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

Talk page etiquette at Talk:List of Top Gear episodes

Stuck

 – unable to reach consensus Gerardw (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Deliriousandlost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of Top Gear episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deliriousandlost is being disruptive by not following accepted talk page etiquette at Talk:List of Top Gear episodes, specifically by removing her comments after they've been replied to at length. I haven't been party to the discussion on the talk page and it makes it hard to understand what is actually going on because she removed the comments, which is one of the reasons why WP:REDACT exists. I restored her deleted comments and pointed her to WP:REDACT, both in an edit summary and on her talk page, but she keeps removing them,[1][2] leaving the discussion in a mess. I've had dealings with her in the past and she has taken a dislike to me for reasons that are not clear so I don't think I'm going to achieve anything. I was hoping an independent voice might help. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

My comments have been removed with no objection from the other parties then involved in the rfc because apparently my position regarding the rfc is tainting the outcome of the rfc and my comments and my very presence are not welcome at all, even though the comments were replied to. For the sake of the rfc going forward i removed my comments. Aussie restored them. I do not disagree that the discussion makes little sense with my comments removed but Aussie wants them and drmargi doesn't and rather than fight over whether i am welcome to comment or not i simply 100% backed out. That now is the issue here being brought forward. I am not welcome to stay and i am not welcome to leave. The striking of my comments still would leave my signature and the text which is what drmargi is objecting to so that is not a viable solution. Anyone have any solution?
Aussie, you might want to get your timeline in order regarding diffs. Much of this has been close-to-overlapping. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 17:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Article talk pages don't belong to any one group of editors. They are "owned" by the community, so it matters little what the two other editors, with whom you appear to be in opposition, think of your removal. Other editors need to be able to understand the discussion, which is why we strike through comments, rather than delete them. The only exception to this is that edits by banned editors may be deleted by anyone but even then, sometmes it makes more sense just to strike them out.[3][4][5] --AussieLegend (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Further to point, this was filed 11 minutes after i complied with Aussie's request to abide by REDACT by noting my comments are retracted. So far noöne has objected to that. Yet Aussie subsequently filed this complaint. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 17:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You haven't complied with WP:REDACT at all, which is why this report was raised. WP:REDACT says to contact the person(s) who replied to your comments and ask if it is okay to delete your text. You didn't do that. You posted to drmargi's talk page stating you had already deleted your text.[6] There's a difference between asking if something is okay and stating that you'd already done it. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: For the record, Deliriousandlost's initial comments were not substantively directed to the issue which required the RfC, but rather were a treatise on why the RfC constituted WP:OR and she thereby opposed it. That soon elicited several heated remarks from another editor, and debate ensued. In an effort to calm things down, I added a couple comments and placed the heading above Delirousandlost's initial comment, thus hoping to keep the RfC separate from the (at one point rapidly escalating) discussion. I did and said nothing that even remotely suggested I wanted her comments gone. What I did was simple organization, and have attempted to explain that to Deliriousandlost to no avail. Drmargi (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Being one of "the other editors" I think that this is more a case of missing WP:GOODFAITH than anything. I think Drmargi was trying to keep the RfC section focused and organized rather than pushing you out. However, I do have to agree with the complaint at hand and express my belief that posting (redacted) is not much better than outright deleting the content since it's eliminating 99% of the relevance to subsequent replies. What is wrong with doing the suggested strikethrough? MrCrackers (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And this issue just can't be dropped like i was trying to do in what started this second round. Drmargi also objected to both my initial post with the bold red text and my more organised re-write opposing the query and potential outcomes of the RfC. Repeatedly moving my comment out of the comments of RfC no matter their content is a great way to tell me i am not welcome to make a comment that does not support any of the proposed solutions. Which could be simply taken as i am not welcome to comment since i am not willing to pick one of the pre-selected outcomes but rather chose 'none of the above'. Sure that might elicit a response but that does not justify removing my comment to a separate section. If needed create a section for responses to my comment in the Request For Comments but don't remove my comment to elsewhere. Trying to pick a policy that fit the odd circumstance i went with calling it original research to have essentially a popularity contest in picking which BBC-published site was to be considered more reliable than the other. Last i checked the reliability was rested on the publisher not generally on the individual author. Pitting one BBC-published site against another BBC-published site in a query of which is reliable and which isn't seems to have a fundamental flaw to me. If you expand it to the broadcast episodes themselves as a potential source you then have 3 BBC-published sources each with some variation from the others. To call one reliable more-so than the others is to essentially call the BBC an unreliable source at the same time you call it reliable. Original research might not have been the best policy to site but it sort of kinda somewhat works here. There is probably some more appropriate policy i am not thinking of or maybe never heard of.
I guess the organising itself is where the issue lies as i object to your assessment of my comment and the associated need to reörganise it into a different section. Still, do i object to the impression i am not welcome? Nopes; i was glad to leave and remove all potentially offending comments too so as to ensure a quick and complete end to the matter without negatively influencing those who might later come along. That didn't go so well.
The striking out was not done because of my understanding that drmargi didn't want my comments there. My agreeing to not have them there equals removing them. It really is that simple. For all of the edit conflicts i am getting everywhere the last little while clearly i am not the only one who is editing her comments in places after hitting save. Had it occurred to you to simply remove the entire section which objects to my comment? I was to be done with this but none of you will let me go. Drmargi has said i am there "just to cause trouble" and if backing out is also causing trouble then what am i to do. I am not welcome. I want to leave. Different people want me to remain involved and not retract everything. I am not picking one comment to retract - i am retracting all of my comments before it blows up into something of ridiculous proportions. Which it ended up doing by my very trying to avoid it. Take out my retractions, take out the responses to the notes of my retractions, remove the entire response section. So you objected to a comment i retracted. O no. Does it need to stay? Nopes. What does all of this go to? I changed my mind, i gave up, and backed out to not make a fuss and the fuss followed me. Does it really need to keep going? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 19:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to endorse a complaint because i picked the option in the policy that you don't favour then i think that is a mimic of the issue that started this in the first place. Placing "(retracted) ~~~~" is completely within the allowed options whether you like it or not and is not a valid ground for filing or supporting a complaint. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 19:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't often do diffs but [7] is where you find the first real issue. The edit summary is "RfC: Should the USA special be counted under Series 15 or 16 or neither: restore heading separating comments from discussion". Drmargi unilaterally decided that my substantial re-write was still not acceptable content to be in the RFC so Drmargi moved it to the discussion. That would be disallowing me my vote/comment/whatever and that is hardly a non-aggressive move to make. I move it back. [8] and drmargi edits a previous post to call my comment now "inappropriately placed". [9] I get the hint and remove all of my comments. That is where Aussie comes in objecting to my removing my comments. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Aussie, in addition to the 11 minute time delay from the moment i came into compliance with the policy you pointed out to your filing this complaint there is also point 1:

Avoid filing a report if:

• The specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere.

The issue was already being discussed on yours, mine, and drmargi's talk pages. You were already involved on mine and yours. It was you and i discussing it semi-concurrently with each other on each others' talk page. This complaint is in violation of the first thing to avoid. I am at the point where if i could i would file a complaint on you for malicious complaint filing. Sounds silly but this is my first time in these parts and well i think you have enough experience here to know when and when not to file a complaint. We were having a productive discussion until you brought it over here. If you filed this complaint because you object to my selecting the option to put "(retracted)" in in place of striking my comments then you really should look at the policy you directed me to because you are the one who showed me it is ok to do that. This is one of those times that you don't file a complaint. An apology would be nice.

Considering i want nothing to do with Top Gear and my attempt to be that impartial third party blew up in my face i would prefer that my comments not appear at all in the rfc but whatever i really don't care which way it goes. I was trying to make you folk happy and darmargi in particular happy and you turned on me for it. I realise that i can't win. No matter what i write drmargi will object to it since i have issue with the query put forward in the rfc and that is not an acceptable comment to make in response to the request for comments. Since i have no personal interest in the show i really personally don't care how it turns out or if it is ever resolved. For the readers who are confused my concern was to ensure accuracy. That is why i emailed the respective websites asking them to synchronise the data rather than continue to present conflicting data. If someone reads the emails then at least the issue will be known beyond the article's talk page and this 5-page discussion. If you don't know from somewhere else, i don't even like the show; i think it is one of the strangest concepts for a successful tv show that i could ever imagine - and it is real. As to the other complaint against me that i write too much - i wouldn't be writing anything but rather would be sleeping if this hadn't been filed in the first place.
Who wants to continue this? Who wants to let me part from Top Gear with what peace i can salvage from this regrettable encounter? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue wasn't being discussed. It had (past tense) been requested that you don't remove your comments but you continued to remove them. Based on previous interactions, as I stated in the report, I felt it better to ask for the voice of an independent third party and this was certainly justified by the fact that by the time this report was raised you had deleted your comments three times, without ever having asked the person who had replied to you if it was okay to do so. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I was the independent third party at Top Gear - look how well that turned out! Drmargi approved the removing of my comments as drmargi had put in such a note when i first removed the o-so-extremely-provocative comment before writing the more-on-topic second draft and the redact policy allows for noting a comment has been removed. You wonder why we don't get along at times? It is stuff like filing this which has issue between us. You got what you wanted and still that wasn't enough. Also, you need to learn to count - i removed my comments twice with the intent not to replace them. Somehow you got 3 out of 2. The third which replaces the comments with "(retracted)" and a new signature is not deleting my comments against your wishes - that is me complying with your wishes. It seems that you have lost track of the time-line and you reported me for complying with your request or you never even checked that i indeed had complied with your request before you complained that i wasn't complying with your request. Does that sound messed up? To me it does.
And What the hell do you mean the issue was not being discussed - what then are the messages on yours and my talk pages? That my dear is a discussion - well it was until you turned it into an "i've reported you" as response to my "have it your way". Half way through those messages i had already complied with your request. Somehow that wasn't good enough for you and we are now here.

Avoid filing a report if:

• You have not followed the directions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Avoiding disputes. Politely, in a non-judgemental way, raise the issue with the other editor; emphasise the desire to move forward constructively; and address how to move forward on the outstanding content issues whilst assuming good faith.
• Remember that the aim of this page is to move disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour. Users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors.

