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:Arcayne

Stale

I have detailed below just a few incidences of Arcayne breaking Wikipedia policy. He has been blocked seven times for this--although two blocks were lifted. He has also exhibits WP:OWN on the 300 film article.

Incivility

Arcayne accused me of having a "merry little band", and having a "frail post-Persian psyche". Arcayne has told me to use my "noggin". [1] He has called me and other editors at the 300 article "Petulant, vengeful children" [2]

Arcayne has accused those that disagree with him of being "a pro-nationalist group of editors".[3]

Alteration of other users edits on talk

[4] User Arcayne has changed the header of a section on his talk page, even though I created it. The original header was "Stalking". Please see [5]. His edit summary was "May [sic] talk page - if I wish to change contentious edits, or headers, I will." This is very misleading since I never accused him of stalking me (that is, until months later when definitive evidence was provided), which the changed header "Who's Stalking Who?" implies.

He removed my answer to his question from his talk page. [6]. And called the answer, which was sourced from ArbCom, vandalism (rvv).

Sniping in talk pages

Arcayne sniped me on Dmcdevit's talk page and recieved this admonishment by Dmcdevit: "Please do not refer to other ediors you disaree with as vandals, as this is uncivil". Furthermore, to his accusations of harassment he responded "The proper response to harassment is not response in kind."[7]

Sarcasm and tone that has been disruptive

"That I find little patience for proven POV editing is not against Wikipedia policy; while I choose to be perhaps a bit insulting of the POV nonsense and not at all sensitive to the frail post-Persian psyche, I would remind you and others that it is not my job at WP to make you feel better. You have mommies for that, and I am not your mommy" [8]

"I am presuming you read it, since you track my edits." [9]

Prejudice comments

"...your problems likely run deeper than nuclear instpections and snagging up Brits", [10] Arcayne later claimed he was talking to the Iranian government, but could not explain why he was talking to the Iranian government on my talk page. You will see further examples of him saying he was referring to other people when he is attacking me.

Accusation of Stalking

Arcayne has accused me of stalking on multiple occasions. Please see [11]. He also accused me of stalking The Behnam and harassing him on Dmcdevit's talk page. I did not stalk in either cases.

Arcayne stalking me

Arcayne recently followed me to the Persian Gulf article and tried to argue with me there. He had never edited that page. This happened during a dispute on the 300 film article. Please see [12]. This is a prime example of wikistalking. I decided not accuse him of it until there was definitive evidence (I did not want to violate AGF).--Agha Nader (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Perhaps it would be important to point out that all of these instances (but the last, referring to the comments in Talk:Persian Gulf) are more than six months old. It's my understanding that the source of his Wikiquette alert is from a sub-page of his user account called RFC/User:Arcayne, created back in April of this year. Talk about holding a grudge. I believe he was inspired to submit this here because he would have found some difficulty with finding someone who would agree that a six-month-old RfC was worthy of consideration. And even 6 months ago, Nader's own conduct (and misinterpretation of events and statements taken out of context) would have sunk him in any RfC proceeding.

It also bears mentioning that Nader is currently arguing in the 300 article (which became FA after all the partisan editing went away) that we should be using the word 'Iranians' to replace 'ancient Persians'. And has been scolded by other, established editors for edit-warring and initially refusing to discuss a contentious edit. When he finally made his way to Discussion, he began making fairly impolite comments, which have become increasingly uncivil.

As far as the contributions to Persian Gulf, there have been three I've made in over 2 years. the first was to tell folks to essentially calm down, and the second was to counsel Nader for accusing someone of sockpuppetry (where RFCU and SPP are immediately available and can resolve the situation quickly and without the perception of personal attacks). The third time was to point out that Nader needed to read the earlier post, as he accused me of wiki-stalking, which is odd, considering that he then followed me to another user's page and commented there.

It is unfortunate that Agha Nader seems to consider those who disagree with his point of view to be targets for incivility and unwarranted accusations, and not just in one article, but across the spectrum of his edits. I say unfortunate because, when he isn't pushing a nationalist point of view, he can perform very good edits. Where his nationalism comes into play, he becomes somewhat narrow-visioned (which is fair to say of anyone, I guess). I do wish he would learn to recognize when his point of view is compromised and withdraw accordingly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I have serious concerns about Arcayne's behavior, I am no longer pursuing this claim. I do this because Arcayne and Fayssal have requested me to. I also do this in hopes of resolving this problem.--Agha Nader (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

user:Lima

Work in Progress - comments welcome

Request for third-party opinion: The respective involved parties have said their pieces. Could some uninvolved editors please review the comments below and offer their opinions? (And could someone please attach this request to the Work in Progress tag?) Leadwind (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is Lima altering two cited sentences and leaving the citations in place. [13] He's implying that the RS says what it didn't say. He came in about an hour after I had added the citations and altered them. This is just the last, clearest example of his campaign of opposition against me. He apparently defends a pro-Catholic POV. Meanwhile, I'm consulting reliable sources on religious topics (purgatory, baptism, early Christianity, etc.). I've got a POV (who doesn't?), but I'm happy to use RSs and simply want Lima to do the same. I want to use several RSs to fashion a standard definition of purgatory; Lima wants to quote the catechism. I can sing a long song of grievances, but let's start with him altering cited information. This has got to be a faux pas, and I hope someone can tell him so, please. Leadwind 03:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Leadwind (talk · contribs) on this, given that Lima (talk · contribs) is misinterpreting the citations for a non-balanced viewpoint. Other editors seem to agree with this stance as well. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For what I did wrong, I apologize. When I edited that text, it seemed to me that the statements (which are not between inverted commas) attributed to the source could not have been exact. Does the source say simply: "Jesus did not baptize"? Surely the author of the source knew of John 4:1–2, which says it was reported that Jesus baptized (not personally, but his disciples did). In any case I did not change what was attributed to the source, which is what Leadwind accuses me of: I, in a way that I recognize was wrong, gave an interpretation of the apparent contradiction between the 20th-century source and the 1st-century source to which I drew attention. I thought that infelicities in what I wrote would be ironed out by other editors. With regard to the second change from "doctrine about baptism" to "forms of baptism", I thought this was necessary, because the examples that followed were, I thought, only about the manner in which baptism was administered (the text itself uses the word "form"), unrelated to doctrine (what baptism is, what it does). Does the source really speak of the variable forms of early Christian baptism as variable doctrine? (In view of the touchiness shown, I have since then refrained from correcting a more obviously false attribution of incorrect information to a source.) These two changes, done perhaps rather too hurriedly, followed the other change that I made and that I thought was made necessary by Leadwind's insertion of the word "immerse" as if it were the only meaning of the word "βαπτίζω": the article itself states that the meaning of this word was broader, as Leadwind too indicated when he reported his source as saying that the usual method of baptism was by pouring water over the upper part of the body of someone standing in water. This is not baptism by immersion as usually understood. Now that I have explained myself, I will add that I hope the Wikipedia community will reprimand me for what I did. Certain people, who have now got together here and here, have been making me spend too much time on Wikipedia, and I would love a pretext to retire. Lima 05:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop, you're creepin' people out. Eschoir (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me started on Lima - he has reverted Eucharist 13 times without saying what he challenges among the new material, if anything, deletes sourced content and substitutes distorted paraphrase, constantly argues a position using primary sources, won't answer yes or no questions in Talk, defends a pro-Western Catholic POV, doesn't understand basic editing like usage of [sic] in text, has tried to have me banned first as a sockpuppet, then as a sockpuppeteer, tried outing my private Identity, and generally wastes a lot of time dealing with him. Eschoir 05:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who views the corresponding Talk page can see that I have indeed been pressing Eschoir to discuss our differences of opinion. Lima 05:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If there's any question as to whether Lima's errors were innocent, I'm happy to provide context to show that they weren't. But I don't want to jam this page with my litany of wrongs. I'll happily respond to direct questions. Leadwind (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Some further comment is found here. Lima (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Leadwind has asked me to comment here-- and I I can substantiate that Lima and I have very different points of view about what a NPOV, Verifiable article looks like. Our specific dispute has been over the article Purgatory. I made major rewrites to the article, but Lima reverted them wholesale. One two other occiasions, I've tried to make similar changes, only to find that my changes were wholesale reverted-- leading me to withdraw from the page until there's the edit-warring situation resolves itself.

I can't go so far as to say Lima's POV concerns are completely without merit, but the net effect of interacting with him led me to seek other places on the project where I could be more useful without having to fight so hard to improve things. Whether Lima's behavior is problematic or whether my changes were problematic is, of course, something neither he nor I can objectively comment on-- but if others have found him to be a little POV-pushy in other context, perhaps he should be looked at just a tad, so see if ya can help him stop. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that Alec's brough it up, let me jump in and say that Lima's repeated pattern on Purgatory is to make life unpleasant for editors that he disagrees with until they leave. That's what Alec did, twice. I've also seen it with other editors. He's been in mediation twice with me, and we've done at least 4 RfCs. The page has had the POV tag since February, and Lima has been the most active and unpleasant in attempts to keep others from fixing the page. Like I said, making cited information wrong is just the latest and clearest transgression of Lima's. I was hoping that a word from an objective third party would help straighten him out, so I set up this alert. Leadwind (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop engaging in original research. Please stop making uncivil and snarky comments, especially as editor notes in article space. Also, please do not make edits to prove a point. I implore you to deal with me politely and to work productively towards article improvement. If there's a content conflict we cannot resolve, we can take it to dispute resolution. However, the disruptive and rude attitude you've taken is not acceptable. Vassyana 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC) [Best not to respond to this objection to counter-arguments being inserted in "editor notes in article space" (<!-- ... -->) to balance the arguments inserted in the same editor notes by the objector. On alleged Original Research, see below.]

Original research is prohibited. You cannot use primary sources, like the Bible, to argue against secondary sources. You cannot advance your own position or form your own interpretation. You must cite reliable sources to put forward such arguments and discussions. This has been repeatedly explained to you. Please take the time to read and understand our content policies. Vassyana 03:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir quoted Vassyana. Vassyana had been the mediator between Lima and me when we were in mediation. V has since taken a wikibreak and drastically limited their participation, partly because of obstructionist editors on WP. --Leadwind 70.102.136.132 (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

With two editors on record trying to get Lima to stop using OR, and two on record trying to get him to stop being snarky, would we be well-served to bump this up to an RfC on Lima? Maybe we wait to see how this Wikiquette alert turns out first? Leadwind (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Lima got to be too much for me for a little while. I developed an aversion to Wiki in recent days because I might have to deal with him. He is an attention seeking missile who would be on "ignore" in a chat room. He has affirmed that he reverted edits even though he did not challenge the content, which he agreed with, to get me to "discuss" them with him, yet he won't respond to any questions put to him when the invitation to discuss is put to him. I've read his work and mine togeter and it sucks because it is the product of edit warring. His attitude is real drama queen, he is inconsistant, and can't just go about his work and entertain a neutral POV. HE is going to drive away more editors than he brings in. Just my opinion. Eschoir (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What now? It seems as though we've said our respective pieces. I hope that the Wikiquette alert leads to some experienced third party sharing their perspective on these conflicts for our benefit. Leadwind (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:ADouBTor

This user has been engaged in a dispute over the history of China template. He seems to believe that showing the Republic of China as continuing from 1912-the present to be POV pushing, and that separating the People's Republic of China from it with a line somehow suggests that the PRC is subordinate to the ROC. He first accused me of inadvertent vandalism [14]. I then contacted him on his talk page [15]. Subsequently, he (properly IMO) moved the discussion to the template talk page. He has since accused another editor of adding incorrect information [16]. Discussion there has been met with insults [17] [18]. There also seems to be a case of not getting the point regarding the discussion that other users have been trying to have as well as ownership of articles.Ngchen 14:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:NgChen

Please keep in mind that I was representing the on-going situation and wrote/modified based on factual documents, not by opinion based information (opinion of Taiwan island doesn't belongs to PRC by Taiwanese) which this user was trying to promote. On the contary, the information this user stated was baseless and without supportive evidence neither by official documentations nor agreed course of historical events.

As all of the editors/contributors here might known, delibrate addition of opinion material (not being NPOV) is an act of vandalism.

Thirdly, at which point did I made insults (insult of personal integrity like "You are a waste" or "Go back to kidergarden and relearn the facts, you are just like a small kiddo", etc). Those references you pointed out shows me making remindals of the basic operations of Wikipedia which wasn't opinion of myself and wasn't baseless. Also, I did not claim ownership in anyway. If two parties are engaged in a debate, supportive or unsupportive, that doesn't make it a claim of ownership.

Lastly, with regards to me not getting the point, it seems to be this user not getting my point and keeps posting his opinionised points. My points was picked up by user:readin later which was rebutted.

All I can about this debate as, or if, I was an observer, was nothing but senseless misunderstanding of the interpretation of the lines used, which i pointed it out in one of my post.

However, instead of ceasing the senseless debate, this user continues the senseless onslaught(everything about this debate is senseless after a serious thinking) here in Wikiquette, which I am left with no choice but to defend myself here, when I am planning to make my life happier and cease fire =D.ADouBTor (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Words to NgChen. Please try and understand the meaning of each phrase and sentences before trying to make an empty 'rebute'(or how-ever you spells it). It's a fact only Readin has understood me.

User:Ronz

Resolved

 – User not in violation of WP:PROFANITY; NeutralBosnian has dropped the request.

This user has repeatedly battled to retrieve sections which are already covered in Previous Archives and in this way is repeating the same sections in each Archive which to me qualifies as spam, as people can list archives easily and chose what topic they want to read. So I am reporting vandalism & spam. Further - this user is supporting dismissal and 'Peakocking' of famous anthropologist to satisfy one-sided non-neutral perspective. I doubt this user is interested in dialogue as he/she has resorted to vandalism more often then discussion. This user's behaviour is in evidence particularly in: Talk:Bosniaks. NeutralBosnian 17:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:NeutralBosnian, WP:Third opinion#Active disagreements, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:NeutralBosnian reported by User:Ronz (Result: ) 18:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Further - The content which Ronz is war'ing over contains swear words by user Frvernchanezzz in Talk:Bosniaks#Ethnic make up to dismiss Genetic evidence and further the Slavophile agenda by trying to therefore airbrush a people and their Government/Uni based references which claim that Bosniaks have Illyrian/Goth/Celt Genetic heritage almost exclusively... NeutralBosnian 18:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss the situation. I don't believe I've vandalized anything in any way, let alone spammed. I archived old discussions and some inappropriate discussions. When NeutralBosnian restored some of them, I sought third-party opinion. As for "dismissal", I simply asked for verification, which is what another editor had already requested in his edit summary, in order to try to make some progress with a dispute. When NeutralBosnian removed my, and others' comments from the talk page, I restored them as legitimate discussions. If NeutralBosnian has a problem with Frvernchanezzz, he should discuss the issue with him. --Ronz 19:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Ronz is unable to remain Civil, and is promoting a narrow one-sided propaganda as well as foul and unprofessional language via repeated undo's of comments with adult language. Wikipedia does not endorse bias especially bias with evidence. Ronz has failed to take action against adult language while Ronz has not failed to take action against perspective on history other than his own. 83.67.3.166 21:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any effort on your part whatsoever to discuss, much less support, such assertions. Please read WP:TALK, which is already linked on your talk page, then either remove your accusations above, or follow WP:DR. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

83.67.3.166, your very dispute is laughable, and most level headed Bosniaks would not agree with you. No prominent Bosniak Wiki-editors, (such as Kseferovic), have ever made any such ridiculous claims, and never will, because they accept, and our proud of, the truth, which is, Bosniaks are Slavs. This is 100% factually accurate, and only those who operate on the very fringes of science try to suggest that Bosniaks are anything other than Slavs. Please don't try to insert any ridiculous pseudo-historical "facts" about Bosniaks being "100% Illyrian/Aryan/Blonde-haired blue eyed Scandinavians but we just speak Slavic language" because it is complete rubbish. There are a lot of people who believe many of the lies and half truths presented on Wikipedia, but no one in his right mind would ever believe anything so blatantly erroneous. - Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The following was moved from WP:THIRD:

User Ronz seems to be very unreasonable and uncivil, with active deletion of any content which doesn't favour Slavophile agenda. In that biast direction Ronz has dismissed and therefore insulted famous anthropologist and any possible Bosniak perspective. There is space for everybody's point of view, not just the Slavophile one. I have tried to reason with Ronz and have given up. Ronz has repeatedly Spammed and Vandalised Wikipedia pages which I tried to retrieve because they were repeats of topics already discussed and resolved in previous archives. I suggest Admin action on this. Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ronz and Talk:Bosniaks. NeutralBosnian 18:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Can an Admin please stop user Ronz from modifying my discussion comments and changing what I typed, he has now done it repeatedly without warning in Talk:Bosniaks. 83.67.73.117 (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

After a cursory look in at the talk pages mentioned, I don't see evidence of incivility by Ronz. Rather I see a long list of requests for discussion and appeals to policy. It is clearly a contentious and emotionally charged issue, and there have been refactorings of the talk pages in question by Ronz and by his accusers, but I would like to see some diffs in order to follow precisely what specific instances of incivility being complained about. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think he's talking about this, but it's nothing more than comment splitting. I see no error in Ronz (talk · contribs)'s contributions. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Disagreements do not equal incivility, as implied by this alert. I consider the issue closed. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bradeos Graphon, I cannot fatham why you have ignored the fact that User:Ronz has undone comments with Adult Language via a WP:BATTLE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralBosnian (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is coming from a NeutralBosnian (talk · contribs · count · block log) who has a 3RR block and incivility warnings. Also, please cite a DIFF where he has used "adult" language. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

look at the bottom of the page for 'bull' And those incivility warnings are initiated by this user who seems to have reversed biased and contents with adult language, as well as Frvernchanezzz who has written adult language in Wikipedia.NeutralBosnian (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So? Wikipedia is not censored, and given that the word bullshit is not used to shock or intimidate the reader, WP:PROFANITY does not apply here. You were given warnings for repeated blankings and reverts, and an administrator felt that you were not heeding your warnings. It would be appropriate if you would stop deleting, removing or reverting content that contains "adult" language. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The user who used the word "bullshit" was commenting on a content issue at that point, not another user. Some previous refactoring of comments by Ronz would seem to have been in aid of interrupting a cycle of ad hominem statements. A person is allowed to express opinions germane to article content on the article talk page, so deleting an entire section of discussion will be seen as disruptive. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's news to me, at the moment usage of Adult Language is not to be frowned upon by Admins especially as it by default leads to negative reactions and aids to further problems. NeutralBosnian (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Language like that is frowned upon if it specifically violates policy. As a means of expression, any given admin may or may not care personally, but administrators will react to issues that fall under the umbrellas of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:PROFANITY. Those are your benchmarks. Unilaterally assigning motives to others working with those policies but whom you personally disagree with will not help your argument. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've read all three of those in detail and the section which Ronz kept reverting had WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:PROFANITY. You've not even warned or banned Ronz at or Frvernchanezzz at all. Case closed. NeutralBosnian (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

NeutralBosnian has been indef blocked as a ban evading sock. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Mayalld

I'd like to document the problems I've been having with this user. The user removed a lot of text I had been writing on the Grandiosa-page, which I thought was unnecessary. And later, I think the user was harassing me. I'll copy from the discussion:

'[edit] I really don't think that we are getting anywhere fast The problem that we have is that Johncons has an agenda here. He suspects foul play, and is determined to say so in the article, one way or another.

We are never going to get anywhere if we start off from the position of "I want the article to say this, how do I achieve it". That is POV pushing, and can only lead to further edit protection of the article, and blocking of Johncons from editing to protect the article from further POV pushing.

Johncons, if you really want to improve this article, please enter into a discussion here. A discussion is NOT simply demanding that your questions are answered, it is not adding reams and reams more text to the discussion trying to prove your case, it is not crafting questions to try and "win" an argument by getting a yes/no answer to a question so that you can extrapolate out to suport what you want to do.

Unless you can edit the article from a NPOV, it is best that you don't edit it at all.

Mayalld 16:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Ros0709 16:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already mentioned my agenda.

There were many things to comment at once.

So if we could take one thing at a time, then that would be fine I think.

Johncons 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so here are three points for you to take one at a time;

Please stop typing your replies with many paragraph spaces. It just makes the talk pages longer and longer Please keep your arguments short. More words doesn't mean more right Please accept, once and for all, that Wikipedia is NOT the place to pursue your agenda. Mayalld 16:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grandiosa"'.

I don't think the user is acting civil or in good faith. I think the user is harassing me, and also trying to dictate the editing. And I think this user and also an other user, Ros0709, is trying to 'overflow' me, with information on the Grandiosa discussion-page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grandiosa

I'm quite new on Wikipedia, but I hope I've proceded in the right way regarding this. Thanks for the help in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncons (talk • contribs)

I don't see the etiquette issue. It appears to be a content dispute. I would urge you to review WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISPUTE Dlabtot (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Example of not having good faith and also not acting civil I think, because these answers, weren't with the case, these were advice not asked for, I would say they are patronising, person attack and impolite:

'Please stop typing your replies with many paragraph spaces. It just makes the talk pages longer and longer Please keep your arguments short. More words doesn't mean more right Please accept, once and for all, that Wikipedia is NOT the place to pursue your agenda.'.

Example of not having good faith (I had already explained my agenda): 'The problem that we have is that Johncons has an agenda here.'.

And there were examples of overflow of information from both mentioned users. Thats impolite and not civil, I think. These are the etiquette issues, and more can be found on the page in the link. I can have a new look on a later occation if someone wants more with the etiquette issue. Johncons (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, he's giving friendly advice per WP:TALK. Your comments, such as what you made here before I condense them, took up a considerable amount of real estate. You began new paragraphs with essentially every sentence. Per #Others.27 comments, I reformatted your posts because it was difficult to read. In future posts, please indent using a colon, which can be found at WP:TALK#Layout, and sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In my book, if someone are giving you advice, that you haven't asked for, then thats called to patronise.

Johncons (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I read those comments the first time you posted them here. I don't see any etiquette issue. Some other pages that might be helpful for you to review are WP:TALK and WP:DIFF. Dlabtot (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Response by User:Mayalld

When I happened upon this mess, User:Johncons had been on a 220 (yes, two hundred and twenty) revision editing spree attempting to add two paragraphs to the article. The edits contained a great deal of WP:OR, WP:POV and the references were mainly related to discussion boards (and not WP:RS). Every attempt by other editors to clean-up the additions to remove the worst excesses of unreferenced POV had been met with further determined editing to re-add the content. Other editors had already started a discussion about a user with an agenda blitzing the article.

I reviewed the editing, and it was as clear a case of POV pushing as I've seen, so I reverted the whole thing back to where it was befor the POV pushing started, and issued a level 2 warning for adding unsourced material.

The reversion was promptly undone, with a demand to discuss it on the talk page. I reverted back to the last known pre-dispute revision twice more, issuing a unsourced level 3 and a vandalism level 4 in the process. I also explained on the article talk page that as the edits were contentious, the right way to proceed was to discuss first, rather than add contentious unsourced material and demand discussion before it could be taken out again.

Following the level 4 warning, the vandalism ceased (subsequently my RPP request was accepted, and the page protected for a week), and User:Johncons started talking on the article talk page.

It was clear from these discussions that the user has an agenda (and admits to having an agenda), and wishes to soapbox a personal theory that he has about the maker of these pizzas.

The user is also convinced that the fact that another editor connected him with his posts in an off-wiki chatroom on the same subject is evidence of stalking and harassment.

I attempted to explain policy on original research, reliable sources and POV pushing. I also suggested that given the fringe theory, it was hardly surprising that the other editor had made a connection.

My attempts at explanation have borne little fruit. User:Johncons has an agenda and will discuss only to the extent that will allow him to get his additions into the article. Anything else is dismissed (at great length) as not answering his questions.

I have remained civil throughout, but have concluded that there is little hope that we will make any progress. The user adds huge volumes of text to the discussion without saying anything different, and refuses to accept that he cannot use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I have asked him to try and contribute to the discussion more productively and to accept that he cannot soapbox in an article.

His response has been to bring this complaint. It seems to me that, given the history of accusing another editor of stalking him, there is an emerging pattern of attempts to smear editors who stand in the way of his soapboxing, in the hope of removing people who might undo his POV pushing.

I can only hope that somebody else can achieve where I have failed dismally, and convince User:Johncons that he cannot proceed like this. If not, it seems inevitable that on expiry of protection, the POV pushing will start again, and User:Johncons will end up blocked.

Mayalld (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by User:Johncons

Hi, this is also a reply, for your message on my talk-page, since I hope you agree with me that we should only discuss these issues at one place at a time.

I appriciate your time and effort very much, so thanks very much for that!

I also appriciate very much the importance of getting the articles correct, and in line with the Wikipedia policies.

That I fully understand.

But since this section, is about netetiquette, then I will focus on the netetiquette issue in this answer.

I think that even if it is important to get the articles correct with the rules.

I think that even so, one should do this in an atmosphare, that isn't out of line with the netiquette standards in the Wiki comunity, (and of I would also say in normal society, I would think that these rules applies in here also).

