on wikipedia for quite a while, I issued him with a "uw-vandalism4im" warning given the nature of the vandalism to a living person's article. He objected to this on my talk page, and I replied stating that if he wanted to claim that the election was rigged, he should be able to come up with the appropriate references. His reply was to accuse me of being a troll. I take this to be an extremely serious accusation as to my credibility without any supporting evidence, and certainly was not my motivation and never has been as one can see by my previous work on wikipedia. I would like to request some immediate action taken to deal with this problem. He is "demanding" that i withdraw the accusation of vandalism and has now repeated the accusation that I am a troll. He is attempting to escalate the matter, by alluding to an idea that I may be a ZANUPF stooge, which is clearly insulting and derogatory and without foundation,but I am refraining from replying.

The response from WP:AN so far has been disappointing in one crucial respect. First of all, I accept that I may have been inaccurate in describing the addition I removed as vandalism, though I still consider a case may be made for that (see my reply to the response to my original message). However, I am disappointed that the one administrator who has replied has not commented on the real issue that motivated me posting to WP:AN in the first place: that of the unfounded accusations that I am a troll and the allusion that I am a stooge of ZanuPF for merely reverting POV-pushing that was unverified and inappropriate (and could lead to further difficulties) on a wikipedia article about a living person. I find it difficult to retract and apologise for the mis-identification of vandalism if the accusation against me of being a troll and the allusion that I am a supporter of ZanuPF remains uncommented on and not dealt with. The original mis-identification should not, I think, be seen as some kind of free licence to respond in the way that Brian.gratwicke did. I would like some advice on what to do here. Finally, I am surprised at the apparent bias shown by the adminsitrator who replied to me with the following sentence: "Mugabe's last election was heavily criticized as unfair and he is seen as a dictator by a number of people around the world; the use of the word "illegitimate" is therefore valid" as it oversimplified the situation. My personal thoughts about Mugabe is that he is not someone I would like to see in charge of any country given his behaviour, but I do not feel that would justify such language or such simplistic conclusions in an encyclopaedia, which wikipedia aspires to remain.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a first. We have a wikiquette alert apparently as the second step after being dealt with at the Administrator's noticeboard!

It is only two hours since your latest response at the noticeboard. Relax. Give it a bit of time, and perhaps you may also cool off a bit yourself and put it all in perspective. I suggest you delete the material added to your talk page by User:Brian.gratwicke, recognize that you provoked this with an inappropriate accusation of vandalism, and let it go. You really only need to get fussed when incivility becomes an ongoing disruption. It is better not to go straight to administrator noticeboards and wikiquette alerts after one childish outburst. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Discourteous deletions by User:Blnguyen & User:Skyring in John Howard article

Resolved

In the article John Howard (The Australian Prime Minister), Blnguyen and Skyring(Pete) continually delete 'useful content', but not in a courteous way. The deleted information is factual, verified and referenced, and its truth is not in dispute.

The Wikipedia has guidelines about deleting useful information, on this link: Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes#Deleting...

Blnguyen and Skyring(Pete) delete useful information without initiating a discussion, which would be the courteous way of allowing other editors to see what the information is.

On the discussion page, Talk:John_Howard, there are 2 recent examples. One topic is Bob Hawke motion on race, opposed by Howard (Bob Hawke was a previous Prime Minister). The initial delete edit by User:Blnguyen is here (note that a discussion was not initiated by him at the time the deletion occurred), and it happened again yesterday when new information was added here.

The other subject matter was Talk:John_Howard#John_Howard.27s_secret_ancestry_revealed, where today User:Skyring deleted the content, even though a discussion was taking place between other editors days before the deletion took place. As I write this, Skyring(Pete) had not contributed to the discussion. The deletion can be seen here. Lester2 02:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please take any comments from this user with hefty dose of scepticism. User:Lester2 is a WP:SPA troll account that would do well to read WP:CONSENSUS. Check his history to see his edit warring on the one and only article he edits. He has been blocked no less than 3 times for trying to ram through his slanted POV, and now resorted to these forums as a last ditch effort. The last request for comment he initiated resulted in him agreeing to seek consensus for any of the pointy additions he trys. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Prester John for your kind words :) Lester2 03:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the statements about the RfC made above are strictly accurate. See my remarks at Talk:John Howard#Request for Comment. Hornplease 04:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Lester2's short but disruptive history is visible to all. I have encouraged his sometimes productive edits and praised his research skills. However, he does not seem to grasp that although something may be true and well-sourced, it is not necessarilly relevant to a biographical article, especially when its intent is clearly to smear the subject of the article. The edit I removed, with a hint to seek consensus first, had only the most tangential relevance to the subject.

His action here is another in a long line of attempts to seek third-party approval for his behaviour. If he were being victimised or bullied, then he would be quite within his rights to do so and I would cheer him on, but the fact is that he is being treated with as much courtesy and co-operation as he would get anywhere else in the WP community. I encourage him to edit more articles on other subjects and see for himself. --Pete 03:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleting 'useful content' in a discourteous way is, unfortunately, how many edit wars begin. In fact, there's one taking place right now, (see History with content I've inserted, and User:Skyring repeatedly deleting it again. Lester2 04:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Only you seem to think the allegations about Howard's uncle are "useful". I politely re-echo the repeated calls that you study up on consensus. --Pete 04:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I ask that this Wikiquette Alert also looks at general incivility, both here and on the John Howard discussion page. I feel that some editors use derogatory terms as a tool to drive other productive editors away. I don't think there's ever justification for personal attacks. Thanks, Lester2 05:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Another paragraph has just been deleted. This one about control of semi-automatic handguns. Once again, no attempt to move the information to another place, or start a discussion. Not one of the deleted paragraphs is disputed over factual accuracy. If we adhere to the "Avoiding Common Mistakes" document (linked to above), then this information is classed as "useful information". We can retain useful information. If an article gets to long, we can create sub-articles. If someone doesn't like the phrasing, they can keep the references and try changing some words. If there is too much information that is "anti", they can add more "pro" information. Political articles need to have both. But cleansing an article can lead to Wikipedia gaining [http://www.smh.com.au/am/2007/08/24/ news headlines like it's getting today. Maybe it would be worth asking the people who deleted content about what their reasons for doing so were, to discuss whether or not those were valid reasons. Thanks, Lester2 03:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary says it all. Howard copped long and sustained criticism from pro-firearm supporters. It would be ridiculous to ignore this and mention some lukewarm anti-gun comment that had no visibility at the time. What was it, a letter to the editor? --Pete 04:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Skyring-Pete. The gun control info was one deleted by Blnguyen. I don't think any of the gun issues you mention should have been deleted. I'm sure it would have been possible to include all sides, and probably into a concise 2 or 3 sentences. I don't think we need to delete each other's content and throw it away, when all are factually correct. Also, a message in the edit history window that says "find consensus" is not a good substitute for a discussion on the Discussion Page. Lester2 14:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Lester, I've discussed WP:MULTI with you. This is not a page for content disputes. The edit summaries in the deletions give reasoning, and do not violate WP:CIVIL. Please discuss on Talk:John Howard and use the RFC process or mediation if you cannot get consensus there. The most recent deletion is a not unreasonable interpretation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT#INFO; even if it is wrong, use DR to fix it. THF 14:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

New issue regarding conflict with User:Muckrakerius

Resolved

I know I said that my issue was resolved, and I truly hoped it was. However, yesterday someone named "Don Murphy" tried to add me as a friend on Myspace. I responded by asking him if I knew him, and this was the answer I received: "I was referred to you by email as someone hired to attack my film on line. I ask you to stop and reveal your employers."