Those would be two more of the things to do which you selected to omit. Considering we had moved forward and the matter was resolved by the time you filed this complaint you actually are in violation of both of those points rather bluntly. You assumed bad faith, i moved forward constructively and you didn't like it, reïgniting a resolved issue just to bring it here is hardly, polite, civil, or non-difficult communication with the intent to re-resolve an issue that already had resolved in your favour.
Aussie, you got what you wanted. You have my blessing to restore my full comments and if drmargi doesn't like them then you are most welcome to deal with that matter yourself. Or leave it as it now is. Your choice. It is everything i think you want & you already had it. What more do you want from me? I want an apology from you for taking it this far when it didn't need to be because of your refusal to accept my complying with the policy you asked me to comply with. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 03:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't intent to apologise for your lack of etiquette. It's not a discussion if somebody steadfastly refuses to do what has been asked of them in defiance of the guideline. As I said in the report, "I've had dealings with her in the past and she has taken a dislike to me for reasons that are not clear so I don't think I'm going to achieve anything. I was hoping an independent voice might help." I think that your responses here and the response of one of the editors involved in the discussion demonstrate that concern was justified. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I steadfastly did what you asked of me in compliance with the guideline. This all is your response to getting what you asked for and the subsequent response to your bringing it here. My responses to your abuse of etiquette and guideline justifying your abuse of etiquette and violation of the rules of filing the complaint is the most absurd argument you have so far made. Your insistence upon bringing in old, resolved issues on which we now have amicable dealings is a rather odd and low blow to strike. You got what you wanted and you are unhappy with that so you are further complaining by bringing it here and continuing to complain here that getting what you wanted is not what you wanted. How the hell does giving you want you want justify complaining? I am not adding my comments back in. I am not removing the note that my comments were retracted. I am not editing anything there because it is blatantly clear that my input is not wanted in any mannor. I have said a few times now that you are invited to restore or leave as is any or all of my comments. You instead continue with complaining that you are not getting what you want from me. At some point when you realise that some 12 hours ago (before this here complaint was filed) you got what you wanted from me and that all of this here stems from you insisting upon blowing up an issue that resolved in your favour to proportions well beyond reasonable you are welcome to apologise to me. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 06:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you did not:

• Contact the person(s) who replied (through their talk page) and ask if it is okay to delete or change your text. You certainly didn't do that.
• Use deletion and insertion markup or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered. I asked you to strike through your comments (deletion markup) and instead you deleted them completely.[10] In the circumstances "(retracted)" was not an appropriate placeholder, not only because you had not discussed with drmargi before removing your comments, but because "(retracted)" resulted in the reply to your comments making no sense at all. This is addressed in WP:REDACT:

• A placeholder is a phrase such as "[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]". This will ensure that your fellow editors' irritated responses still make sense. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The comment was neither thoughtless nor stupid but it was first drmargi who opted to go with "(comments deleted by editor)" [11] So i ask, why is that ok for drmargi to do but for me to say it is retracted is unacceptable? I was following the precident set by drmargi in the matter. If you object to my removing my comment and not commenting on my comment in the process of removing the comment then how do you not object to drmargi having done so in the time between my initial comment being removed and my re-write being saved? Also, why do you not want my initial comment restored? That is the one that everyone was so upset about. The re-write is far more appropriate but still it was deemed unacceptable by drmargi. Fail once. Try again. Fail twice. Don't bother trying for a third time. Back off and move on. Or so the plan was. The objections that remain are mostly if not entirely directed at my initial comment which noöne has objected to my removing so keeping the responses to it is more than a little odd. The entire response section could be removed for being in response to something that is preferred to not be there in the first place by all parties involved prior to your coming on the scene.
As to discussing it with you, i tried to. You yourself have called it not a discussion. Following drmargi's lead in using a notice of removed comment seemed in keeping with what would be acceptable to drmargi since drmargi had already done that. If drmargi objected to it then that could be addressed. I was of the impression that it would be preferable if no trace of my presence were found in the RFC but i wasn't about to remove the comments of others which contained my user name - that i left up to them to decide how to act. You came in before they did and it all fell into chaos because your preference ran in direct conflict to what i was understanding to be drmargi's desire. I can't both completely remove my comments and all visible trace of my involvement while also only striking out the text. Stike, purge, or note that it has been removed? Three choices. I picked the middle-ground option which had precedent hoping it would end the matter amicably. Did i think it would be the very thing all parties would have issue with? Not at all. Despite my user name i am not that crazy to go intentionally pick a fight with you two. :P Honestly, i might not have had a chance at it but i do qualify to be a candidate and this kinda was the last thing i was looking for in the hours before i was to file my nomination for steward. I was really, really, really, really not looking to make a big deal out of this or anything else. Radar. Fly under. I still say, use whatever you want. I really don't care whether some, all or none of my comments are there; whether they say they are retracted or deleted. I would however object to describing them as "thoughtless and stupid" or any like phrase because they were neither thoughtless nor stupid and doing that would surely bring this back here with me the one then filing the complaint. "Comment removed by author" would be fine. Leaving it as "retracted" is also fine by me. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 07:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's true for both of us. Deliriousandlost has taken a dislike of me based on a series of imaginary slights, and refuses to budge from her position as the aggrieved party, no matter what explanations are offered. Her steadfast insistence on attributing motives to me that are arrant nonsense simply underscores the degree to which this is true. Drmargi (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If i am not the aggrieved party then why do you call my involvement at Top Gear totally unwelcome and unhelpful saying that i am there just to cause trouble even though i was trying to help and noöne else said i was being a troublemaker. I support not labelling topgear.com an unreliable source which is your position and somehow that has me at odds with you. I do very much disagree with your disallowing my comment in the request for comments, especially the re-write which was very much on-topic. If you didn't want me gone then perhaps you shouldn't have acted like you wanted me gone and then told me to avoid you. Whether you want me gone or not i still don't want to be involved with Top Gear. I don't believe you find my comments helpful to the RFC and you are not objecting to my retracting them. That would mean you prefer i not be involved. That is fine by me. If you do want me involved then just tell me so. Tell me it is all a big misunderstanding and that you didn't want me to retract my involvement in the RFC because you valued my input. Telling me your motives are because you assessed my comment as unacceptable for the RFC is hardly welcoming. Short of that i can only guess your motives and calling my guess nonsense because my guess is not favourable to yourself is actually an example of why i don't mind not continuing my involvement with Top Gear and wish that you would have let it be at that. Oddly enough it is yourself and Aussie that i have greatly disagreed with. Other than this here Aussie and i have been getting along rather well of late. I don't know what brought him to be the forth party to the RFC but it is a bit odd that your go-to-guy comes in to object to my backing out because we are fundamentally disagreeing and i would rather rescind my involvement than continue to disagree with you. Prior to my comment in the RFC yourself and i had been getting along. Your insistence that my comment was not acceptable for the RFC and removing it to a discussion section and then calling it inappropriately located when i moved it back was hardly conducive to getting along. You seem to stand by not accepting my comment as being appropriate for the RFC. Am i wrong? If my comment is not appropriate for the RFC and you don't object to my retracting it how then am i wrong in believing that you would rather i not be involved in the RFC? If that is correct then how do you object to my calling it so. Your position seems to be that it is better that my comment be retracted; Aussie's position seems to be that it is better my comment NOT be retracted. At this point i really don't care which way it goes and suggest the two of you decide which way you want it to be. Fighting the two of you in separate and a joint fight is three fights too many. Rock. Me. Hard place. You two win. Sorry for getting involved at Top Gear. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 06:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of peace and sanity here, I'm going to step in and provide my two cents, if it is welcome. One: Please remain civil here. I'm seeing some hot tempers and I totally understand that and I'm not saying anyone has gone out of line yet, but for the record and as a friendly reminder, let's remain civil. Two: Let's come to this compromise- should anyone agree to it. In the future, when participating in an RFC, if you want to retract your comments, let's strike them rather than remove them. Removing comments could potentially cause some confusion and as a courtesy, striking the comments show a retraction. Does that sound reasonable? Dusti^*poke* 08:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Dusti, while reasonable, this was never about a standard practice but rather a one-off incident where i tried to appease two parties giving me rather conflicting signals who only had in common the dislike of my compromise which was actually put forward in some measure by each of them independently. Invoking ignore all rules and removing my comments entirely because their existence, whether stricken or not, prove detrimental to the RFC is what got the least objections but which also landed me here. Whether they remain retracted, get restored, are restored and stricken, or are purged someone won't like it. So, Dusti, any ideas for the 'here & now'? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What do the other editors request that you do now? You seem to have tried everything you can do thus far.... Dusti^*poke* 17:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

She hasn't tried everything. She hasn't done what she should have done in the first place, struck through her comments rather than delete them entirely. Had she done that, or at least done it after the first time her comments were restored, this report would have been unnecessary. Simply striking through her comments rather than writing volumes of excuses and explanations for not doing so, now totalling 5,300 words on multiple pages (5 times the volume of the offending posts), would have been far easier and resolved the problem before it started. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Aussie, if i knew that drmargi didn't stand by the very example from drmargi that i was following in the footsteps of then yes i would have discarded that example in the first place rather than stand by it as being the resolution. For 3 days now i was of the understanding that drmargi's note of my deleted comments was satisfactory resolution to drmargi. One does not assume someone to set an example they personally find unacceptable. If it was agreeable to drmargi then i couldn't satisfy both removing and striking. Since both were meant to avoid conflict and instead produced the conflict for that i do apologise to you. My goal was a peaceful and simple end to a disagreement and given what i had at the time i believed i was taking the most agreeable option for all parties involved by noting my comments to be retracted. Subsequent revelations clarified that to not be the case. With positions clarified i have obliged as much as is agreeable to myself too. Comments that you objected to my removing are restored. Comment previously removed and replaced not restored. Note of my comments being retracted are themselves removed for being in conflict with the comments not actually being retracted. My departure from the matter rescinded per insistence that i be the one to restore the comments. As to the length of comments, it is a very poorly kept secret that i write a lot.:P delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 15:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christ what a fiasco this is turning into. I support completely wiping all text below my RfC official comment and pretending nothing was said in the last 3 days. Everyone wins. MrCrackers (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If drmargi agrees to this proposal, it would resolve the problem. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