I will try to write a new example.

Like in your text above:

'I can only hope that somebody else can achieve where I have failed dismally, and convince User:Johncons that he cannot proceed like this. If not, it seems inevitable that on expiry of protection, the POV pushing will start again, and User:Johncons will end up blocked.'.

Here you are in fact writing, that I am difficult to teach. (If my understanding of the English language isn't failing me).

And that's called harassment.

If one are saying that someone are more difficult to teach than others.

Then one are putting them on a lower level, compared with the others.

This can be an example, with the others, that I've written earlier, above, on what my point is in this section.

I'm not sure if I managed to explain this in an understandable way, but please just write me an answer here, if there is something that I haven't managed to explain good enough.

So thanks very much in advance for the reply!

Johncons (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I managed to write the answer before users signature, that I was answering, so had to edit. Sorry about this.

Johncons (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply by User:Mayalld

No I'm not saying that you are difficult to teach. I am saying that I have failed in my efforts to teach you.

Having said that, I refuse to pollute this page with even more text, as people really do have better things to do,

Mayalld (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by User:ros0709

I became aware of User:Johncons's activities a little before Mayalld when I was reviewing then recent edits. I am also briefly mentioned in the complaint. Two other editors have also briefly contributed to the debate, expressing concern at the edits (by either removing them or flagging them POV). Initially User:Johncons responded to other editors by simply reverting to his text, removing tags and refusing to listen to the opinions of the other editors. Mayalld has responded fairly, sensibly and entirely accoring to Wikipedia's principles, finally encouraging User:Johncons to enter into discussion, and is to be commended for his contribution. Ros0709 (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Follow up: it appears User:Johncons continued to pursue Mayalld by taking this (three times) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (first archived already), continued to meet with disagreement and finally got himself suspended. I believe this item can be closed. Ros0709 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Michaelbusch

This user has repeatedly deleted well sourced statement, and misquoted statements from reliable sources. See list in his talk page. Please help us address this issue. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Copying the text from the talk page to here for easier access. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Michaelbusch, for the sake of making wikipedia a WP:reliable, WP:NPOV source of information, please stop deleting relevant, well-sourced statements, like you did here:

1. cold fusion theory vs experiment, and here (see talk)

2. cold fusion patent (see talk)

3. cold fusion bibliography (see talk here and here)

Also, please stop misquoting reliable sources:

4. cold fusion and hydrino (see talk

5. hydrino and Quantum Mechanics and here (see talk

The best way to defend your opinion that cold fusion is "bollocks", as you say, is to provide reliable source to that effect. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Pcarbonn (talk · contribs). Michaelbusch (talk · contribs) is removing cited sources and is misquoting texts after doing a general query on the books. The removal of the citations alone, and the revision of text to remove any critism, is pointing to an unbalanced viewpoint that violates WP:NPOV. Michaelbusch has so far refused to engage in discussion and has taken it upon himself to revert-war on several articles, and has also violated WP:3RR. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hated to do this, but Michaelbusch has revert warred: AN3 case. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fringe theories noticeboard is thisaway. ➪HiDrNick! 18:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd thought I'd remembered to count, but now I see that I may have run over - depending on what is counted and what is not. I'm afraid I don't understand Pcarbonn's statements, however, and note that he seems unduly partial to various forms of pseudoscience - in particular hydrino theory and cold fusion. I have been trying to enforce WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and generally ensure that scientific validity isn't compromised. Please see the full discussions at Talk:Hydrino theory and Talk:cold fusion and let me know if I have exceeded acceptable bounds. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Dennis-from-accounts

Resolved

 – User banned indefinitely for repeated vandalism and incivility.

Hi there, User: Dennis-from-accounts has been using some rather harsh language and tactics, and it's gotten to the point where it's disrupting discussion. Recent examples include [19] and [20] and [21], but you could look at pretty much any contrib of his on any talk page he has frequented and get about the same flavor. I have tried to ask him to lighten up the rhetoric over on his talk page ([22]), but he has made it abundantly clear that he "don't give a flying fuck about your policies" ([23] and [24], [25]). I thought perhaps a gentle reminder from some other sources might be in order. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. I've reverted or deleted his personal attacks on other editors and on talk pages, and have restored deleted comments from talk pages. He's also been left with numerous notices, and upon his next attack, let me know personally. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you. Please note, this is a woman so don't refer to me as "him" and "he" you knobs. Dennis-from-accounts (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, pronoun mistakes happen, especially when your username contains a traditionally male name. On the other hand, calling people "knobs" is inappropriate. Please do not call people names anywhere on Wikipedia, especially the etiquette alert board. It's vulgar and intentionally denigrating language that could have no sensible justification. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And even more detrimental to (her) case of incivility. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt and courteous attention. I hereby take back 1/2 of all the nasty things I've told my students about using Wikipedia. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

lol, just so you know dennis from accounts is from this television ad from New Zealand, you can watch it if you want: http://youtube.com/watch?v=dKJIg3EXHOs. I'm so happy that this matter has been resolved, it makes me so giddy. But what the fudge? I haven't closed my account obviously, I'm just going to take hard earned Wikibreak. I love you all. Dennis-from-accounts (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You are dangerously close to having your account reported to WP:AIV if your vandalism persists. Blanking of comments, vandalism of article status, etc. are not acceptable uses of your time. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 12:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Make that 'more than close.' An admin stepped in and has blocked the user. Kudos...I guess I'll have to take back as much as 3/4 of the nasty stuff I tell students about Wikipedia. Y'all are still hideously unreliable though. :)

User:Mikkalai

Resolved

 – Apology issued, complaining party considers matter resolved. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai is attacking me on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korphai without provocation. Not only calling me biased and lazy, but when I objected, made further attacks. Corvus cornix_talk 03:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Kind of weak and I really don't see much incivility just yet, outside of calling one lazy or saying one should do some "reverting" elsewhere. Let me know if it escalates. I left a note on the Mikkalai (talk · contribs)'s talk page as well. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And Mikkalai removed your comments from his Talk page without comment, and has removed editing tags from Korphai as "trolling". Corvus cornix_talk 16:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And now Mikkalai has expanded his incivility on the Articles for deletion discussion to including attacks on other people who have come to comment. Corvus cornix_talk 16:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see incivility. It's weak at best. And a user is allowed to remove comments from his/her own talk pages as they please. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't see labeling others as trolls incivility? I agree that a person can remove other people's comments from their Talk pages if they want, but he did so without addressing this problem. Corvus cornix_talk 18:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not if its on his own talk page. If we have a user who is pushing to label a user as incivil for whatever minute reason, then the responding user has every right to remove comments from his own talk page and label it as a trolling comment. This is probably a great reason as to why he removed the WQA notice from his page and has deferred from replying here. User talk pages give a lot of leeway. But I can't find a diff for that; can you provide one? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is where he called another editor's edits as "trolling". Corvus cornix_talk 18:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I wonder why. You piled on the tags, yet did no real work to the otherwise short article. For the amount of time you spent applying tag after tag, taking up real estate (screen), you could have improved the article and be done with it. Furthermore, some of the tags make no sense at all (additional sources, when nearly every sentence is sourced?). There are many editors who are tired of others coming along, tagging up an article, and leaving, doing no real work outside of that. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The only tag I put on it was the afd tag, and the additional sources tag was there for over a year, before Mikkalai and others added sources. And I did do some work on The Overture, but again, I didn't do anything to the article in question because I couldn't find reliable sources, and didn't want to add anything from unreliable ones. And as of yet, nobody has added any reliable sourcing. Corvus cornix_talk 21:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what the article looked like before I got anywhere near it. Corvus cornix_talk 21:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To look back on the AfD post, it does seem that Mikkalai's language was probably needlessly inflammatory. I'm not sure it's necessarily a personal attack, but the message could certainly have been conveyed in a more civil tone. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai has apologized. I consider this matter finished. Corvus cornix_talk 02:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:I AM JOHN SMITH

Stale

 – User appears to be disinterested in changing his behavior.

This brand-new user has come into Wiki with guns blazing: trying to speedily delete/merge sourced major articles [26], leaving somewhat impolite edit summaries [27] and trying to delete correct information because he personally thinks it's "stupid". His edits are easy to clean up, I don't think he's a troll (although he's been here for four days and knows how to use cleanup and speedy deletion tags?!), and I don't think there's any admin intervention needed, but I do think it would help if another editor or two could have a friendly chat with him about how things work around here and how it's important to be civil and keep NPOV. I've offered some suggestions myself [28] but since I'm working on one of the articles he's fighting about, he might not be listening to me. DanielEng (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Left a talk page note and reverted two unsupported edits. The remainder have mostly been reverted in relation to the speedy delete proposals. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It still bugs me about "artistic" gymnastics. Fine,you win. I'll leave it alone. There's plenty of other stupidly named articles that bug me, and I'll try to be nicer about them......"guns blazing"? LOL--I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this Alert isn't so much about any one article but your attitude here in general. If you approach other articles and editors with the same "if I don't like it or know about it, it must be wrong and stupid" mindset and lack of civility, and you try to disrupt other articles with speedy deletes, you'll just end up reading lots of warnings on your Talk Page and eventually you'll be blocked. And your incorrect edits will just be reverted. That's your choice, though...it's your time to waste. DanielEng (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's take this edit summary as an example. You're nitpicking grammar - calling someone "retarded" is highly inappropriate anytime, but especially when either sentence is grammatically correct. Furthermore, I'd say the prior version was better than yours. You need to seriously adjust the tone of your editing, and also to not go around deleting things you don't know about, when they have well-written, properly established articles. You might think an article is "stupidly named" but artistic gymnastics is a recognized form of gymnastics, sort of in the sense that ice hockey is a type of hockey. "I don't think this is an art" does not suffice. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note. This user does still contribute. His recent edits have all been reverted with notes on his talk page. lightsup55 ( T | C ) 21:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this user is still being less-than productive in some cases. However, he is entitled to remove comments from his talk page. While he doesn't "own" it, it is a space for people to drop him notes and messages, and it's his to purge, tidy, or archive as he sees fit. That's the community-accepted practice. Don't continue to restore these comments, it may only provoke him further. Refer to WP:TALK and WP:USER for more on this issue. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem as though this user has any intention of changing his behavior, which is a shame.DanielEng (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood, but the two comments I added TODAY (December 15, 2007) that you removed shouldn't have been removed. The only comments I added back was from the one headline text of comments from a week ago (December 6, 2007). I assume that you didn't notice the date on the comments that I added and just removed everything. For the future, PLEASE look before you lead. That is all I'm asking. Thanks. lightsup55 ( T | C ) 02:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

124.191.92.25

Resolved

 – Disruptive user banned for bad-faith disruption of RfC. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am an admin, and came to the Ed_O'Loughlin to review a 3RR request. I am now involved as an editor so I do not wish to exercise my admin powers (with the exception of having semi-protected the page).

The user has thus far been warned on numerous occasions for violating WP:3RR, WP:NPA. Three editors (including myself) have reviewed the article and all felt it was questionable under WP:BLP, and that some of the sources of criticism on the individual were not impartial. 124.191.92.25 responded by adding this section to the talk page Unethical_Editors_bring_Wikipedia_into_disrepute.

The user repeatedly demanded an RfC to assess the "unethical conduct" of myself and Eleland. I explained to 124.191.92.25 how to initiate the process, but the user did not do so. I eventually created an RFC:BIO over my own concerns.

On the article RFC section I summarised my position about my concerns with the article. The user deleted my summary, and then cut and pasted a comment from a different discussion into the RfC section. See the diff page here.

Manning (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Update - after another extensive rearrangement of my RfC comments, I have reported the user to WP:ANI. Manning (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's way past etiquette - it's definitely disrupting the discussion in bad faith. Your actions seem appropriate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Eusebeus

Stuck

 – Taric came to ask whether Eusebeus's comments were civil. He has been answered, but there is no consensus about whether Eusebeus's comments were civil or not. Editors have expressed their belief that this matter seems to have degraded into a word-by-word peer-review, well outside reading of WP:CIVIL, sensible or otherwise. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC) & Taric25 (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Eusebeus, made the following comment on my talk page.

“Ok Taric, let's review your transgressions here:

1. You have filed what is among the most fatuous sockpuppet notices ever recorded. It is incumbent upon you to have solid evidence for a sockpuppet case. I am going to assume in good faith that you are too new to know what that means and that in making such an accusation against a seasoned regular with 25,000 + edits you are simply a victim of your own ignorance. Your sockpuppet case has been deleted by a rouge admin. You should thank him profusely for helping clean up your mess and post a notice of apology on TTN's talk page. And you should do that now.
2. There is no requirement for a user page to keep up this, that or any tag that the user does not want. Got that? You're ignorant sockpuppet filing is now compounded by a juvenile reversion of a tag that no longer applies. I am going to assume woeful ignorance in this as well, instead of the more serious case of deliberate vandalism. But that will now cease as well. Got it?
3. 3RR. You are in danger of being blocked. That would be salutary in my view, but at any event, consider this a warning. in fact, I am probably going to report you to 3RR, since it is an electric fence rule and you are clearly over the line.

So let me summarise: your sockpuppet allegation is completely without merit and comes across as whining adolescent exercise because you didn't get your way in a content dispute, as does your childish 3RR on a user's talk page. Read our rules and abide by them. You will now stop this and find something more productive to do. Got it? Eusebeus (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)” (diff)

Is this comment uncivil? I'm not sure how to proceed. Please see User talk:TTN, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 7#Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN, and please advise. Taric25 (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs (copy the URL of (last) in the revision history)? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you may want to look at the history for User:TTN's userpage.

21:11, 4 December 2007, I add {{sockpuppeteer}}, per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Tagging. My edit summary is "{{sockpuppeteer}}".

02:55, 5 December 2007 User:Eusebeus reverts. The edit summary is "Undid revision 175783905 by Taric25 (talk)".

07:38, 5 December 2007 I revert. My edit summary is "Undid revision 175846854 by Eusebeus (talk) Per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, the notice may only be removed after at least 10 days".

05:05, 6 December 2007 Eusebeus reverts. The edit summary is "Not when it's a completely bogus claim. See WP:TEMPLAR and be warned that sockpuppetry is a serious accusation. Have better evidence next time for your suspicions". Notice WP:TEMPLAR an essay, neither policy nor guideline.

15:32, 6 December 2007 User:Maniwar reverts. The edit summary is "Reverted 1 edit by Eusebeus; Wait until issue is resolved, per Taric25's last comment. using TW"

17:00, 6 December 2007 User:Seraphim Whipp reverts. The edit summary is "Undid. "The templates serve as a convenient shorthand only and are not part of this policy" from Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Tagging. Sorry if I've misunderstood this."

17:00, 6 December 2007 I revert. My edit summary is "Undid revision 176179456 by Seraphim Whipp (talk) I am very serious by the evidence I have presented."

17:16, 7 December 2007 Eusebeus reverts. The edit summary is "sockpuppet case was dismissed. This is vandalism. STOP FORTHWITH!"

17:45, 7 December 2007 I revert. My edit summary is "Undid revision 176396657 by Eusebeus (talk) The case was not dismissed, and the case's deletion is up for review."

Current revision (as of 17:50, 7 December 2007) Seraphim Whipp reverts. The edit summary is "Per Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Treatment_of_the_editor Aggressive approaches applied to protect the encyclopedia from sock puppets ordinarily should not be applied to the an editor in goodstanding"

Are editors, like TTN, in good standing if they have three RfAs? Please advise. Taric25 (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, he appears to be making appropriate points. He may be a bit frank, but at least from what I see, it's not terribly uncivil. I mean, it's potential as uncivil (or less) as filing a sockpuppet complaint (depending on context). --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There is some missing history here. User Eusebeus seems to be a bit hypocritical when he has come (if not already broken) close to breaking the 3RR himself. There is an issue here and here with another user, TTN. Eusebeus has been the chief defender for this user, and that is why he gave the strong warnings on Taric25's user page. Some things to clarify:

1. the 25,000+ edits that Eusebeus points out for TTN is under scrutiny by RfA here[29] and here[30], here[31] and lastly here[32] as being disruptive.
2. the sock puppet issue is being reviewed here, so it is uncertain whether Taric25's actions are wrong or right at this point.
3. The so called "rouge admin" that Eusebeus says deleted the article was in fact notified of the issue by Eusebeus here[33] and again here[34]. Please note the uncivil language that he chooses to use " ...he is apparently not blessed by abundant self-awareness " in asking for JzG's help.
4. Eusebeus committed a similar offense here[35] and was mildly reprimanded on his own talk page by Punkguy182.

I do not support blocking either party or the sock puppet accusation by Taric25, but I do want to bring the missing evidence to the table so the full picture can be seen by all. This is just a side bar issue of the bigger issues surrounding user TTN. [added later] and really is not about either of these two, so I would say forget this and let the issues with TTN play out. Things just got a bit over heated, in my opinion. --Maniwar (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I also think neither myself nor Eusebeus should be blocked. I am curious if Eusebeus' comment is considered uncivil and what do to about it. I agree that this whole situation happened because TTN and I were not able to come to a consensus on List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, however, I do not believe he should asked for cleanup at WP:VG/C only to use a sockpuppet list the article at AfD, thereby disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. That is why I listed it at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, and that is where this situation between Eusebeus and I arose. Taric25 (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Of course I am not going to be blocked. You are labouring under yet another ignorant misapprehension if you think this forum has such authority. And I would hope interested editors remind Taric that not only are my comments in no way a breach of civility, but further that filing a misinformed sockpuppet accusation is tantamount to a personal attack and is grounds for sanction and censure. My remarks are fully justified. Eusebeus (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What about the alternative of BOTH of you being uncivil? Someone (uncivilly and falsely) accuses you of sockpuppetry, and you become uncivil right back. Rather than edit war over a bogus suspected scok puppet tag, maybe you should have filed a report at AN/I? Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but anyway.Ngchen (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please be sure to review the evidence. I did not accuse Eusebeus of sockpuppetry. I accused TTN of sockpuppetry, and I do not believe I did so falsely, since I presented what I believe to be a good amount of evidence. Also, this is suspected sock puppetry, because I believe the evidence warrants suspicion. I would like the community, not me all by myself, to examine the evidence and make a decision. Never during my course of action did I believe I was being uncivil, because I believe I read the related policies and procedures and always followed them my best as I could interpret them. For example, Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry indicates the use of sockpuppetry templates. I placed the template on TTN's userpage, because I had seen users do that before, and I honestly believed that's what I should do to. When Eusebeus reverted my edit without a descriptive edit summary, I reverted with the relevant policy in the edit summary. It was at this point it became an edit war involving four editors, because we interpreted the policy differently (except for Eusebeus, who did not cite policy). I did not file a claim with WP:ANI, because the pages indicated that I should use WP:DRV and this page before I consider ANI. Taric25 (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please understand it is never my intention to make a personal attack. I believed that I had a good reason to be suspicious based on the evidence I gathered, so I brought my suspicion to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets to allow the community to examine them. It was never my intention to circumvent AfD or anything like that. In fact, User:Guyinblack25 was the most vocal at the article's entry on AfD, not me. Furthermore, Guyinblack25 is extremely diligent in his efforts from WP:VG/C to help, and users praised that the article is looking better already, just during the course of the AfD. Also, if you believe that your comments are justified, then please be sure to cite policies and guidelines and use detailed edit summaries. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The only question for me is how much longer we put up with Taric25's querulousness before he gets blocked for it. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is never my intention to be quarrelsome. I did not understand why you deleted the case I presented without archiving it, and that is why I posted it for deletion review. It is never my intention to disrupt wikipedia to illustrate a point. I honestly believe that Henke37 is a sockpuppet of TTN, and that is why I presented the evidence. All I'm asking is time, at least 10 days per WP:SOCK, for the community to examine the case and let a decision be made. Whatever decision the community makes, I would like WP:SSP to follow process and archive the discussion, just like it does with all the others, not delete it. If you believe otherwise, then please see the SSP's entry on WP:DRV and argue why you believe you were right to delete it without CSD, PROD, and AfD. I will be more than willing to respond to your comments. If you believe that TTN should not have {{sockpuppeteer}} on his userpage, then please discuss it on his talk page, and I will be more than willing to reply to your comments. Taric25 (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A block would be a most appropriate form of sanction for the nasty personal attacks and "who me?" gaming of the system this user is systematically attempting. He has wasted too much time with these childish antics and jejune fractiousness. Should this be solicited at AN/I? Eusebeus (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

To anyone who read what Eusebeus just wrote above, is that uncivil? Please advise. Taric25 (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really. It seems as though Eusebeus was trying to make constructive commentary on your editing, something that is perfectly appropriate (if not absolutely necessary). He seems to have been acting in good faith, and correctly, in opposing your repeated addition of the sockpuppet tag (even after the deletion of the case). You should really read WP:CIVIL and try to get a better understanding of what incivility actually is - asking us every time Eusebeus says something whether it's civil is pretty strange. This board is a place to discuss the conduct of others, as are user talk pages. His comments are not personal attacks or inappropriate, and you've got to consider his criticism as something more than some sort of hostility that you must reject and even bring here to hash out. He's trying to explain how your actions are inappropriate, and has assumed good faith even if his tone is a bit less than sugar-coated. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but I was refering to his tone. I don't understand how words like “nasty”, “childish antics”, and “jejune fractiousness” are civil, or how accusing me of “personal attacks” and “gaming of the system” is assuming good faith. Also, I had already read Wikipedia:Civility, thank you. You should read Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 7#Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN, since the overwhelming consensus is to overturn the case's deletion, so this asserts my intepretation of Wikipedia:Sockpuppets to include the tag after JzG deleted the case. I am asking if Eusebeus' comments are civil or uncivil because I am trying to understand what the community thinks. Taric25 (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You are asking and I am telling. Saying you are gaming the system is not a personal attack. Calling you "a big fat ugly moron who should leave Wikipedia" is. There is a difference. Commenting on your behavior ("antics" or "gaming") is appropriate and allowed on the WQA and elsewhere. It is relevant and he doesn't have to candy-coat what he has to say to keep it from being a personal attack. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a personal attack. I am basically asking if this is propper Wikiquette. Is Eusebeus assuming bad faith? Also, you did not answer the first part of my question. I stil do not understand how words like “nasty” and “jejune fractiousness” are civil. Aren't we supposed to use words like “please” and “thank you” instead? You claim that users do not have to “candy-coat” what they have to say, but I do not understand why it's okay to be impolite. Taric25 (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I know what you're asking and I'm explaining to you the answer. You were being nasty and you arebeing fractious. Saying "your actions are immature and you are disruptive" is not uncivil. Saying "you're a big baby and you should kiss my ass" is. There's a difference. He's trying to make a relevant point about your editing - it's not incivility. You came here to ask the question - if you don't want any answer other than "yes, he's being uncivil" then you should really let it go. Sure, many Wikipedians are over-polite but etiquette is not the same as saying "please" and "thank you." --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if Eusebeus believes I am being nasty and fractious, it is never a good idea for anyone, even you, to say that to another user. I believe civil response would be, “Hello, I noticed your recent edits to User:TTN's userpage. I do not you support adding the sockpuppet tag because [insert specific part of policy or guideline, not an essay, asserting why you believe that and why here], and I have removed the tag. I understand that you may consider adding it back, but before you do, would you please discuss it on his talkpage? If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.”, not calling me "fatuous", "too new to know what… [solid evidence] means", "a victim of your own ignorance", that "You should thank" "a rouge admin" "profusely for helping clean up your mess", "You're ignorant", "juvenile", "woeful ignorance", "You are in danger of being blocked. That would be salutary in my view", "completely without merit", "as whining adolescent", and "childish". None of that helps Wikipedia. Period. I am absolutely shocked that you think it's perfectly ok to call someone "nasty", no matter what the reason. It's rude; it's impolite, and it's uncivil. If a user does not agree with another user's edits, then the users should discuss calmly and politely citing specific portions of policies and guidlines and why they believe that, not call each other nasty for any reason whatsoever. Also, per Wikipedia:Etiquette, the users should use detailed edit summaries and discuss their edits on the talk page if someone disagrees, something Eusebeus failed to do time and time again. Since you have stated that it was ok for Eusebeus to call me nasty, I do not believe you are qualified to answer this query and am requesting comment. Taric25 (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

At the polite request of User:Egfrank on my talk page, I have withdrawn the RfC. Taric25 (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest we close this, Taric25's querulousness is unhelpful here. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not attempting to be quarrelsome. I'm trying to understand what the community defines as civil and uncivil. Taric25 (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Focus on civility

As user:Taric25 has pointed out - the validity of the warning is beside the point. The only issue is how it was delivered. Given that this is a civility board, I think we need to hear that. The civility goal here is to find a wording that both User:Taric25 and User:Eusebeus can find acceptable.