Since it was only recently that I dealt with this here, I had an idea what film he was talking about, but I did not recognize his name, so of course, I checked him out on Wikipedia.

This was my response, verbatim: "Oh, for Christ's sake. Nobody has "hired me to attack your film online." For that matter, I never attacked your film online. I said in parentheses in one sentence that I thought it was silly. If Roger Ebert or Leonard Maltin says the same, are you going to accuse them of being hired shills?

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that, "rather than being told by email" etc, etc, that you are actually the gentleman on Wilkipedia who first accused me of being a troll, despite the obvious evidence that a hired troll doesn't spend two years editing articles on Popeye and reality show performers in advance to "set up an identity."

I am not employed by anyone to attack your film, and I genuinely hope you make as much money from it as you can. Lord knows, if I were being paid by a major studio for such nefarious purposes, I'd live in a nicer apartment than I do. Best wishes, Chris"

Here's the thing- I don't know if this guy really is the producer of the film or not, or why he would be worried about one guy on wikipedia who thought his film was silly. But should I be contacting a lawyer, or what? ChrisStansfield 04:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is weird as you got all legal last time this came up and as you know Wikipedia does not take kindly to legal threats. You seem to have stopped your organized campaign against the film. Perhaps since you were exposed you stopped and didn't get paid. I don't know. I am not sure why you are asking for Myspace advice on Wikipedia though. Muckrakerius 04:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we really can't deal with off-wiki issues (and this sort of thing is, unfortunately, a hazard of editing Wikipedia under your real name). Unfortunately, I think you have no choice by to ignore that kind of nonsense until it actually becomes actionable harassment, which I don't think is for quite a while (although I'm not a real lawyer, only a wikilawyer).

I have sympathy for your position here, insofar as Muckrakerius is clearly trolling and is taking the trolling off-wiki, but I sincerely don't think there's anything we can do about that. Sarcasticidealist 07:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have never posted any kind of responses to my recollection here so I hope it is ok for me to comment here. If it is inappropriate, please do not hesitate to remove and advice me on my talk page that only a selected group of editors respond here. Anyways, file a formal complaint with the headers and identifying information to My Space. I have never been to this site but it has been on the news a lot and from what they say on the news is they have gotten very strict about the site and the postings there. Also a complaint to the person's IP with the offending information might also aide you. Just a suggestion, but sometime this approach does work. Good luck to you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has in the past indef-blocked users for off-wiki violations of WP:HARASS when the off-wiki behavior can be definitively linked to the on-wiki account. But if it's a single polite (if trolling) Myspace email, and there haven't been any more after a response asking the harassment to stop, that's not quite to levels requiring intervention. THF 13:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know about that- I wasn't being clear, I guess. I don't want a lawyer to go after THEM- they're just a nuisance and I'm a big boy. I'm just wondering whether I need someone to defend myself if this really is a concerted attempt by the movie studio. Also, I should note that once again, on this page, Muckrakerius has resorted to doing the exact things he promised he would refrain from....if this goes on, which dispute page is the next step? ChrisStansfield 13:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "defend yourself" from "a concerted attempt by the movie studio." If this is really Don Murphy, it's just a single paranoid producer, who should better recognize the potential for disastrous publicity from threatening someone who disliked his movie if Murphy's accusation is wrong. I've asked Muck to be civil on his talk page. If Muck persists in on-Wiki personal attacks (or provable off-Wiki harassment), I'd raise with User:Sandahl, who unblocked Muck upon Muck's promise of good faith. If Muck continues to edit Shoot 'em Up tendentiously, let me know on my talk page. (Separately: leave messages for users on their talk pages, not on their user pages.) THF 14:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not really all that familiar with the movie business. That said

• I suspect that Myspace isn't studios' preferred method for threatening legal action.
• Probably, if somebody randomly informs a studio that somebody else has been hired by a rival studio to bring their pictures down, the informed studio would demand, at the very least, a scintilla of evidence that this is the case before it confronted anybody about it.
• Even if, for some reason, this studio *is* contacting you via Myspace and is considering taking legal action against you (which I think is unlikely to the point of absurdity), the burden would be on them to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that you committed some kind of tort against them. Since there is no evidence to this effect at all, you're probably fine.

I think it's pretty clear that you're just dealing with a troll who derives pleasure from making outlandish accusations of conflict of interest against other users. And, as you said, such a troll is just a nuisance. I think you're okay. Sarcasticidealist 14:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, both THF and Sarcastic. Yes, you're probably right that Myspace harrassment isn't the first method studios would use (though I would counter that by saying I'd never have thought companies would edit Wikipedia in order to make a point, and clearly I was wrong. ;) ) I guess this whole thing has made me a bit paranoid, especially since I found the producer's message on my myspace after a very long day. That said, i have responded to Don (whom I believe is the genuine producer), and upon pointing out everything that has gone on, Don has apologized to me and has stated that he does not, in fact, believe me to be a "hired gun." If anyone ELSE still has doubts, he's welcome to ask for the transcript of Don's last response to me. :) ChrisStansfield 14:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if "Don Murphy" is behaving non-trollishly, perhaps he *is* the genuine article. Stranger things have happened, and I have been wrong before. Anyway, I'm marking this as resolved. Sarcasticidealist 15:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL: User:Calton and User talk:THF and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Syring

Work in progress; comments welcome

 – --Darkwind (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Accuses me of "spinning" and then calls my argument "crap" after I politely asked him to explain what appeared to me to be a non sequitur and suggested "spin" was an uncivil way to characterize my good-faith concern about a WP:BLP1E violation. THF 05:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And then Calton left this uncivil remark on my talk page. THF 05:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The same initial response has been posted to both users' talk pages. Responses should be made here! Thanks. --Darkwind (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It does look to me like Calton could use a good healthy dose of WP:AGF - his reply to the AfD discussion was not so much about the notability of the content, but more along the lines of "This was a bad-faith nomination". One of the WQA folks (I don't have time at the moment) should probably leave him a message reminding him of the policies and inviting him to this discussion so that we can more effectively mediate the dispute.

THF, I'd encourage you to remain civil in your responses to him, and for the time being to keep your distance for now, as it'll be all too easy for this to spiral out into a big shouting match between you two. I appreciate you bringing it here, though - it'll give us an opportunity to help mediate and redirect the energy back into the content issues.

As for the content: Keep in mind that the term "left-wing" (applied to the media) is somewhat of a loaded term among many - it's apparent that Calton doesn't like having media stories attributed to "left wing blogs" and such, since he sees it as political spin. (It's a common tactic in politics to try to reduce a story's notability by pointing out apparent or perceived biases in the story's sources - a logical extension of that is to imply that the story was made up by one party to hurt someone on the other, or that one side is putting undue weight on an issue.) While something like this may be true, content discussions should be kept as NPOV as well, if possible - in this case, I'd probably have said something more like "It was only reported via a handful of minor sources" or similar.