As much as I would like to see this at an end, I can't agree to simply wiping the text and pretending it didn't happen. This is not the first time I've been on the receiving end of wildly overblown and grossly inaccurate accusations by Deliriousandlost, and I gather this is also the case for AussieLegend. It has to stop. Delirousandlost has kept this problem going by refusing to comply with a simple Wikipedia guideline: remove text by striking it through, preferring to produce the volume of text AussieLegend has noted above in a misguided attempt to achieve what, I'm not sure. Her comments both here and on the relevant talk page represent repeated assumptions of bad faith based on her need to keep herself in the right and justify repeated disruptive edits. Moreover, she has repeatedly attempted to use both my comments and AussieLegend's conduct to justify her own actions by inaccurately portraying what was said and done, then shifting blame for her choices onto one or both of us. I have explained repeatedly what my edits were designed to do. Instead of simply acknowledging her error, restoring then striking out her edits as Wikipedia guidelines require, and leaving the discussion as she wishes to do, we've seen a series of frenzied and disruptive postings, both here and on the Top Gear talk page designed to avoid doing what is appropriate and somehow make her failure to do so my fault. Similarly, instead of accepting responsibility for disruptive editing that is arguably deserving of more aggressive action than this discussion, she has accused AussieLegend of abusing process in opening this discussion. No one has (metaphorically) put a gun to her head or forced her to do anything, yet Deliriousandlost refuses to accept any responsibility for her choices and the actions that followed them. Wiping the slate clean won't address these larger issues, just sweep them under the rug, and that's unacceptable. In order to resolve this, Deliriousandlost must do two things: a. restore and strike through her text in adherence to WP:REDACT and; b. apologize to both me and AussieLegend for her false accusations and assumption of bad faith. That done, this problem is at an end. Drmargi (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"This is not the first time I've been on the receiving end of wildly overblown and grossly inaccurate accusations by Deliriousandlost." What was not germane to your point at Lie to me was exactly my point - that the television industry uses production numbers and that production numbers are not necessarily sequentially synchronised with broadcast order. You took issue with me mentioning how i have them listed on my own website and that i said when watched in that order there is no continuity conflict which is present if viewed in the order broadcast by FOX. I spoke specifically of that show and you turned it into responding to me as though i was making general statements about all shows which are not true. You assumed i was making assumptions and told me i can't assume such things. Or the time you decided that despite having a template specifically for including tv.com in the external links section of tv show and episode list articles you decided to remove them where you found them for tv.com being an unreliable source which accepts user-submitted content. External links are not reliable sources but you still reverted some peoples' edits, including mine.[12] You disagree with me pretty much everywhere we cross paths at some time or other, even when i take your side. I still don't understand what you are getting at with this [13] but it seems you are either picking on Xeworlebi or myself or both of us. "Is made" versus "finishes post-production". They are a simple and more technical way of saying the same thing yet you felt to come along and correct me.[14] Also, if you have seen any shows' end credits of late from FOX or Warner Bros. then you should have noticed they are now actually labelling it in the end credits with "Production #" prefix. The seventh broadcast episode of The Good Guys is "Production # 5042-10-107/S105". My accusations are not grossly inaccurate or wildly overblown. There are many little ones which if all mentioned would greatly extend this beyond what it already is and only serve to allow you further jabs at me even though i don't do short comments.
Aussie and i have disagreed on things. We have also been able to eventually work out mutually agreeable approaches to the matters. Emphasis on eventually. When we have questions we can ask each other. We might even make a joke in the answer to the question or follow-up comment. We don't always agree but we do appreciate and attempt to understand the perspective of the other.
You are the one who moved my comment out of the comments to a discussion section. That had me removed it. You then noted my comment was deleted by myself. I put in my re-write and you again removed it to a discussion section. When you called my comment inappropriately placed i was very offended. That is why i removed all of my comments. Fighting with you about allowing me to have my comment in the request for comments would have turned into its own request for comments and that was ridiculous. I was and still am not agreeable to your relocating or disparaging the placement of my comment. Aussie objected to my total retraction despite it being what seemed the most beneficial so I followed your example [15] and notes that my comments were retracted. Now you say that is not good enough for you. How was i to know the very example you set was unsatisfactory to you? Aussie later clarified that that is what he felt to be insufficient. But you were still silent on the matter. If you had not set the example you did or had said anything 3 days ago then i would have been able to respond accordingly. Since my solution is giving you my blessing to do whatever with my comments that will have you satisfied and your request is that i restore them i have. If the comments are to be included i chose to not have them stricken and i instead rescind my withdrawal from the matter because despite fundamentally disagreeing with you i am more against calling a BBC-published website unreliable due to the precedent it would set. As noöne is asking that my first draft of RFC comment be restored that remains replaced with the re-write as it was when Aussie objected to them all being removed. If you want them stricken then we have an issue there. You misled me into believing i was satisfying your concern so i will not be apologising to you. That deception is the underlying reason for why Aussie and i remained at conflict these past couple of days - i could satisfy his request or what you presented and i believed to your position but not both. For not responding with the appropriate courtesy to your actions in the RFC i do apologise to everyone. If you can apologise for your actions and comments then this matter can be resolved.
And since you mentioned it, i have had a real, loaded gun put to my head and been told to do things. On two occasions, once to the back and once in my face. I don't recommend the experience and this is nothing like it. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 15:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you have no intention of accepting responsibility for your choices and the actions you took, but rather will continue to hide behind a non-existent so-called "example" (where in WP:REDACT am I obligated to strike out your comments? That seems to be your basis for refusing to do so.) in yet another attempt to deflect blame from yourself. None of the rest of the verbiage above is relevant to the issue at hand. You're still playing games rather than simply owning up to a series of bad judgments and then restoring, then striking out your comments (all your comments, not a selected few.) That means restoring the first version of your RfC comments, and using strikethrough to reflect any changes. Drmargi (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You never said BOOOO about it to me for 4 days. How am i to read your mind? It is only non-existent if someone had the diff oversighted. I don't understand how you would rather have all of this than have me just back out of the RFC. If you object to having a note of retracted comments then you should have restored my comment that was so offending when i removed it rather than place a note that my comment had been removed. Nothing says that you would strike my comment but as the other party to the issue you chose to not discuss it or revert it but to jump right to noting a removed comment. That would indicate you accept that resolution since you yourself on your own chose to put that in place of my upsetting comment. That is called setting an example. Telling me now that it is not an example and is not and never was an acceptable option is just grasping at ways to keep this going.
I didn't restore my initial comment because not even you objected to it being removed and now that i say so you object to it not being restored. Who is playing what game? What next? I removed your statement that my comment was deleted. Do you want that put back in? Shall you complain that i have not retained the statement that my comments are retracted? Technically they were removed rather than stricken. If you want it restored to what it was then the notes that they were retracted don't belong. They could be but then it will create a situation where i am disavowing my own comments and well i am not. So i would have to go in and add a note that i retracted the retraction to each of them. It sounds a bit silly doesn't it. It can be done. I would first require that all of the other people to restore their initial comments rather than re-writing them. That includes you drmargi. If saving is to be treated as absolute then modifying a comment 4 minutes or 8 hours later is just as unacceptable for you to do as it is for moi or Mr Crackers.
The above is exactly part of the issue at hand. Or shall i file complaints on each of those issues and all of the others individually? You use them in general against me and i bring them up specifically as defense to your wild assertions and you dismiss them as irrelevant. One guess as to why we have issue. You are dismissing my counter-claim that the accusations are not wild and unsubstantiated. That is kind of the same thing as you did at the RFC that so offended me the other day and triggered all of this. If i disagree with you you make bold statements that i am wrong and if i challenge that assessment you say i am making wild accusations.
You even dismiss the correction to the misrepresentation of my relations with Aussie. If Aussie wants to tell me that we are not finding ways to get along then perhaps he should let me know because i thought we were.
"You're still playing games rather than simply owning up to a series of bad judgments and then restoring, then striking out your comments (all your comments, not a selected few.)"[16] Requiring me to strike out all of my comments is completely unacceptable and will not happen. I will not be giving in to these wild demands of yours. My first bad judgement was getting involved at a show where you were well embedded. My next bad judgement was backing down from your confrontational editing in the RFC because it reäffirmed your dominance rather than being equals. I offered you the option to do with my comments as you pleased without objection. You chose to have me handle it. I chose to handle it my way. Too bad. All comments not being stricken. We can review the matter of the first one once you and Mr Crackers restore all of your changes and strike through things. If you require it of me you should first be willing to do it yourself. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 03:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

To Mr Crackers, my apologies to you for a fiasco of a request for comments. I realise you have good intentions in starting it but i do disagree with pitting a publisher against itself in a question of which is more reliable. My opposition to the RFC is unconventional but is very much sincere and it is for that reason that my comments are not stricken. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 15:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If I'm understanding the discussion correctly, there was an RFC posted and Delirious provided some input. drmargi found the input either inappropriate or inappropriately placed and then refactored the page to move Delirous's comments. Delirious objected to the refactoring but in the spirit of cooperation and wishing to withdraw from the discussion, deleted her comments. Aussie found the deletion of the comments made following the discussion difficult and therefore restored them. Is that mostly accurate? Gerardw (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't involved with the initial discussion but that seems to be what happened. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Either version of my comment was not that welcome. The first version spawned its own response section (to which it was then moved by drmargi) which was overshadowing the RFC. The second version was also relocated out of the RFC even though it was vastly more on-topic. When i saw that drmargi called it inappropriately placed back into the RFC i realised this would go on and on. I removed all of my comments. I do not disagree the response section had no context without my comment visible on the page. That is what Aussie found. I can't do anything right by drmargi short of striking out my own comments even though if visible i don't want them stricken. Save for the subsequent comments it is back to what it was that offended me in the first place. Drmargi has not restored and stricken a single change to any of drmargi's comments. drmargi has not demanded that Mr Crackers restore and strike the changes to all of his comments. Rather a double-standard targetting me. Hence the stalemate this is at. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 22:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, Aussie's correct that deleting comments is uncool. However it seems to me that this all got start when drmargi refactored your comment [17] so that was the most uncivil thing I see here. However the history is such a mess that trying to undo that would just create more problems now. Would the involved parties have a problem if we just archive the whole section? Gerardw (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

First of, factoring is mathematical, despite the Wiki-speak misuse of it. Therefore, there is no possible way I could have factored, much less refactored, anything she wrote. Second, despite Deliriousandlost's carrying on, I did nothing to modify her post. I simply added a heading above a group of posts that had become a heated discussion with the intention of separating comments regarding the RfC from the discussion of its merits. Deliriousandlost has repeatedly misrepresented what was done, and why, to make herself seem the sole focus of the addition of the heading, and thereby, the victim. The edit I made is a commonplace one on talk pages, designed to organize the discussion, nothing more. There is nothing uncivil about it. Until such time as Deliriousandlost complies with WP:REDACT and apologizes for her false accusations and misrepresentations, I will revert any attempt to archive the discussion. Drmargi (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"Simply adding a heading above a group of posts that had become a heated discussion with the intention of separating comments regarding the RFC from the discussion of its merits" is exactly the issue. That is modifying my post to relocate it to a new section outside of the RFC proper. And you did it. And i am offended. And you want me to apologise to you! You could have made a heading indicating it was in response to my comments but you chose to move my comment out of the RFC to the subsection and when i objected to your "simply adding a heading..." you objected to my objection and i then objected to your objecting to my objection and you then called my comment inappropriately placed which really offended me. My accusations are not at all false nor misrepresenting.
You openly and explicitly admit to doing what started this specific disagreement. Yet you concurrently absolve yourself from all fault by saying it was called for and deserved and a common place action done all the time and that i am out of line to disagree with you. And that my dear is the fundamental issue i have with you. Even here you have promised an edit war should anyone archive this complaint against your wishes. That would be exactly the same practice i am objecting to your having done - unilaterally changing a discussion 'for the greater good' despite the objection of others. You are literally here in your immediately above post demanding to have it both ways so as to always favour your wishes in whichever circumstance. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 07:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, drmargi's behavior was inappropriate: Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. WP:TPG However, WQA can only be helpful when the involved parties are willing to work towards a solution. When a editor's response starts with a holier-than-thou redefinition of a word (refactor), it's not a good sign. The logical conclusion is drmargi is not going to apologize or change their behavior. Delirious, your best course of action is to simply disengage. Gerardw (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It was a good suggestion but Aussie has great issue with my not writing short comments here or at the shows where we have mutual interest and disagree and he too is still requesting that i strike my comments. [18] Oddly enough he went in and re-wrote that comment rather than striking things so as to remove visible reference to this.[19] More double standard. Ironically here is a short comment. delirious & lost ☯ ^♥hugs♥ 13:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you read what was actually written, and not what you think was written, you'll see that I made no such request at all. I was pointing out the flaw in writing far too much and used this case as an example of where writing far too much is unnecessary and causes your point to be lost. As I told you at Talk:NCIS, there is no obligation to make the first copy of your post the final version. The revision of my post occurred less than 3 minutes after the initial post and nobody had replied during that time so it was entirely appropriate to make that revision. If you had replied immediately after I made my first post, instead of several hours later, then rewording what I wrote would have been inappropriate but, since that did not happen, there is no double standard at all. The concern you've expressed here is really quite silly when you look at the facts. The next post after mine occurred two hours after my revision,[20] and there's a touch of irony in the fact that he was not replying to me but instead was also expressing concerns about the lengths of your posts. He edited his post too,[21] but I don't see you complaining about him. The next post was my response to him,[22] followed by yours, an hour after that, but you said nothing then about me revising my posts.[23] That didn't happen until three posts later, seven posts and six hours after the revision that caused you so much concern.[24] --AussieLegend (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The "nobody has replied so I can refactor my post" logic assumes replying to a post is an atomic transaction. You can't know whether someone has read your post and is in the midst of replying. Following the WP:REDACT policy of using preview would avoid this situation. See also template:uw-preview, and essay WP:TWWPK. Gerardw (talk)