I'd like to see the two of you negotiate a wording that is mutually acceptable but still communicates what User:Eusebeus feels needs to be said. I'm going to start the process by repeating User:Eusebeus's statement with some parts crossed out. Now, for User:Taric25: two questions:

• Would you have found the following acceptably civil? As you think about the answer, please keep in mind that no warning is ever going to feel great, so we're looking here for an acceptable wording that preserves the content of the warning rather than something that feels good.
• User:Eusebeus is clearly pretty frustrated. By removing these phrases I've also removed much of what communicated this frustration. Can you suggest an alternate way for this user to have worded his/her frustration so that you would have heard it clearly?

“Ok Taric, let's review your transgressions here:

1. You have filed what is among the most fatuous sockpuppet notices ever recorded. It is incumbent upon you to have solid evidence for a sockpuppet case. I am going to assume in good faith that you are too new to know what that means and that in making such an accusation against a seasoned regular with 25,000 + edits you are simply a victim of your own ignorance. Your sockpuppet case has been deleted by a rouge admin. You should thank him profusely for helping clean up your mess and post a notice of apology on TTN's talk page. And you should do that now.
2. There is no requirement for a user page to keep up this, that or any tag that the user does not want. Got that? You're ignorant sockpuppet filing is now compounded by a juvenile reversion of a tag that no longer applies. I am going to assume woeful ignorance in this as well, instead of the more serious case of deliberate vandalism. But that will now cease as well. Got it?
3. 3RR. You are in danger of being blocked. That would be salutary in my view, but at any event, consider this a warning. in fact, I am probably going to report you to 3RR, since it is an electric fence rule and you are clearly over the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talk • contribs) 11:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have found the following acceptably civil, or at least close to it. I would have changed “Got it?” to “If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page.” “I am probably going to report you to 3RR, since it is an electric fence rule and you are clearly over the line.” to “Please understand that someone, including myself, may report you to 3RR, since it is an electric fence rule and that Wikipedian may believe you are over the line. Thank you.” It still doesn’t feel great, but I believe that is an acceptable wording that preserves the content of the warning. Taric25 (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Now your turn User:Eusebeus - would User:Taric25's suggestions allow you to have communicated the warning and its importance? If not, what would you add? Please keep in mind that we are trying to come up with a mutually agreeable wording. Egfrank (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I think this is absurd. Nit-picking every single word when civility is not about word choice. Striking things like the words "in fact"? Are you serious? When someone comments on some clearly bizarre behavior, it should be honest and frank. And you strike "ignorant" in one place but leave it in another. This is not what civility is supposed to become - ruthless deconstruction of every single thing anyone ever says. It creates the opportunity for any minor conflict to explode into a flurry of "well you said this and you said that and this particular word I consider uncivil." Eusebeus had something to say about Taric's sockpuppet accusations. This was not a personal attack, it was not commentary on something outside of Taric's own actions, and if someone is juvenile, we're allowed to say so. The sockpuppet complaint was grossly misinformed. Am I being uncivil by saying so? Absolutely not. "Cleaning up [someone's] mess" is a common way to refer to administrative duties ("wield the mop" much?). This complaint has spiraled into silly nit-picking when civility and NPA are not invitations to comb everyone's comments to find things that you could spin to be rude, mean, or whatever, when people are in fact making well-needed commentary on some rather odd behavior. This complaint started with "I am curious if Eusebeus' comment is considered uncivil and what do to about it." Answer: Not really, even if it was a little frank. Take his advice as little or as much as you'd like. Your actions seem quite questionable, and he has questioned them. The fact that he didn't do so in flowery prose is not evidence of personal attacks, incivility, or anything of the sort. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The material I crossed out simply separated "tone" material from content material as much as was feasible without rewording the message. This lets Taric25 comment on civility issues while still recognizing the content of the message. And it lets Eusebeus explore alternate ways of being forceful. Egfrank (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the point is that "tone" and word-choice are not to be nit-picked. That's not what civility requires. Picking through a person's word choice in the hopes of taking offense does not seem like a great way to be productive, and is going to create problems, not solve them. This user came here asking if this was even an example of incivility or not. Picking apart every single word Eusebeus said is not productive - it's a red herring. Eusebeus made relevant commetns about the Taric's behavior. His tone is his to make. If his tone was not flowers and puppies and fields of sunshine, so be it. "Please" and "thank you" are not required to be civil, nor is any other sort of "tone" - so long as the comments are relevant, and are not attacks on Taric but rather (necessary) commentary on his actions. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll add that there is no need to "come up with a mutually agreeable wording." This isn't articlespace, it's talk space. Eusebeus's comments do not need to be worded in a way that is "mutually agreeable." --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that the words "please" and "thank you" are not required to be civil, then you really are not qualified to judge civility. It is always a good idea to use words such as "please" and "thank you" when one Wikipedian disagrees with another. Being polite strengthens your message by focusing on the problem rather than the rage it caused, which causes further rage that hurts Wikipedia. It is never, ever, ever ok to call someone "nasty" or resort to any other name calling, such as refering to someone's size, race/nationality/citizenship, sex/gender, sexuality, or age. For example, it is never ok to call someone "childish", "jejune", "juvenile", or "immature", because those terms are demeaning towards youths, just like "bitch" is demeaning towards women, which is still uncivil even if the user is elderly or male. Those words hurt people's feelings. This invariably causes a user's depressed attitude towards the project as a whole and hurts Wikipedia. It is much better to just carefully select words in the first place to explain the situation in a way that both parties can mutually agree is calm and polite. Sure, it may not feel great, because no one likes a warning, but it will get the message across a lot more clearly, since it focuses on the issue rather than inciting rage and causing even more problems. Taric25 (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Find something else to nit-pick at, please. Per WP:CIVIL, there is no guideline or policy, or even sentence, that states the words "please" and "thank you" must be used to be civil. I've disagreed with many Wikipedians, but I don't go around saying pretty please or gracious thank you. As for the tit-for-tat nonsense that is going on, you have dragged this on long enough that it is now a moot point; how much longer are you going to continue to debate this? If it really bothered you and violated WP:CIVIL, this would be at WP:ANI, not at WP:WQA. If he made a mistake, let it slide and go find something else to edit. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm shocked to find you've misquoted WP:CIVIL. Per Wikipedia:Civility#Reducing the impact,

“Please. Thank you. I'm sorry. You're welcome. You're a good person and I know we'll work this out. Treat your fellow editor as a respected and admired colleague, who is working in collaboration with you on an important project.”

Please be sure to refer to the policy, because it has wide acceptance among editors who consider it a standard that all users should follow. Also, I read WP:ANI before I came here. Do you know what it says in nearly all bold letters in a big lavender box at the top of the page?

“To report impolite or difficult communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts.” Taric25 (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Taric, that section of WP:CIVIL is a set of guidelines/suggestions about how you are supposed to respond to incivility. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and Eusebeus believed I was acting uncivily, not to mention that he believes I made totally baseless accusations, so I believe that applies. Taric25 (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that I have not had a chance to review the evidence file (now deleted) on the alleged sockpuppetry of TTN, I would like to make the following observations which hopefully will be my last.

First, allegations of sockpuppetry are serious. Since I haven't looked at the evidence file, I have no idea how credible the claims against TTN were, and whether or not the claims were made in good faith. If there was a reasonable basis for making the claim, then IMO assumming good faith applies, and the vitriol spewed at Taric25 was totally inappropriate. OTOH, if the sockpuppetry allegation had no real basis, then Taric25 is in the wrong. For something along these lines though, IMO he should've been reported to AN/I for making bogus charges rather than be flamed the way he was.

Second, related to this are notions of edit warring and the prohibition against it. There is a page describing what the suspect in a suspected sockpuppetry case can do. Everyone should abide by those rules. Again, if the allegations had no basis, then the user initiating them ought to face severe sanctions.

Finally, complaints against one or more admins perhaps can begin here. IMO the admins handled this case poorly in two ways. (1) They flamed away, without explaining their rationale as to why the sockpuppetry claims were unmerited, and (2) they never addressed the civility issue. Admins are held to a higher standard as ArbCom has repeatedly noted, and IIRC if tehre is an issue with the misuse of admin powers, it should go to the User conduct RfC or ArbCom.Ngchen (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and that is why I would like the community to examine the evidence I have presented. I have also apologized to both Eusebeus at User talk:Eusebeus#Apology‎ and TTN at User talk:TTN#Apology for my edit warring on TTN's userpage. I did not apologize for reporting TTN at SSP, because I really do believe he is guilty of sockpuppeteering. Taric25 (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your evidence for the latter is thin at best. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Xoloz overturned your your deletion writing, “Deletion overturned. if the claim is indeed deliberately malicious, archiving it helps build evidence against the filer; if it merely a good-faith mistake, archiving it will help prevent future such errors. It is not yet clear whether the claim is meritless, in any case. Beyond blanket assertions, no one has presented any evidence on that basis here to justify the deletion.” User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has examined the evidence and determined TTN is not guilty of sockpuppeteering, and I will not to contest the decision. Taric25 (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack against another editor on article talk page

Stale

 – User:Harald4244 may have gone offline. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to handle this and I'll be away from the computer for the holidays, so I would appreciate it if someone could watch this and make sure it doesn't escalate.

On Dec. 2, User:Harald4244 posted out of the blue a personal attack against User:Jesusfreund at Talk:Die Feuerzangenbowle. I pointed out that he had accidentally overwritten the talk page with his comment and he commented on the article talk page: "I think this was done by someone called Jesusfreund, a German Wiki-colleague of yours, an ardent communist and an almost professional IP-faker, and I am now going to sue him for the latter." I felt this comment was way out of line (political slur, accusations of fraud and a lawsuit threat all in one against a user who had not even contributed to the discussion at all), so I posted back a suggestion to remove the comment. That hasn't happened yet and it appears Harald4244 hasn't even logged into Wikipedia since posting it.

Digging around some, I found that there is indeed an editor User:Jesusfreund, but he hasn't edited since May and never touched the article in question. He probably doesn't even know it's there and I don't feel like stirring things up by telling him. User:Harald4244 didn't start editing until October, so there are no pages on the English Wikipedia where these two editors interacted. However, looking at the German Wikipedia, I found that de:Benutzer:Jesusfreund has been a long-term contributor since 2004 while de:Benutzer:Harald4244 has been blocked - apparently after being reported by Jesusfreund on Dec. 2 which explains what triggered his spiteful comment on the English Wikipedia on that date. Regardless of that explanation, I still feel the comment should be removed from the talk page, but I wasn't sure where to report it and how to go about that. Suggestions welcome. - tameeria (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I say go ahead and remove the personal attack. If you want, you can leave a note on the perosn who posted the attack's talk page reminding them not to make such attacks in the future.Ngchen (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't sound like this user is behaving civilly. It would be helpful if you could provide diffs to help us isolate and examine the behavior more closely. Additionally, I always forget exactly what to do when people start threatening others with lawsuits, but that is a whole separate issue that requires additional treatment - threatening people with lawsuits on Wikipedia is very much not tolerated. One of the other regulars can (hopefully) recall this better than me and give you a suggestion about that. If you provide me with some diffs of the insults/attacks, I'd be happy to look them over and leave a suitable warning/suggestion on the rude user's talkpage. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the questionable addition. The attack wasn't directed against me but against a totally unrelated editor not involved in the article at all. I was puzzled by the out-of-the-blue spitefulness against this editor at first, but finding the report and ban on the German Wikipedia ([36], [37]) shed some light on it. - tameeria (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats are quite serious - see WP:LEGAL. Egfrank (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the one I was looking for. This user may need to be indef-banned until the legal issues are either resolved or dropped, but that's outside the scope of this alert board. I'd suggest going to the WP:ANI if anyone thinks this issue needs to be addressed. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's necessary. He doesn't seem to have signed in since posting that comment, so it appears he has stepped away and taken a Wiki-break to cool off his frustration, if he hasn't even lost interest in Wikipedia completely. - tameeria (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Mshake3

Resolved

 – user:Justa Punk is moving on, per final post.

I am making this report due to recent edits by the user concerned. He has been behaving in a manner that I consider to be rude and probably a violation of WP:CIVIL.

I asked a question about 411mania.com and it's status under WP:RS on the Wiki Project Pro Wrestling talk page. The user - per a previous debate over the status of another website - promptly used this question to deride it "And I know how much you love that site" in the context of mocking my view of the other site. Which was irrelevant in this instance. I asked other users for opinions "without personal backchat" and the user again repeated his behaviour - ordering me to remove all sources if "I didn't trust it". I was trying to do the right thing, and this person's attitude leaves a lot to be desired. I requested him to cease on his talk page here only for him to revert the edit here and continue the mocking behaviour in the edit summary. Just now I tried to restore the edit here with what I consider to be a resonable point in the edit summary, but he has reverted it again here and citing WP:DRC. Whilst that may be a fair comment, he is still refusing to acknowledge his conduct is not appropriate and he may need to be pulled into line.

I hope that adding this here will help resolve matters and I don't have to take the matter further. !! Justa Punk !! 02:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as a precautionary note, per WP:TALK, users are allowed to delete comments, notices, etc. on their user talk pages. If this extends into discussion pages elsewhere, that would be a valid concern.

The citation in question, [38], is a blog entry. Note that the entry was "posted" by a username and not a journalist, and that it was credited to a more authoritative news source. Cite _that_ source if it meets WP:V, WP:CITE, etc. (PWInsider.com). I trust that it can be met; if not, the source should not be used. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

SERVED! SERVED! SERVED! SERVED! I kid, I kid. OK now. The issue at hand was over the blacklisting of PWInsider.com, which in turn lead to a separate discussion on whether or not the site is reliable. After dealing with what I felt were "circular arguments" from Punk, I left comments on his talk page that I felt were acceptable, but in the end probably shouldn't have been left. Flash forward to this week, and Punk brings up the reliability of 411mania. A quick look at it's use in the Brock Lesnar article shows that the "articles" were merely cut and pastings from the PWInsider site. Remembering our "conversation", I brought up how much he hated that site, with a wink, basically to say "we both have our opinions on that site." Even though I answered the question at hand, he decided to remove it because I was a "smart ass". And after my clarification (I know you don't trust that site, so remove them), he then threatens me with this. As for the message being left on my talk page, apparently he doesn't want me to comment about these sites. Not sure why, as I have an opinion on them just like everyone else, and I certinally have the right to express them. So to recap, yeah, I can be a bit of a hardhead, and my attempts at humor might not come through in a typed format. At the same time, I feel that Punk should be showing a better sense of humor. Mshake3 (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As a neutral party, I see Punk's point. I know you don't trust that site, so remove them sounds like an order to me rather than a clarification. And I don't see the humour. How is your conduct funny? Surely you realise that not everyone will see that? GetDumb (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, GD! It's not funny at all. Worse still, MShake just won't acknowledge my offence to his conduct. I had a serious query about a site and WP:RS and he comes in and in effect derails the query. Not a time to "lighten things up" especially with the previous argument still relatively fresh. I maintain my edit referring to his diversion as "smart ass" was correct under the circumstances. He knew the subject was to be avoided and yet he re-introduced it anyway - which he now explains as an attempt at humour. I'm not laughing. There's a time and a place for humour - and this was not it. I agree with GD that MShake was in effect giving me an order. I am due an apology and a statement that he will not broach the subject with me in any way whatsoever again. And it has nothing to do with my opinion of PWInsider. That is not relevant to this current issue. !! Justa Punk !! 08:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As I mention below, it's not really an "order" when I tell you to do something that you yourself said should be done. Mshake3 (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please provide diffs of the actual comment(s) that was/were allegedly uncivil? All I see is some reverting of talkpage comments (which Mshake is allowed to do, it's his talkpage). In fact, Mshake seems to refer to a moment where JustaPunk removed his comments (made in good faith) from an article talkpage because they may or may not have contained humor that he didn't like (I'd like to see diffs for that too). I'm not so sure of this issue, and I think "giving orders" is not exactly something we can extrapolate from a decontextualized quotation (or something that's necessarily the biggest no-no around - people "give orders" all the time in ways that are perfectly acceptible). Note that this is also relevant. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well there's this, which shows his opinion on PWInsider (and yes Punk, this site is quite important with this issue), citing "If it's a PWInsider mirror it should be [blacklisted]". While there are no official "mirrors" of this site, it is common for other wrestling sites and blogs to repost this information on their own. Therefore, in his stated reasoning, if an article cites PWInsider as a source, then it is unreliable. So when he questions the reliablility of 411mania, and I point out their sources, and tell him to do something that he himself said should be done, I don't expect there to be an issue! Mshake3 (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

OK Cheeser, I thought I'd provided enough. This took me some time, and hopefully you'll follow it.

As stated, I was checking the WP:RS status of 411mania.com. MShake came on and said this. I found this comment to be innappropriate and divisive, and I removed it. I feel that referring to the comment I removed as "smart arse" was correct and appropriate. He then restored it ignoring my annoyance and request for serious assistance here. He also ordered me not to remove his comments per the edit summary. A clear indication that he didn't care that I was offended by the first edit. It refers to a previous dispute which I'll talk about in a moment.

This caused me to go to his talk page and post this. He removed it and his edit summary was rude and unfunny - and again showed no respect for my offence to his conduct to this point.

I restored it in order to push home my point. But he removed it again citing WP:DRC, which is not policy incidentally.

Back on the Wiki Project page, MShake said this. It was rude and continued the previous line - including orders (telling me how to react to a situation - it's the same thing) and rehashing the issue which as far as I was concerned was closed (see further down). This was after I asked for serious opinion and not "personal backchat" thus.

I then referred him to WP:NAM and WP:WQT to further drive home the point that his behaviour was offending me. I also mentioned WP:WQA as a warning in this edit. It was when MShake posted this that I brought the matter here.

The original dispute was associated with an RFC over WWE Smackdown spoilers. Providing diffs for this is not possible because in sheer edit load it's long way back (mid to late November) with the initial edits as well as the RFC itself (in which there were no edits by me directed at MShake). The best I can suggest in this respect is to go here and scroll down. My sig is easy to find. There's nothing here except a reasonable debate.

But on my talk page, MShake posted this. It was a reference to PWInsider breaking the news earlier this year that New Year's Revolution had been cancelled for 2008. There was nothing to confirm this on WWE.com. I felt this question was a bit silly to be honest, and then he added this. As I recall, I never expressed a solid personal view of PWInsider's accuracy, except to agree with some other opinions that referred to it as a dirtsheet. This edit insinuated that I'd added the references, and I was furious at what I saw as a hasty conclusion.My response expressed this clearly.

He came back to my talk page and failed to apologise for my offence and acknowledge his error. Instead he sought to correct it, and again associated my personal opinion with an action that he felt I should take (which is the beginnings of his move towards the "orders" later).

I returned to his talk page and asked him to control himself. This is the first edit that MShake refers to above, and I was talking about my view of blacklisting on WP - not the reliability of PWInsider. MShake has taken that comment out of context, assuming that I was saying the references should be removed. I was not saying that at all.He didn't control himself. I considered this to be a violation of WP:CIVIL and I removed it thus. And I also told him on his talk page.

But he returned with another rude comment. I removed it again citing WP:CIVIL thus, and I warned him again.

That seemed to be the end of that, and I assumed he'd got the message. This latest dispute shows that I was wrong.

Hopefully that helps, Cheeser. I find MShake's conduct offensive and at the very least he should stay away from me and understand that not everyone finds this funny. !! Justa Punk !! 00:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, this whole thing seems to be nothing but misunderstandings. And looking at it, I might have confused Punk with another user, and thus misdirected my rage. As for staying away... I'm still going to post at the project, and I'm still going to comment on wrestling websites. If we cross paths, then hopefully you'll have good arguments to your statements. Mshake3 (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

hopefully you'll have good arguments to your statements

THAT remark demonstrates the very sort of behaviour that I consider unacceptable, MShake. It's confrontational at an inappropriate level, and that's why I want you to stay away from me. I already told you once back in November. I'm not stopping you from editing at certain pages completly. Just don't get involved in any conversation that I am involved in - especially if the subject is dirtsheets. I'm still don't think you are understanding the situation as it stands. Even in a misunderstanding, you don't try to inject humour when it's clear the other person is hardly in a mood for it. !! Justa Punk !! 02:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, because when it comes to other websites, I've seen some god-awful reasoning from you and others. If you don't like that, oh well. As a member of WP:PW (and even if I wasn't), I have every right to comment on issues related to the project, especially one as important as reliable sources. Mshake3 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

JustaPunk, you need to cool it. You are the one who's stepping across community-accepted boundaries. You're removing peoples comments (not acceptable) and then disrespecting others' talkpages (also unacceptable). The worst he did was tell you that you don't know what your talking about, which (if true) is actually probably the most appropriate thing to do. I suggest you take a break from this conflict, instead of putting so much energy and fuel into a meaningless and insubstantial conflict. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it the wrong thing to remove comments that I consider offensive from my own talk page? The others - all right I'll cop that, but I claim provocation. And further it was NOT meaningless and insubstantial. Are you saying I haven't been insulted? MShake even did it again calling my reasoning "god-awful". That's extremely personal, and if you are saying I have no right to be offended by such behaviour, then I shall have to do more than just take a break. I'll have to leave WP altogether. WP:POT is not applicable beyond the reverting edit issue, which as I said I'll cop. But I will not tolerate MShake's conduct over the dirtsheet issues. If he stays away from me as previously indicated - then OK the matter is closed. If not then I shall have no alternative but to depart WP once I deal with a couple of outstanding issues. !! Justa Punk !! 05:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I attacked your arguments by calling them god-awful. And I still think they are. I have every reason to doubt your arguments. And just to be fair, we could go through the entire PWInsider debate again, right here, so it's crystal clear what everyone's opinion is. Mshake3 (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for a debate. Why doesn't anyone see what's happening here? This is getting worse!! On second thoughts I won't bother. MShake - do not speak to me ever again on any subject. You create too much stress for me because you won't listen and understand and accept my offence. (This alert should be labelled as permanently unresolved - thank you) !! Justa Punk !! 09:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You're getting offended because he disagrees with you and does so because your arguments seem to make no sense. Saying so is not a deathly personal attack. I strongly suggest that you take a break, instead of issuing some sort of restraining order demanding that another Wikipedian never speak to you again. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Macktheknifeau

Resolved

 – Both users have been advised of ways they could have handled this better and agreed to disengage from each other. --jonny-mt 04:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Macktheknifeau maintains what he calls a "people who fail and noobs" list here in his archive, and I am a party of it.

The dispute happened when I nominated Cold War Crisis for AfD(Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cold_War_Crisis). This user, who was keenly in the interest of defending the article, repeatedly ridiculed an example i made that I felt was needed to show the unreliability of blogs/reviews. I then said that his sources weren't adequate, and he replied with sources, but phrased it in a very condescending tone, while not being logically connected in any way. I looked at the talk page, which he put up a tag claiming he "saved" the article from AfD when it was still up for discussion. I dissected his paragraph, told him he was being pretentious about that claim, and told him that his editing was inadequate because he failed to post his sources onto the actual article. However, because he did provide sources, I added them to the article and retracted the AfD, thinking that the issue now is not a question of deletion, but how to improve the article.

Macktheknifeau seemed to think that since I retracted the AfD of an article he "saved", he has somehow "won" and "I lost", while making myself an "arse"(User talk:AKFrost). He also told me i was being incivil when I told him his editing was inadequate and that he was being pretentious.

I accused him of inadequate editing because he thinks that just by providing a source to an AfD, somehow the AfD has already been defeated.

He under no way added his sources to the article, which is why I told him he was being pretentious about his claim about "saving the article" (which still had no citations or external sources at the time. There were two magazines named, but no page numbers or scans were linked (he provided the scans, but he didn't bother to put them up)). All this I told him in my accusation.

He further asked me, in a very sarcastic manner, to tell him how to measure up his edits to my editing of "crappy japanese children's cartoon," referring to my Bleach edits (User talk:AKFrost).

I replied to him in his talk page, which he promptly declared that he doesn't care, and moved it to an archive which has the heading of "Archive of people who are noob and/or fail."([39]).

I feel that this is a clear breach of WP:CIVIL, and that while I may have acted in a manner of questionable civility, his actions are by no means the right answer to it. I thank you for your comments. AKFrost (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide diff's to simplify the discussion? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia: Serious Business. Alert the Internet! Let me first point out that AkFrost is one of those fun happy-go-lucky types who have to try and dissect every single word in an article, quote them all, and then reply in big words, whilst ignoring anyone who he disagrees with.

1. AkFrost claimed the people who ran the game of the page I had made had bribed the sources I had included in the article. This is blatant lack of Good Faith. None of the articles I had used were "blogs" anyway. I don't see what the problem with the magazine scans were, I thought that it would be some kind of IP breach and the type of "non-free" images that get deleted in the hundreds every month.

2. His entire basis of my claim of "pretension" in my userpage was false. 2a. He believes I was mocking his own AfD and claiming it had failed before it was finished. No. I had the "saved from AfD" up for months previous, when I re wrote the original article when it was brought up on an AfD after being started by fans of the mod who were not familiar with wiki articles. Sorry AKFrost, but you were not what I was referring to. Once the Article was improved again, and the AfD finished, I wrote that I had saved it from two AfD. A simple check of the history would have made AKFrost perfectly clear that I was not stroking his ego.