That said, I think your attempts to resolve the dispute have been good - just remember to keep your cool. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The "left-wing blog" remark reflected the fact that one of the Patrick Syring external links was to a left-wing blog. There was no pejorative intention behind the comment, it was purely descriptive. There perhaps exist better sources, but whoever created edited the article chose to use a left-wing blog. Of course, it doesn't matter how good the sources are under WP:BLP1E. Non-notability outside of a single scandal is non-notability. Thank you for your input, I hope that my conduct to date complied with WP:CIVIL. THF 00:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (corrected 07:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Hi - I know this probably isn't the place to mention this, but I did want to clarify. I created the Patrick Syring article, but I didn't use any blogs as a source for this article. The only blog reference in the article was a link to a site that hosted the indictment - and this link was added by Pat1425! (Syring?) FWIW, I don't think there's any left-right angle to this story at all, unless it spawns a debate about hate crimes legislation. Popkultur 01:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind one of KieferSkunk (t c)'s remarks, which is that "left-wing blog" can be seen as a loaded term. While it is not, of itself, uncivil, many people see it as a POV term. Personally, I'd avoid using terms like "left-wing blog" in Wikipedia discussions. This may keep people who are offended by the term from blowing up at you. Just call it a "blog" - it doesn't matter if it's left-wing, right-wing, or pig-wing, a blog is usually not considered a reliable source anyway. --Darkwind (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Cydevil38's disruptive editing in Wandu Mountain City

Stuck

 – Referred to WP:RFC/HIST per WP:NCGN to resolve content dispute, now that editors have cooled down. --Darkwind (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This user wants to delete Pinyin romanizition of 丸都 (i.e., Wandu in Pinyin) and leaves only Hwando (Korean romanization) in the article Goguryeo. Then he falsely and repetitively claims that Hwando is a historical name while Wandu is a present-day name, so that he can use the historical name only (Note: this claim about using historical name only in an article is also from nowhere, but it is not my concern here). Unlike his untrue claim, Wandu and Hwando are merely different romanizations of the same historical entity. Cydevil38 is an amateurish wikieditor who is incapable of reading canonical history records like Samguk Sagi and he always fails to quote any original history record or original wikipolicy contents (At least I have never seen his original quotes even upon requests). What he presents is his original research which is improper to be put into wikipedia. Here I am requesting an alert to monitor his behavior in editing the article Wandu Mountain City.--Jiejunkong 02:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remind you, Jiejunkong (t c), that your own comments here are treading perilously close to violating NPA. To stay on the right side of that line, try not to use adjective terms in describing your fellow editors, most especially not those which can be considered pejorative - "amateurish" and "incapable of reading" are uncivil and could be considered by some to be an attack. Please remember WP:COOL before making any additional posts. --Darkwind (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have known Cydevil38 for a long time and wrongfully assumed that an administrator is in the same situation. It is my bad and I apologize for the tone. But let's get to the technical part, I will post related evidence in the talk page Talk:Wandu Mountain City. It is my remark that Cydevil38 will post many google search results (which can be done in 1 second by typing a search term), and he will disappear when I ask him to present original quotes of related history records.--Jiejunkong 02:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There was already a RFCU[59] on this kind of behavior, but it seems he's not interested in improving his user conduct. Cydevil38 02:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The RFCU was also about my attitude towards you, nothing is new this time.--Jiejunkong 03:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Wandu Mountain City" is an English word designated for the UNESCO World Heritage Site. This site is based on the ruins of Hwando fortress, a historic city that served as the capital of the ancient kingdom of Goguryeo. With regards to Hwando, I have repeatedly given Jeijunkong the necessary evidence that it is the most common romanization used in reliable English publications. Cydevil38 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In order to encourage a neutral opinion from everyone who chimes in, it would help if you'd link those reliable publications here for us to see. --Darkwind (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. Hwando[60], Wandu[61]. Cydevil38 02:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jiejunkong on one point here, which is that you did indeed do exactly what he expected - you posted links to google search results as "evidence". A link to a google book search is not a source. A source would be a reliable scholarly publication (or something similar) that discusses the use of the two romanizations and provides its own evidence as to which is more accepted. Just seeing that your particular search lists more books under Hwando+AND+Koguryo than under Wandu+AND+Koguryo proves nothing --- in fact, using that comparison to draw the conclusion that Hwando is thus more accepted is fairly close to OR. A Wikipedia editor is not supposed to draw conclusions themselves (see WP:OR again), they're supposed to cite conclusions already published in a reliable source.

Based on what you've posted here, I see no reason for removal of Wandu as an alternate romanization of Hwando. Even if a reputable source says that Hwando is more common or more accepted doesn't mean that Wandu should be removed from the article if it's a valid Pinyin romanization of the same Chinese name. However, I don't have the time to dig through the various article histories to find out if you've even strenuously made that claim. (hence my next outdent comment) --Darkwind (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer such a study that specifically covers the subject of which romanizations to use for Hwando, or Goguryeo for that matter, but I'm not aware of any such works. And since there was no set guidelines for resolving disputes on romanizations, I tried using the ones recommended by WP:NCGN. I know WP:NCGN isn't a perfect fit for this dispute, but I thought it provided the means to prove which word is more appropriate for an English encyclopedia. Even the application of WP:NCGN is limited, because Hwando is rarely mentioned in reliable English publications, such as lacking entries in the three major encyclopedias(though there is an entry in Encyclopedia Britannica Korean edition and other Korean encyclopedias). Anyways, I hope to continue the discussion with you at Wikipedia_talk:Translation[62], which I believe is a more appropriate venue for this debate. Cydevil38 01:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, this isn't the place to continue discussion on the content dispute at hand. I myself really have no interest whatsoever in the outcome of the content dispute itself, I'm just trying to get you and Jiejunkong to see eye-to-eye, as it were, so that you can come to a consensus on this issue. Please see my next outdent comment for a suggestion as to your (collective) next steps. --Darkwind (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil38 stopped editing Wandu Mountain City (both the article and the talk page), but then he could have created a POV fork Hwando (fortress) to bypass the problem. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hwando (fortress) for details.--Jiejunkong 06:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong, can you please post links to diffs where Cydevil38 either removed the Pinyin Wandu or posted a comment suggesting its removal? I haven't the time to find it in the talk pages or the articles' history. --Darkwind (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The romanization name was written as Wandu by User:WangKon936.

1. Cydevil38's 1st unilateral change.
2. Cydevil38's 2nd unilateral change. Note that this is a blind revert. He changed my wikification of Gwanggaeto Stele, which has nothing to do with the argument. The wikification is a collateral damage.
3. Cydevil38's 3rd unilateral change. This time the Gwanggaeto Stele is spared.
4. Cydevil38's 4th change.

Now User:Odst and User:Wikimachine, who have exchanged many personal messages with User:Cydevil38 in the wikipedia, showed up in the talk page and left some random improper messages (see [63],[64]). Also they continue to do Cydevil38's reverting before consensus can be made ([65],[66], [67]).--Jiejunkong 05:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, and you were going so well. This alert has been declared stuck and referred to a more appropriate forum. There seems to be no reason for that to change.