If somebody jumps on your post immediately and you've revised it, they'll get an edit conflict and then they can review to see what has changed. This happens all the time on Wikipedia. The possibility of somebody doing that is no reason not to revise your post. As for previewing, you can preview all you want but it doesn't help if you then decide that what you've posted is not the best way to say what you wanted to. Relying on preview is a rather unrealistic approach. As for Deliriousandlost, there's no way she can type up 150-900 hundred words (the average length of her posts) in less than 3 minutes. And, as I've pointed out already, she didn't actually reply for several hours. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Aussie, what you just described is where you use an edit summary to convey that you are revising to a less inflammatory comment, just in case people have read it but not yet saved a response. You don't do that. It takes mere seconds and chance to refresh a watchlist just in time to see an initial edit and less than a minute to read what you first wrote. Walking the dog, taking dinner out of the oven, the cat wanting breakfast, a phone call, a power outage, or whatever... those are things that can get in between starting a response and actually clicking "save page". Writing a response in notepad and then going to insert it into the talk page is one way that edit conflicts are minimalised. I could write 150 words in 3 minutes easily. I could probably do 900 in maybe 10 minutes - 5 if i don't care if make any typos - but how fast i type is really not the issue. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 14:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I said nothing about an edit summary and you took 6 hours to respond to the post. I can't help feeling, based on your insistence in pushing an off-topic discussion at Talk:NCIS (season 8) that this is just a diversonary tactic to avoid answering to the complaint at hand, that you failed to follow proper talk page etiquette at Talk:List of Top Gear episodes . --AussieLegend (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Best if you both drop the WP:STICKs. Aussie, Delirious doesn't have to answer to you. She already explained her reasoning, and you haven't called out DrMargi for the refactoring that started this mess. Delirious -- it was 3 minutes. Let it go. Gerardw (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Aussie, you brought this up at NCIS season 8. I didn't write that edit for you. I called you on it and you didn't like that. I am the one who said you didn't make proper use of an edit summary to retract your inflammatory comment and well since you insist no such retraction is called for that got the big issue at NCIS season 8. By that logic i could write whatever i wanted about anyone so long as i turned around and replaced it with a less inflammatory comment 2 minutes later. Personally, i find that a gross abuse of the policies for which you refuse to apologise. A simple 'sorry i stooped to that level of comment' would have been all that was needed but you did and still do seem to insist it was completely ok. Hence the issue just goes on - you stand by it and i continue to be offended by it. I do agree with GerardW that it is a bit funny how you don't have issue with drmargi tweaking my edits for me but do have issue with the fallout from my objecting to drmargi having done so. You were completely uninvolved until you showed up pretty much at random and took issue with me while being unaware of the whole story. Considering our past, it was really not a good thing for you to step into a dispute between myself and someone you get along with quite well as you are really not an unbiased third party.
GeradW, backing off from a disagreement with Aussie doesn't work because he brings it up next time he disagrees with you somewhere else as evidence of your past wrongs to show you are wrong in the new matter too. My edits at NCIS LA show i am wrong at Ghost Whisperer. My edits at Top Gear show i am wrong at NCIS DC. When i wrote the entire article for list of Crossing Jordan episode Aussie complimented my work whilst complaining to the admin who deleted his preëmptive-creation-of-a-not-needed redirect page that had been at the same title because it meant his not retaining article creation credit for what was entirely my work. I had started the article outside of WP as a subject to focus on rather than continue the issues at Ghost Whisperer. I asked him not to again follow me to another show (he had come to Ghost Whisperer after i realised he had previous involvement at How The Earth Was Made and i thus ceased my involvement there). Between then and when i had the list ready he had created the page as a redirect. We both are huge fans of NCIS DC & LA so avoiding each other entirely just isn't so easy. I try to avoid bringing up the past issues but to provide some context for responding to your suggestion here i kinda have little other option. The one thing i don't disagree with is Aussie's claims that i write a LOT. It is plain to see here and at most other places i write. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 16:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have amended the complaint to name AussieLegend and drmargi and added NCIS (season 8) and Aussie's talk page to this since they all go together and while they complain about me i most certainly do complain about each of them.
drmargi has now threatened an ANI complaint because i refused to let Aussie walk all over me at NCIS and in doing so named drmargi there.[25] Drmargi then started a discussion on Aussie's talk page about how i am a problem.[26] Aussie actually used an edit summary when responding, "She's an ongoing problem." [27] Then drmargi notices i removed the warning note from my talk page and drmargi again says that i am being taken to ANI, now or next time. [28] The warning i got from drmargi was to not discuss other people who are not part of the discussion and drmargi in turn almost right away starts a discussion ABOUT me at Aussie's talk page. I have left notes on each of their talk pages informing them of my amending the complaint here and acknowledging the looming threat of taking this to ANI because i won't give in to them or write short messages. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

drmargi has requested i retract mention of drmargi from NCIS and once i get confirmation on whether simply striking names or reworking to remove names entirely would be more acceptable i shall do so.
In addition to my request that drmargi remove the commentary about the inappropriate placement if my comment in the RFC at Top Gear i am requesting that all comments between drmargi and Aussie about myself be removed from Aussie's talk page per drmargi's own instance to not be the subject of or mentioned in a discussion that drmargi is not part of. My comment at Aussie's talk page was reverted by Aussie, effectively telling me i am not welcome in their discussion about me. [29] delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the complaint was made about your actions and only your actions, changing the name was inappropriate and has been reverted. If you wish to complain about the actions of other editors make a separate complaint. Don't chjange somebody elses. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I started to and you know what, it looked absolutely ridiculous to complain about etiquette on this very page. Not to mention having two ongoing complaints with the same 3 people, 2 accusing 1 and 1 accusing 2 for the same issue. Congratulations for filing the complaint in the first place. You have effectively ensured there is no way for me to formally file a complaint on you as long as this is ongoing without looking like an idiot and if i wait until this is resolved then i am merely carrying a grudge. Either way i come across as even worse than before or no formal complaint is filed against you.
Now, about that whole discussion on your talk page and your repeated reverting of my comments there including the request to wipe the entire conversation, i do believe the existence of that conversation and your refusal to allow me to participate while you discuss how much a problem i am and how i ought to be taken to ANI is itself grounds to take this to ANI rather than file a 2nd complaint here. I have asked both of you to remove all mention of me since i am not welcome and to carry on the other topic mixed in as you please. Kindly do so. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see this issue as ever being resolved. Deliriousandlost has generated over 8,000 words explaining why it's too hard, or why she couldn't or shouldn't type "<s></s>" three times, turning anyone off responding at all to the discussion. Despite suggestions to drop the stick she refuses, dragging this discussion into areas where it's irrelevant and pointless and dragging other issues into this discussion where they are irrelevant. The discussion is going nowhere so there seems to be no point in continuing it. As long as it remains open, Deliriousandlost will continue add more and more irrelevancies. I still believe that her refusal to strike out her comments at Talk:List of Top Gear episodes was a breach of etiquette but I am more than happy for this discussion to be closed as unresolved. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do i have to strike the comments? I don't want them stricken. I voluntarily removed them to back out entirely. You, Aussie, insisted that they go back in. They did. Now you two demand that i strike them. Why? You insisted that i remain part of the RFC and if i was to remain part of the RFC i was going to stand by what i said. You demand that i retract what i said for no reason other than __i don't know __. The RFC itself is long since redundantly dead due to new sources and the BBC's ever-changing position on the matter. Both of you have demanded that i strike comments but Aussie, you have so far actively dismissed my requests to you for the same. drmargi has been silent and is presumed absent at this time and will find my request for such at a later time. My request of drmargi to remove the inappropriate commentary on my comment itself in the RFC has gone entirely rejected/ignored for about 3 weeks now. You are applying a rather blatant double standard for yourself and moi and it is most frustrating. When really frustrated i tend to write; if i think it might be somewhat incoherent i will note as such in the post or/and edit summary.
Again, the fundamental concern of mine in this matter of which i have written well over 10000 words is:
why do i have to strike my comments if i stand by them? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 11:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, if you read a little more and wrote a littleLOT less you'd see that this was explained to you on your talk page,[30] and then covered in the very first entry in this complaint.[31] If somebody has replied to your comments.....no, I've said this again and again. I shouldn't have to to continue explaining the same thing over and over and over. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, that does not answer my question now and it did not answer it back then either. You are working on the premise that i want my comments retracted. I do NOT want my comments retracted; i DID want to not pick a fight with drmargi so for the lesser of two evils i removed my comments against my wishes to attempt to satisfy another. Putting them back in is a whole other matter. For them being back you two are both demanding that i strike them. Why ? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 13:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll reiterate my suggestion to drop the stick.

• Delirious, just let it go. It's been discussed more than enough. Y'all disagree. You don't have to answer to Aussie and they don't have to answer to you. There's no need to monitor Aussie's talk page, that just escalates the dispute. Just focus on the editing.
• Aussie, the suggestion you referenced above was for both of you to drop the stick. You're not getting third party support here for your complaint against Delirious. Your comment "Honestly, if you read a little more and wrote a littleLOT less" borders on personal attack and shows a lack of good faith. Gerardw (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Gerardw, in case you had missed it, I dropped the stick a while before you made the suggestion, which you only did after Delerious's decision to reignite the debate by dragging an irrelevant discussion here. I actually suggested a resolution back on 29 January[32] which, as is her right, Drmargi rejected. Despite your suggestion to the contrary, others have made suggestions that actually support my position, which is simply one of compliance with WP:REDACT.[33] I can see why poor Dusti, who at least made a practical suggestion, didn't return. The only reason I'm replying now is because I am offended by your suggestion that my post "borders on personal attack and shows a lack of good faith." I have tried to demonstrate good faith with Deleriousandlost but it's impossible because she writes so much that it's simply not possible for the average person to respond adequately to what she wants you to respond to and then complains that you haven't responded adequately. I've tried to assume good faith despite the snide edit summaries that she makes while you're trying to engage in conversation and then she has the audacity to ask what the problem is, when it was explained to her in the very beginning, a million words ago. I was certainly demonstrating good faith when you made a puzzling, and somewhat unhelpful post on my talk page.[34] I'm demonstrating good faith by assuming that you may, one day, answer the question that I asked you in response.[35] --AussieLegend (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I left this discussion because it three things became abundantly clear to me: a) that Deliriousandlost had no intention of taking responsibility for her actions, much less corrective action; b) that any attempt to impress on her the need to abide by policy as articulated above would simply be met by a profusion of words designed to misdirect, redirect, confuse, excuse and generally avoid dealing with the issue at hand and; c) that this discussion was becoming cannon fodder for Deliriousandlost to use elsewhere, as has recently been proven out. The request she is now hiding behind is a nonsense that was never appropriate, nothing more. The fundamental issue is that she refuses to be held accountable for her actions, much less accept responsibility for them. At some point, one simply remembers the meaning of futility and at least attempts to move on. Gerardw, I would be far more impressed with your efforts to "mediate" if I felt you were neutral, but you aren't. You hold AussieLegend and me to a sharply proscribed definition of civility (inaccurately, I would argue) while both making uncivil comments yourself, and allowing Delirousandlost extreme lattitude to behave without civility, and without assumption of good faith. Sorry; no dice. Drmargi (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please post a diff of the uncivil comment(s) I've made. Thanks. Gerardw (talk)

Why do i have to retract something i don't want to retract and has no need to be retracted just because Drmargi and AussieLegend demand i retract it? Why is it ok for them to refuse to retract demeaning comments and an entire thread dedicated to how much i am a problem to them whilst concurrently demanding a retraction and an apology from me for a non-offenseive comment? Why is it ok for Drmargi to edit drmargi's own comments after people have responded to them and why is it ok for drmargi to edit my comments? Yes, Aussie i have the audacity to demand to know why you insist i retract a comment. You show such contempt that the only reason that has ever been given for insisting upon the retracting of my comments is an implied 'because we said so'. Do you even know why you are wanting the comments retracted? I don't know why you want them retracted. I just know that you do want them retracted. To that i say: No; you wanted them readable and i don't want them stricken. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 18:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Ludwigs2

• Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has behaved in a substantially incivil manner on my UT page, on article talk pages, and has done so with others. Collect (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC) |Collect: I asked you to provide sourcing for the term 'communist terrorism', [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACommunist_terrorism&action=historysubmit&diff=413803048&oldid=413797944 here. You have not done so, and are continuing to argue in a tendentious manner (argumentative, circular, and with multiple instances of IDHT. This is your first warning for such behavior. You will get one more warning, and then I will bring the matter to the attention of administrators and ask to have you sanctioned. -- ]

I responded with | Note the specific cite for "communist terrorism" furnished under the Shining PAth discussion. Perhaps you missed it? and a fairly clear edit summary Ludwigs is informed sternly not to post on this page.