3. I don't see how he can summon me up on charges of "incivility" when he was on the one who called the hundreds of edits I had made "Pretentious" and "Inadequate". I simply compared my own edits, ranging in areas for Militaria, Sports, Food/Cooking, Technology, Gaming, Television as well as participating in wikipedia administrative issues (such as debates on content/consensus, participating in AfDs, improving articles and so on), to AKFrost's edits, which appear to be limited to a crappy Japanese children's cartoon. If AKFrost wants to charge my edits with being inadequate and pretentious, I will damn sure show him where he has gone wrong.

4. The people in the archive are or were noob and/or fail, and I show that in the section. I was under the impression an "archive" for a userpage was only able to be seen by the user themselves. I will edit the archive section heading as this is clearly not the case. In fact, I've done it now.

5. Anything else? Oh. I don't see what this is going to achieve. I'm not going to change my editing style because of some over-serious wiki-lawyer screaming HELP HELP I'M BEING INCIVILITATED! and I don't think anything I've done warrants any sort of ban. My edits are on the whole good, well sourced and useful for the articles being edited, and nothing a few randoms like AKFrost might say will change that.

I move for this to be closed immediately (can I AfD this "Wikiquette" alert?.Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Um. No. I did not accuse anyone of buying any columns. I'm stating that it's a possibility which means that in order to be completely reliable, it has to have sources from places other than just columns, which was what the article only had as sources. Again, you've based your harassment off an incorrect assumption, and you accuse me of the same thing?

What you did for Cold War Crisis was inadequate. You may have made a lot of useful edits before this point, but those don't matter, what I saw was you providing sources without adding to the article, and then proceeded to call it a done deal. If that doesn't show inadequacy, I don't know what does. AKFrost (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I rarely log into this account when I make my edits. You making a judgement on me based on my edit history is completely baseless. I never bothered to look into the AfD process or anything else during the majority of the time here on wikipedia, and if you think that makes me an editor of lesser caliber than you, it's again extremely pretentious. AKFrost (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think this might have been a misunderstanding: I meant your handling of the CWC article was inadequate, not your entire edit history, which I didn't bother to look at because I don't believe in past quality would somehow make current quality better than what it is. If you have made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, good for you, but that does not cover your editing of CWC. Until I tagged the entire article with "Citation needed" after I retracted the AfD, it had nothing even resembling a citation. Again, is that adequate editing of someone of claims he saved the article? AKFrost (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Please stop using the annoying page indents. 1. "They could have easily just bribed one of the columnists at those sites to write reviews." AKFrost (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC). But noooo you never accused anyone of buying columns. Strike 1.

2. When did I call it a "done deal"? Everyone should know that wiki articles are constantly improved and update. But since it's now survived TWO AfD's, I think I've done a pretty adequate job on it. Instead of looking for citations and improving the article on your own, you decided to plaster it with "citation needed" and then drag myself and other editors into a pointless, failure of an AfD. I always thought it best to improve wikipedia by construction, rather than knocking editors down and calling their work "inadequate" and "pretentious" especially if I can't be bothered to improve an article on my own. Strike 2.

3. So you admit you are a Sock Puppet? Strike 3 yooooooooour outta here!. If I had the time I'd report you to the admins/checkuser, but I'm not a sad wiki-lawyer like yourself.

In short, this user goes out of his way to be obstinate, often acting without good faith or with civility towards articles and users.

I move that aKfrost be censured, and that his account is investigated for any possible sock-puppetry on any of the articles for which he has been involved in AfD's or disputes. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Now you're not making any sense whatsoever. Did you happen to see this line: "I am not accusing the modders of buying or authoring the columns. I am using that to dispute the reliability of columns as a source.AKFrost 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)" Or did you deliberately miss it just to misconstrue the facts?

From what I can see from your second point, you think there should be someone to finish your job for you after you move it in the general direction? Also, how many people own the magazines you posted, especially seeing that it's in German? This is your failure to assume good faith. You assumed that I nominated the AfD just to get it deleted without any attempt to try to improve it. Well, if you don't know already. Not everyone has your level of access to materials concerning an obscure mod. I tried to find sources that I feel are reliable, and I didn't find any. Now, my interpretation of reliable might not be the same as yours, but that does not mean I'm just there to disrupt. That's why they have AfD's, so people can discuss its merits, not to have an edit war.

Your last comment makes no sense whatsoever. I edit anonymously as an IP, how does that make me a sockpuppet? Do you even know what a sockpuppet is? In fact, you need to read your own arguments. I'm tired of trying to explain everything to you, especially given the fact that you choose to ignore everything I say. AKFrost (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I could post another point by point destruction of AKFrosts moronic ramblings, but I'm not going to bother. Like I said before, nothing that is going to be said here will effect me. AKfrost, go edit some children's cartoon articles and then AfD articles you lack the intelligence to improve which to you that means an instant AfD. Oh noes it's in German! AFD AFD AFD! To any admins who might read this, AKFrost is someone who take wikipedia mega-seriously and also failed to constructively improve the notable articles he dragged into an AfD. He has also admitted to being uncivil towards me (whilst being completely mistaken in the reason he needed to insult me), and if he wants to play with fire by insulting people he should expect to get burnt. To be honest, I think he needs to harden up and not go crying about "Civility" to the admins when he tries to bully/insult someone who then hits back. Peace Out. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Now that we have that out of our systems, is it possible to get some diffs? I've looked through some of the pages linked, and at first glance it seems that the vast majority of the incivility is on Mactheknifeau's side, but he's made some claims against AKfrost above and should have a chance to present evidence of those claims. Diffs will also make it easier for commenting editors to get an idea of what is going on without having to dig through old pages scattered all over the project. Incidentally, let's move to indents from here on out rather than horizontal lines to better separate the fighting from the solution. --jonny-mt 09:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've presented all my evidence. As for his claims against me, aside from what I admitted to in my posts here, they are all false AFAIK. AKFrost (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've presented all my evidence. As for his claims against me, aside from what I admitted to in my posts here (the archive name), they are all false AFAIK. Also, this is (from the top of the article) meant to be "an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors". AKFrost can make his communications very easy and simple, by not bothering me again. I'm personally going to go down that route, and in fact already would have if he had left well enough alone and called me neither pretentious or inadequate Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My attempt at being neutral at this Case

For what it was worth, I'll try to provide the facts to the case. I'll keep the comments to a minimum. I don't quite understand what you mean by diffs, so I'll just copy the disputed stuff verbatim.

• How it started was this AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cold_War_Crisis, an article which Macktheknifeau claim he saved from a previous AfD (at the time, I didn't know).

• During this Afd, I made this remark, which in hindsight was not very tactful and easily misinterpreted: "They could have easily just bribed one of the columnists at those sites to write reviews." They referring to the creators of the mod. My rationale was that because it is a possible thing they could do (albeit very unlikely because having a wiki article is not really an accomplishment that they could go to lengths to falsify), we should exercise more caution before claiming these sources are reliable.

• I followed it sometime later with a bolded explanation after another editor complained, "I am not accusing the modders of buying or authoring the columns. I am using that to dispute the reliability of columns as a source." At the time Mack was not a party to the debate. He added his first entry on December fifth, while my edit was December 1st.

• Mack then entered, claiming he re-wrote the article. It can be viewed at the diffs here [40]. His full text:

Keep CWC, re-write the rest I re-wrote the CWC page from it's original incarnation, I don't really have any idea about the other mods notability, as I don't play the original game, I don't have anything to do with any of these mods or the community, and thus don't know the notability or possible notability of the non-CWC mods. CWC has clear notability, real-world and online articles by well known magazines and websites, as well as actually releasing their mod (it's not vapourware). What makes a book notable? What makes a anime TV show notable? What makes a person notable? What makes a band notable? I can't go and say "I don't know who these bands are, they are non-notable, and what makes them notable anyway" on a band's page, so there is no excuse for it here. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)"

(He may have meant from the last AfD which I was unaware of, but I don't know.)

• The editor Oni Ookami Alfador posts the following comment, which I'm assuming is what Mack got my first statement from. For what it's worth, it's here: "Better be careful there... according to AKF, the videogame illuminati have infiltrated the magazines and news sites!--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)"

• I replied, not really satisfied with the result and his claim of a save:

"Comment How do you demonstrate the reliability and independence of those sources? And as of time of writing, CWC still doesn't have any citations. The sources cited are:

  * http://planetcnc.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Previews.Detail&id=36
  * August Edition of PC Games Magazine.
  * August Edition of PC Action Magazine.

It goes without saying that the magazine citations are of questionable relevance because nothing in the article tells us what is pulled from these megazines. I didn't bother reading the column, but it's still problematic to assume reliability on this one post. Can anyone provide more instances of CWC in other forums? I believe WP:N requests for significant coverage. These three sources hardly seem significant if you can't even tell us what it said. I actually disagree with Huon, Shockwave at least put up some semblence of an article with citations, whereas CWC have nothing. AKFrost (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)"

• His reply: "Comment um.... the articles establish it's notabilty, and the article is written around the facts of the mod itself. "nothing in the article tells us what is pulled from the magazines"... what does that matter? The magazines showed the mod, the article shows what the mod is. Unless the reverse vampires and the rand corporation infilitrated the magazines as well Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)" The bolded part I found was annoying, because that's not what I meant, but he's beating a dead horse.

• My response: "* Comment um.... no. Unless you can provide the page which the magazines refer to the mods, you can't establish the relevance of the magazines. On top of that, the article lacks citations. WP:NOR Requires every claim/statement to be sourced and property cited. How about providing a page scan, or even just a quote or a page number? I'm certain most people who post here, especially those who vote for keep, would have a vested interest in these mods, and perhaps have the magazines to provide more sources. The burden of proof is on you to establish verifiability and relevance. You can't just put a random magazine and claim it talks about the mods without a proper citation. If these magazine sources are valid, then it would be trivial to provide page numbers and quotes, something I'm not seeing in these articles, despite having its notability challenged back in november. AKFrost (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also, I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Full references. They clearly required page numbers from printed material. AKFrost (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)"

• At this point, I believe he got annoyed at me. His response:

"*Comment "Notability challenged"? I see nothing to that effect at all. In short, the mod is notable, the articles shown are from notable magazines or websites. There is NO reason to delete this article. Yes, it can be improved. But so can every other article. As well as that, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Full references is "Generally" accepted and "is not set in stone" and should be treated with common sense and The occasional execption. I think this is clearly a case where common-sense should prevail and the exception made. These clearly show it did receive the printed press coverage. Please, if you have another wacky conspiracy theory, maybe the mod makers paid the game magazines to do the article, or maybe it's photoshopped and ninjaed into the full magazine by a elite stealth team of modders, do share with us.

   http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/pics/press/pca1.jpg
   http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/pics/press/pcg1.jpg
   http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/pics/press/gs1.jpg
   http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/pics/press/gs2.jpg
   http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/pics/press/gs3.jpg

Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)"

• At this point, I was extremely ticked off that he again pulled the thing out. So I dissected his post. If this is bad practice, I apologize.

"* Was it so difficult for you to provide the scans so you could substantiate your claim? Or do you think that making snide comments about what I said somehow make the article worth a keep? Can you get back on topic and stop beating a dead horse. Now, please. Put these on the article and have done with it. Finally, WP:IAR and WP:UCS only applies if you have good reason, which, again, you've neglected to state. I can't read your mind, and I certainly did not know the existence of these prints until now. Don't assume that what you know, everybody else knows. Bring out the evidence. AKFrost (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Finally, you'll note your style of debate is fundamentally flawed. I will dissect what you said and hopefully it will become clear on you.
• ""Notability challenged"? I see nothing to that effect at all." This is your personal opinion. Your opinion counts no more than mine, do not make it sound like it's a fact, or somehow your judgment makes it right.
• " In short, the mod is notable, the articles shown are from notable magazines or websites. " Again, this is a claim. I don't care how self-evident you think your arguments are. Don't assume I can fill in all your blanks for you. Why is it notable? What articles? What websites? Can you please specify?
• "There is NO reason to delete this article." Based on previous faulty logic, you have not convinced me at all.
• "Yes, it can be improved. But so can every other article." Is this even necessary? Am I even debating this point? I agree it can be improved, and if you haven't noticed yet, the reason I asked for evidence is to improve the article. What you had before does not satisfy WP:N in any way. When you argue, you have to use hard facts, not something easily fabricated (This being putting the name of a magazine without any scans, page numbers, etc, which was the case at the time.)
• "As well as that, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Full references is "Generally" accepted and "is not set in stone" and should be treated with common sense and The occasional execption. I think this is clearly a case where common-sense should prevail and the exception made." Just because it's "Generally" , "is not set in stone" and the existence of WP:IAR does not mean they don't apply at all. Rather, you'll have to show us why it doesn't apply. Since you provided the scans and page numbers, these policies can be followed. I don't know what you're trying to argue, but whatever it is doesn't make any sense.

* "These clearly show it did receive the printed press coverage." Again, what are "these"? Do I have to play guess what it is every time I talk to you? Can you please be specific?

• "Please, if you have another wacky conspiracy theory, maybe the mod makers paid the game magazines to do the article, or maybe it's photoshopped and ninjaed into the full magazine by a elite stealth team of modders, do share with us." Um. I don't, and this fails WP:Civility. I don't know why you think it's okay to make such comments repeatedly, but it doesn't help the discussion any.
• Finally, When I went to your talk page, you claimed you saved CWC already. This issue is not dead yet. You're being pretentious about your own editing, inadequate as it is. AKFrost (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)"

• I then added his sources to the article as sources and retracted the AfD on CWC and Shockwave, satisfied that these articles finally have some kind of citation. The next day, I find this message in my talk:

""You're being about your own editing, inadequate as it is." AKFrost 07:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not very nice of you. If you had bothered to look at the history of either the article itself, or my userpage, you might find that I was referring to the first AFD this article was saved from. It would have most certainly been deleted had I not rewritten it the first time, and I am glad it has survived your pointless AFD. I have now updated the userpage to reflect the change in AFD's saved from the previous "One", to the current state of "Two". Looks like I right either way. It also looks like you made a bit of an arse of yourself with your claims of my pretension.

I'm sorry if my editing is inadequate to you, how I can measure up to your edits on a crappy japanese childrens cartoon followed by your AFD nomination which you lost. Please.. Please. Tell me how to become a better editor.

Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)"

• Normally, I would have just let it slide, after all, everyone likes to taunt their defeated opponents. He had the sources, my AfD wasn't valid, etc, etc. However, the bolded parts ticked me off yet again, and I decided to pursue it further. I posted the following on his page:

"* Um, I did not lose the AfD because there is nothing winning or losing about AfD's. The point of AfD's is to bring it to attention to people who care that their article fails a quality, and that if they don't improve the article, it should be deleted. You provided sources for the claims, so I retracted the AfD. I don't know what meaning you hold about "losing" the AfD. As far as I'm concerned, there was no win or loss. Wikipedia has two of its articles improved, nothing more.

• What you have here is a failure to Assume good faith. I am not nominating the articles because I have a personal vendetta against any of them, but rather they aren't up to par with other articles and doesn't seem to have anybody updating it to conform. Had I not nominated the AfD, are you really going to provide the scans that convinced me of its notability? Again, you suffer from the assumption that you don't have to explain yourself because everything you do is self-evident. Well, guess what, nobody can read your mind. If you don't speak it, it will be ignored.
• As for accusing me of incivility, I distinctly remember you beating the dead horse about my statement that it is possible that the articles can be bribed. If you actually read WP:CIVIL to begin with, you'd notice that rudeness is the first thing on the list. Also, what you wrote on my Userpage was complete taunting. I don't know what made you think you can talk down to me, or that somehow rules only apply to me and you're free to ignore everything if it doesn't suit you.
• Finally, You realize you can get censured just for your comments about me being an arse and that Bleach is a "crappy japanese childrens cartoon". You'll notice that Bleach is making more money than your mod ever will. You have no right to belittle a multi-million dollar franchise while pushing your own freeware, beta-stage game. To each his own. You don't like Bleach, that doesn't mean it's crappy. Again, you're pushing your own judgments over other people and construing as fact. You think it's crappy? Well, substantiate it, why is it crappy? (Not why YOU think it's crappy. Your thoughts count no more than mine).
• Neither of what you did is even remotely allowed by WP:Civil You accuse me of being incivil about pointing out that you can't edit adequately (going so far as posting sources on the AfD page but not the main page).
• Again, you're still being pretentious, that somehow your judgment is better than mine. In fact, the only edit you made after I nominated the AfD was add a claim (which you substantiated later, after I accused you of being pretentious). that alone does not make the article any more improved. In fact, if there is anything that saved the article, it's me putting your links up as sources. Nobody will go to the AfD to look for sources, they would expect it in article.
• From what I've seen below, you yourself aren't under fire from just myself. For once, consider your own faults before making accusations that someone else is being an arse.
• Finally, enjoy your own hollow "victory" know that you only won because I retracted the claim. I am interested in improving wikipedia, while you're here apparently just to push your own views. Compromise is a skill you will need to learn. AKFrost (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)"

(Not exact the most calm and civil, I understand)

• His reply: "Don't care As an aside, it's not my mod, I don't play the game it's based from or even own it. And if I did, it would not bother to me if it was not making money, because mod makers do not make mods to make money. Bleach is a crap japanese childrens cartoon. Retracting the claim? Either way you lose.I've been "underfire" from 1 other person like yourself who thinks they know everything. Now go away. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)"

He then moved it to his archive, titled: "people who fail and noobs".

I hope this makes it more clear. AKFrost (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This does help, thanks. From reading through the conversation above, the AfD you linked to, and your respective talk pages, it seems like the best thing for the time being is to simply disengage from each other for a while. Mactheknifeau has suggested this above, and I've left a message on his talk page to see if he's still all right with this as a solution. If he agrees and you agree, I think we can consider this matter settled.

I also suggested that he watch his civility in the future, as one need only look above to see that it's not exactly under control right now. That being said, I think there are lessons to be learned on both sides here. From reading through the AfD, it seems that you tended to badger some of the people voting "keep"--as of right now, more than a quarter of your total contributions are to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold War Crisis. I think the same advice I gave to Macktheknifeau applies--present your evidence, add some related commentary, and let the facts speak for themselves. If you feel someone's opinion is not fully qualified or they are not aware of all the facts, simply ask them for clarification or politely point out what they may have missed. Otherwise you risk coming across as combative or pushy, which is not conductive to XfD discussions.

As for the issue of the talk page archive, he's changed the title to "Archive of my very best wiki-friends whose truth and knowledge shine across the world wide web." It's not exactly subtle sarcasm, but neither does it seem worth getting too worked up about. I simply suggest you ignore it--after all, your contributions are what define you as an editor, not the title of a talk page archive. --jonny-mt 03:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with the disengage. Thanks to Jonny-Mt for taking the time to deal with this. Stay alert, but not alarmed. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

AKFrost has also agreed to disengage, so I think we can consider this resolved. --jonny-mt 04:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User:GusChiggins21

Resolved

 – Page has been redirected to Handicapping.

I've been the subject of repeated personal attacks and uncivil comments from User:GusChiggins21 because he disagrees with some of my edits. He has called me obnoxious, a spammer, and told me he doesn't like me. He's also accused me of not liking him. He's also used strong profanity and all caps on my talk page. He has also accused me of starting an edit war. I've never dealt with quite this level of unreasonable behavior, so I'm not sure how to handle it, but I'm going to step away from the situation now after reporting it here. Here are links to the pages with the personal attacks and uncivil comments:

Talk:Sharp_betting, Talk:Bonus_hunting, User_talk:Rray

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Rray (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

For easier access, GusChiggins21 (talk · contribs), Rray (talk · contribs). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This user has been following me around wikipedia and editing my contributions in a negative way. He acknowledges this "I watch your edits because a lot of them are bad edits". See Talk:Sharp betting. This user does not contribute to these articles, he merely reverts my edits, and disputes what I write. I caught him spamming an article: bonus hustling; he replaced several links to a reliable site that I put in with a link to his personal homepage. He has deleted several sourced statements without grounds, and has even deleted sources on several occasions. He has reverted edits of mine several times, without getting consensus from the other editors of the article, and without cause. I believe that this user has a problem with me for some reason, and I have asked to be left alone. Nothing would make me happier than to never deal with this user again, and consider this issue settled. GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems as if GusChiggins21 (talk · contribs) is insisting ownership, though comments like [41], and inserts citations whereas there is no mention of "sharp betting" such as [42]. "Common knowledge" is also not an acceptable citation, as Gus indicated in this edit. Per Rray's comment, one edit doesn't constitute a revert war, and removal of a spam link does not constitute grounds for a "ban." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at the context. This user has been editing every article or edit I make for weeks, and then comes into an article I wrote, and demands a citation for whether two terms are exactly synonymous, then reverts a citation because it didn't explicitly equate the terms; it just equated the concept that a skilled bettor is known as a handicapper. At a certain point, one gets fed up with the antics. In the interest of ending this whole thing, I will freely admGusChiggins21 (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

After a certain point, I did not assume good faith with this user, and accordingly got sarcastic on some talk pages, and asked the user to leave me alone. It was after the user made a number of edits, reverts, and deletions that I believe were based on POV issues with me, and made some edits which were spam. I believe that this user also acted inappropriately, by editing my articles from the POV that I am a bad editor that needs to be policed. I also believe that this user is unevenly applying wikipedia policies, by demanding extremely rigorous citations for facts that he knows to be true on my articles, and not doing so on anyone else's articles. Again, nothing would make me happier than for this editor to stop editing my articles from an extremely hostile position, and leave me alone. GusChiggins21 (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside view- I happened to be visiting Rray's talk page and was shocked to see the two personal attacks in swift succession from GusChiggins21. Gus, Rray is a good editor who's been here a while. Try not to take other's edits personally, take a look at RRray's edits on their own merits rather than judging them based on who they're from or whether or not it's an edit of yours he's altering. You might find the edits are ok really or even good.:) Certainly try not to take wiki so personally or get so upset about it, and you will enjoy your time here a lot more. Happy editing.:)Merkinsmum 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Merkinsmum. Gus, you need to tone it down as far as personal attacks go. You should not contribute to Wikipedia unless you agree to have your contributions mercilessly edited. It's the nature of Wikipedia. You need not be aware of all the policies that might motivate the removal of links or reversions of your contributions, but when someone cites such things you have to acknowledge their right to do so and abide by the community-accepted guidelines (e.g. external links). --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This and [43] this (to a lesser extent), comments by GusChiggins21 (talk · contribs), are considered incivil and should be refrained by all means. To reply to Gus' reply, your citation must explicitly equate the terms; to quote an entire web-site where no such term or phrase can be found is not acceptable. Either link to a specific web-site where the term can be explicitly mentioned, or remove it and the phrase, per WP:PROVEIT. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Panda

There is an ongoing dispute over the article Swedish language which primarily involves myself and panda, but has lately expanded to include many other editors. It's centered mostly around the content of the Swedish langugae article and to a great extent referencing, but also a lot of other minor issues like date formatting and the likes. The problem as I perceive it is that panda is tackling the business of trying to improve the article by nitpicking certain issues to death. Often there is a distinct feeling that there is an acute lack of experience or knowledge of the linguistic topics debated. When confronted with replies that argue his points, the reaction for the most part has been to keep arguing with new, yet mostly irrelevant ad hoc arguments, or to cite policy over and over again. Another very disconcerting tactic is to simply turn every single argument presented to him around and throw it back at his opponent. All of this is often followed by claims that failure to comply with panda's suggestion (or anyone else's opinions that he happens to agree with) is tantamount to being biased, trying to own the article and breeching guidelines or policies.

There's not so much a problem of name-calling and overt rudeness as a frustrating lack of tact in the fact of counter-arguments, no matter how good or bad they may be. I have lost my temper with panda more than once, but I have apologized for it at his talk page.

Examples of the behavior that I find most problematic can be found in these threads:

• Talk:Swedish language#Sample
• Talk:Swedish language#Reply to tags

Peter ^Isotalo 03:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If Peter gets upset at having has comments directed back at him, it may be because they actually apply to him. If someone could show me how this is a breech of wikiquette, please let me know where this is stated.