• Neither of the comments you mention are "improper" or "random". The first expresses some irritation, but not exceptionally so in the page. You brought up this alert. You should expect people to notice it and join in. That is not random or improper.
• In the same way: it is not accurate or helpful to refer to "Cydevil38's reverting" when it is other people who are engaged; these are other editors who have a similar point of view. Do not belittle their participation. They are welcome to join in.
• For everyone involved, we continue to urge patience and calm. There is a very apt talk box at the top of the page urging a cool head. This is good advice for you all.
• There are claims being made by various editors about what "default" position should be allowed to stand in the absence of consensus. There is no such rule. You are all going to have to work for consensus, and stop panicking if your preferred final resolution happens not to be one in place right now. If a protection has to be applied, it is going to be more or less random which version is the one at the time. It will get sorted out eventually, and in the meantime please keep cool.

This latest addition to the alert was made after the alert was declared stuck, and gives no cause to change that status. Please relax, and deal with the content dispute calmly and constructively, with recognition that there will be other voices contributing. In the meantime, there's no default basis for declaring which version should stand while you work towards consensus. That is what the content discussions will address. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(1)As to the "other" users, User:Wikimachine and User:Odst are not strangers to User:Cydevil38. You may take a look at the three users's talk page and see what's going on there. The relaying pattern of meat puppet is also a little baffling to me.--Jiejunkong 07:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(2)For putting {{RFChist}} on articles, there is a technical difficulty. Chinese characters are in many wikipedia pages. Currently the romanization of the characters in these pages mostly has the problem being discussed. The problem is there, but it doesn't cause trouble when the contents are not disputed, but it does cause trouble when any disputation happens. If we vote on every Chinese character that causes disputation, then the problem will persist for a quite long time. 丸都 is only one of the case, 國內城 may be the next, and there are hundreds of the cases in the queue.--Jiejunkong 08:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The RFC can serve as an excellent place to begin to form consensus on what standard of romanization to use for names that are written in Chinese characters but pertain to Korean history. As an alternate suggestion, perhaps you could open a discussion on the project discussion pages for WikiProject Korea and/or WikiProject China, as those users are likely to be the most interested in the matter and most familiar with the languages involved. Nobody says you have to open an RFC for each individual name, just form a consensus on the standard to use. As it is, this has definitely gone beyond the scope of a WQA, and I suggest that further discussion be taken to an alternate forum as previously suggested. --Darkwind (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Once I finish the reliable source collections in Talk:Wandu Mountain City, I will put the evidence and proposal to the RFC site and on the project discussion pages for WikiProject Korea and/or WikiProject China. This will probabily cost the incoming weekend before the collections are done. Thanks for the good advice.--Jiejunkong 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the first diff[68]. I considered it a minor spelling fix, because the Goguryeo article, as any other Goguryeo articles in other encyclopedias, consistently used the Korean romanization for historic Goguryeo entities. I didn't expect someone to make such a big deal about it. Cydevil38 01:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now that you both have cooled down and are willing to discuss the content dispute itself CIVILly, I'd suggest that you take the content dispute to RFC/HIST, following the suggestion in WP:NCGN for dispute resolutions, as that's much more likely to attract editors interested in the subject at hand. You'll be able to get a reliable community consensus on which romanization to use in general. I'm marking this WQA as "stuck-referred to another forum." --Darkwind (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I initiated a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Translation#Romanization_of_Chinese_characters a few days ago. I put it under the "Translation" section because this problem is completely about Chinese characters. In other words, if there is no Chinese character, then this problem is gone. WP:RFC/HIST could be another choice. But since modern Korean kids typically cannot read Chinese, they don't respect Korean canonical records like Samguk Sagi (which was written in classical Chinese). This causes more trouble.--Jiejunkong 05:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John Uncivil comments

User:Prester John has been posting in numerous places that I'm a WP:SPA, telling people I'm a "troll" and other generally derogatory remarks. It is possibly set off by my previous Wikiquette alert (above). I make a second report so I can inform User:Prester John that I have made a report.

I haven't discussed who is right or wrong regarding content. I just want the incivility to stop. Some recent examples in the last day or so are the comment on my previous report above [69] a publicly viewable similar remark within a false 3RR report [70] spreading the same allegation about WP:SPA, and another unnecessary remark on an article I had just completed -> at Talk:Lyall_Howard. If he really thinks I'm a WP:SPA, then he should take the issue up in the appropriate channels, but not spread it all over the place. It's even appears again on his user page: [71]. Thanks, Lester2 06:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and terms like "troll" should be avoided. But I note:

• You have been blocked three times in three weeks for edit-warring. WP:3RR is not a upper bound for edit-warring to be gamed, and an admin could have legitimately blocked you for continued edit-warring after previous blocks even without the technical violation of four reversions, so the report was not illegitimate, though not as persuasive as it could have been.
• A single reversion is an appropriate way to deal with a content dispute, so the deletion of material you added does not violate Wikiquette. See WP:BRD. There was already an RFC, and your use of WP:WQA to discuss the same content issues violated WP:MULTI, and your complaint that Prester John repeated allegations against you "all over the place" when you brought a content dispute here violated WP:KETTLE.
• "SPA" is perhaps an overaggressive characterization, but over half of your edits including all of the recent mainspace ones are to the John Howard page, so it is not an unfair comment on edits, rather than editors, and thus not a violation of NPA. Over 90% of your edits in the last six weeks are John Howard-related.
• An editor is entitled to maintain an evidence page in userspace in preparation for "taking the issue up in the appropriate channels."

My conclusion: (1) Prester John was uncivil in calling you a troll instead of assuming good faith, since some of your edits have been productive, but his substantive comments about your edits and procedural actions on this page and in the links you provided are reasonable, and he has been taking the issue up in the appropriate channels; (2) Pete has been remarkably resilient in addressing your concerns in the above WQA report; and (3) you yourself are skating on thin ice by acting disruptively, and should do more to demonstrate good faith. WP:AGF is a presumption that can be rebutted by repeated bad conduct, though editors should, as Pete has done, continue to adhere to WP:CIVIL when editors misbehave. I take no position on the John Howard content dispute, which I have not investigated; these comments are purely procedural. THF 08:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, THF. I will read the above links you posted. Lester2 09:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Shooter (2007 film)

Resolved

User: Bob Lee Swagger 2u has been adding sections pushing an extremely not-nuetral point of view, despite him being asked to stop by both users and admins. He's recently also decided that it's a conspiracy being forced against democrats, and threatened me here link title. DurinsBane87 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, he just got blocked. Thank you for your time. DurinsBane87 20:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the block was only for a week, I left a {{uw-npa3}} at the bottom of his talk page anyway, in case he tries to resume that sort of behavior after the block expires. If it resumes, I'd suggest taking it straight to WP:AN/I where an admin is more likely to see it immediately (this page is run by volunteer editors). --Darkwind (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Children of the Century

Looking at a pretty nasty exchange currently happening between User:Dohanlon and User:Reginmund. Originally started as a question of guideline enforcement - which was also discussed at WP:FILMS, and consensus at the moment seems to be against Dohanlon. Dohanlon, however, refuses to accede to consensus, which is the first issue. This has already led to a temp block on his account and the article being full protected for 2 weeks. Reginmund has been discussing with him (and so did I for a time), but he refuses to cede ground. While I decided to walk away and let consensus speak for itself, Reginmund continued to discuss and now things have escalated to the point that both users are just shouting and violating NPA. Girolamo Savonarola 04:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I think the above statement is misleading. I was being asked to concede on this point on a concensus of three users. Two of which were Reginmund and Girolamo. I asked several times for clarification of the issue from Reginmund but he would not clarify his point. I provided verifiable sources to back up my claim. I agree that the discussion got heated, but in my defense if you read it I ask and ask for verfication and clarification and don't get it. Interestingly as more users have posted on the topic the concesus Girolamo talks about is no longer in favour of their POV. Dohanlon 14:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad feeling between User:Canadian Paul and Ryoung122