Then guess what? | You're free to delete my posts if you like, but I will make such posts as and when I deem fit. If you don't like it, don't put me in a position where I need to. ::I did miss that reference, thanks, probably because it was issued in a separate argument and not presented as a response to my request. do you have other such sources? and the edit summary response with respect to source + note: the adolescent 'this is my room' thing doesn't work on me. I will treat you as though you are an an adult, regardless

Which strikes me as being quite beyond the pale for even last-worditis.

BTW, the cites include [36] after already furnishing more than a dozen other cites, which should be enough for any editor on WP. Collect (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If only we had a WP:Town Sheriff that could step in and give Ludwigs2 breach of peace block or redact his incivility. aprock (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This is very far from his first offense, to be sure. Just that this time he went a mile too far. I am, of cource, bemused by his claims in his essay. Collect (talk)

@ AProck: That would be nice, wouldn't it.

I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem here. user talk pages are for discussing issues that don't belong on article talk pages. Users don't get to dictate who does and does not post to their talk page (though they have broad liberties about controlling or disposing of content that's there), and there are certain cases - such as formal warnings about problematic behavior - where posting a notice on a user's talk page is required before proceeding to stronger procedural measures. The only thing that could possibly be considered uncivil about this is the comment about adolescent behavior, which was more in the line of a humorous observation: it reminded me of that tween thing where they post "Do Not Enter" signs on their bedroom doors. I'll happily apologize for that if he finds it offensive. --Ludwigs2 18:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Might as well add: | Collect: I don't f%cking care. you cannot use the results of an AfD as a justification for not providing sources. I would humbly suggest that a pattern of incivility is apparent. Try also [37] to show it is not just I. Collect (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC) In the same vein, a number of Catholic priests are pedophiles, but we do not create the term Catholic Pedophilia, as though there were something intrinsic to Catholicism that encouraged pedophilia. You obviously cannot find sources that intrinsically link communism to terrorism in the manner that you would like (because if you could you would be pouring those sources all over this page with extreme glee), so that leaves you in the hole. Heck -- might as well stick in his wondrous sterotyoing of priests as pedophiles while we are at it. Collect (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Lastly for now - examine see wp:HUSH. next warning you leave on my user page gets administrator attention) which rather implies he asserts that no one can post on his talk page - whilst he was free to ignore my considerably more polite request. Collect (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure about the problem here. I'm old enough to legally use swear words for emphasis (at least in the US), and I am perfectly entitled to point out the flaws in your reasoning and your failure to provide sourcing. You seem to be confused about the nature of civility on wikipedia. Civility policy is not designed to protect you from things that you don't want to hear; it's designed to protect you from personal attacks, gross indecency, and improper accusations, none of which I have engaged in. Read identifying incivility and tell me where and how I have stepped over the line.

While you're at it, you should look over tendentious editing with respect to your own behavior, because this discussion will soon be turning to the numerous ways you have been pushing the limits there. --Ludwigs2 19:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to let anyone review the many cites I furnished on the talk page, and the "interesting" responses thereto. I find your assertion that you (who use the word "duputy" ) can use any words to other editors that you desire to does not comport with Wikiquette, that your attitude that you control your own talk page and also control mine to be "interesting" and your overall history with others to be "interesting." Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that you find me interesting, I apologize for any unfortunate typos I may have made in the past or may make in the future, I'm fascinated by your misperceptions of how I control my talk page, and I am still waiting for you to provide some justification for this wikiquette aside from what appears to be unbridled rage. --Ludwigs2 19:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And in the midst of this you issue a 2nd formal warning, per canvassing and stalking policies which seems remarkable as an attempt to defuse this on your part. Collect (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ludwig, I am not going to weigh in on the content issues here (not the forum for it), but for the rest of it - this isn't hard. Refrain from profanity in your edit summaries (although I personally don't care); more importantly, if someone asks you not to post on their talk page then don't. Take it to the article talk page and play nice. Eusebeus (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Eusebeus: I'll do my best to refrain from profanity around collect (though I find it hard to believe he is actually upset over the kind of mildly crusty language I'm prone to), but I don't see how I can promise not to post to his talk page. As I said, there are times when posting to a user talk page is the correct and appropriate thing to do, and any other action would either be inappropriate or extremely inefficient or ineffective. I'm going to bring this up at Pump (policy) for clarification, in fact, because it strikes me that attempts to block other users from your talk page (short of problems falling under wp:HUSH) are contrary to the project's interests. feel free to comment over there if you disagree.
    • started the discussion here - Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#editing_user_talk_pages_-_possible_revision - instead. --Ludwigs2 20:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • @ P.s. to Collect: I'm not particularly trying to defuse this situation, as I don't personally see anything that needs to be defused. Provide sources like I asked, discuss them reasonably, and we can move on to better things. --Ludwigs2 20:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You state above "Read identifying incivility and tell me where and how I have stepped over the line." In the edit [[38]] it appears to me two of the referenced tenets are violated. (a) use of profanity and (d) belittling comment to another editor ("Pffft" edit summary). While you behavior is probably not sufficiently egregious to warrant sanctions, neither is it particularly civil.Gerardw (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's room for discussion here, but I read those two subsections differently. For the first, the passage does not say 'profanity', but says 'gross profanity or indecent suggestions', implying something far more intensely personal than 'I do not <exp. del.> care.' Nor do I think that the proscription against belittling other editors was meant to prevent editors from pointing out poor argumentation or improper behavior. Collect is doggedly resistant to rational discourse on this topic, and it's exceptionally frustrating. While a more sober 'You are using this same invalid reasoning for the 17th time now' would have been been more on-point, would it actually have been considered more civil? 'pffft' carries exactly the same idea, but more naturally, and without the blunt, in-your-face accusation that the longer phrase holds. Whatever the case, I am not going to give him a pass on tendentiously bad reasoning just because he has the temerity to drag me to wikiquette. --Ludwigs2 02:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm uninvolved, but frequently edit similar pages as Ludwigs. Anyway, this appears to be good editors wasting eachothers' time. I suggest toning down the rhetoric and moving on. Very briefly, on the content, 'Communist terrrorism' is a needless term, as is any which represents a modifier as inherent to its object. Communism is an ideology and terrorism is a tactic. Sometimes they overlap, but one cannot inherently claim the other (did you do that terrorism? no that wasn't us, we do regular terrorism. that was communist terrorism).

As for the wikiquette, combining intelligent arguments with acerbic comments may well come off as, well, uncivil. Perhaps the users here can pick amongst them? As for preventing people from posting on your talk page, Wikipedia:UP#OWN doesn't seem to support that right, although it's generally not worth trying to reason with people who don't want you talking to them in the first place. That said, the right of response in one forum or another seems reasonable, and preventing someone from posting on your talk page means that their only recourse is boards such as this and other punitive, time-sucking fora. Issuing warnings is not stalking; it's standard where one suspects policy breaches. Similar to templating regulars, however, warning people you are in a direct conflict with rarely helps. Perhaps addressing the issue a less ultimatum-ish way would do more. Plenty of articles needing fixing; I think this thread can go the way of most others, just as a heads up and a break on conflict escalation. Ocaasi (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:USER#Ownership_and_editing_of_user_pages. Generally, if an editor asks you not to post to their talk page, it is good wikiquette practice to respect his or her wishes. Eusebeus (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing in the policy the supports an individual user "banning" someone from their talk page. Gerardw (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems to fit descriptions of problematic behavior outlined here and here:

1. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;
2. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express;
3. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

I suggest a full reading of WP:CIVIL (especially the lede and the first two sections: "Incivility" and "Co-operation and civility"), WP:AGF (especially the lede, the "About good faith," and the"Demonstrate good faith" sections), WP:DR (especially the lede and the "Avoiding disputes" section), and WP:NOTBATTLE.

Finally, the focus here should be on how to be more civil and how to de-escalate situations that detract us from improving the encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Some good thoughts are being expressed in this thread but I would like to say something else that I don't think has been said yet. Common sense tells us that if an editor is upset with you the best thing you can do is leave that person alone for at least a little while. Going to their talk page to lecture or the templates that makes so many very angry is not a real good idea if you really want an editor to cool down. Ludwig, I know you know this is true. I've seen you too lose patience with editors for doing exactly like what you did here. I know that you know putting that second warning on Collect's talk page was not going to give a calming affect so why do it? I've seen you in battles with quite a few editors in the past. I think part of the reason for this is that you do not back down. You have to, just like everyone else has to back down at times. You can't always say what is on your mind to an editor like you say you do. Everyone, please remember that at the end of the day, every post you have talked to in words has a real human being behind it. Sometime's we forget that I guess. With everyone being different, it means that the way we talk/type to them should also be different. What I mean is this, when I type words to someone I try to remember that it is 'someone' I am talking to. When I get done typing I try to always remember to read what I wrote and make adjustments if necessary to make sure that what I say says what I want to without doing harm to the person I am talking/writing to. This really isn't hard to do and it really doesn't take that much time to do. I just thought maybe saying this would give some thoughts to think about. Please now can everyone shake hands and go do something else and maybe have some fun doing it? :) Good luck and I hope I make some sense. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Would seem like a good idea for both editors to back away and take a time out.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Page ownership

Galbarm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user thinks he owns Shahar Pe'er's page. I have made reasonable edits to include H2H with just top 10 players and I have been subjected to these reponses. #1 and this: stop interfering with something that is not yours. Since when has acting like you OWN a page which you edit frequently been acceptable. This user only edits this page and turns it into a faKnowIG (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)n page. As can be seen by my smacking head aginst brick wall to make it conform to other artciles. Page ownership and comments like that are not acceptable. KnowIG (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

KnowIG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'm not sure if this is the place to response - anyway: Since when are you suppose to limit the amount of information that should be shown in a page? The user 'KnowIG' hasn't complained about the reliability or about the quality of the section that I added - appearently, his only complaint is that the section contains too much information - something that I was never aware of being an issue for an encyclopedia. In the worst case, I would expect him to transfer the section into a page of it's own but that user 'KnowIG', thinks he can just erase sections I worked very hard on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Galbarm (talk • contribs) 09:46, 18 February 2011

Both editors appear to be editing warring and neither using talk page. Gerardw (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct, although the information being added by Galbarm is entirely unreferenced which isn't what we want on BLPs. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If reference is the issue I won't argue about it. I'll add the necessary references. I can't give a direct link to the statistics shown on the tables, everything is gathered from the players stats and matches history in the official WTA website. Should I link to the home page of the website in this case? I don't think it would be useful. Galbarm (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The homepage. How is that an adequate reference. Seriously though this is about your ownership comments. Stop trying to avoid it and talk sunshine. KnowIG (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Me saying that I own the page is what bothers you? Even if I did say this I can't see why it's an important point. The truth is I haven't claimed or even hinted it's mine. I just said it's not yours and actually you were acting like it's yours by erasing sections. Surprisingly, we both agree that linking to a homepage isn't an adequate reference but if we got to the point where refrences are your issues I'm sure we can find a solution. All of the statistics in the tables I created are taken from the official WTA website so I'm sure it can't be called an original research. Which leaves us with finding a proper way to create references. Check the references I've just created a couple of hours ago and let me know what you think (You can edit them by yourself if you have a better idea but please don't erase them) Galbarm (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't weedle out of it you said explictly and implied explicitly MY PAGE go away! It is an important point cause you can't behave like that, that's the reason for this thread your claiming of the page. Which you can not run from it's there in black and white. :sigh: KnowIG (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Galbarm, you have said that at least portions of the article are yours in this edit summary. Neither one of you have spent any time on the talk page discussing the edits in question. Edit warring is never a solution, it just ends in people getting blocked. My suggestion is to make a case for the edits you are making on the talk page and try to come to an agreement. ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

However GB in the link above I think I have set my stool out and it's up to Galbarm to reason why my view is not "correct" and all I have had in response is him edit warring and claiming ownership of the page. And it is the ownership which I have trouble with here. Casue NOBODY OWNS a page. KnowIG (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I may have said it but again, there's no way that what I've said when I was angry by seeing a work that I made being erased is be the point of discussion here. The page is not mine, ok? Happy? What matters is the article itself and as such I agree that if KnowIG as any other issues with my edits he should open a dialogue on the talk page. Btw I just checked now and what I said was "Don't touch my tables" so don't put words in my mouth. But again - it is a pointless issue and waste of time to even discuss it. (Galbarm) 07:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

So you finally admit that you did try to own the page or at least sections of the page. It's totally unacceptable. What you should do is revert and keep your faults/comments like that to yourself. Now I was being bold and you reverted. Perhaps you should take as much responsiblity for going to a TP as anyone else.