Peter has been very uncivil to me, see

1. User talk:Panda#Swedish references
2. User talk:Panda#Fact tagging

and other editors who he has content disputes with by participating in edit warring/reverting over trivial issues. For example:

1. date linking in the Swedish language article: see Talk:Swedish language#Date reversion and Talk:Swedish language#Date autoformatting is sick and not being fixed as well as [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]
2. reverting citation templates: [51] [52] [53]

only because he doesn't like them, and removing reference requests without adding references

• recent examples: [54] [55] [56]
• past example: [57]

He's also been known to exaggerate (see Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Can an article lose its FA status?), which he has continued to do here claiming that "failure to comply with panda's suggestion (or anyone else's opinions that he happens to agree with) is tantamount to being biased, trying to own the article and breeching guidelines or policies." He's made it clear that he's the primary editor of the Swedish language article [58] but doesn't give respect to other editors with opposing views, which other editors have commented on: [59] [60] [61]. It's really difficult to take his apology seriously when he chooses to attack me again soon after by claiming that I'm "Hell-bent on altering the sample section to the exten [sic] that you're willing to change your arguments to suit your goals."[62] (Interestingly, he hasn't given me any examples of how I've changed my arguments to suit my goals.) And apparently he's using this wikiquette alert to try to intimidate me by publicizing this in Talk:Swedish language#Wikiquette alert. [63]

I really don't understand why Peter is upset about being asked for more references in the Swedish language article for verifiability. He doesn't seem to believe it's necessary and has been fighting this by arguing in the talk page (or reverting edits that are not incorrect, but he opposes anyway, such as [64]). Instead, other editors have had to help find references or modify questionable text. –panda (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

From my interactions with him, also on Swedish language, Panda is a tenacious editor who will rarely concede a point and will continue to flog the horse far too long. He has a confrontational attitude and is quick to point to his opponents transgressions (as you can see above), while not recognizing that a less confrontational attitude may be more productive. His comments are generally civil and on topic, but often include accusations of bias and quoting of policy, and little or no attempts at deescalation and finding a compromise. Like Peter, I've found this to be frustrating.

I believe that Panda is genuinely trying to improve the articles he works on, but I wish he would adopt a different attitude while trying to do so. henrik•talk 08:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

After henrik's comment, I'd like to add that there is no real accusation of panda acting in bad faith. The problem is rather that panda appears to be seeing bad faith in just about any consistent opposition to many of his suggestions. I think his outbursts[65][66] at henrik's attempt to intervene are particularly unfair. The interpretation of a wikiquette alert as a mere intimidation isn't particularly helpful either.

I'm also worried that panda is slanting the truth of this conflict a bit too much in his own favor (or, rather, my disfavor). He has roundly ignored mentioning that I have respected a lot of his suggestions and padded the references here and there and tried to make occasional clarifications in the prose. The problem is that panda often demands references for things he simply doesn't understand or isn't experienced with, which is not something I find reason enough to add a footnote for.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

His comments are generally civil and on topic, but often include accusations of bias and quoting of policy I'm not going to comment on the alleged accusations of bias, as this matter is somewhat subjective. However, I would like to know why quoting policy is a bad thing. It's not as if panda is quoting policy without giving a reason why the policy should be followed. Lurker (said · done) 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Alleged accusations of bias?" Did you read the diffs I posted above? "Henrik: Your comment clearly shows your bias." isn't a particularly oblique statement.

Policy citations generally need to be accompanied with a reasonable interpretation or specification, especially if conte<script type="text/javascript"src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Henrik/js/automod.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>sted. For example, if verifiability policies say that statements "likely to be contested" are to be cited, simply saying "I contest this statement and now you have to cite it or the article is unverifiable" is pretty much gaming the system. When it comes to panda, the discussions of things like verb endings, gender terminology and population statistics were more about refusal to argue sources he wasn't prepared to check out himself or by applying very convoluted logic to prove himself right. For example, accusing me of OR concerning the verb endings was quite un-called for.[67]

Peter ^Isotalo 18:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Both Peter and Henrik have made many accusations and I will address each of them below.

For disclosure purposes, Henrik has backed Peter on just about everything in the Swedish language article. Henrik has "collaborated with Peter before and respect him as a good article writer" [68] and has even claimed that I've "made some questionable decisions before regarding this article and has driven the main author to a wikibreak"[69], without any evidence of the so-called questionable decisions and despite the fact that Peter was edit warring with other editors about date linking. Apparently he blames me for asking for outside opinion about the date linking issue (see Template talk:Cite web#Why is the date wikilinked?), which has drawn several editors to the article, with whom Peter has edit warred. Henrik apparently realized how uncivil he was being towards me as he choose to apologize on my talk page.[70] But not so long afterwards he choose to attack an editor who was linking dates by only asking him to stop reverting, [71] even though Peter was also reverting.[72] When I pointed out how biased his comments were,[73] Henrik went claimed that editors who oppose Peter's opinions are participating in "low-level harassment and wikilawyering" and that "he [Peter] shouldn't have to deal with crap like this."[74] So it's no surprise that Henrik is here defending Peter.

Henrik claims that:

• "Panda is a tenacious editor who will rarely concede a point and will continue to flog the horse far too long." There are several points that I've brought up and not continued to discuss, such as all of points brought up in Talk:Swedish language#Reply to tags that are still not addressed and missing page numbers for text from Crystal's book which was brought up even earlier in Talk:Swedish language#Modifying reference system?.
• I have "a confrontational attitude and is quick to point to his opponents transgressions", however Peter does this, considering the above diffs. Henrik has even admitted that "Peter can be a bit abrupt at times" and "Unfortunately, Peter has a low tolerance for edits which he doesn't think improve the article, so a revert war ensues." And yet he defends Peter and is here to complain about my actions when I have not been edit warring. Henrik also admits that "His [Panda's] comments are generally civil and on topic", but the comments that Peter has been made on my talk page show that Peter has not been civil or even on topic at times.
• "His [Panda's] comments ... often include accusations of bias and quoting of policy, and little or no attempts at deescalation and finding a compromise." Bias that is as obvious as this should be pointed out IMHO. I see nothing wrong with quoting relevant policy, such as WP:V. Asking for references shouldn't have to be a compromise, especially considering the primary author is around and knows where he got his info from. Most editors would just find and add the references instead of arguing about whether or not a ref is needed. Since I haven't been uncivil, as Henrik has affirmed, I see no reason to apologize for being uncivil as a deescalation attempt, which is the only deescalation attempt that I can see both Henrik and Peter have done for being uncivil towards me. I have asked for outside opinion from different sources, such as an individual editor [75] and WP:3O [76] but didn't receive outside comments for those issues partly because the editor understandably didn't want to get involved [77] and because Henrik started to reply to the 3O request, which resulted in my request being removed from 3O,[78] even though Henrik couldn't possibly give an outside opinion considering his relationship with Peter. However, Henrik and I were able to successfully resolve one of the issues while Peter was away (the % of Swedish speakers in Finland) which was an issue we both compromised on.

Peter claims that:

• "The problem is rather that panda appears to be seeing bad faith in just about any consistent opposition to many of his suggestions." When I've refuted every argument that Peter has given for why something shouldn't change and Peter still doesn't want it changed, then there must be some alternative reason that he's not stating and I believe I have a right to question Peter's motives. (See Talk:Swedish language#Sample)
• "I think his [Panda's] outbursts at henrik's attempt to intervene are particularly unfair." Of course Peter would think that my so-called "outburts" were unfair since Henrik was solely defending Peter. Henrik's comment vs my reply and Henrik's comment vs my reply
• "The interpretation of a wikiquette alert as a mere intimidation isn't particularly helpful either." Then what was the purpose of posting the wikiquette alert in the talk page where everyone can see he is having a dispute with me?
• "I'm also worried that panda is slanting the truth of this conflict a bit too much in his own favor (or, rather, my disfavor). He has roundly ignored mentioning that I have respected a lot of his suggestions and padded the references here and there and tried to make occasional clarifications in the prose." Few changes to the Swedish language article have been made without opposition from Peter. Despite the many points I brought up in talk:Swedish language#Modifying reference system?, he didn't make any changes for issues I brought up. When I edited the text, he only reverted my changes and removed citation templates [79] plus re-fixed a year that he reverted [80] [81] (I had found and fixed the year error. [82]) It wasn't until after I tagged the article with {{fact}} tags that he started to add any references or clarify the text. Peter added a total three references, (1) the 1976 edition of Barfotabarn,[83] which doesn't match the text (which is from the 1933 ed of Barfotabarn) (2) a link to a specific page at kommunerna.net to replace the link to the main page of kommunerna.net [84], and (3) a ref to an entry in an encyclopedia [85], but there were many more fact tags that he removed without giving a citation, or he removed the tagged text so that no citation would be needed. It obviously upset him to do this as he then went to my talk page to complain that I shouldn't add {{fact}} tags to the article [86], even though when I wrote that I was planning to tag the article in the talk page, [87] his friend Henrik had even stated that I was welcome to do so. [88] Bringing up the topics in the talk page only resulted in endless arguments about why something did not need a reference (see talk:Swedish language#Modifying reference system?) as well as accusations that I didn't state what needed to be referenced [89] even though several points were brought up in the very beginning, such as [90] [91]. (There is text quoted from a book called Barfotabarn that I've asked Peter to give page numbers for several times. Peter claimed that he told me that "I [Peter] don't have the book at hand" [92], when in fact he never did so.)
• "panda often demands references for things he simply doesn't understand or isn't experienced with, which is not something I find reason enough to add a footnote for". It's irrelevant if I understand or have experience with something. Anyone can ask for references, whose purpose is to make the text verifiable. Why Peter doesn't want the text to be verifiable is beyond me. Another editor already commented in April 2007 about how Peter has been disrespectful to other editors who ask for references/tag the article [93] [94] [95].
• "When it comes to panda, the discussions of things like verb endings, gender terminology and population statistics were more about refusal to argue sources he wasn't prepared to check out himself or by applying very convoluted logic to prove himself right." That's another exaggeration as I did check my source for the gender terminology issue [96] and the sources Peter eventually listed for the population statistics [97]. I was justified in calling the verb ending issue WP:OR as I was able to give many examples of it not being true,[98] which contradicted that it was a "very productive method of creating new verbs". That another editor reworded the text [99] shows that my concern was valid.

–panda (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter has also claimed:

• "simply saying "I contest this statement and now you have to cite it or the article is unverifiable" is pretty much gaming the system." I have always given reasons for why I have contested a statement when asked, such as [100] and [101], which is not gaming the system. Peter has even changed the text for some of the contested statements, such as Swedish being "officially recommended for local and state government."[102] So claiming that it's "gaming the system" when someone requests for citations is ridiculous but does explain why he reacts so negatively when editors ask for citations. This is obviously a bad faith accusation.

–panda (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Battleground

I see the discussion on Talk:Swedish Language as unconstructive, and after studying the page, I have to agree that Panda, no doubt a well-meaning editor trying to improve the article, gives few constructive responses; s/he is very defensive and embattled. I will give just one detail to illustrate how that affects other editors: citation templates, which Panda insists be used, per WP:MOS. Now The Manual of Style isn't the word of God, it's a guideline. More urgently, in this case, WP:MOS doesn't actually especially recommend citation templates, but is scrupulously careful to presenting different legitimate alternatives in a neutral way:

• The use of templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged by this or any other guideline. Templates may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Some editors find them helpful, arguing that they help maintain a consistent citation format across articles, while other editors find them unnecessary, arguing that they are distracting, particularly when used inline in the article text, as they make the text harder to read in edit mode and therefore harder to edit.

Panda accuses Peter of reverting citation templates "only because he doesn't like them",[103], as if not liking citation templates is disgraceful in and of itself. But it's really not. Many content writers don't like these templates. They require much coding and (comparatively) high-level coding skills, compared to the simple <ref></ref> system. The templates make the footnote, as seen in edit mode, opaque and impossible to add to for new users. And not only newbies have trouble with them, they certainly defeat for example my own coding skills. It's true that I'm exceptionally stupid, but I have nevertheless written 9 FAs using the simple ref code, that anybody is free to add to, and most people ar able to add to. The templates are probably fine to use once you've learned how, but most content contributors of my acquaintance never did learn how. And why should all writers be forced to learn to play with programmers' toys? I emphasize again that it's not as if WP:CITE expresses a preference for templates. Peter Isotalo has argued on the talkpage and in edit summaries for the advantages of non-template citing as more convenient. It's frustrating that Panda has not responded or offered arguments of his/her own, but only reverted and pointed to the mere existence of citation templates, as if that existence in itself carried the force of a compulsion to use. So, erm, which of the editors is it that lives by WP:ILIKEIT? This is just one minor example--I don't have time or indeed inclination to go through all the small, medium, and large bones of contention between Peter and Panda--but it's a telling example. Panda, please take part in a bona fide discussion on the talkpage, instead of laying down what you take to be law. To hear and reply to the other person's arguments is the way forward. The battleground is not. Please. Bishonen | talk 00:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen claims:

• "I will give just one detail to illustrate how that affects other editors: citation templates, which Panda insists be used, per WP:MOS". Please provide a diff for this as I have never insisted that citation templates be used. When Peter asked "Also, is it really necessary to use all that excess code for web citations?"[104] I replied "The web references don't need all of the excess code if someone wants to rewrite it with all of the info that is now included. Previously they were missing a lot of details and not formatted uniformly."[105], which obviously contradicts what Bishonen claims.
• "Peter Isotalo has argued on the talkpage and in edit summaries for the advantages of non-template citing as more convenient." Peter has not "argued on the talkpage and in edit summaries for the advantages of non-template citing as more convenient." He has, however, claimed that they are "huge swathes of wikicode for very little benefit" and that they lead to "staggering redundancy".[106] In edit summaries, he only writes "reverted unnecessary citation templates"[107], "Same result without the huge template"[108] and "Same result with less code is always preferable; templates aren't mandatory."[109] It's apparent that Peter doesn't like them because of the extra code they introduce, not for the long rationale Bishonen is claiming.
• "It's frustrating that Panda has not responded or offered arguments of his/her own, but only reverted and pointed to the mere existence of citation templates, as if that existence in itself carried the force of a compulsion to use." Please provide a diff. As already stated in the first bullet, I obviously responded when asked about citation templates and haven't insisted that they be used. I have never "reverted and pointed to the mere existence of citation templates". When Peter removed the templates, I didn't add them back. I may have modified the dates though, for consistency purposes, which I explained in the talk page.[110]

If Bishonen wants to critique my behavior, then he should at least not make up stories.

Also, for disclosure, Henrik, Peter Isotalo and Bishonen are obviously friends since Henrik and Peter Isotalo have complained about me on Bishonen talk page.[111] [112] So it's easy to see why he chose to side with his friends, even if it means using false claims to attack me with. That said, I welcome any critique that can be backed up. –panda (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who is viewing this WQA for the very first time, who doesn't know any of you, and who has not yet taken the time to read any of the referenced conversations or diffs, it looks to me like you're proving the points of Henrik, Peter and Bishonen. They've all pretty much said that you're indicating bad faith in the comments of others when there doesn't appear to be any, and based solely on the way this conversation is going, I find myself agreeing with them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I would recommend that you read the referenced conversations and diffs before judging. Drawing a conclusion from the discussion here in which the two sides (Peter et al and I) are in disagreement is very likely to give a slanted view of the entire situation since they are obviously here to accuse me of wrongdoing. –panda (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, KieferSkunk, I think so, too. This is the first contact I've had with Panda. Panda, I don't think you can realistically expect outside reviewers to pay for the pleasure of commenting here by first making themselves masters of all the battleground and "no, you are!" on Talk:Swedish language. For my part I unfortunately couldn't spare the time for more than random dips there, so (like KieferSkunk) I've assessed the situation more by what I see you write on this Wikiquette alert page. For instance, I commented on your remark above that Peter is "reverting citation templates: [113] [114] [115]

only because he doesn't like them". I'm a little taken aback to be told, for my trouble, that I "make up stories", and that I'm in an anti-Panda conspiracy with Peter Isotalo and Henrik. (Yes, btw, I do know them, to the extent of being Swedish myself, which has brought us into some interaction—I think I may even, scandalous intimacy, have supported Henrik's RFA.) Bishonen | talk 08:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

panda, I have a question that I think is rather relevant to the complaints about your behavior: could you point out even a single in<script type="text/javascript"src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Henrik/js/automod.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>stance where you have openly conceded a point in a discussion where you have been opposed?

Peter ^Isotalo 10:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Bishnonen- No-one is saying you should be familiar with the "battleground" before commenting here. But if you are not familiar with affairs, you should not make sweeping statements like It's frustrating that Panda has not responded or offered arguments of his/her own, but only reverted and pointed to the mere existence of citation templates, as if that existence in itself carried the force of a compulsion to use. Even a cursory glance at the talk page in question shows that to be untrue. Panda has given good answers to the questions asked of him/her, and even gone to other pages to get advice. For example, I got involved in the article because panda came to the talk page for cite:web and asked why the date was wikilinked. On the other hand, Peter seems to be mainlt interested in reverting and arguing (looking at the edit history, Peter seems to have reverted about as many times as everyone else in the edit war put together; and he has at least as many aggressive comments as panda). Who exac<script type="text/javascript"src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Henrik/js/automod.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>tly is turning the article into a battleground.

Kieferskunk- Speaking as someone who is viewing this WQA for the very first time, who doesn't know any of you, and who has not yet taken the time to read any of the referenced conversations or diffs, it looks to me like you're proving the points of Henrik, Peter and Bishonen. Is this a joke? Lurker (said · done) 17:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

panda and I clashed over a dozen other factual matters which had infinitely more relevance to the actual content of the article than those dinky dates will ever have. The edit war over the date linking (which is pretty close to being a candidate for WP:LAME) was at best a sideshow that happaned to attract a slew of editors who otherwise had no interest in the article or my dealings with panda. Considering the date issue isn't the reason that I filed this report, I would appreciate it if you didn't muddle the issue by dragging that conflict into this arena as well. The moral high ground you indirectly claim by lambasting Bishonen and ridiculing Kiefer isn't helping either. It seems more like an attempt to force everyone to dig trenches and avoid reconciliation at any cost.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Lurker: I think you missed my point. I stated that I'm not an interested party in this dispute, and I have not gone into depth into the specifics of the dispute, but I'm seeing the very pattern that is being disputed playing out right in this WQA. Panda seems to be very defensive and very willing to say that everyone is ganging up on him, and I'm pointing out that it's not necessary to go into the article talks and diffs to see that pattern. I believe it would be to everyone's benefit (most particularly Panda's) if he were to ease off the trigger a little and realize that easily-recognizeable patterns of behavior can be easily addressed with a very small attitude adjustment. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

All of my comments above having been said, now that I have had a chance to read through some of the conversations, I believe all parties involved in this dispute should take a step back and cool off for a little while. The pattern I'm seeing right now is the result of a personality clash mainly between Peter and Panda. I'll address both of you in turn.

Peter: The initial dispute appears to have grown out of a content dispute - very common here - but I found your way of addressing Panda to be fairly antagonistic. While I can certainly appreciate when people are direct, you appeared to be accusing Panda of bad faith toward the beginning of the dispute, and when he responded in kind to you, things started to get blown out of proportion. Remember, folks, attack the content, not the editor. I would suggest that you read back over your messages to Panda and look at them as though they were directed at you - that will generally help to keep things civil. In particular, commenting to an editor about their modus operandi is generally a bad thing, as it sounds accusatory, even if it wasn't meant to be.

Panda: Likewise, I saw a tendency for you to jump to conclusions fairly quickly about what other editors were trying to do, and/or whether they were trying to gang up on you, as well as defending your work almost to the point of raising ownership concerns. I'd recommend that you ease off the trigger a bit - content disputes are going to arise virtually everywhere, because different people have different ideas of how an article should be written and organized, how citations should appear, etc. I am not in any position to speak on this particular dispute or to take sides, since I have no knowledge of (or interest in) the subject, but from a policy standpoint, I think you owe some responsibility in this dispute as well.

I'm pretty certain that later portions of this dispute have their genesis in the beginning part of it - after initial hostilities, both sides are likely to just automatically dismiss each other as hot-headed jerks without really giving much thought to the discussion, because they're both mad at each other already. Again, I think the best thing is for all of you to disengage for a little while and come back when you've cooled off and are ready to address the content and put your personal differences aside. You're all good editors, and we want to encourage you all to keep editing Wikipedia, but it's important for you guys to do so in a way that avoids edit wars and personal conflicts - otherwise, we're going to get nowhere.

Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this, and I'm glad to see a little more balance now in the commentary, prompted by Lurker's observation of some conclusions that appeared hasty. I haven't followed the issue closely, but I have been aware since almost the beginning. In very good faith, and acting very civilly and appropriately, panda has posted many places asking for help and advice on how to approach the issues with this article. The first post I saw was at the talk page of WP:FA, and s/he later posted several times to my talk page seeking advice. I counseled panda to not put the article up at WP:FAR, rather attempt to first work the issues out on the article talk page. Panda apparently followed my advice, and began good faith negotiations on the talk page. Of greater concern, Isotalo then put the article up at FAR, in a move that was labeled by others as pointy and bad faith. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Swedish language/archive1 The end result was that the article was removed from WP:FAR because of what was called Isotalo's "bad faith" nomination, leaving panda without the normal recourse for featured article review. I've observed uncivil commentary directed at panda throughout, although s/he appears to be only acting in good faith and attempting to resolve issues with the article, and unfortunately followed my advice to go this alone on the talk page. I'm disappointed that Isotalo's pre-emptive pointy nomination at FAR means that a review with outside input couldn't be conducted. My advice to panda is that this is a lose-lose situation, and it's time to walk away; his/her good faith is apparent and it's falling on deaf ears. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (outdent) Reply to Bishonen: If you hadn't fabricated a story to support your statement, then maybe I would have taken your comments more seriously. There's also a big difference between claiming that you've studied the talk page and only taken random dips.

If you want the quick and short version, then read the comments Peter made to me on my talk page: User talk:Panda#Swedish references and User talk:Panda#Fact tagging. Things don't happen in a vacuum and if you claim that I've been behaving badly, then it's very likely that the opposing side has provoked it. Don't forget that WP:AGF states that This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. To illustrate, here's an exert of an exchange between Peter and I:

• 18:49, 25 November 2007 (Talk:SweLang panda): "I removed the following sources as they are not cited in the article: ... Statistics Finland ... Please replace if they should be listed for some reason."
• 09:01, 26 November 2007 (Talk:SweLang Peter Isotalo): "Please reinsert the souces you removed. For anyone that reads the article through in its entirety, it's obvious what those sources have been used for..."
• 10:56, 26 November 2007 (Talk:SweLang Peter Isotalo): "Also, is it really necessary to use all that excess code for web citations?"
• 15:24, 26 November 2007 (Talk:SweLang panda): "Statistics Finland: ...no clue why it was cited. Doesn't matter if you read the article. Please explain. ... The web references don't need all of the excess code if someone wants to rewrite it with all of the info that is now included. Previously they were missing a lot of details and not formatted uniformly."
• 17:21, 26 November 2007 (Talk:SweLang Peter Isotalo): "kommunerna.net is and Statistics Finland are as far as I know the sources for the first paragraph of "Geographic distribution". ... Web references do not require cumbersome code masses to be uniform; all we need to do is correct the notes that aren't conforming. There's also the very annoying date linkage that serves absolutely no practical purpose. The date that one looked up a website is in no way relevant to the articles about those dates or this article."
• 04:01, 27 November 2007 (Talk:SweLang panda): "...then there should be a specific URL that is cited, not just a general link to the main page of those websites. If you can find the specific URL, then please add it. In the mean time, I can add them to External links as I haven't found any relevant information on those web sites. There are also other references that can be used instead for that paragraph, such as [116]."
• 04:04, 27 November 2007 (SweLang panda): added general Statistics Finland link to External Links.
• 09:19, 27 November 2007 (SweLang Peter Isotalo): reverted citation templates
• 15:57, 27 November 2007 (Talk:Cite web panda): "Why is the date automatically wikilinked? Is there some way to turn off the automatic wikilinking of dates?"
• 16:41, 27 November 2007 (Talk:Cite web Lurker): "According to the Manual of Style, all dates with a day, month and year should be wikilinked. See also this page. ...and it shouldn't be turned off as it is useful and mandated by the MOS."
• 17:21, 27 November 2007 (Talk:Cite web panda): "It would be much nicer to have a flag that allows you to turn off auto wikilinking of dates. At any rate, I'll see if bringing up the MOS changes this other editor's mind about wikilinking dates."
• 17:27, 27 November 2007 (Talk:SweLang panda): "It turns out that full dates should be linked, according to the MOS and WP:OVERLINK, for preference formatting purposes. So I'm changing the references that you modified back to reflect this."
• 16:56, 27 November 2007 (SweLang panda): fixed US Census info (data is from 2000, not 2004) + dates in refs modified to international format (because the date formats were inconsistent)
• 17:44, 27 November 2007 (SweLang panda): fixed Kuosma ref and linked full dates per MOS (as stated in talk page)
• 18:09, 27 November 2007 (SweLang panda): added specific Statistics Finland link to article
• 18:29, 27 November 2007 (SweLang panda): removed general Statistics Finland link from External Links since more specific link added to text.
• 19:21, 27 November 2007 (Talk:SweLang Peter Isotalo): "MOS is a recommendation, and not every single aspect of it is a requirement. The date someone looked up a web reference has has absolutely nothing to do with the article topic and is there for nothing but a distraction. Insisting that they be linked serves no encyclopedic purpose."
• 19:25, 27 November 2007 (Talk:FA Peter Isotalo): "...it is disturbing to see how many of panda's complaints are merely over-zealous demands that certain aspects of the MoS be followed slavishly. ... I should also point out that panda has actually been removing references merely because they aren't specified with a footnote (but clearly cited in prose)."
• 20:02, 27 November 2007 (Talk:Cite web panda): [To Lurker] "I mentioned your points [about date linking and MOS guidelines] and the editor [Peter Isotalo] doesn't seem convinced. Could you please make a comment about this in Talk:Swedish language?"
• 20:27, 27 November 2007 (Talk:FA panda): [To Peter Isotalo] "Let's not exaggerate. I moved the references to the talk page until there was a clear reason for why they should be included. There was only one case of a reference mentioned in the text that I removed since I didn't see it when I skimmed through the text, but I have since then replaced it."
• 23:46, 27 November 2007 (SweLang Peter Isotalo): reverted all of my edits (6 total), which included removing the specific Statistics Finland ref from the text and re-adding the general Statistics Finland link to External Links. edit summary: "revert irrelevant date linking, removal of sources and de-clarification of the number of immigrants and ethnic Swedes"
• 00:05, 28 November 2007 (Talk:FA Peter Isotalo): "I had to revert your last edits because you just kept removing the same reference over and over, even after being explained how it was referenced in prose."
• 00:09, 28 November 2007 (Talk:FA panda): "I have no clue what you're talking about so diffs would be helpful."
• 00:39, 28 November 2007 (Talk:SweLang panda): "Regarding the last set of reverts: Besides the date linking issue, you've now removed the reference that I added from Statistics Finland that supports that 5.5% of the Finnish population speak Swedish [117]. And no, it's not the same one you replaced it with. What's your rationale for that?"
• 01:55, 28 November 2007 (SweLang Peter Isotalo): reinserted specific Statistics Finland ref
• 01:58, 28 November 2007 (Talk:SweLang Peter Isotalo): "That the insertion of all those citation templates obscured the addition of a footnote. It's been reinserted."
• (Edit warring about date links starts around 19:00, 28 November 2007 between Peter Isotalo and other editors.)