The initial exchange in Wikiquette alerts

==User:Canadian Paul, part I==

User Canadian Paul has in my opinion overreacted to what I considered to be an accurate and fair note placed on a discussion board. It seems this user will only be satisfied if he 'stomps' the opposition into the ground, with speech such as this below:

[edit] Bad Faith Accusation I found your bad faith accusation to be insulting and completely unacceptable given the amount of work that I have contributed to important longevity articles. I will no longer be contributing to longevity articles, I will spend my Wikipedia time working on articles and tasks where my efforts are not cheapened or called into question by editors who merely want a leg up in a deletion debate. You have crossed the line. All further communications from you will be ignored. Cheers, CP 15:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I find the above comments clearly out of line and from my point of view, the truth is the mirror opposite. Every accusation he has thrown at me has been a mirror of his own behavior. This seems to be some alpha-male competition for him. For me, it's about making sure that Wikipedia keeps articles that should be kept. I have more to say but I wonder if this is the appropriate place to discuss this. It seems to be an inflated-ego issue, and the material on Wikipedia is only tangential to the personality conflict. However, when others threaten punitive actions in order to get their way things have gone too far already.Ryoung122 17:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

===Canadian Paul's Response===

Since nominating an article that Mr. Young started (Gladys Swetland) for deletion, I have been the subject of personal attacks from this user.

The debate came to a head when he accused me of nominating the article for deletion in bad faith and accusing of me of "having an agenda" This can be found in the discussion here.

Angry, I defended myself on the page and then posted a possibly inflammatory message here, although I never attacked him personally. He then proceeded to make accusations and attack me personally. He accused me of the following:

• you have also caused chaos and not respected the work of others
• You have made your own 'bad faith' accusations as if you were some "Wiki-Star"
• Further, you began a personal attack on me first, in addition to the attacks on John Campbell Ross and Gladys Swetland

No evidence for the first two claims has yet been produced and I do not believe that my contributions (User:Canadian Paul list many of them) are at all indicative of a pattern of "causing chaos" or "not respecting the work of others." The "attack" on John Campbell Ross refers to my removing him from Living national longevity recordholders because his status as Australia's oldest man had no citation. The discussion can be reviewed here.

Personal attacks include:

• Get off your high horse. You're 21 years old.
• Moreover, such an attack seems to be anti-US bias.

Next, I provided links to WP:OWN, WP:HARASS and WP:NPA and warned him that if he continued, I would bring his violations to the next level. He responded by calling these "threats" and then turned around and warned me that he would "press charges" against me if I continued "harassing" him. He accused me of "attempted intimidation/harassment to get your way." I'm not sure what my way is exactly, since I've already conceded that I do not want to edit longevity articles anymore. He further accused me of making comments that are "hateful and vile." He further accused me of claiming a moral high ground, again, I am uncertain how this could be. I admit that may not have handled this in the best possible manner, but I have not been harassing or launching personal attacks. When I told him to leave me alone, he could have just stopped there. Now that he's threatened to press charges, he claims that he wants "a truce." He claims I have violated the harassment and attack policies. If I have, I would like to know about it so that I can improve my behavior, because I do not notice it. I have ended discussion with Mr. Young, but I feel that a legal threat should be brought to appropriate attention. Also please note the personal attacks in his above complaint. Cheers, CP 17:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

===RYOUNG122's RESPONSE===

Actually, I JUST FOUND MORE EVIDENCE:

Swetland is a test to see how and if WP:PSEUDO applies to these articles. I suppose it was a bit unfair of me to do this without warning, so here is the list of articles I will be nominating in a bundle if Swetland is deleted: John Ingram McMorran Shitsu Nakano Elena Slough Emma Verona Johnston Camille Loiseau Grace Clawson Ura Koyama Susie Gibson Margaret Skeete Lucy Hannah Annie Jennings Hide Ohira All of these people are or were a) Dead, meaning that they won't get any more notable as time passes b) Not state or national longevity recordholders c) Never the world's oldest person, man or woman. Many were admittedly the oldest person in a nation at the time of their death but I do not feel that is sufficient per WP:PSEUDO. If I am mistaken and any of these articles fall into one of those three criteria let me know and I won't nominate it. Also, if any of these articles can be shown to be expandable into full length articles, I won't nominate them either. I want to contribute to supercentenarian, longevity and veteran articles and lists, but I just don't see the need for all these permastubs, and now I have a possible policy option to back me. Cheers, CP 00:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if you think it shouldn't be there, why don't you nominate it? You know you'll have me on board at least, along with a few others. Cheers, CP 17:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

However, this was posted to another user's page and I was NOT AWARE of this 'plan' to basically raze the 'supercentenarian biography' category. When you consider that most of the articles he was planning on nominating for deletionwere at or near the top-importance level in this field, it comes across as an all-out attack.

Let's review: John Ingram McMorran (oldest man in America, 113) Shitsu Nakano (Japan's oldest person, 113) Elena Slough (oldest living American, 114) Emma Verona Johnston (oldest living American, 114) Camille Loiseau (France's oldest person, 114) Grace Clawson (oldest living American, 114) Ura Koyama (Japan's oldest person, 114) Susie Gibson (at 115 or 116, one of the oldest people of all time) Margaret Skeete (at 115, one of the top 15 oldest people of all time) Lucy Hannah (at 117, one of the top 5 oldest people of all time) Annie Jennings (at 115, one of the top 25 oldest people of all time) Hide Ohira (at 114 years 236 days, older than the current world's oldest person)

Clearly, Canadian Paul is on a vendetta, and he left a trail of evidence that showed his conspiracy plans. I find it highly reprehensible to hatch a plan to 'take control'...a clear violation of WP:OWN. Note these articles were all started by a myriad of people (none by me, except Gladys Swetland). So, it seems the plan was to attack Swetland first, then go for even higher, then delete the remaining stubs. Seems like a 'Supercentenarian Holocaust'. Perhaps the worst idea is that these should be deleted because the people are 'dead'. Hello? Dying does not make one unencylopedic. Wikipedia is not just for current events. Current events need to be placed in context. The above attacks are the equivalent of attempting to delete people like Lou Gehrig from the Hall of Fame. After all, he's dead and didn't hit as many homers as Babe Ruth, right? Ryoung122 18:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