Inappropriate ANI against me

• CBM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 726th Bombardment Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On 15 February CBM told me on my talk page that he felt that the edits I was doing such as this one with my AWB were against policy. When I asked him to explain he provided links to the AWB rules which do not mention the problem he perceives. When I then told him I intended to continue but if he had a problem with the edits he should open a discussion at the village pump and see what the community says he threatened to remove my AWB. When I again asked him to clarify and continued editing he removed my AWB access and then left a thread at ANI making me look like a Wiki-Criminal.

My problem and the reason for this Wikiquette alert is that I feel as though he went against policy and instead of opening a discussion to clarify what he felt was a policy violation on my part he used his admin powers to remove my AWB access and discredit me by leaving an ANI notice about it. I believe I have a good record of editing and this has tarnished my reputation on WP. Kumioko (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Not appropriate to raise issue under discussion at ANI here. Please see WP:ADMINSHOP Gerardw (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't forum shopping I have an issue with the way my ANI was handled. The ANI was directed towards me and this is directed towards the one who incorrectly revoked my AWB rights and submitted me to ANI. Unless your saying that issues and complaints against an admin cannot be addressed here in which case I would ask where I would take such a problem? --Kumioko (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The problems should be addressed at ANI. Gerardw (talk)

At the ANI currently beign addressed on me or should I open up a seperate one. I honestly don't expect it to amount to much since he is an admin and I am not but I want it to be on record that I believe he acted innappropriately. --Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure as I don't spend much time on ANI; I think keeping the discussion centralized makes the most sense. Gerardw (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You can close this if you want I can clearly see that knowone cares. I am going to stop editing anyway and invest my time where its more appreciated. --Kumioko (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bobthefish2

• Bobthefish2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Senkaku Islands dispute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Senkaku Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bobthefish2 has made many comments that are a breach of Wikiquette. He repeatedly assumes bad faith or refuses to accept others are editing in it. Also, whilst discussing various issues he has dropped in nasty comments on several occasions. See for example his latest one cracking a joke about the UK's financial position.

He managed to convince Oda Mari that there was no point in taking part in the discussion. When I asked Bob to apologise so that we could get Oda back on board, he refused to(bad diff fixed by User:Magog the Ogre) and then demanded an apology from me for something he said I told him some time ago.

He pretends he's being funny, but even when I ask him to stop he carries on. Having called me a "good little Brit", he then proceded to make a joke about why it might be bad to be British. He then capped it off by posting a completely unfunny picture of Europe circa 1914 that had no relation to his unpleasant attitude. Bob isn't ignorant or an editor with a poor grasph of English, he knows what he is doing.

Qwyrxian has raised the issue on Bob's talk page, but he insists he is not doing anything wrong.

There are other examples if you have a look at Bob's editing history on the talk pages, but I don't have time to do a trawl. I think that it's clear enough that Bobneeds to be told that he needs to stop prodding away at editors he doesn't agree with. He is disrupting the disucssion concerning some very controversial topics, and I would like some independent comments on his behaviour. John Smith's (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at all the diffs provided and although there are some hints at sarcasm etc. I don't see any misbehavior (so far) that would rise to the level of Incivility. What I do see is a lot of bad faith between editors and a lot of discussion about editor behavior on the article talk page; both of which are inappropriate for all parties concerned. That said, I'd like to hear how other uninvolved editors see the situation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be better if BobTheFish refrained from making comments about editor's background and editor's in general. Gerardw (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Poorly done, my dear User:John Smith's. You forgot to invite some of your friends over to join in on the complain. Here, let me help you: (1)(2). Now, I will sit back and hear what others have to complain before joining in. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Bob, you can invite anyone you like to join the discussion. But your messages on their talk pages were interesting. What does the fact you're "Chinese" have to do with anything? Are you implying you're a victim of racism or something? John Smith's (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

My dear British friend, you are reading into this too much. While the race card is a favourite in American politics, I am a Canadian. However, you can add race-baiting to your list of complaints on me if you are offended by this.

I invited your friends over because I didn't want you to be accused of WP:CANVASS. After all, you only invited our dear friends User:Oda Mari and User:Qwyrxian over. You see, I am just trying to help. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You referred to yourself as Chinese on their talk pages, not Canadian. And I deliberately didn't inform Tenmei because you two have the most disagreements. If you want to hear what he has to say, if he has anything further to say, that's your choice. John Smith's (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm coming here in response to an oddly worded request presented in the third-person on my talk page by Bobthefish2. I'm glad you are seeking the opinion of non-involved (i.e., biased) editors, Bob. That said, John is correct; the anti-British comments you are making are an entirely inappropriate form of nationality-baiting (as opposed to race-baiting, as you didn't insult white people). The statements are not funny, and it stretches credibility to think you were doing anything other than insulting his nationality. Please stop; I know you're frustrated, but that is not an excuse. They are personal attacks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Baiting by Bobthefish2. Pure and simple. Based on nationality for some unknown reason and all in this so frightfully clever, lightly amused tone. Why not give it a rest Bob? Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 takes editors with different view for disprutive editors. His attitude has been always uncivil. He was warned here in October for the first time. But he hasn't changed. See these. [39] and [40]. And this is not the only one case. I was taught it was more contemptible to talk ill about people behind their back than to directly call people names. Furthermore, Bobthefish2's problem is not only his Wikiquette. IMHO, this thread should be moved to ANI. Oda Mari (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Since User:Qwyrxian promised to present a wall of diff's to support User:John Smith's allegations against me within the next 12 hours, I will wait until then. I hope others will make their complaints before that time too so that I can deal with everything at one go. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll start pulling up what I can find now. Since this case is open here, I'll present the diffs here rather than on Bobthefish2's talk page like I had earlier stated I would. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this is easily the least enjoyable thing I've ever done on Wikipedia, and I barely got started. I went to the beginning of Bobthefish2's contribution history, and looked through diff by diff for uncivil edits. After getting through just the first 250 edits, and looking only at talk page comments, I already have 18 diffs showing uncivil attitudes, and that only brings me from 5 October until 18 October (with one extra from this month). Some of them are small, but they show an overall battleground mentality, an assumption of bad faith on the part of people whom he disagrees with, and use of inappropriate language. I'm tired, and I feel like this work has very little to do with improving the actual encyclopedia. I'm going to post these now; if anyone needs more, I can keep going, but maybe this is enough to start to show the problem. I also want to point out that I think one of the worst examples was already provided by John Smith in paragraph 2 of his OP, in that his incivility went so far (implying that the arguments of other editors are absurd and not worth listening to) that it caused another editor to refuse to participate.

Extended content

The first indication I can find of the problem to come is from 5 October. Here, Bobthefish2 assumes bad faith on the part of John Smith, and assuming a battleground mentality, by implying that John Smith has a predilection to edit warring. On 6 October, Bobthefish2 wrote this. I think this comment is a key starting point, as it shows that, within 2 days of starting to edit Senkaku Islands, Bobthefish2 had already decided that the article was being unfairly imbalanced by POV editors on the Japanese side. Though he was making controversial changes to the article, he assumes the reversions are being done to preserve pro-Japanese stance. Much later, on 7 February, Bobthefish2 stated, “:I feel it is important to realize there are times when cooperation is impossible. The sarcastic attitude I have for these other editors is a sign that I have come to such a realization.” We can see that, starting with confrontations in early October, and leading up through the current month, Bobthefish2 came to develop the belief that the “pro-Japanese” editors were intentionally violating WP:NPOV, and that therefore this justifies his “sarcastic” and uncivil attitude towards those editors. This behavior grew worse and worse, to the point where it actively interfered with our ability to make positive progress on the page. I will attempt to list some of the points along the way where Bobthefish2’s was uncivil. 6 October: ““Nevermind, John Smith is the one who made the change. What a surprise!'”' Inappropriate sarcasm. 6 October In response to a comment from John Smith, Bobthefish2 implies that John Smith is a “bad editor” because he only looks for problems in edits that disagree with his own viewpoint, thus indirectly accusing John Smith of POV pushing. 7 October: implies that other editors are “blindly reverting”, thus assuming bad faith. 7 October: In Bobthefish’s opinion, the facts of the islands are abundantly clear (they are, at best, disputed, and, more likely, China’s), and he interprets edits which do not conform with that POV as Japanese POV pushing. He states, “Now, I do understand pro-Japanese editors may desperately want to somehow convince people that those islands should belong to Japan, but misrepresenting information on wikipedia is generally not the right or ethical way of achieving this end.” In other words, while he is obviously editing neutrally, those adding Japanese information or reverting Chinese information are attempting to subvert the goals of Wikipedia merely to influence readers. 10 October: By this time, Bobthefish2 has come to call edits which he doesn’t agree with “sabotage.” 12 October When others follow standard editing procedure (BRD), they’re breaking common sense, but when Bob acquiesces to that procedure, he considers himself a “gentleman”. 14 October. Edits with whom Bobthefish2 agrees (the naming of the article) are “thinly veiled POV pushing,” despite them being backed up by both policy and reliable sources. 14 October. Says that “his discussion will not go anywhere if one group of people decide to consistently ignore and misread contents that do not serve their POV” instead of either considering that my claims (to which he was responding) were good faith comments on editing practices. 14 October. Admits to adding information to the article not to improve it, but to test the reactions of other editors. Claims that they are lazy in altering things that are wrong that match their POV, and ferociously contest other issues. Adds that a double standard is clearly being applied to the article. 15 October “some editors have been relentlessly sabotaging the contents I added.” By this point, I think we can see that Bobthefish2 has crossed over to pure battleground mode. 15 October: “some editors will guard the current pro-Japanese tilt with their teeth.” 15 October. Speaking to User:San9663, Bobthefish2 calls other editors “蘿蔔頭”, which Google translate says means, “Turnip head”. 16 October. Here he calls those he’s arguing with of being “trolls”. More importantly, this is the first time he openly explores the idea of getting an admin to ban them from the pages. User: Chzz then removed this and the previous comment as a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL; Bobthefish2 readded them without the Chinese words (keeping the accusations of trolling, however). 17 October Bobthefish2 insists that a number of his arguments are “unambiguously valid.” This is an editor stuck in the belief that he is absolutely, undeniably right. Either one of two things are correct—either Bobthefish2 isn’t unambiguously right, or all of the other editors who disagree with him, including myself, must be biased POV warriors. Also, note that he calls his opponents “vandals” (although later at WP:ANI he is instructed and understands that that word has a specific WP meaning and doesn’t imply here; he says he won’t use that word again). 18 October: “A good solution would be to simply ban those who have been maliciously removing edits of others.”