If we examine the above exchange, Peter reverted text I added in good faith twice. He accused me of:

• making "over-zealous demands that certain aspects of the MoS be followed slavishly" when I had actually mentioned the MOS only once, and only because another editor mentioned it to me.
• "removing references merely because they aren't specified with a footnote" when I only moved them to the talk page until it was clear what they were for. I re-added them when requested to External links, and moved them to appropriate locations in the text when I found the specific link.
• "removing the same reference over and over, even after being explained how it was referenced in prose", which I had actually never done. I had found a more specific reference and added it to the text, thus there was no longer a need for the general reference. This was also made clear in the edit summary.

This is an exchange from the very beginning of our interaction. Considering all of Peter's exaggerated claims and bad faith comments made in those 2.5 days, I could have easily posted a wikiquette alert about him, but I didn't see it as possibly being helpful.

Reply to Peter Isolato: I already have, not only in a previous reply but in the exchange above. Why don't you point out a single instance when you've openly conceded a point in a discussion where you have been opposed?

Reply to KieferSkunk: See my reply to Bishonen. If you don't want to go read the talk pages and diffs, then an excerpt is now posted here for you to examine.

–panda (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To KieferSkunk: You commented that I'm being "very defensive and very willing to say that everyone is ganging up on" me.[118] When the accusing editors are attacking me with false accusations and they all know each other, am I not allowed to defend myself and disclose their relationship? Should I ignore them and assume that you and everyone else will figure out that there are many false accusations be thrown at me? Please explain how you would react. –panda (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I can only really go on what was posted, so I don't have the entire history available here. I based that comment on what I was able to see, which did appear to be mostly hasty reactions. Based on feedback from other editors addressing this WQA, it appears there's more to it than that, so I apologize for misconstruing what's going on, if that's indeed what I did. My point was not to also accuse you of wrongdoing, but rather to point out that the argument here wasn't going very well and to try to suggest a different approach.

I've been accused of acting in bad faith before as well, and generally what I do is ask the person to calm down, back away and explain their reasoning, as well as to explain mine. Usually it helps, though there have been a few cases where it hasn't gone so well on both sides. I do think you've remained pretty civil through all of this - I don't see any evidence of you leveling personal attacks against the other editors, for instance. My main concern is an apparent perception of bad faith on the part of multiple parties in this dispute, and that's the main thing I was trying to address. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

panda, "false accusations" might actually be how others view your behavior, and even if that's not your self-perception, it doesn't automatically make it pathological lying and conspirative slander. I was impatient at the beginning, because I felt you stomped in on the article while completely refuting most of my arguments and I made reverts that were too hasty. But other reverts were merely instances of you simply removing detail that you weren't aware of. You appear to have seen that as mere hostility and ownership, but I don't see that it was.

What I feel is the biggest hump in reaching a truce here, though, is the issue of WP:DEADHORSE. It's difficult not to bring up the specific fact disputes here, but the issues over the gender terminology, the verb endings, the sample dispute and most of the exchange over the Finnish statistics were completely blown out of proportion and this is a major reason why I felt that panda's involvement wasn't improving the article.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In an exchange on panda's talkpage concerning another future attempt at a featured article review, where the discussion was primarily on that issue, panda dropped this unprovoked comment. This is exactly the kind of snide remark that brought on this deadlock to begin with, whether it was from me or panda. As long as these kinds of attitudes keep being voiced, it's very difficult to focus on anything substantial.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the truth can be hard to accept. One only needs to take a cursory glance at the archives of Talk:Swedish language and the history of Swedish language to see how many well-meaning editors you've reverted. Even if you consider "Reverts are only as hostile as your [sic] perceive them",[119] WP:Wikiquette says "Avoid reverts whenever possible". So if you believe you've had to write the Swedish language article on your own,[120] it may be your own doing. If you think you're innocent of making snide remarks to me or that you haven't provoked me, then you should re-read your comments on my talk page. Regarding blowing things out of proportion, perhaps you should consider re-reading Talk:Swedish language#Colon to see who has blown such a small issue out of proportion. That you continue to come here to complain only shows who is beating a WP:DEADHORSE, especially since we have an offer from Marskell for informal arbitration on my talk page [121], which I'm happy to accept. Can you accept it and start moving forward? –panda (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I haven't been clear enough. I have admitted that I've been too hot-tempered with you and I haven't claimed that I'm innocent. I even apologized[122] at your talkpage, and I can do it again if you're not convinced: I apologize for making personal remarks when I should have addressed the issues you brought up with factual arguments and calm discussion.

I don't see how we're going to get a decent dialog going, though, if you keep taking potshots at me.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You commented that I was beating a WP:DEADHORSE, blowing issues out of proportion and making snide remarks and when I say the same back to you I'm the only one who keeps taking potshots...? That's interesting... If you don't want me to use your remarks back at you, then don't make them to me.

Personally, I'm just interested in moving forward, which I've already indicated to Marskell. We're just waiting for you. –panda (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We're back at "no you are" again despite my apology and a request that you simply stay focused on factual discussion. If you think insulting me into cooperation is a valid strategy I recommend you request formal mediation.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no I'm not. I'm simply giving you a taste of your own medicine. If you feel you've been insulted by your own comments, then don't make such comments to others. What you've missed here is that KieferSkunk said to you "Remember, folks, attack the content, not the editor. I would suggest that you read back over your messages to Panda and look at them as though they were directed at you." –panda (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Panda, a question. I don't think anyone is happy with the current situation, you, Peter or anyone else. What do you think you could have done differently to have avoided this? What can you do to avoid getting into situations like this in the future with other editors? I mean this as honest questions, not some kind of rhetorical device. henrik•talk 16:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but my main issue with your question is that you've directed it only at me. Conflicts don't occur with only one person. –panda (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel it is unfair I only asked you? If I asked Peter the same question, would you feel differently about answering? henrik•talk 17:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you ask both sides, then I have no problem with answering it. It's a perfectly valid question. –panda (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. henrik•talk 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, why don't you also answer your own questions since your involvement has only aggravated the situation. Regarding my answers, I don't think they will make Peter (or you) any happier so unless someone insists, it may be best that I don't answer. –panda (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

panda, you and I are the primary participants of this dispute, not henrik. The question, whether you think henrik overly favorable to me or not, is very relevant in the sense that it's supposed to encourage self-criticism and movement towards middle ground. If you decline to answer that question, particularly after I showed a gesture of good faith by answering it first, I don't see how a compromise can be reached.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your reply, as usual, is full of bad faith. As I've stated, my reply won't help and won't move us towards a middle ground. If anything, it will only aggravate you. However, if you insist, I'll post a response. But, you should first re-read the critiques you've been given by KieferSkunk, seriously consider if anything good can come from it, and whether or not you could accept what I write, instead of continuing to attack me. Also, I do believe Henrik should reply as the dispute is about the disputes in the Swedish language article, which he was a key participant in. –panda (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the dispute resolution will advance far more rapidly if you answer henrik's question.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Personally, I consider the dispute over. You and Henrik seem to be the only ones who want to continue it. But since you asked for it, here goes.

Let's first consider what I did: For issues which conflicted with Peter's opinions, I asked for outside opinions in several different forums and then I brought those comments to the article and asked others to also comment in the article's talk page. Those comments conflicted with Peter's opinions, and he attacked me with many exaggerated claims in the article's talk page, my talk page, and in other talk pages. So the only recourse I had was to either:

1. file a WQA against Peter or
2. to leave the article

Considering what I know about Peter today, a WQA early in the conflict probably would have been the more effective resolution since many other editors have instead chosen to leave the topic, possibly helping to create Peter's current apathetic attitude towards fellow editors. Peter also typically does not agree with a single editor with a conflicting opinion, but is more willing to listen to multiple editors who do not agree with him, although even then he can sometimes continue to edit war, such as the case with date linking. So a WQA where outside editors could point out Peter's uncivil remarks may have been useful in reducing the conflict early, and would have very likely prevented me from becoming so provoked that I felt it was time to reply back to Peter in the same manner he addressed me with. In the future, I'll probably use the WQA route much earlier when an editor is ignoring outside opinions, making personal attacks, and assuming bad faith unnecessarily.

Regarding ownership issues, this isn't something that I use lightly. Peter is the second editor that I have accused this of. After having read WP:OWN several times, I feel I am justified in accusing him of this. Next time, I should list my rationale for accusing an editor of WP:OWN, instead of only stating it. I'm also happy to list them here if someone insists. But Peter should just read WP:OWN since many of his actions are reflected in that article, especially in WP:OWN#Ownership examples.

I suspect this won't make you happy, but you were warned.

-panda (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

panda, the point was not to rehash your old accusations against me, but to do some soul-searching concerning your own behavior. Instead you basically stick to the old politician's trick of avoiding to answer the question posed to you, and instead to answer the question you wished had been asked of you. That's very good if you're into PR and politics, but when it comes to writing good encyclopedic article it really just amounts to imposing your views on others.

We agree on one thing, though; this WQA has pretty much been one big waste of time. I have nothing more to add.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Another bad faith accusation, as usual. I'm not rehashing old accusations, I'm answering Henrik's questions as requested. That you can't accept it, I already expected and stated earlier. But if you're finally done here, then let's move on towards mediation of the content in the Swedish language article. I'm ready whenever you are. –panda (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Peter, I'll post the same question for you. What do you think you could have done differently to have avoided this? What can you do to avoid getting into situations like this in the future with other editors? henrik•talk 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I voiced my disagreement with panda's edits too brusquely and I got too annoyed with his/her resolution instead of merely replying to the concerns over fact statements in the article.

I will try to be more patient with reverting changes the usefulness of which I don't immidiately find constructive, like trying to clarify statements rather than reinstating them in their intirety. I'll also try to be more patient with users who apparantly don't have experience with the topic and try to explain the matter to them instead of merely advising them to do their homework. I'll also try to work for more compromises concerning expanding referencing, though I will keep acting on my belief that footnotes are primarily research tools, not verifiability talismans.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User:DionysiusThrax

Resolved

 – Article is being cleaned up to meet WP:BLP.

The article on Bernie Ward has always been a hotbed of controversy because of disputes over his political and religious views. Now that an, arguably quite controversial in itself, federal child pornography indictment, to which Mr. Ward has pled Not Guilty has just been handed down from the government he regularly lambastes, his detractors seem intent on having a field day dragging the man through the mud. I personally -- I want to make this VERY clear -- have mixed feelings about Bernie Ward, but I do not think this occasion constitutes Open Season on Bernie Ward. I WISH TO ASK THE PROPER ADMINISTRATORS TO INTERVENE AND FREEZE THE EDITING OF THIS ARTICLE NOW, as it seems absolutely DOOMED to spark an Edit War! RESPECTFULLY, EVERYBODY PLEASE SHOW SOME RESTRAINT! AND ADMINS: PLEASE CONSIDER FREEZING THE ARTICLE NOW! Thanks for your consideration. DThrax (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. There are several blogs listed as "credible" sources, which fails WP:EL and WP:BLP. I'll do cleanup. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Wetman

Resolved

 – Per WP:TALK, a user may remove messages from his/her talk page with no recourse. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have to report this, but user Wetman has chosen to insult myself over a post on Wetman's personal page in which I stated that I found Wetman's last edit to be "interesting". I then demanded an apology from Wetman, who ignored my request and dismissed my request for an apology as "ravings".

I hope that this was not a pattern of behavior for user Wetman, nor a developing pattern of rudeness and insult. Oroblanco (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

For easier access: Wetman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Oroblanco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs? If this event occurred solely on his talk page, there is not much that can be done, per WP:TALK. Best just to forget and move on if that's the case, unless it is widespread. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. You (Oroblano) posted something sarcastic, he (Wetman) replied sarcastically, and you took a huge deal of offense. I'm not seeing it. Is there something else? --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved? In what way? It doesn't matter, now have a good understanding of Wetman and Wiki. Incident forgotten.Oroblanco (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In the sense that there was no issue here to resolve. You snapped sarcastically at him, and he responded. What do you want from us? --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User:74.33.197.125

This is reference to the article Jacob Klock (colonel). This user is engaging in a personal attack on an external website [[123]]. User has placed a link to this website in the discussion page. User may have recruited a "meat puppet". I don't care that much what happens to this article. Based upon my interaction and the fact that the user is willing to escalate the dispute to an external website I don't feel it is safe for me to have any further interaction with this user, since I believe this user is capable and willing to post personally damaging information about me on an external website. BradMajors (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• For reviewers: Previous related discussion took place at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#"Jacob Klock" content dispute. I dorftrottel I talk I 10:24, December 10, 2007

User:Zorgness

Resolved

 – User has not edited for several days. Bring this back up in a new thread if it continues in the future. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User has engaged in a number of uncivil and hostile edits. He first called me a "revert whore" and I warned him about being hostile. Additionally, he refuses to follow citation methods, and is openly against it. After my warning him here and here, he was openly defiant by saying that references are "a low priority job that can be done at a later date" (ref), and was defiant again in this edit summary. The user has been warned a number of times about following Wiki policy by me and an administrator. On a side note, the user seems to have an attitude problem, calling himself awesome here and here, where he cleared his talk page. I've tried several times with this editor; can someone lend a hand? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User made another edit with a hostile edit summary. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User was warned of this WQA here, but has since removed it (and redirected his talk page to Awesome). — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention his outright refusal to use proper citation templates. See the following edit summaries: [124], [125]. — EagleOne\^Talk 18:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I applied an appropriate note on his talk page. Note that per WP:CITE#Full references, citation templates are neither encouraged nor discouraged. If a user encloses a link inside reference tags, and the link is a valid citation, then that is acceptable -- although I would encourage any user to expand upon that into either a citation template or one with Harvard referencing. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I only glanced at the WP:CITE page, and didn't see the part that proper citation templates aren't required. I was referring more to Zorgness' attitude towards the guideline, as expressed in the edit summaries, than the lack of citation templates in his edits. I should have made that more clear. — EagleOne\^Talk 19:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have left the editor a note regarding his editing of your prior notes, Seicer and HelloAnnyong. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Filll

Resolved

 – User has apologized for what was really not an uncivil comment. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I probably should not have participated in the discussion at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia, as it in hindsight was not likely to lead to an improvment of the article. However, User:Filll's response seems a bit over the top. Thank you. Ra2007 (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See also this response when I provided a link from the Economist. Ra2007 (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this editor took offense at me wondering if he was joking by complaining about an AfD 18 months ago (and referring to it using an acronym as though everyone should know what he was referring to; I had to search hard to guess what he even meant and I still might not be correct), and then implying some sort of terrible conspiracy and skullduggery behind the high Google rankings of Wikipedia articles says a lot about this editor. Even more is said by the fact that this editor did not even know to place this complaint at the bottom of the complaints, rather than the top. I apologize if I have somehow offended anyone, but I believe that this should not be taken seriously. If I am wrong, please let me know.--Filll (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with Filll's comments. Claiming, without proof or substantiation, that Google is in collision with Wikipedia, conspiring to promote something or another - that's a pretty serious claim. I might have guessed you were joking. "A bit over the top" may characterize his response, but you set such a tone by making an accusation that was way over the top. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's a bizarre claim, it sounds almost as if it's Daniel Brandt's conspiracy theory! Guy (Help!) 00:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User: Randy Blackamoor

On November 6, 2007, this editor was blocked for personal attacks as noted on his Talk Page left at my User Talk: LonelyBeacon, which I have since deleted but are still viewable in the edit history. Since then, there have been at least three instances of incivility:[126], [127], and [128]. The second and third cases were personal attacks, with the second case involving the statement you are an abhorrent person who wants to sell water to sick people and you should kill yourself at the first opportunity. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This user has been following me around to various pages because he mistakenly believes I referred to him with an anti-gay slur. He has no grounding the context of most of the pages I have worked on, and has absolutely no qualification to judge whether anyone's edits, or the tone of their discussion, is commensurate with the issues at hand. If anyone should be disciplined, it is him, for trying to get the Wikipedia administrators to enforce his delusional grudges. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Point 1: This is not an administrator board. Point 2: He can edit any page he wants - if you think he's following you, you're being paranoid (and if he were following you, it shouldn't matter - there's nothing wrong with editing the same pages as another user). Point 3: His "mistaken belief" and his "following [you]" is irrelevant. Your comments are way out of line. Control your behavior, or you may be banned for such inappropriate comments. There's no excuse. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What is your expertise on the homeopathy fraud, on collegiate quizbowl, or on television stations in Houston? You don't know what's appropriate for those articles any more than LonelyBeacon does. Trying to adjudicate who is being reasonable or intemperate in their comments when you have no basis on which to judge which claims regarding an article's subject are "good faith" and which are preposterous or false is the exact problem that LonelyBeacon has. The idea that having a lot of edits on Wikipedia actually makes you knowledgeable about anything besides the best ways to game the system of Wikipedia cliques (e.g., to carry out vendettas against people whom you incorrectly believe insulted you) is the fundamental hubris of this project. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't seriously think any of what you just wrote justifies calling someone "an abhorrent person" do you? Or that someone would be incorrect in believing that's an insult? Everyone is allowed to edit all of the articles here. It's hard to get more egalitarian than that. Maybe some chilling out is in order? Rray (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's fully justified, and again you are refusing to familiarize yourself with the background facts and get context. Homeopathy kills people; people who promote it make money by duping others into committing suicide. There is a moral responsibility here, which conveniently dovetails with the supposed goal of having factually correct articles on Wikipedia. It's ridiculous that we have pro-homeopathy people editing the homoepathy article; it's exactly equivalent to trying to stay "neutral" as to the question of whether the Holocaust happened, and having a two-page debate with Holocaust deniers every time you wanted to edit that article. You would be aware of these things if you knew about the actual subjects of the articles in question, and weren't trying to play referee based on knowledge of nothing but Wikipedia procedures, which of course is no knowledge at all. I called that person an abhorrent person because he IS an abhorrent person--but as in many other aspects of Wikipedia, the actual truth is seemingly very low on the list of what is valued here. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What I think you fail to realize is that your arguments can and should be able to stand on their own merits. Making personal attacks like that just reduces your ability to make the changes that you want to see, because it will result in your being blocked from editing. If you can't edit, how can you help make the article more truthful? My suggestion is to try to be pragmatic and actually do something constructive instead of getting yourself blocked. Rray (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I want you to explain why I should HAVE to "argue" with people who believe in homeopathy just to edit true, cited things into the homeopathy article, any more than I should have to argue with Holocaust deniers to edit true, cited things into the Holocaust article. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't "have" to do anything. Everyone who contributes here is a volunteer, so nothing you do here is compulsory. But if you make personal attacks, you will be blocked from editing. That's just reality here. Good luck to you, however you decide to handle the situation. Rray (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Davesf

Recently, I've been trying to clean up the article on Randell Mills, a pseudoscientist who claims to have violated much of modern physics. He is notable in that he has raised fifty million dollars, which he is spending freely. I have greatly revised the article to adhere to WP:NPOV and the ArbCom decision on pseudoscience. Davesf has taken issue with several of my changes, claiming 'this is the most incredible POV hacket job'. I do not have a problem with his holding this opinion, although I disagree with it. However, he has said many other things which I begin to consider personal attacks. Could you please review his postings to Talk:Randell Mills and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard‎#Randell Mills and advise me if his edits are past the bounds of acceptability? Michaelbusch (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm sure the discussion is frustrating to you, it seems fairly civil. What language did you understand as a personal attack? Egfrank (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I just looked for all the uses of the word "POV" on the page.

• The phrase "this is the most incredible POV hatchet job" occurs in an either/or statement by User:Davesf: "either Michaelbusch is NPOV or this is....". The intent appears to be rhetorical, however with the implication that the later is true. I can see how that would be perceived as rude.
• However, User:Michaelbusch has several times labeled others as POV pushers. I can also see how that would be perceived as rude.

Perhaps the solution here is to focus on discussing the reliability of sources rather than the reliability of each other? Claims and counter-claims of POV pushing are rarely productive. Egfrank (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If you need help determining what sources are reliable, you might want to try Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Egfrank (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Davesf has included such statements as claiming that I have an 'agenda of removing anything that is insufficiently derogatory towards Mills'. This is not justified, and I am afraid that I dislike it when people make false claims that I have a vendetta. Regarding POV-pushing: I'm afraid anyone who would support blatantly false statements has to be pushing some form of POV. If Mills' claims were not complete nonsense, which they are, then Davesf's edits might be justified. As it is, he has accused me of a vendetta when I have only been trying to make Wikipedia in accordance with reality. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, but civility isn't about truth, but how we say what we believe (or know) is true. Only a fool says what he or she does not believe. You all believe what you are saying is true and my guess is you all probably dislike having that delegitimized by claims of POV pushing.

In general, claims of POV pushing whether justified or unjustified simply cloud the air and create bad feelings. More importantly, Wikipedia content disputes (which this is) are not resolved by who shouts "POV pusher" more emphatically - so you have nothing to fear from the other editors' claims and you only make yourself less convincing by your own. Which is not a good thing since you are trying to improve the article and you will need all the help you can get.

For POV pushing claim to be convincing to a third party, you would need evidence - e.g. that someone is either refusing to use sources (see WP:V, WP:NOR), persistently using poor quality sources to justify a point of view (see WP:SOURCES, WP:RS), granting undue weight to marginal sources (see WP:UNDUE) or misreading/misrepresenting sources (see WP:SYNTH). Which gets us back to focusing on the sources and not the other editors.

This is IMHO a classic content dispute. If you cannot resolve among yourselves how to source this article (or you think the other party is making patently ridiculous sourcing choices that would have your CalTech professors' hair stand on end), you have several options:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - for a third opinion on source quality - sometimes when we've been in a long dispute one side closes their ears to the other and a third voice can open them up.
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - lists various options for dispute resolution including third opinions, RfC's (Request for Comment), informal mediation, formal mediation, and Arbcom - generally best to try these in order. Dispute resolution isn't just for grey areas. It can also be used for a reality check when one editor thinks the other has a rather strange understanding of Wikipedia policy.

Best of luck, Egfrank (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:124.186.231.205, User:124.185.68.29, User:121.222.134.233, User:58.169.183.64

Resolved

 – Not an etiquette issue so much as vandalism, but the AIV blocked the offending IPs and this seems to be resolved. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

All related. Started on December 9 after I reverted vandalism to The Courier-Mail, then the next day to Children's Court of Queensland, both related to a current event (being this). My user page was edited/vandalised on both days, and again today with this (showing multiple edits reversed). All warned, and now still being edited/vandalised as I write this.  SEO⁷⁵ 11:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AIV. User:58.169.183.64, User:124.185.68.29 and User:124.186.231.205 blocked for 31 hours (thank you User:Kralizec!).  SEO⁷⁵ 11:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:IrishLass0128

Resolved

 – user:IrishLass0128 has apologised.

(moved from AN/I) —Random832 16:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• [129] my original post (that started all this)
• [130] removal. Accuses me of an "inflammatory posting", does not understand what user talk pages are for.
• [131] response on my talk page
• exchange on her talk page - archived with edit summaries of "taking out the trash"[132] and "dumping the garbage"[133].
• User_talk:CelticGreen#One edit removed - exchange on another user's talk page. Had also removed a previous comment from someone else that I wasn't aware of at the time I commented with the edit summary "Undid vandalism" [134]. Accuses me of "acting as a superior person" just for trying to help someone correct a common math mistake.
• see also User_talk:Taemyr#Your_recent_edits.