===Canadian Paul's Second Response===

The above discourse WAS posted on Mr. Young's talk page and was a specific attempt from me to get feedback about those articles and alert him that if he had a good reason for me to not nominate those people. I don't see how I am "taking control" of these articles by proposing to nominate them for deletion and achieve a consensus on Wikipedia. My "vendetta" is against articles that can or will never be expanded beyond stubs. I noted that they were dead because it means that they won't advance any higher in the ranks or become the world's oldest, as is mentioned in the very text Mr. Young quotes. Please also note the combative language being used to describe my activities (vendetta, conspiracy, Supercentenarian Holocaust). Cheers, CP 18:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, CP is 'baiting' (saying things to get other persons 'riled up'). Also, it should be noted that Wikipedia has been in existence for only a few years (at least as a major, comprehensive source) but has grown quite rapidly. Some of these articles SHOULD exist but were only started recently. To reconstruct them requires going back and finding the original newspaper citations (an easy feat, yes, but often those that start the article-stubs don't know where to find them). These articles are NOT 'perma-stubs'. There is material available and they can be expanded. Deleting them prematurely is irresponsible. Planning a massive deletion-nomination process on a massive scale (I've heard about 88 articles) is sheer lunacy. Attempting to delete some of the 'all-time recordholders' is simply absurd. I note that many of these people gained MAJOR media coverage. Moreover, other articles have already survived 'articles for deletion' (such as Edna Parker so CP seems to be not respecting already-established consensus, in favor of a conspiracy plan to re-set the bar. Let's face it, if someone proposed to nominate baseball articles on Roger Clemens, Nolan Ryan, and Tom Seaver, I don't think anyone would be taking that proposal seriously. If someone proposed to delete articles on the Empire State Building or even simply Citicorp Center, no one would taken that seriously, either.Ryoung122 19:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Young, this whole Wikiquette alert is about your personal attacks and you've turned it into an accusation about my plan to delete 88 articles (an accusation the requires evidence). Edna Parker was a wholly different case than these other articles, as she was still living at the time her deletion debate was discussed. You've now also accused me of baiting (no evidence for that, I'm allowed to defend myself here). The question here is not whether I am out to do delete these articles (which I am not, again evidenced in your talk page, I said I am leaving longevity articles alone, not to mention that these accusations are based on either twisted or no evidence at all). The question here is about YOUR personal attacks, which you have continued to perform in this very section, your accusations and most importantly, your legal threat, which is a very serious offense. Cheers, CP 19:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

==User:Canadian Paul, part II==

User Canadian Paul has in my opinion overreacted to what I considered to be an accurate and fair note placed on a discussion board. It seems this user will only be satisfied if he 'stomps' the opposition into the ground, with speech such as this below:

[edit] Bad Faith Accusation I found your bad faith accusation to be insulting and completely unacceptable given the amount of work that I have contributed to important longevity articles. I will no longer be contributing to longevity articles, I will spend my Wikipedia time working on articles and tasks where my efforts are not cheapened or called into question by editors who merely want a leg up in a deletion debate. You have crossed the line. All further communications from you will be ignored. Cheers, CP 15:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I find the above comments clearly out of line and from my point of view, the truth is the mirror opposite. Every accusation he has thrown at me has been a mirror of his own behavior. This seems to be some alpha-male competition for him. For me, it's about making sure that Wikipedia keeps articles that should be kept. I have more to say but I wonder if this is the appropriate place to discuss this. It seems to be an inflated-ego issue, and the material on Wikipedia is only tangential to the personality conflict. However, when others threaten punitive actions in order to get their way things have gone too far already.Ryoung122 17:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

More background information:

This dispute BEGAN here with unethical planning that included ideas of false allegations, such as WP:PSEUDO. Note the article existed BEFORE the list (by more than a year), so the accusation of simply making a 'stub' out of a list case was false.

1. User His Space Research suggests deleting the Gladys Swetland article as a test case, and includes some questionable ethical logic:

[edit] Too many supercentenarian permastubs Yeah. Well, some of these pseudobiographies could do with a merge to "List of supercentenarians from country X", or similar, although people may object to that idea and consider it listcruft. I suggest you try nominating the article for deletion to see what people think.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You should nominate Gladys Swetland as a trial, since it's not current, I think. We'll have to develop a more precise set of rules for determining the notability of supercentenarians. Also, I may have said this before but I recognise you from deathlist.net.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The above comments seem to be in violation of WP:OWN. Let's look again: "We'll have to develop a more precise set of rules for determining the notability fo supercentenarians." Uh, since when did these two appoint themselves to this position?

2. The article was nominated for deletion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gladys_Swetland

3. User Canadian Paul turns the discussion personal:

Notice Though it hasn't affected the discussion that I can tell, I would like to point out a possible use of Stealth canvassing to a possibly partisan audience (you need to register to be a member of the forum, which likely means you have an interest in gerontology at the least) here. Cheers, CP 17:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

4. I note that the nomination may have been in bad faith (including the idea that nominating an article that's 'not current' might be easier to delete, as fewer voters would notice).

Notice User Canadian Paul's nomination of this article may be in bad faith, in violation of WP:POINT 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Canadian_Paul

[edit] Too many supercentenarian permastubs Yeah. Well, some of these pseudobiographies could do with a merge to "List of supercentenarians from country X", or similar, although people may object to that idea and consider it listcruft. I suggest you try nominating the article for deletion to see what people think.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You should nominate Gladys Swetland as a trial, since it's not current, I think. We'll have to develop a more precise set of rules for determining the notability of supercentenarians. Also, I may have said this before but I recognise you from deathlist.net.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that 'not current' means 'easier to delete without others noticing'.

Ryoung122 08:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

5. User Canadian Paul responds extremely negatively and fails to take responsibility for any of his actions:

Bad Faith Accusation I found your bad faith accusation to be insulting and completely unacceptable given the amount of work that I have contributed to important longevity articles. I will no longer be contributing to longevity articles, I will spend my Wikipedia time working on articles and tasks where my efforts are not cheapened or called into question by editors who merely want a leg up in a deletion debate. You have crossed the line. All further communications from you will be ignored. Cheers, CP 15:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have 'crossed the line'? In other words, User CP is trying to put himself above me and be a dictator, and is fuming that I found evidence of a plan to do so.

6. I respond.

[edit] As You Make Your Bed, So You Must Lie in It (I posted the above message before I saw this):

+ ==Bad Faith Accusation==

+ I found your bad faith accusation to be insulting and completely unacceptable given the amount of work that I have contributed to important longevity articles. I will no longer be contributing to longevity articles, I will spend my Wikipedia time working on articles and tasks where my efforts are not cheapened or called into question by editors who merely want a leg up in a deletion debate. You have crossed the line. All further communications from you will be ignored. Cheers, CP 15:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC) I found the 'bad faith' accusation quite on the mark. Yes, you have contributed a lot. However, you have also caused chaos and not respected the work of others. You have made your own 'bad faith' accusations as if you were some "Wiki-Star". Get off your high horse. You're 21 years old. Unless you founded FACEBOOK or something, don't be treating other people as if 'GOD' has just walked into the room. The claim that I would call into question your actions merely to get a 'leg up' in an AFD debate is a typical example. No, I believe down to the core that your actions were ill-considered and inappropriate. Whether the idea was yours or planted by another, to attack an article simply to 'move the chains forward' for an agenda (to make it easier to take out lesser articles, something you already stated you proposed to do) is completely unacceptable. The chance of living to age 113.66 is estimated to be about 1 in 100 million or so. In the same way that we have lists (and articles) for the 200 tallest buildings in the world, is it too much to ask to actually 'document' a case? Instead of everyone having to 'take our word for it' that a case is notable...providing the details allows others to investigate and double-check. I note that the Encyclopedia Britannica as recently as the 1980's wrote that 'no human has ever lived more than 113 years 124 days'. For those not trusting the Izumi case, the first person to verifably reach Ms. Swetland's age was Fannie Thomas and that was in late 1980. True, the 'conveyor belt' has moved higher and there may come a point in the future when '113 years 240 days' is no longer a big deal, but since Ms. Swetland's death the records have actually gone lower...she would now be '4th oldest' if alive today, not '9th oldest'.