I don't know how to get through to Bobthefish2 that even if disagrees with people, he shouldn't be accusing them of bad faith editing, calling them names, or seeing the solution as banning those whom he disagrees with. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless he agrees here to tone it down you'll probably have to open an RFC/U. Gerardw (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be my turn now. Let me start a new sub-section Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Bob has now called me "unstable" and also referred to "wackos" that he deals with on a regular basis. Not that he named names with the latter remark, but if he doesn't point to anyone in particular that sort of supports the idea that he throws labels at anyone he has a strong disagreement with. If this is how he defends himself I don't think we need to hear anything else. Does anyone want to open a RFC/U? John Smith's (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've pointed out in my address to User:John Smith's accusations, he tends to find problems to anything. I called him "unstable" for a reason... just read. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bobthefish2's turn

Foreword: Until now, I deliberately minimized my involvement with this Wikiquette to allow my accusers to throw all that they can at me and for me to observe how low they can get. There is no doubt you'll all have a terrible impression of me at the moment and think:

Oh gosh... this User:Bobthefish2 guy is such a buffoon who attacks anyone who disagrees with him

There is also nothing wrong with having such an impression because the context has been conveniently withheld by my accusers. After all, with the right use of the right sound bites, it is possible to piece together any picture of anyone. And of course, what I'll do next is to provide all of you some context of what actually happened. Unfortunately, this is going to be a wall of text because there are 5 months worth of events to summarize.

Background

The articles of relevance in this case are Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute.

Senkaku Islands

Senkaku Islands

The Senkaku Islands a set of Islands that are being fought over by China and Japan. They were originally part of a client state of China. In late 19th century, they were annexed by Japan. After Japan lost WWII, they were handed to the U.S.. And finally, the U.S. gave them to Japan in 1970 through a treaty. China did not recognize the hand over by citing violation of San Francisco Treaty signed by victorious allied power in WWII. There is a whole bunch of complicated details involved that I am not going through here, but most countries in the world (including the U.S., ironically), refused to take a official position on the dispute.

Senkaku Islands articles

Articles of Senkaku Islands

Not surprisingly, opinions of these articles are heavily contested. Culturally Chinese editors and culturally Japanese editors often disagree with each other. There are many generations of editors. User:John Smith's, User:Oda Mari, User:Qwyrxian, myself, and two others are technically the latest generation of regular editors who participate in the talk page. In terms of cultural division, I am culturally Chinese and the rest are culturally Japanese. With that said, it doesn't mean everyone POV-pushes along their cultural allegiance. For example, User:Qwyrxian generally strives for WP:NPOV and I believe myself to be holding onto that ideal as well. However, it is also naive to assume everyone is a paladin and does not POV-push especially when there are personal interests involved. In any case, my subsequent topics will dwell on this a bit more and provide some evidence for me to suggest such a sinful possibility - Again everyone in WP likes to pretend nobody POV-pushes.

Content Disputes

Given the controversial nature of the topic, there are naturally many disagreements associated with the editorial process on various types of materials related to the Senkaku Islands articles. I am going to briefly summarize the two that are most relevant to this circumstance, which will justify my bad faith assumptions.

Dispute on Inaccurate use of a Primary Source

The gist of it is that there is an article X that says "B" and I noticed a sentence in the article that said "Article X said B" and an accompanying figure with caption that says "Article X said B (C)". I brought this issue up in October 2010 and went over this in a few massive threads (1)(2)with User:John Smith's, User:Qwyrxian, and User:Oda Mari. Eventually, I wrapped the issue up with this thread and User:Oda Mari conceded that the figure caption was wrong and B != C (which in turn also agreed X didn't say C). User:John Smith's and User:Qwyrxian abstained from giving an opinion but were active. Then 3 months later, I tried to remove the improper materials was instantly reverted by User:Oda Mari and User:John Smith's. I was slapped with a warning and also asked to start a discussion on this. Since I considered the issue resolved and the matter of concern is basic common sense, I have ample reason to see this as WP:DISRUPT. Anyhow, discussions on the matter were restarted. User:Qwyrxian and non-regulars sided with me. The rest refused. A mediation was called and it was also flat-out denied.

Dispute on Protests

This examples deals with anti-Chinese protests in Japan in response to a squabble between the Chinese and Japanese over the islands. I added some textual details about them, among which, was a note about Swastika-wearing Japanese and proclamations about developing nuclear weapons by a Japanese politician (all had reliable sources). Almost immediately, it was reverted by User:Oda Mari who made a big deal about it. She asserted the protesters never wore swastikas and that the politician who commented on nuclear weapons is a big bser. However, she and others flat-out refused/ignored any requests of providing reliable sources to provide her arguments in the thread (just check that thread). Anyhow, I eventually decided not to press the issue because it's not something of high priority. But I believe this serves as a good counter-example of how my accusers (such as User:John Smith's and User:Oda Mari) can be some nifty double standards on issues. So again, this reinforces the notion that there is some editors are POV-pushers and that it is not always possible to assume good faith.

Accusations against User:Bobthefish2

Now that I've provided some prominent examples of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, I will consider all accusations of my bad faith assumptions to be addressed. If not, the following text will provide even more justification.

As for the rest of the delicious accusations made towards me, let's go at it one-by-one shall we?

User:John Smith's Gentlemanly Accusations

For his part, my dear friend User:John Smith's has accused me of calling him a "good little brit", "referencing unfunny comics", "bullying Oda Mari", "refusing to apologize", "asking for an apology", and "making fun of Britain's financial crisis". While it may be ungallant of me to say so, but I am afraid our dear friend User:John Smith's a bit unstable. The "good little brit" incident occurred in the midst of some rather nasty witch-hunt he issued on me. It started when a user User:STSC was frustrated about his edits being repeatedly reverted. Since I don't like people to edit-war or him getting into trouble, I asked him not to edit-war. Additionally, I expressed to him an intention to request for articles to be locked because of the amount of WP:DISRUPT I'd been seeing. Then somehow, our dear friend User:John Smith's started a thread accusing me of edit-warring because of that post and slapped me with a warning User_talk:Bobthefish2#Stop_edit-warring. Later on, he complained to our friendly admin User:Magog the Ogre that I was planning to start an edit-war. In that edit-war thread, what basically happened was that User:John Smith's was very unrelentingly accusing me of edit-warring and impossible to cooperate with. After I got tired of his ludicrous tirade, I basically asked him to be "a good little brit" and buzz off (which is what he's crying about). Later on, User:Qwyrxian intervened and asked us to be good little boys. Following that spirit, I posted a humourous comic to light up the atmosphere, which User:John Smith's found to be a "unfunny comic" (obviously, he finds insults in everything). Regardless of this, the pages were in fact locked by an admin later on due to edit-warring between User:Qwyrxian and User:Phoenix7777 (another regular). And somehow, User:John Smith's and cohorts still managed to spin it into some conspiracy masterminded by me. I consider the part about "bullying Oda Mari" to be an awkward victimization tactic. As I've shown before, I had little reason to assume good faith on either User:John Smith's and User:Oda Mari. Since there's also an immense degree of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing going on at that point, I felt it's necessary to issue a soft warning on continual violations (and which I didn't aim directly at anyone). In short, think of it this way: Suppose Sarah Palin is appointed to the Senate and the liberal senator Harry Reid didn't assume good faith on her. What'd you think if she just walks out of a session by citing lack of good faith from Harry Reid? In my case, I'd assume she's just making excuses for herself because she practically has nothing to add to help her position. But of course, there'd still be a bunch of people (especially republicans) crying for Harry's head in this hypothetical scenario. With that said, apology from me is out of question. But out of jest, I asked him to apologize for ungallant edit-war accusations but I knew he's not the type to capitulate. Finally, the "making fun of Britain's financial crisis" is simply a harmless jest. In this time of century, almost every major country of concern is suffering from economic downturn. This includes, my home country Canada, our friendly American neighbours, the all-powerful Germany, and the communist China. It's true that I also made a convenient pun on John Smith (which means everyday man or John Doe), but that's because I was talking about Britain and Gibraltar's territorial issues. Anyhow, I think the problem with User:John Smith's is that he does a lot of WP:DISRUPTive editing and manages to assume a lot of bad faith from editors trying to do quality control on his edits. To cap it all, he also has very little sense of humour, easily agitated, and loves starting witch-hunts on people. Even with the edit-war matter aside, one can see how he was accusing me of pulling a race-card in my first response to the thread - Apparently, labeling myself as a Chinese editor is a victimization tactic (then I guess he feels victimized when I labelled him as my British friend). Given his own gross violations, I am surprised that he'd actually want to pull a Wikiquette alert on me.

User:Oda Mari's Heart-Melting Complaints

User:Oda Mari actually didn't have much to say. She said I was warned here to assume good faith. If one actually reads the contents of the diff, one may find it sound more like an arrogant attempt at intimidation. I didn't take that seriously because I had done much more collaborative editing than either User:Oda Mari and User:John Smith's. I've also offered to cooperate with them in the past but that was flatly refused. So really, what can I really do? User:Oda Mari's second accusation is related to me of talking behind other people's back. Apparently, she found the act of doing so to be rude. Well, I don't know. I believe most of the audience here have commented on other users in their absence (i.e. in talk pages). This is a part of WP. However, I do agree I could've used a less intense word than "idiots", but then again I did not specifically refer that to anyone. While some may suggest I could be pointing to User:John Smith's, it could just as well be the random IP's that pop in and stubbornly write irrelevant stuff in non-English. Now, I don't really have anything new to say about User:Oda Mari since she doesn't participant much. Just to repeat myself, my description in the dispute section showed why I thought it's reasonable not to assume good faith from her. I also showed she had a willingness to block corrections to matters that were well discussed to be inaccurately portrayed. Again, since she previously expressed her agreement to the existence of the said logical fallacies, it can only be assumed that she was intentionally trying to be obstructive in order to keep inaccurate information on the page. To top it all, she slapped me with a warning for inappropriate management of content. Yes, good reason not to assume good faith from her.