I think these diffs speak for themselves. —Random832 16:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I cleaned up my talk page and archived materials. Warn me if you want. That's fine. I just met rudeness with the same. IrishLass (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving stuff from your talk page is not a problem. Calling it "trash" and "garbage" is. —Random832 16:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any need for admin action on this. Altho, I don't see that the original post was rude. And, we should not meet rudeness with the same, even if the rudeness does actually exist. Friday (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Very true. I should have just removed the comment that I knew would piss off CelticGreen (she's already railed against more than one person over the issue) as she has requested of me and I of her and left it at that. My apologies for addressing the person, but not for doing what has been asked of me. IrishLass (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when you removed the original comment, you labeled it as vandalism in your edit summary. [135] It was in no way vandalism. Please watch your edit summaries. They seem misleading and uncivil. Jeffpw (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That was yesterday. Many miles of river have passed under that bridge. IrishLass (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've acknowledged this "issue" can we mark this as resolved and I'll consider myself warned. IrishLass (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of each side (and I think that severe incivility is putting it rather strongly - If I were asked to put a label on it, then "testy", "grumpy" or "grouchy" would be as far as I would go!), it ought to have been clear from the start that no admin actions were required here. As such, WP:WQA would have been a better place to take this. Mayalld (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

---

My understanding is this is for conflict resolution. The only conflict now is in the mind of the originator. I've moved on. I've said as much and done as much (with the exception of making this statement). I'll let others deal with him over his comments. Regardless of his impressions, I was trying to keep the peace.IrishLass (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Analysis

Having had the benefit of viewing this already when it was posted at AN/I, it seems to me that;

1. User:Random832 wasn't acting in any way improperly by posting the original comment to User talk:IrishLass0128
2. User:IrishLass0128 over-reacted, and was irritable, and borderline uncivil in subsequent talk page comments
3. An edit summary referring to trash or rubbish is capable of being seen as uncivil, although it is far from clear that it was intended in that way. According to the writers idiom it could simply mean "stuff that I don't need any longer"
4. User:Random832 over-reacted in taking a storm in a teacup to WP:ANI
5. User:IrishLass0128 has appologised
6. Both users are editors in good standing

Mayalld (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

Suggested resolution;

1. User:IrishLass0128 should accept that other editors are allowed to send messages to her talk page, and that such messages can take issue with things she has said elsewhere.
2. User:IrishLass0128 should accept that the use of terms such as trash, rubbish or junk in edit summaries may be taken as uncivil by other editors, even if not intended that way, and should avoid these terms.
3. User:Random832 should accept that whilst Wikipedia has a policy that requires us to be civil, making a big deal out of a minor breach of WP:CIVIL can potentially be more damaging than the original incivility. De minimis applies!
4. User:Random832 should attempt to be concilliatory when another editor takes offence unexpectedly
5. Both users should draw a line under this and carry on with their contributions

Mayalld (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am more than willing to walk away and go on about my business. I know this is of no solace, but I didn't "delete" any comments from Random, I moved them to my archive page. This shows I read them and filed them away, but I did not delete them. One edit got lost for a time, but it is now in my archives. When I archive, I acknowledge that a discussion should go no further as the only place it can go is down. Deleting it all together, to me, is wrong but there are times you know that continuing to speak will only cause the problems to get worse. It's like my talk page is stuff I'm using and archive is stuff I'm done with. I could just have easily said "moving it to storage" and probably upset Random just as much. Either way, I would have upset him by the simple fact that I "deleted" it. So, moving on. I'll go clean up woefully needed pages and move on. Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The analysis doesn't seem to take into account behavior at User_talk:CelticGreen (I never accused the user of "deleting" anything from her own talk page, since that was archived), including, in addition to the actual removal, the accusation of making an "inflammatory" post, and the apparent belief that users (namely CelticGreen) have a right not to be approached on their talk page about things they don't want to hear about, even when they are legitimate concerns. Also, the accusation that I'm "presenting myself as a superior person" simply for insisting that 3500 is 50% of 7000 rather than being .5%—Random832 20:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't see where the user has apologized either, other than "I'll consider myself warned" (and she seems to think the issue is about archiving material from her own talk page, which was about the _least_ of the issues I brought up, and only then due to the edit summaries) —Random832 20:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In the discussion on this page, she says My apologies for addressing the person, but not for doing what has been asked of me.

• It seems to me that the heart of this is that IrishLass has used wording in edit summaries that are potentially uncivil.
• Neither the act of archiving your comments from her own talk page, nor removing comments from User talk:CelticGreen if the two have agreed this between themselves are a problem
• Whilst the wording in the edit summaries is potentially uncivil, it could also be read in a more charitable light.
• At the end of the day, this is really not an issue that ought to have come this far. Disengagement was the answer.

Mayalld (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. You are all taking Wikipedia far too seriously. So if a user has a few incivil edit summaries, that's not need to drag this discussion out with step-by-step analysis and resolution headers. What's done is done; Irish has apologized, let's move on. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I just want to address the whole removing comments from my page. I have asked her to do that if she sees something she knows I'll flame at and since there was already an issue over the percentage thing, she was right to remove it. She emailed me first, so I knew, but she did it so I wouldn't get my foot caught in my mouth telling people where to go. Sorry such a simple favor that I asked to be done caused such an issue, but it might have gotten bigger and more noses out of joint if the comments had been left. CelticGreen (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:IrishLass0128 2

Resolved

 – all parties just need to chill out, AGF and stop trying to show how bad the other is

I tried to ask CelticGreen about the above (i.e. _why_ does she see this as something she would 'flame at', etc; I would have asked here but the thread was closed) and IrishLass0128 removed[136] my question twice[137]. All I want to do is be able to ask a simple question without interference from a third party. This sort of interference with communication is NOT acceptable according to WP:TPG. —Random832 16:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the laugh. Right above your post CG specifically states for me to remove such posts. She's never going to address it. Why can't you move on and maybe someone should report you on this page. You seem intent to cause problems. Why is that? You've been told the percentage thing is inflammatory by two of us. She knows you put it there, she knows I removed it. Text messaging, it's a beautiful thing! IrishLass (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Inflammatory" is not a matter of opinion, and calling something inflammatory when it is not is, itself, inflammatory. Use a different adjective if you want to get across the point that it's not wanted. —Random832 16:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Inflammatory is anything that pisses someone off. Being told for the X number of times something will piss someone off. Look what little it takes to inflame you to report me. That means my actions, that were asked to be done, were inflammatory to you but not to CG or myself. Inflammatory is in the eye of the beholder. IrishLass (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

All I did was ask why. I just wanted to know that one simple thing - WHY isn't she willing to listen to people? Is that so much to ask for an explanation —Random832 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Note for context that both users apparently have a history of being confrontational and reading others' actions in the worst possible light. Note that the first thread listed there was also closed with "Please either continue the discussion with users on their talk pages", but that's impossible if one user will edit war to keep legitimate concerns off the other's talk page. That the other user asked for it does _not_ legitimize it, it just adds WP:OWN to the list of things wrong with it.—Random832 16:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You're funny. Where have I been warned? History of denotes long standing issue, not things that happened in the last 24 hours that you conveniently interpret incorrectly. You're looking for trouble just to make trouble. IrishLass (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not receiving a warning doesn't mean you did nothing wrong, and the village pump thread is half a week old. But anyway I was just pointing it out so people can draw their own conclusions. —Random832 16:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You said "long history" you did not indicate "two incidents this week" you're making things up to make me look bad. You're the percentage guy, 6000 plus edits, 10 problems between the two of us, what's that percentage? IrishLass (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "long history" - I did not use the word "long" - and my point was, your behavior in both of those recent incidents (I can't go looking for past incidents because won't you just accuse me of stalking? so I'm limited to the ones that I actually saw as they happened) says a lot about your attitude towards your fellow editors. —Random832 16:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My attitude toward my fellow editors, eh? Did you actually read my part of the Tagging thread or the additional off thread, talk page comments that were exchanged. Did you see the numerous times I asked we keep the peace? You're assuming a lot, but that's fine. I'm done. I've never encountered you before, you went looking for CG on her talk page to chastise her for her math skills, that's what started all this. I'll let you continue to chastise her math even though she has said it would cause problems. It takes two to be in a conflict. You can fight alone now, I'm so done. IrishLass (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I love this comment from above: Sorry, but my main issue with your question is that you've directed it only at me. Conflicts don't occur with only one person. –panda (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Panda is right, it takes two for conflict. I'll walk away, again, and leave you to your game. IrishLass (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the issue, it is inappropriate for you to delete other people's comments from CG's talk page. The fact that she requested this is moot, considering she does not own her talk page. You do not have the right, as a third party, to bar someone from discussion with someone else. CG is perfectly capable of deleting any unwanted comments from her talk page herself.--Atlan (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, I moved it, as requested and if someone I've worked with requests I do something and publicly says to do it, do it. This is the first time anyone said it was wrong. If doing so wrong, fine, but is this really necessary? Could Random not have found someone neutral to come to my talk page or done it himself? I did notice in all the areas I've been referred to that "conflicts should first be addressed on talk pages" yet Random has done no such thing. He appears to believe making mountains out of molehills is more productive than following guidelines. I mean, really is this productive or counter productive? He's now put a big target on my back and made potentially false statements (i.e. history of conflict). Really, you would think this could have been handled differently, as he was told yesterday when he started the first incident report. This is the third in less than 24 hours. Additionally, admin Mayalld stated clearly that: Neither the act of archiving your comments from her own talk page, nor removing comments from User talk:CelticGreen if the two have agreed this between themselves are a problem. So it is clear that an admin stated archiving the comments was an acceptable act. IrishLass (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

But isn't Random bringing up the issue on a talk page now, like you say he isn't doing? How do you expect any kind of resolution to end this matter with, if you archive any attempt at discussion right away? As for Mayalld (who is by the way, not an administrator), he is right. But you should not interpret what he said as a blank check to remove messages from CG's talk page at a whim. In this case, it's not really appropriate.--Atlan (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, wow, everyone needs to chill out.

• Random: try to understand that CelticGreen was under a lot of stress and felt attacked from multiple sides, and during that time made a math error that was, frankly, not important. As someone who was taught a lot of math to a lot of people, I can say there are people that get stressed out by math and feel attacked by people who aggressively try to correct them. This may be necessary if their math error was actually important but in this case, her point was still valid: 11 out of 7000 edits, whatever percentage that is, is a tiny amount. At this point trying to discuss the math error with her is like having an argument for argument's sake, totally off-topic and an unwanted follow-up to an unpleasant conversation. There's the answer to your question, and I'm sure Celtic will correct me if I'm not completely on target here. Move on. You aren't going to be able to get everyone to understand everything you know: sometimes it's just not the right time or place.

• Irish: You are making a lot of really unhelpful comments here. I know you've gotten stressed out by the whole situation and other related ones. You have to realize that removing comments from someone's talk page, even when you've been asked / given permission to, is pretty unorthodox and you should not be surprised to see someone asking you why you've done it. The proper response in a situation like that is to remain calm and reasonable, continue to assume good faith, and remove yourself from the situation when you notice your ability to do that start to fade. Comments like "Thank you for the laugh" and "you seem intent to cause problems" are inflammatory. What you have to realize here is that Random simply, legitimately doesn't understand what was inflammatory about his comments that you removed. If you had simply taken the time to try to explain it to him in a calm, civil way, while continuing to assume good faith, this would not have resulted in another Wikiquette report.

• Celtic: If you really feel so stressed out that you need to ask someone else to remove comments off your talk page in case you see them first and explode in fury, you need to take a Wikibreak, or at least have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Mangojuice^talk 18:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Another analysis

I'm in agreement with Mangojuice here! A dose of chilling out all round is the order of the day. In fact, the main thing that is needed on all sides is to assume good faith. Whatever somebody does or says, look at it and ask yourself "what is the most charitable explanation I can offer for the other part doing what they have just done" Let me give examples (I don't know if the explanations are true or not, but in the spirit of AGF, they are worth making)

Action	AGF explanation
Random makes a comment on a user talk page correcting something that has been said on another page, instead of making the point in that discussion (as would be conventional)	Random wishes to make the point discretely, rather than drawing public attention to the mistake
IrishLass removes a comment from CelticGreen's talk page, instead of leaving it for CelticGreen (as would be conventional)	IrishLass is doing this with CelticGreen's consent, because they have agreed that it will assist CelticGreen to maintain civility towards others
IrishLass describes a comment as inflamatory in an edit summary	IrishLass is using the term in the sense of "likely to inflame", without passing any judgement as to whether the liklihood is the fault of the person posting the comment or the person it was intended for.

And so on.

Equally, all parties should attempt to avoid doing things that will strain the others' capabilities to AGF, so should avoid doing all the things in the table above!

• Don't take bits of discussions to a users talk page if you know it irritates them.
• Take extra care to avoid using terminology that could be considered uncivil in edit summaries. Pick more neutral language instead.
• Avoid making a big deal out of anything the other has done. OK, so you didn't like it, but nobody died. Mutter something therapeutically uncivil under your breath, and move on.

Above all, avoid a public airing of minor grievances.

• Don't bring every case of minor incivility up for a full blown investigation
• If the other side does just that, then accept that you may have got it wrong, and publicly resolve to try to avoid getting it wrong again, without any "ah, but he did it first"

Continued bickering like this is not making any of the protagonists look good, because this situation can only continue to cause a problem whilst both sides continue on their current course.

I don't believe that there is much more that can usefully be said on these cases. The answers are here if the protagonists will take them on board, and I'm closing this case as resolved on that basis. I would urge that both sides resolve not to bring further cases for a period of two weeks, and concentrate instead on working productively.

Mayalld (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:MeMutu

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – See WP:SSP. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious that this user: [138] (MeMutu) Is just a new account of this already indefinitely-blocked user: [[139]] (Dennis-From-Accounts) Does this notification go here, or not? If not, would someone who is more knowledgeable please forward it to the proper authorities? Thanks muchly. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you see what appears to be an obvious sockpuppet that needs administrative attention, please report to WP:SSP. Maser ^(Talk!) 05:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Domer48

Stuck

 – User does not appear interested in discussing etiquette/edit-warring, only issues related to the inclusion of the links. That issue can/should be resolved on the appropriate talk page, although I'd encourage people to respect consensus before adding disputed external links. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User is not adhering to WP:CONSENSUS. Two editors have opposed the inclusion of four links as per WP:EL, but Domer48 is ignoring the policy. More specifically, one link is a blog, and three links should be used as refs. Links were added here, and readded here and here. Discussion is at Talk:Segi#Links removed because not neutral. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note asking the user to behave a bit more appropriately. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The links are still included on the page, but if I revert them, I'll be violating 3RR. Should the links remain on the page, or should I revert them anyway? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Let others revert it. I've done one, but I don't care to watch the page so I would expect the others who've agreed with you to revert as well. Crossing the 3RR line is really only appropriate in obvious cases (not disputes about how policy like WP:EL applies, however clear one might think it is). --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick glance of both the Talk Page and the Article will clearly illustrate how HelloAnnyong is mixing up two seperate issues. Issues 1) The use of references, Issue 2) Links (which I have added). There is no consensus on issue (1). Now issue (2), HelloAnnyong is trying to use WP:EL to remove the links, while I maintain that the links are covered by WP:EL. Input would be welcome by other editors. --Domer48 (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a content dispute, in which you appear to be both incorrect and opposed by a group of editors with a clear explanation of policy in this matter. Regardless, this is not the place for such a dispute. The links you are adding do not appear to meet WP:EL by any stretch, and until you can establish that they do (by forming a consensus) you should stop edit warring and wait to re-add the links. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Were is this "group of editors with a clear explanation of policy in this matter?" "The links you are adding do not appear to meet WP:EL by any stretch." What, are you not sure? As to your comment on my Talk Page, I've responded there and on your talk page. --Domer48 (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm saying they don't appear to because all you have to do is look. Am I the decision making body that decides what meets WP:EL? No. Consensus is. And until you build a consensus, you should not continue edit-warring to insert your links. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No Diff's to back up your opinion? Not to worrie, I've removed your comments from my talk page, as you could not provide diff's there either. --Domer48 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Trowing the rattle out of the cot, is not how wiki works. You made a false claim on my talk page and could not back it up. Now you say to HelloAnnyong "I would expect the others who've agreed with you to revert as well." Eh, that would be you, and only you! Because you did not bother to read the discussion, like I suggested, and lack the grace to put up your hand and say, I made a mistake. Just for editors who are intrested in this little tat ta te, here is my contrabution again:

A quick glance of both the Talk Page and the Article will clearly illustrate how HelloAnnyong is mixing up two seperate issues. Issues 1) The use of references, Issue 2) Links (which I have added). There is no consensus on issue (1). Now issue (2), HelloAnnyong is trying to use WP:EL to remove the links, while I maintain that the links are covered by WP:EL. Input would be welcome by other editors. --Domer48 (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that User:Domer48 has forked this discussion to my talk page here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jlhess and Jon Hess

Stuck

 – This has already been referred to the ANI, due to the user's egregous COI/SPA behavior (not to mention over-the-top threats of violence). --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User repeatedly vandalizes the article with unverified, original research and POV material. User appears to be the subject of the article. I've asked user to remove things they consider untrue, but instead user insists on a flatter piece for the article. User also appears to be using sock puppets, and has made threats and personal insults towards me, as well as challenging me to a fight. --Mista-X (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a report on the WP:ANI pending, here. The Wikiquette alerts board isn't here to handle content disputes, only the inappropriate behavior, and unfortunately it can only be of service when the user has good intentions or means to contribute positively. Sockpuppet concerns should be addressed here, and the content issues should be taken care of at Talk:Jon Hess. Beyond that, hopefully the ANI will result in some resolution for this issue. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hu12 abusing his power??

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – This matter has already been taken to WP:ANI. Reports to multiple forums look like fourum shopping Mayalld (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please check and comment on our behaviours in this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_one-click_hosters&oldid=177856023
Hu12 comment: rmv trolling & Disruptive editing

The following comments are censored and edited out by the admin:
WP:NOTABILITY only applies when a webhost wants to create an article on its own, NOT a reference/mentioning in a comparison page

WP:NOTABILITY is set here as absolute rules for entries being added in this comparison page (of course I argue that it is applying the wrong principle in the wrong situations - messing up the article itself and a tiny entry of the whole page).

After all, read carefully. It is just a guideline: “ NOTABILITY is merely a guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. ”

Read the last sentence. Use common sense.

Hu12 says Wikipedia is NOT an internet guide or directory page but... “ "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference." ”

This is an comparison page. A reference here is to contribute to the comparison table. These entries are highly relevant. What is the point of having a comparison table if nearly no entry can be added into it?

Another case where a so-called rule or guideline is rigidly applied without some common senses. ;) Odd Master (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_one-click_hosters&oldid=177857754
Hu12 comment: remove blatent vandalism/insertion of my post

I realise I made a mistake here. I forgot to sign this message (because I'm talking too much in this discussion). But it is clearly not an intention of a blatant vandalism/insertion of his post. Otherwise it will be done more sneakily. Why adding a block of statements which can be realised easily? Instead of accusing me as a blatant vandal, he may simply fix it by adding my signauture back. But he chose to censor my comments again.

The message censored by the admin:

Sorry I am talking about you guys removing the reference of Megaupload in the comparison page (NOT its article or whatever). Don't mess up between "creating an article for them" VS "mentioning/referencing them in the comparison page". Read again.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_one-click_hosters&oldid=177859356
Hu12 comment: rmv unauthorised refactoring of my comment, another attempt by Odd Master editing of other users' comments to substantially change their meaning

He actually edited his own comment. I haven't edit anyone's comments to substantially change their meaning. A complete frame-up!

---

He banned me after the incident.

I registered as Odd_Master2 and reported this incident.

After all, please comment about the appropriateness of the following:

1. He is one of the editors in this page. He has a conflict of interest. Is it appropriate for him to carry out the administrative work on this page too?
2. He censored my comments (Reasons: rmv trolling & Disruptive editing). I don't know why a comment (even if it is critical or may be harsh) can be censored. No comments should be censored even if you don't agree with it? Is he right to censor anyone comments?
3. He made false claims, eg "another attempt by Odd Master editing of other users' comments". What words did I edit? Feel free to point it out.
4. He is the one who argued me in the discussion. He has a conflict of interest. But it is him to execute the ban. Is it appropriate for him to do so?

Thank you.

PS: Sorry that the report may look ugly. I found it hard to discuss here. Wikipedia should install a proper forum software to prevent this kinds of problems in future. But I believe it won't be realised in any forseeable future.

Whilst talk pages may lack the structure of forums, they work OK for most people Mayalld (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

70.112.185.154

An editor under 70.112.185.154 used profanity toward another editor (probably me) in the edit summary log of the Dana DeArmond article. The abuse is obvious although the motivation for such incivility is unclear. Vinh1313 (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Gave notice. Reply here or on my talk page if it continues. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

HardyPlants

I feel that I have been falsely accused of vandalism in a content dispute with this user regarding edits which I made to Separation of Church and State and evil. I made 1 edit to each of those articles, both of which were reverted by this user. I just joined Wikipedia and I have no desire to vandalize Wikipedia. Muhammad Cthulhu (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

For easier access: Muhammad Cthulhu (talk · contribs) and Hardyplants (talk · contribs) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Separation of Church and State was reverted because Cthulhu is a fictional being and organization and not a religion. The same can be said with your edit at evil in this edit. It's a nonsense edit at best and really has no importance to the article on the whole. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and honestly, inserting such dubious/fictional content into serious articles is often vandalism. The fact that your edits may have been well intentioned would be, to some, quite surprising. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai (Administrator), 2nd this month

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – This complaint consists mostly of repeated previous complaints and a single, very weak personal attack complaint that is not a matter worth considering. Complaining editor does not seem to assume good faith. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In this past week, this administrator has name-called [140], deleted references without checking (then lying about it) [141], and knowingly given misleading instructions [142]. These events started on Dec 11th, four days after the previous wikiquette alert regarding this administrator [143] and under two months since he was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring and personal insults [144]. Mikkalai is learning to game the system and I suspect that he will try to cover his tracks better in the future. I'm not seeking an apology. Mainly, I am seeking to equip the many other good wikipedians that might be tempted to bow to the undeserved tactics and authority of this admin. BitterGrey (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Sometimes, disambiguation pages belong at the main topic name, e.g. his choice for Digraph. Other times, they belong at a differently named page, usually when the main topic is the main use for that term: see, for instance, RSA and RSA (disambiguation). Also, cut and paste moves are not the right thing to do, just like he said. There is nothing wrong with the comments he made; the "name-calling" thing especially is you being way over-sensitive. Frankly, your report here and your accusations of him being purposely dishonest and trying "game the system" are far worse than anything he's done. Mangojuice^talk 16:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving examples, Mangojuice. Since RSA (the encryption algorithm) is by far the most common use of the acronym, it is appropriate that it be at the root term, with a link to the disambiguation page. However, that is not the case with infantilism. A quick Google search will show that when most people mention 'infantilism,' they are referring to 'paraphilic infantilism.' Furthermore, 'paraphilic infantilism' is commonly contracted to 'infantilism,' as it was on CSI and others. The conflict started because Mikkalia was unwilling to accept the disambiguation page at the root term, which I set up[145]. (This part may be a little hard to follow, since the reasonably placed Infantilism (obsolete usage) page used to be at infantilism, the root term.) The ongoing issue involves the tactics he used to try to get his way, and my desire to ensure that he doesn't use them on other good wikipedians. BitterGrey (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

While I must admit that I had a difficult time trying to follow the some of those sources and determine if something wrong was happening, I could find no evidence of name calling on the first link provided [146]. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I just don't see it. I followed the link to the previous issue earlier in the month[147], and found that the incivility issue was also questionable. I don't have enough background on the factual aspects of the articles to see whose side may be more correct about the editing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it was the "if you weren't so bitter" thing. Mangojuice^talk 17:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Calling User:Bittergrey bitter? Honestly? This is the basis of the complaint? --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Only the first of three points.BitterGrey (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no incivility here, nor in the previous complaint. Nor do I see any abuse of power or administrative misbehavior. Anyone can delete a reference, and anyone can make a mistake, and if you think he made a mistake, you should assume good faith and move on. I'm concerned about the fact that your attitude towards Mikkalai is highly suspicious, prejudicial, and cynical. Bringing up resolved or prior instances of problems makes it sound to me like you're fishing to start a problem or a conflict. Try to move on. He made no personal attack, he's editing in good faith, and if you have a content or sourcing dispute, resolving it shouldn't involve compiling a background check on the guy you're disagreeing with and then reporting him here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just passing by, but a review of the diffs leads me to agree with the above assessment by Cheeser1. The complaining user has already advertised themselves by their username choice as being "bitter", jokingly or not, and one instance of word play with that advertisement an incivility complaint won't make, IMO. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

On the assumption of good faith, I set up a disambiguation page at the root term [148], moved Mikkalia's new article to another location[history deleted], and initiated a discussion about the disambiguation[149]. Mikkalia replaced the disambiguation page with his own article, with no disambiguation links, twice.[150][151]. This demonstrated a lack of good faith.