Moreover, such an attack seems to be anti-US bias. I note the USA currently has 6 of the top 10 oldest verified living people. Should we then ONLY create articles for the oldest American, ignoring the other five, while creating articles for much-younger persons such as Florrie Baldwin?

Now, back to the remainder of your note:

I will no longer be contributing to longevity articles,

Good riddance! I will spend my Wikipedia time working on articles and tasks where my efforts are not cheapened or called into question by editors

Wikipedia does that every day, day in, day out, to everyone. Including you. Get used to it. You have crossed the line.

Once again, a police-like mentality. No, I did not cross the line, you did. You began the attack for the wrong reason, not me. I'm not going to defend every article...I dropped Yasu Nihiyama and Tsuneyo Toyonaga (the first time). But there comes a point when throwing out an article is akin to kicking a worthy player out of the Hall of Fame. You could easily have gone after some mere 110-year-old permastub with little or no significance. Instead you decided to play chess and go after someone in the top 10%. That's right. Of 1054 persons aged 110+, Gladys ranked in the top 9%. That's an "A". Further, you began a personal attack on me first, in addition to the attacks on John Campbell Ross and Gladys Swetland. No, I was NOT closely monitoring every article I ever created (over 60). Yes, I did find it highly unethical to suggest nominating an article that would be 'easier to delete' since no one might notice (given it wasn't in the news lately). The FACT of the matter is, the majority of people that vote for deletion don't have any idea what the subject is about in the first place. The main purpose of the longevity articles is, in fact, not to tell the public that 'Gladys plays the piano'. It is to inform the public just what the maximum human lifespan is, and give a few examples on the frontier of survival. When you only cite the 'oldest person' and that's it, children develop a concept of a large gap between the 'oldest celebrities' (like George Burns, 100) and the 'world's oldest woman' (age 114). Creating a list of the '100 oldest people of all time' helps to show that, in fact, there is no 'gap.' Like a kid collecting baseball player cards and learning about stats, so these 'perma'-stubs, especially when expanded, can serve as collective examples of:

A. How long people really live (in fact, the tight-knit bundling of the ages shows that the real age maximums are quite close together, making it easier for children to recognize that claims to age '125' are bogus) B. Various strategies of success on how to live a long, long life (hint: it's not the same for everyone) C. People of all 'races' all live about the same length of time as everyone else D. Kids will learn a little about history, as well.

True, in the same way that children have their favorite 'sports' team, nationalism plays a role here, too. So we need 'examples' from many different nations. But we shouldn't short-sheet the 'large' nations, either. In the same way that children need to know that '9 out of 10 supercentenarians are female' so showing that the USA is first in supercentenarians just might raise a lot of good questions that lead to answers such as "part of the reason the USA has so many supercentenarians is that there hasn't been a war here since 1865"...which reflects on issues of larger society as well.

Yes, I have all these ideas in mind. This is bigger than just Gladys or you or me. It is about educating the world.

All further communications from you will be ignored. Cheers,

Saying 'cheers' after verbally stabbing someone somehow just doesn't band-aid over the previous vitriol. By the way, 'have a nice day.'Ryoung122 16:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree I upped the ante a bit...but it was on CP's user page and I didn't feel it was relevant to the discussion. Since CP turned it personal and finished off with things such as "I will ignore you from now on," it seemed reasonable for me to let him know, 'one last time,' what I really thought.

But of course the claim to 'ignore me' was false. Soon we have round #7:

WP:OWN, WP:HARASS and WP:ATTACK are three pieces of policy that may soon become of immediate interest to you. I was prepared to defend myself against your bad faith accusation and leave it at that, but you have continued to attack me. I would like you to present me with evidence of the following claims:

you have also caused chaos and not respected the work of others You have made your own 'bad faith' accusations as if you were some "Wiki-Star" Further, you began a personal attack on me first, in addition to the attacks on John Campbell Ross and Gladys Swetland - Pointing out that Ross has no source for being Australia's oldest, even by your own admission, is not an "attack" I am highly considering bringing these accusations to the attention of the administration, as well as the following personal attacks:

Get off your high horse. You're 21 years old. Moreover, such an attack seems to be anti-US bias. I nominated Swetland in good faith with very well spelled out intentions and reasoning, reasoning that others have agreed with me (hence the other delete votes) and despite you saying that they don't know enough about the topic, they have every right to vote for or against deletion. Yet you continue to attack me over my nomination even though I was prepared to walk away. I am now considering bringing this to administrative attention.

P.S. Cheers is an automatic part of my signature. Cheers, CP 17:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, it seems that User CP is NOT focused on the issues but on making himself the Wikipedia policeman. So, I simply mirror his vitriol back to him in round #8:

8. Canadian Paul, I THOUGHT you said that 'All further communications from you will be ignored." I guess you changed your mind. In any case, in regards to these accusations:

WP:OWN, WP:HARASS and WP:ATTACK are three pieces of policy that may soon become of immediate interest to you.

This sounds like a threat. That is, a threatening message against me and attempted intimidation/harassment to get your way. I do not for one second believe that you are in the right here and I will defend myself vigorously and will press charges in return if you choose to continue YOUR campaign of harassment. I note that YOUR Aug 24 2007 comment was extremely hateful and vile and was a disproportionate reaction to what was a considered and fair posting on the Gladys Swetland articles for deletion 'discussion' page. As Bart Versieck...who felt like you 'stabbed in the back'...said...WHY? That I happened to find out 'why' and posted your own words is my right and is relevant to the discussion result.

In regards to the WP:HARASS and WP:ATTACK claim...these are unfounded. First off, until this week we often worked together. The above comment made on Aug 24 was the first indication that you wanted to cease communication...yet you continued anyway. Communication is a two-way street. You cannot 'cease' communication if you continue to do so as well. Also, the comments I made to/about you were on your message board, not in the main discussion, so I don't see how they can be seen as 'harassment' or an 'attack.' What WAS posted in the main discussion was relevant to the discussion. And I note that once again, your comments to me seem to be a 'game' of 'one-upmanship.' Considering you started it, I find it highly indefensible for you to claim some moral higher ground.

So, where do we go from here:

A. Cold War...we can agree to a truce and that's it.

B. Take it the next level. My comments were a reaction to your unbelievably vitriolic comments made first. If you choose to pursue a scorched-Earth policy, then I truly believe you are the problem. I will request mediation and third-party intervention.

The choice is yours.Ryoung122 17:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Notice I offered a 'truce' but this was quickly rejected in round #9:

9. I have decided to post the dispute here, my case will be up shortly. Pointing out that you are violating three important Wikipolicies is not a threat. Claiming that you will "press charges" against me, however, is. Cheers, CP 17:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I acknowledge that user CP has effectively 'declared war'.

10. Whether I am violating those policies or not is not for you to decide. In fact, it seems that you violated those policies and I will be making that assertion. I also note that your comments came first.Ryoung122 17:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, I'm not about 'hiding things under the rug'. Telling the third parties exactly what happened is the best way to arrive at the facts. The bottom line is if someone throws proverbial stones, I feel the right to respond in kind. Perhaps I should remember "Wikipedia: No angry mastodons" but give me credit, at least I realize it; User CP is not happy unless he is 'alpha-male'. The bottom line: CP started this and it quickly escalated. In fairness I think a good idea is to 'take a breather'. However, posting the entire chain of events first is important to establish what led to what.

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 18:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

===Additional Information===

Greetings,

In regards to this posting:

Notice Though it hasn't affected the discussion that I can tell, I would like to point out a possible use of Stealth canvassing to a possibly partisan audience (you need to register to be a member of the forum, which likely means you have an interest in gerontology at the least) here. Cheers, CP 17:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I find this highly dishonest. Number one, needing to 'register' is something you do on virtually all major forums...including Wikipedia. Given that registration is FREE (and apparently Canadian Paul is a member or how did he know about it?) and registrants are able to maintain anonymity (with 700+ members and membership anonymity (unless they choose to self-identify), am I going to go through every anonymous ID to delete those that aren't favorable? Not possible). Second, Canadian Paul said himself that persons should be 'informed' of what he plans to do...or did that mean only those who agreed with his pro-deletionist actions? Ryoung122 18:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

===Additional Response===

Stealth canvassing is generally against Wikipedia policy, and certainly in this case its use was questionable. People should be informed ON wikipedia because it's public and everyone can see it. Furthermore, yes, all forums require registration to post. But most can at least be viewed be those who aren't registered. Unless you're a member of Yahoo! Groups, you cannot read the postings. The extra effort it takes to access these posts was used as proof of possible partisanship. Cheers, CP 18:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

===Point-by-Point Rebuttal===

I re-quote another comment to provide point-by-point rebuttal:

WP:OWN, WP:HARASS and WP:ATTACK are three pieces of policy that may soon become of immediate interest to you.

Clearly, this sounds like a threat. You could have said that you considered me to be in violation of these policies and that if I continued, you would report it (it's called a WARNING). However, you didn't do that. Instead you went straight to the 'it's too late, you're in trouble' threat. Thus, what you said was a THREAT.Ryoung122 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I was prepared to defend myself against your bad faith accusation and leave it at that,

But you didn't. First, you responded extremely negatively and then claimed would ignore me from now on, but you didn't stop there, either.Ryoung122 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

but you have continued to attack me.

I only responded to what you already said. That's not 'continuing to attack you.' Making yourself the 'victim' here looks hollow.Ryoung122 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like you to present me with evidence of the following claims:

you have also caused chaos and not respected the work of others

That would take a long time, wouldn't it?

You have made your own 'bad faith' accusations as if you were some "Wiki-Star" Further, you began a personal attack on me first, in addition to the attacks on John Campbell Ross and Gladys Swetland - Pointing out that Ross has no source for being Australia's oldest, even by your own admission, is not an "attack"

You insisted on deletion even though I told you the source was out due to a death in his family. That doesn't mean we don't have one. You could have simply added an 'unsourced' tag and left it at that.

I am highly considering bringing these accusations to the attention of the administration, as well as the following personal attacks:

Get off your high horse. You're 21 years old. Moreover, such an attack seems to be anti-US bias. I nominated Swetland in good faith with very well spelled out intentions and reasoning,

These comments were made on your userpage, not on a discussion page. Also, the point was that if we ONLY include a 'one person from each country' (National recordholder) then the U.S. loses out. Since the US has by far the largest supercentenarian population, it would be incredibly unfair to give only one representative to the U.S. I know, this is akin to the big state/small state argument over representation in Congress. Should Rhode Island have the same number of congressmen as Texas? I think not. Also, you attempted to change John Babcock from 'American' to 'Canadian' centenarian (even though he turned 100 in the USA and has lived here for over 80 years). I guess Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't American, either. Thus, I stand by the comments made and don't see them as an attack but as a point of contention.Ryoung122 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

reasoning that others have agreed with me (hence the other delete votes)

'Stacking the deck'. You don't mention that there were 'votes to keep' and not just on this article. In fact, most supercentenarian articles nominated for deletion have been kept.

and despite you saying that they don't know enough about the topic, they have every right to vote for or against deletion. Yet you continue to attack me over my nomination even though I was prepared to walk away. I am now considering bringing this to administrative attention.

You never at any point informed me that you were 'prepared to walk away.' Such a claim is frivilous. I note you claimed to 'ignore me from now on' after posting your negative comments but when I responded to them you then responded seconds later.Ryoung122 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Cheers is an automatic part of my signature. Cheers, CP 17:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I final note: "Cheers" is an automatic part of his signature. In other words, he doesn't really mean it in all situations. Perhaps I should learn a lesson, however: sugarcoating goes further than truth-telling. So, 'have a nice day.'Ryoung122 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am contemplating proposing an immediate three week ban for the next person who adds to this huge attempt to carry on the debate in the Wikiquette alerts. Fortunately, I am not an admin, so random thoughts like this don't have any real impact. :-)

Calm down, guys. At this point you both seem to be abusing the Wikiquette alerts page; which may not have been the wisest option. Someone will have a look at it, soon enough. Be a bit patient. I may try to reformat a bit to get rid of long lines with a leading space. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now cleared up the alert a bit. I have removed all subheadings by adding some kind of leading indent marker. I have done the same for lines with a leading space, which make this page too wide. I have boxed up the whole thing in a NavFrame so it does not distract from the rest of the page. The end result may not be optimal, but if anyone really wants to read through, they can do so. I suggest that nobody bother reading it at all, until the following points just below have been addressed first.

If anyone here would like this handled as a Wikiquette alert, then they should take a deep breath, and look carefully at the guidance information at the top of this page, especially the #Instructions for users posting alerts.

Having done so, then make a concise, clear, neutral, polite statement of the problem. Bear in mind that you are writing this for the benefit of the wikiquette editors, not the person with whom you are in dispute. Don't use a subheading. Just give a simple paragraph pointing out the main problem you see and that you think Wikiquette may be able to help with. One or three links that can be used as a starting point for finding where the problem arises is useful. Giving twenty links is likely to backfire when they are all ignored. Over to you again, my friends. Good luck, and may the coolest win. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Without being specific (the details are in the NavFrame), User:Ryoung122 has engaged in personal attacks, harassment and has an outstanding legal threat against me on my talk page. In order to drown out my complaints, he has further harassed me by inventing a conspiracy where I am supposedly committing "Supercentenarian Holocaust" by preparing to nominate "88 articles" for deletion. He has exaggerated and misrepresented facts and even made up some facts (for example, he quotes an exchange that is clearly on his talk page, claiming that I was hiding my intentions by not informing him) He has posted this conspiracy on his personal webpage and invited others to have their say by directing them to this page. He also claims that I caused "chaos" and "failed to respect the works of others" while refusing to cite any examples. The dispute erupted after I nominated Gladys Swetland for deletion and he accused me of a bad faith nomination after I pointed out his stealth canvassing. To this I was angered and responded uncivilly on his talk page, although I did not make any personal attacks. My most pressing concern in the outstanding legal threat, but the harassment I am getting regarding this "conspiracy" (which is simply untrue; I even wrote on his talk page that I have no desire to work on longevity articles anymore to which he replied "Good riddance!") is an issue too. I have made many important contributions to supercentenarian articles, including full references for List of living supercentenarians and Living national longevity recordholders. Other than a few comments on some user talk pages, where I discussed setting a standard for which supercentenarian articles should stay and which should go, there is no conspiracy here - especially since my explicit statement has always been that if the Gladys Swetland case did not get deleted in AfD (and it does not look like it will), I wouldn't bother nominating anything else. Cheers, CP 23:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)