I can't give a dif regarding the other location. medical_infantilism was deleted along with its history by Mikkalia. Tracks were covered in a way that only an administrator could do[152].BitterGrey (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, you're supposed to assume good faith. Page deletions are normal for admins. You can't honestly expect us to automatically believe that he was "covering his tracks" or that his edits are apparently and immediately bad-faith edits. I've marked this complaint as closed - the issues you've raised that have any merit aren't WQA issues, and have already been taken up elsewhere. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not expecting you to "automatically" believe anything. I am asking you to check what facts can still be checked before reaching a conclusion. Making my case is more difficult because part of the history has been deleted. Now you and I have access to only part of what happened. Couldn't that page have been moved instead? Neologism, the excuse[153], is explicitly listed as not a valid reason for speedy deletion[154]. If he had deleted a few more pages, I would have no case at all.

However, it seems that a conclusion has already been reached. This issue is referred to somewhere else. I suppose that even this is a small victory. Perhaps next week, another user will be dealing with Mikkalai. Hopefully he or she will be able to find this complaint, the previous complaint, the 48-hour block, etc. Then he will know that Mikkalai has a history of not working in good faith, documented by multiple wikipedians. Hopefully he will then be encouraged to discuss, to ask for justifications, to stand up for Wikipedia.BitterGrey (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that you move on. Having a chip on your shoulder or having some bad-faith assumptions about another editor are not going to help you be a productive contributor. This complaint may be a "victory" to you, but it's really frivolous and lacked any substance beyond issues that don't belong here or that were already resolved/done. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bitter: what you did in creating Medical infantilism was called a "cut and paste" move. In other words, you copied all the text from one page and added it to another. Cut and paste moves are strongly discouraged because the Wikipedia free license, the GFDL, requires that we keep track of page histories, and a cut and paste move doesn't preserve that. What you're supposed to do instead is to rename a page instead of creating a new one with a cut & pasted copy. See WP:CUTPASTE; note that cut and paste moves are a royal pain to repair if they stand for a while. If you had done this, I doubt Mikkalai would have intervened. I agree with his actions and he seems to have treated you appropriately. (oh, and BTW, admins can see deleted revisions of pages.) Mangojuice^talk 05:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1 marked this as closed. I added my last comment, and then Cheeser1 resuggested strongly that I move on. I thought that was the end of it. He is probably right about the uselessness of further discussion here. However, if this topic is closed and we're being strongly suggested to move on, why are people still adding to it? Should I answer Mangojuice's comments (If the 'bad' disambiguation page had been replaced with a 'good' disambiguation page at the root term, there wouldn't have been any issue. As it was, the conflict started with the removal of _all_ disambiguation, and the complaint is about the tactics used to prevent disambiguation from being restored. If there is any interest, I can go into more detail about the progression of events and what the actual problems are. LonelyBeacon was correct in that they can be hard to follow. ) However, continued debate seems pointless unless the group is willing to reconsider the conclusion. I'll accept further discussion as a sign of willingness to reconsider the conclusion already posted. If this isn't going anywhere, why not let it end here?BitterGrey (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a formal process, it is a place for people to discuss issues and incidents. The fact that this complaint has been resolved due to its being more-or-less frivolous does not mean that one cannot continue to comment here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Johnbod

During what is otherwise a perfectly normal dispute over content on Domestic sheep, Johnbod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been especially snide and abusive. He has made comments such as "Perhaps someone who actually knows about sheep will happen on the article." and has unequivocally called me an idiot. VanTucky ^talk 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No one has given any response for some time, so I made an ANI report. VanTucky ^talk 05:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Hardy

Resolved

--SimpleParadox 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Hardy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made some uncivil comments during an Afd discussion.[155][156][157][158][159]

This user was also cautioned to desist,[160], but rather than listen, he just continued.[161][162][163]

This user should apologize to those he was uncivil to. Ra2007 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that off site canvasinng[164] for this Afd may have occurred at slashdot. Ra2007 (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The offsite post was made by a different user, Beetle B. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).[165], appears to be informational. Ra2007 (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What I said that appears to be considered "uncivil" was that three users were speaking rather emphatically about matters of which they had not bothered to inform themselves. I said that I don't contribute material to articles on how to do open heart surgery (except, e.g. fixing typos, linking, etc.) because I don't know anything about that subject, and those three should do the same, and I therefore found their behavior offensive. It seems different standards get applied on AfD pages---people don't feel they should know anything before they write about it. User:r.e.b., surely one of Wikipedia's most respected contributors, has told me on my talk page that I was wrong to attribute this behavior to bad motives because it can be explained simply as stupidity. But I expect if I'd called them stupid, these three users would not be more pleased than they are with the fact that I pointed out that they were completely uninformed. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take a heart surgeon to know that WP:NOT does not allow an article on how to do open heart surgery. Ra2007 (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite an irrelevant comment. If there is a reason why an article on that topic should not be here, then just substitute some other example. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Quite an irrelevant comment"--The comment is relevant. The AFD was on WP:NOT issues. Also, it was a response to your own "how to (perform heart surgery)" example. Ra2007 (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

His example was not related to the AfD issues, only to the idea that editors should stay within the scope of editing things that they are qualified to edit, in some fashion or another. Please don't drag the entire AfD discussion here. The only question at hand here is his comments and their (un)civility. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

While it was a valid point that the nominator et al may not be nearly as well informed regarding the topic as you, your comments seemed uncivil at several points: Referring to them as 'illiterate', which appears to be an insult since they are demonstrably not so; Implying that their comments where made in bad faith; and calling TableManners' behavior offensive, well, your metaphor does not apply - TableManners was not adding content, but rather participating in a discussion. --Nog lorp (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm relatively sure he meant mathematically illiterate, which should be clear from the context (but apparently is not). I had a few comments, but since I participated in the AfD, I'll refrain for the moment. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not just one encyclopedia. It encompasses a vast general encyclopedia and several specialised encyclopedias on subjects like mathematics, which need (and have) slightly different rules. The majority of people editing content in mathematics articles has a formal mathematical background, which means that they live in a different culture.

AfD discussions on mathematical articles seem to be a general problem because for some reason they attract well-meaning non-experts who are not aware of the cultural differences. They know that they are not experts, they try to take this into account, but they often fail because they have no idea of the extent of what they don't know. Such as the role of proofs in professional mathematics, or the prior discussions on how to treat proofs in Wikipedia.

• SimpleParadox made a suggestion based on the mistaken comparison between the language used in proofs and textbooks. After this point was explained to him he left the discussion, but left his vote as "delete", based on his faulty argument.

• Ra2007 stepped in for SimpleParadox by not conceding the point ("I disagree" with no justification) and opening a new line of attack: OR allegations because the proof had no citations. By asking "Encyclopedias do not have mathematical proofs, do they?" he contradicted a well established mathematical guideline.

• TableManners suggested transwikifying to Scholarpedia (which does not cover pure mathematics and will not do so for a long time, and is certainly not intended as a repository of Wikipedia proofs). He seemed to attack the question of proofs on Wikipedia generally with the words "Sorry folks, but other stuff (proofs) exist on Wikipedia is not a good enough argument."

In the context of a mathematical article this was not constructive behaviour and it is no wonder that Michael Hardy became angry. He should not have become (and remained) uncivil. But the major problem is not Michael Hardy, it is structural. Some editors are not qualified to judge on mathematical articles, and some are not qualified to judge on editors who are not mathematicians. A minor problem on both sides was not being prepared to concede a point after stepping outside one's personal field of expertise.

I agree that it would be a good thing if Michael Hardy apologised for having been uncivil. I do not agree with trying to force him into a formal apology. I suggest that Ra2007 afterwards apologises for having started this discussion and for his pointless rhetorical attacks above. Just my opinion. -- Hans Adler (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so someone proposes deletion of Othello and says "Encyclopedias don't have articles about plays, do they?". Another votes to delete, citing the use of terminology in fact commonly used in articles about plays, in Wikipedia, in Encyclopedia Brittanica, in scholarly journals, in all other forums, and says "Only in a textbook would that kind of rhetoric be found." Someone objects, asking whether all Wikipedia artilces about plays are to be deleted, and asks why this one was singled out. One of those voting to delete says "Sorry, 'other stuff exists' just won't cut it as an argument here'", ignoring the existence a WikiProject on articles about plays (I don't actually know if there is, but supposing...), ignoring the fact that the existence of those thousands of articles is in accord with Wikikpedia policies prescribing their existence and how they are to be written (let's say an extensive style manual for articles about plays, discussed for several years by hundreds of Wikipedians with expertise in that topic).

That's what happened here.

Someone said Encyclopedias don't contain mathematical proofs. That is lunacy. It is a fact that hundreds of Wikipedians, many with professional expertise in this area, have discussed how articles on particular mathematical proofs should be written, when they should and when they should not immediately follow the statement of the theorem; when they should be relegated to a separate article and when they should not, when they should be in a subpage (as in the present case) and when they should not. Wikipedia contains more mathematical proofs than most encyclopedias because Wikipedia is more extensive than any other. No encyclopedia would disdain to include a proof of the Pythagorean theorem on the grounds that encyclopedias don't contain mathematical proofs. No encyclopedia would disdain to include a a history-making proof such as Cantor's diagonal argument on the grounds that encyclopedias don't contain mathematical proofs; that argument is short and simple and is comprehensible to people who know only secondary-school mathematics, but considered a major breakthrough. No encyclopedia would disdain to include Euclid's famous proof of the infinitude of primes on the grounds that encyclopedias don't contain mathematical proofs; that proof is short and is comprehensible to any 15-year-old and is considered beautiful by many eminent authorities who have opined on it. These facts are universally known. But nonetheless, we are told this article should be deleted because encyclopedias don't contain mathematical proofs.

Someone said the language used in the proof was the sort that would be used only in textbooks. But those who have read many thousands of proofs in research journals know otherwise and don't need to be lectured to condescendingly by someone who hasn't.

Someone suggested transwikifying to Scholarpedia. The article would OBVIOUSLY be unwelcome there. Scholarpedia's policy is only to publish INVITED expository articles by experts in certain fields of science and applied mathematics. This isn't their sort of article and it isn't on one of the topics they're currently working on.

I think those users were abusive. They were condescendingly lecturing on subjects on which they know nothing, to an audience of those who do know.

It is said that I was uncivil. Is that simply because I said those people were abusive? If so, I deny the accusation. If not, tell me what is the civil way to say that those users were abusive. Be specific and keep the main point fully intact: those users were abusive. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So now I'll go ahead and comment. I think the only real problem here is that your responses were a bit harsh and give people the impression that you are not assuming good faith (even if you really do assume good faith). You suggest banning and call others abusive, and such things may be premature. It was helpful that you eventually contextualized your use of the word "illiterate" for example, but at the time it may have been mistaken for a personal attack (it appears very near the words "idiotic crap" you know). Mathematics articles are not the domain of only mathematicians, and while non-mathematicians are welcome to contribute, yes sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes they are stubborn or over-zealous. But I think a more tempered response may have conveyed your ideas better and given people a better impression of what you were trying to say. I've seen this several times, and I'm well aware of how frustrating it is, and I sympathize. I just think that, in the end, you could have been much more tactful or diplomatic. I'm not saying you have to change your opinion or refrain from commenting, just step it down a bit and try to assume more good faith. Your contributions and opinions are valued, but so are others' - even if they're wrong, misinformed, or stubborn sometimes. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record I am not mathematically illiterate. But absolute or relative mathematical literacy is a non sequitur. The Afd was clearly based on WP:NOT. [166] As I previously stated, it doesn't take a heart surgeon to know that policy does not allow articles on how to perform heart surgery, and it doesn't take a chef to recognize a recipe for stewed pork feet does not belong on wikipedia. This is not to rehash the Afd, but to provide context for the uncivil comments. I would also like to note that Michael Hardy seems to be directing what seems to me to be uncivil comments on his user talk page still.[167] Ra2007 (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, he's quoting someone else (who happens to be a highly respected Wikipedian and mathematician). --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, are you implying that license to be uncivil comes with wikipedia respect and mathematical credentials? Ra2007 (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Cheeser1 may be implying that everybody who is an expert on Wikipedia (all of it) or knows a bit more about mathematics than what is necessary to add a formula with a summation symbol to an article on an engineering subject agrees that the views that you are still defending here are obviously crazy. If that's what he means then I certainly agree. Please stop your attempts to confuse the two issues. (Are these opinions crazy? Yes. Was it wise to say so and make personal attacks? No.) --Hans Adler (talk) 18:19/19:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an extremely convenient (and perhaps deliberately incorrect) interpretation of what I'm saying. That was clearly not what I'm saying or implying and you should know better or at least assume better. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are replying to Ra2007 or to me, and that makes me aware of a problem. Therefore: I am sorry for the part of my preceding comment where I answered with cheap rhetorics to cheap rhetorics. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My indentation should indicate I was replying to him, not you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And it doesn't take a mathematician to understand that a proof is not a sequence of instructions to follow in order to get a physical result, even if it is customary to phrase proofs as if this was the case. If you, Ra2007, really were mathematically literate you would be able to understand this, at least after it was pointed out. I would also like to note that I find it extraordinarily hard to explain some of your edits while still assuming good faith [168]. But I will reserve this for the next Wikiquette alert. One at a time. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Someone said Encyclopedias don't contain mathematical proofs. That is lunacy. It is a fact that hundreds of Wikipedians, many with professional expertise in this area, have discussed how articles on particular mathematical proofs should be written, when they should and when they should not immediately follow the statement of the theorem; when they should be relegated to a separate article and when they should not, when they should be in a subpage (as in the present case) and when they should not."

Sorry, it is not lunacy. At best it is mere ignorance. If hundreds of Wikipedians have discussed this, and/or there has been precedence, then you merely had to point them to those discussions. Beetle B. (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the lunacy was when users insisted that they knew the role proofs play in mathematics (comparing them to a "how to" or recipe is not very apt, to say the least). --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just want to submit a diff to indicate the level of my mathematical literacy.[169]. Hope this helps. But it really should not matter. The Afd was about What Wikipedia was not, and did not require mathematical literacy. Ra2007 (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a math article to me. You may know physics, you may know how to typeset a summation, but that doesn't mean you understand proofs. Besides, your literacy is not in question, unless you want to continue the dispute. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"At best it is mere ignorance." Okay. At worst, it is worse that "lunacy". Either way, they seemed like crazy statements to me. I prefer "random" to "lunacy" - but, I don't think that "lunacy" is out of order. Tparameter (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

While I was quite taken aback by the vehemence and inappropriateness of Michael Hardy's comments on the AfD nomination page, the user's talk page, etc., I will assume good faith and chalk this one up to this editor's passion about the subject matter. I left a note on the editor's talk page and I consider the issue done on my part. If I do happen to run across this editor abusing relatively new editors (who may not have as thick skin as I), I will certainly bring his/her actions up in this space in the future. Cheers. --SimpleParadox 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed solution: Michael, in future will you do your best not use "illiterate" as shorthand for "mathematically illiterate"? That should solve this tempest in a tea cup. Guettarda (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and specific "apparently", since we should comment on actions, not persons. Guettarda (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder:

1. Why should we tolerate people who write things like "Encyclopedias do not contain mathematical proofs, do they?" asking to be treated with the same respect that good-faith participants in discussions like this are entitled to? That's wrong. We should consider banning that user
2. Why do illiterates who write idiotic crap like this feel entitled to be treated with the same respect that honest people should get? That's just wrong. It is sickening to see the people who hang around the AfD discussions always feeling their [sic] entitled to push people around, when those they're pushing around differ from them in that they have some professional expertise in the subject matter and those feeling so entitled are illiterate and dishonest
3. They shouldn't be using this page to demand such tutoring.
4. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I find the behavior of the nominator and two of the discussants offensive.

Hope this helps. Ra2007 (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, we can close this, per SimpleParadox. An apology is clearly not forthcoming, and this is not getting anywhere. Ra2007 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Either Michael is right, and mathematically illiterate people are piling on to deletion discussions, in which case, he's calling a spade a spade, or it's false, and they are simply being disruptive. Since it would appear from your history that your main objective here is to be disruptive, it may be unfair to call you mathematically illiterate; you may just be acting that way to further your disruption. You are free to apologise to him for your goading and time wasting. I think there are a lot of other editors to whom you should also apologise. Guettarda (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As of this writing, I have submitted about 17 articles for deletion, and about 10 of them were successful. This is a good ratio, and not disruptive. I do apologize for failing to recognize earlier that attempting to garner an aplogy from Michael Harding was futile. I should have recognized this earlier, and moved to close earlier. Perhaps as I keep my deletion ratio above 0.500, I will come to earn the respect of other wikipedians such as Michael Hardy, and earn the same pass Michael Hardy has received here. In hindsight, it was certainly a waste of my time to attempt to persuade Michael Hardy that he was not civil. Ra2007 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Michael Hardy went beyond the line in some of his comments. However, you aren't raising a big stink about the harshness of his comments but rather the appropriateness of the sentiment behind them. Hardy has a good point that those who think that proofs aren't appropriate material for an encyclopedia's coverage of mathematical concepts have a shaky understanding of writing about mathematics, and it would be bad if a deletion issue on such a topic was settled by those with that level of understanding. I think he got a little over-frustrated and started to be rude, and he shouldn't do that. But at the same time, the core sentiment that you seem to be objecting to is a legitimate one. Mangojuice^talk 16:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a small point, but I think I disagree with the sentiment you discuss. Someone could be the number one expert in a given field, and they wouldn't be the most qualified to judge whether a given article in that field should exist/be deleted. They might actually be biased toward keeping an article that should be deleted. Knowledge of a field certainly does color how to apply policy, but it doesn't mean that those with little knowledge of the field can't contribute to the discussion, as policy applies to it. --Nog lorp (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Those with little knowledge of the field can provide valuable perspective. Or they can provide ignorance. It's a question of being aware that there are things you don't know, and not persisting in an ignorance-based argument when you get corrected. OTOH, one shouldn't assume that being in the same field makes someone likely to be biased, especially not when we're talking about mainstream academic subjects. Mangojuice^talk 04:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. On first sight I felt that it is probably not worth to preserve the article. But I did not feel qualified to argue, because I did not know the exact background and did not bother to read the proof in detail. So I stayed out of the discussion, only to see much more unqualified people dominate it by insisting on absolutely ridiculous arguments and using rhetorical tricks to defend them. By this polarising behaviour they prevented a sensible discussion with real arguments. The very least that we can expect from those who concentrate their energy on deleting rather than writing is that they give actual content writers who are interested in the article a chance to have an open-ended discussion. That would be less disruptive, and at least in cases like this one it would result in a higher percentage of deletions. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• 10 out of 17 is less than 60% confirmation. Since AfD usually deletes a higher percentage of its articles, Ra2007 is doing worse than usual. He might profit by considering why AfD is disagreeing with him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As a point of interest, let's not forget that the mathematically uninformed have been AfD'ing mathematical proof articles for years (e.g. here). --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE I added the resolved template to the top of this discussion. The actual parties involved stopped participating two days ago at least. Cheers. --SimpleParadox 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Neo-Jay

Is it really necessary to put up with comments like this?

This is a falsehood; You are trolling and just repeating your so-called Google Scholar research that fails to prove Ta-Hsia is more popular than Daxia. Please read carefully my analysis below. --Neo-Jay (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Regards, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The accusation is a bit extreme and not entirely correct. On the other hand I can understand how this can happen in the heat of a discussion on a problem where none of the answers is clearly preferable. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sceptre

I edited the article on Gamespot to include the section on the criticism regarding Jeff Gertsmann, because of the fact that the amount of agreement on the discussion page seemed to suggest it should be included. Sceptre and another editor were the only two editors actively watching the page. So, despite my edits, they were reverted. Per the 3RR, I let it go and did not press it.

However, in the process, User:Sceptre was extremely belligerent and rude to me. I saw some disturbing stuff on his talk page, where it seemed like he was frequently stirring up trouble on Wikipedia.

So, after reviewing his edits, it seems to me that Sceptre does not believe in WP:CONSENSUS, which he refers to as the "mob mentality." He is a disgruntled ex-admin that believes Wikipedia is in horrible condition because of widespread trolling ("the horde"), which admins are not tough enough against. In the edits he makes, he is constantly accusing users of breaking the rules and of being trolls. He frequently invokes shortcuts to WP rules. He comes off as belligerent, arrogant, and uncompromising. He was warned before by an admin for improper Wikipedia ettiqute. [170]

I don't expect him to agree with my edits on Gamespot. I can compromise. Sceptre just needs to be a bit more polite and drop the bad attitude. Another example of what I mean is our discussion over the neutrality of calling Al-Qaeda "terrorists." 69.138.16.202 (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Piece-by-piece response:

1. The Gerstmann incident just stinks of mob-mentality.
2. You're trying to push for rumours in BLPs and HOCs. Rumours that have been rebutted.
3. Local consensus on an article can also not override WP:NOT.
4. RockMFR's post wasn't a warning, it was playful banter (ask him to verify if you wish).
5. As you say, I am an ex-admin, so I know trolls when I see them, and call them thusly.

Will ^(talk) 14:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I went over to User:Sceptre's Talk Page, and could not find any discussion between you and Sceptre. Since you noted that he was belligerent and rude on his Talk Page, cuold you post an exact date on which this occured so that we can get a feel for what might have happened? Without concrete information, this would give the appearance of a baseless accusation. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  It's present on Talk:Al-Qaeda. I removed it from my talk as it was becoming evident that it was made in bad faith. Will ^(talk) 15:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diff's so that we can assist you in a speedy manner. I can't find any obvious citations of where Sceptre labeled anyone as trolls or vandals. For easier access: Sceptre (talk · contribs) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my post on his talk page was just a joke. While I'm here, I guess I'll comment on the situation - the initials edits to after the Gerstmann thing were absolutely terrible, and caused me to fully lock the article. There was some headway made on the talk page creating a sourced account of the incident, though it still was pretty poorly written. I personally think this should be covered in the article (if only to finally have a few secondary sources in the article), but whether the rumor itself is included is an entirely different matter. The problem lies in the sources we have. We've got some stuff from CNET and GameSpot saying one thing, we've got blogs citing "anonymous sources" saying another thing, and we've got a variety of websites later on providing coverage of the incident (I don't know - did any non-blogs ever pick it up?). The rumors themselves carry virtually no weight because nobody publishing the rumors is willing to give their source or otherwise show their reputation for good fact-checking. The coverage of the rumors (provided by various websites and even GameSpot itself) is another matter. --- RockMFR 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

See our discussions on Gamespot here, our discussion on al-Qaeda here. As for RockMFR's comment, it may have been playful, but does that mean it's OK for Sceptre to be rude? The "joke" was still in relation to a rude comment he made. [171]

In the words of the Message Board Help forum at GameFAQs, "Fair. Next."

That was rude. Give me some more time. I can find plenty of more incidences of this guy being caustic and abrasive.

Also, I just noticed that Sceptre put me on the admins' noticeboard for wikistalking, without even notifying me. [172]69.138.16.202 (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And when he reported me to Crum375, he falsely accused me of making edits on Eidos Interactive, Jeff Gerstmann, and Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. I have not edited any of those articles even once. I edited the Gamespot article, but let it go after the 3 reverts. So far, his claim that I am "wikistalking" and "wikilawyering" and "trolling" relies upon me reverting Gamespot and al-Qaeda a few times. So, it's rather frivolous for him to be making such charges.

Please see the paragraph titled "A small thought" on his user page. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as a side note, GameSpot should be monitored for possible WP:BLP and WP:SPS violations, per this comment. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the edits of Sceptre (talk · contribs), I see no violations of civility or of vandalism. The editor has been making a steadfast effort to revert changes to GameSpot and etc. in accordance to policies and guidelines -- specifically, WP:BLP and WP:SPS. Adding in blogs and rumors that attest to the ability of an individual, no matter if there was a "consensus," is a violation of BLP and must be removed. Per Jimmy Wales, this is non-negotiable and all steps must be taken to ensure that BLP is enforced. Per SPS, blogs are not generally credible sources. And note that per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is gained through discussion, not by voting; looking at talk:Gamespot, I see no general consensus and additional input should be requested from other sources. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with Seicer here. Sceptre might be a bit abrasive at times, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's out-of-line. I think he might jump to conclusions about who's "trolling" but he seems to do so only when his patience runs out, and it's not up to us to decide how much bickering one must endure before deciding an argument with an anonIP is too much. His observations on Wikipedia are bitter, cynical, and quite pessimistic. I can't really blame him. A userpage expressing honest sentiments about how Wikipedia functions is not' a violation of any policy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:B9 hummingbird hovering

Placed personal attacks on my talk page and then edit warred to return them after I elided them: [173], [174], claiming that because s/he believed the attack to be "true", that it justified the incivility, [175]. GlassFET 00:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)