User:Qwyrxian's Vindictive Inquisition

I am just going to copy over User:Qwyrxian's list. User:Qwyrxian's implied accusation that User:Bobthefish2 does not tolerate disagreement: Extended content 7 October: implies that other editors are “blindly reverting”, thus assuming bad faith. 7 October: In Bobthefish’s opinion, the facts of the islands are abundantly clear (they are, at best, disputed, and, more likely, China’s), and he interprets edits which do not conform with that POV as Japanese POV pushing. He states, “Now, I do understand pro-Japanese editors may desperately want to somehow convince people that those islands should belong to Japan, but misrepresenting information on wikipedia is generally not the right or ethical way of achieving this end.” In other words, while he is obviously editing neutrally, those adding Japanese information or reverting Chinese information are attempting to subvert the goals of Wikipedia merely to influence readers. 10 October: By this time, Bobthefish2 has come to call edits which he doesn’t agree with “sabotage.” 15 October “some editors have been relentlessly sabotaging the contents I added.” By this point, I think we can see that Bobthefish2 has crossed over to pure battleground mode. 17 October Bobthefish2 insists that a number of his arguments are “unambiguously valid.” This is an editor stuck in the belief that he is absolutely, undeniably right. Either one of two things are correct—either Bobthefish2 isn’t unambiguously right, or all of the other editors who disagree with him, including myself, must be biased POV warriors. Also, note that he calls his opponents “vandals” (although later at WP:ANI he is instructed and understands that that word has a specific WP meaning and doesn’t imply here; he says he won’t use that word again). 16 October. Here he calls those he’s arguing with of being “trolls”. More importantly, this is the first time he openly explores the idea of getting an admin to ban them from the pages. User: Chzz then removed this and the previous comment as a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL; Bobthefish2 readded them without the Chinese words (keeping the accusations of trolling, however). 18 October: “A good solution would be to simply ban those who have been maliciously removing edits of others.” Response: I don't claim to be a highly-acclaimed editor like User:Qwyrxian here (not a sarcastic comment), but I consider myself to be a reasonable WP editor who very often makes a correct call on various WP issues. While I doubt anyone has the time or interest to look through my contribution history, I'd say that the editorial calls I made are seldom wrong barring some early cases of mis-understanding in WP policies. With that said, I am confident in my ability to tell apart what's sabotage/WP:DISRUPT and what's not. If I see something that's clearly wrong being added or something that's clearly right being changed/removed and all without reasonable rationale, then what else would I see this as? While it's true that my perception could've been flawed, the matters I am/was dealing with are also not rocket science. Anyhow, the page got locked in the end because of edit-warring. Not surprisingly, editors whom I labelled with "vandal" (a term I misused due to its special WP meaning) or "sabotage" were heavily involved. And of course, I do/did find it helpful if they were topic-blocked for these reasons. Coincidentally, the page was locked after User:Qwyrxian's last diff/sound-bite. So what he cited was my actions at a time when edit-war was rampant (i.e. POV-pushing and bad-faith editing did in fact exist). User:Qwyrxian's accusation of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality: Extended content 15 October: “some editors will guard the current pro-Japanese tilt with their teeth.” 15 October “some editors have been relentlessly sabotaging the contents I added.” By this point, I think we can see that Bobthefish2 has crossed over to pure battleground mode. Response: I contest this as battleground mentality. My principle is that I define my position based on principle instead of the positions of others. It's true that I view the roster of regular editors as being divided between two opinion blocs - one consisted almost entirely of Japanese citizens and one consisted of mostly culturally Chinese editors. While others would no doubt to accuse me of pulling the race card, I am/was simply stating the obvious - Opinions on almost all subjects were divided along those lines (much like bipartisanship in the U.S. Senate). The first quote is part of a response on a greater issue or the "article naming issue" that is/was a passion of User:Qwyrxian that will recur later on. As it turns out, the issue was raised for many times in the past (RFC's and etc) and opinions were almost always divided across cultural lines with the rationales raised often being ridiculous. In this circumstance, I was simply raising a pessimistic note, which for the most part, is well-founded. The second quote was address above, but I listed it here as well for completeness sake. But again, there was a great deal of edit-warring at that time and the page was eventually locked. I was simply documenting an observation that was true for the most part. User:Qwyrxian's correct criticisms: Extended content 12 October When others follow standard editing procedure (BRD), they’re breaking common sense, but when Bob acquiesces to that procedure, he considers himself a “gentleman”. 15 October. Speaking to User:San9663, Bobthefish2 calls other editors “蘿蔔頭”, which Google translate says means, “Turnip head”. Response: For the most part, he is right on these issues. They occurred at a time when I joined WP for approximately 1 month. For the first quote, I didn't know BRD was a standard. Since it was requested during a time when most of my edits were shut out by an edit-war, I interpreted it as part of that. The second quote occurred at a time when I thought an user-talk could be treated as a personal space. They were newbie mistakes, but you can chastise them however you like. User:Qwyrxian's accusation of unproductive edits: Extended content 14 October. Admits to adding information to the article not to improve it, but to test the reactions of other editors. Claims that they are lazy in altering things that are wrong that match their POV, and ferociously contest other issues. Adds that a double standard is clearly being applied to the article. Response: This is part of the "Protest" dispute I outlined above. User:Qwyrxian was right that I threw this matter in to test the reaction of other editors. On the other hand, he's wrong to claim that the matter itself does not improve the article. Of all the elements that can legitimately be added to this dispute article, there are ones that provide impressions of various involved parties (Chinese, U.S., and Japan) and there are ones do not. What I did was I simply took a relevant matter that intrinsically portrayed one of the parties in a negative light and introduced it to see how various editors would react. Regardless of the curiosity I harboured for my fellow editors, the content I introduced was very relevant and complementary to what others had added before. This is simply analogous to adding references to new U.S. friendly fire incidents in the Iraq War article - relevant but might attract die-hard nationalists' attention to remove. But unfortunately, our American friend User:Qwyrxian was bent on portraying this as some sort of nefarious intent on my part. User:Qwyrxian's other accusations: They generally fall into the category of assuming bad faith. Since I've addressed that plenty, I am not going to respond to those unless otherwise requested. User:Qwyrxian's very own violations of his civility standards: I am not going to go through User:Qwyrxian's massive editorial history, but I will name a few examples where he committed civility violations that he accused me of committing: Extended content Example Quote Comments 1 ...I will not support discussion of the name of the article unless compelled to do so by formal mediation practices (and, if forced to, will come down very forcefully that the naming issue has already been solved by policy, guidelines, and consensus, and that raising it again is unacceptable POV-pushing and forum-shopping)... Threatened to accuse me of of unacceptable POV-pushing and forum-shopping if I decide to contest his favourite issue on "article naming". Of course, I didn't really care about his threat and my response to him was that his statistical analysis was flawed. 2 ...I can only assume that you are being intentionally disruptive. This disruption is unacceptable. This sound-bite is an example of User:Qwyrxian assuming bad faith and calling an user disagreeing with him disruptive. Of course, if one read the entire diff and know the entire context, he might realize what User:Qwyrxian did was actually appropriate - The subject he was addressing was actually doing WP:DISRUPTive edit and that subject in question was also one I regularly assume bad faith on. A more imaginative writer can possibly do a better job than me in demonizing this quote, but I hope you can the drift. 3 ...I just need to call you out--yours is the attitude that is exactly what I labeled on ANI as borderline disruptive--and thus I think your attitude on the talk pages is nearly as deserving of a "ban" as the editors relentlessly reverting. You basically stated that you've already made up your mind that it's "obvious" that the names are equal and we need a dual name... But you seem to be saying that it doesn't really matter what other results we find, because you've already made up your mind. ... your bringing up of red herrings (like the number of speakers of Chinese, or the impossible to measure "impact factor") are those activities that I described as not strictly against the rules, but not helpful, either; This is taken in the midst of a civil conversation between User:Qwyrxian and myself. At one point he assumed bad faith and insulted my objectivity. He also was dismissive on a point about "impact factor", which is actually important in practice. In short, that's another example of him committing what he accused me of doing. } With that said, I haven't been comprehensive with my search. I might've found a lot more had I searched enough, but 3 is a good number to stop at. If he's convinced of something and has met relentless resistance, the odds are he'd consider something to be WP:DISRUPT and starts assuming bad faith. Now, is there a reason why his assessments has to be right and mine to be driven by WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? Well, he does seem very passionate and intolerant towards disagreements on his favourite issues, given what I presented. Anyhow, my point is that much of what he accused me of doing are violations he had committed as well. He might've been elaborate in his descriptions and used a less flamboyant language than I did, but in the end, it's the same idea. And given some degree of wiki-WP:LAWYER, a great many things can somehow be turned into WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BAIT violations.

Final Words

In my dealings with the editors in Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute, I'd say there is a great deal of bad faith and incivility going on. While my comments are not necessarily very polite, the culture of the page made it a norm. User:John Smith's and User:Qwyrxian are reputable editors who know full well what WP:CIVIL is about (being the accusers) but had not said a word about the general lack of civility of everyone involved (including accusers themselves) until they decided to single me out for some lynching. So personally, I view this Wikiquette alert as little more than a directed attack (in User:Qwyrxian's case, it amounts to character assassination).

Now, is there something I can improve on? Well, I can of course refine my language use and refrain from using strong words. I can also perhaps be more alert about how not to step on the nerves of others, but given the opportunistic nature of my fellow editors in the pages, it can be hard. Even now, someone's complaining to an admin that I am somehow baiting or have conspired to have pages locked.

I do hope you guys realize that I am dealing with crows... crows that deserve much more of your scrutiny

The Rest of Discussion

Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2, Pretty much everything you're writing seems to be "a request for mediation of longterm, ongoing conflicts between parties." - which is outside the jurisdiction of this page. I'm not sure the best place for it, so maybe someone else can point you in the right direction. I think there has been a good job to point out where you aren't being civil. It doesn't matter how wrong, convoluted, or just plain rude the other party is - you can't react to it by being sarcastic or insulting. Even if you're up against someone who is a pushing a point of view, the proper response isn't to insult them. Denaar (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Denaar, if you single out the behaviour of anyone in a fierce dispute and blot out the actions of others, it is going to be look ugly regardless. By adopting this tactic, it's actually quite easy to conduct character assassination on just about anyone. From the looks of it, much of the accusations belong in the domain of bad faith. Assumptions of bad faiths are not necessarily especially if bad faith exists. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that you won't change your behaviour if you think the editor in question deserves to be treated the way you treat them? John Smith's (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd try to be civil to even bad faith editors, but my patience can wear thin when it comes to persistently disruptive editors. I understand some WP editors feel any editor (no matter how bad and stubborn they are) must be treated with the utmost saintly respect but it is a standard that's hard to adhere when one is dealing with wackos on a regular basis (a purely hypothetical scenario without pointing figures at anyone). Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish, there is no easy way to deal with tendentious editing but it can be done. Certainly your much cleverer than thou and "dear friend" sarcasm and little tricks like calling them wacko's whilst pretending not to is not the way to go. I'm sure you don't need to be pointed to WP:DR, or reminded that ultimately, arbitration is the final option. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've toyed around with the options of ArbCom/ANI and discussed such possibilities with User:Qwyrxian. Since he assumes a lot of good faith on editors I don't trust (to a degree I consider to be very irrational), I am basically on my own. With that said, I am definitely planning something but User:John Smith's struck first, which is why we are here. In a sense, it is actually good, since it forces me to organize some evidence against him and cohorts.

Whether or not, something is a more clever than thou sarcasm is really a subjective matter. And of course, I tend to reserve my colourful language usage for relatively hostile exchanges... such as being accused of edit-warring or slapped with some ill-considered warnings. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether your concerns about tendentious editing are substantial or not. This is wikiquette. However, your current mode of discourse is not going to help you pursue dispute resolution on the main issue. As for it being subjective - aren't we all? Including those who no doubt you wish to influence when pursuing dispute resolution. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Etiquette is all relative to surrounding. In fact, your persistent label of my sarcasm as oh so clever is a sarcasm of its own. Do I care? Not really, but don't you agree this contradicts your little lecture of my sinful use of sarcasms.

In the end, these minute uses of sarcasms are a minor aspect of the overall editorial process. WP:DR may not necessarily my style of language use, but the main determinants would likely be the amount of WP:TENDENTIOUS in existence. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I repeat the accusations I gave on my talk page: I think this is all a very silly form of handling the issue. It's not that hard to disagree with each other without it devolving into this constant tattling to the admin that "he said something mean, he isn't editing in good faith", etc. I don't understand why you both can't quit poking at each other and get back to consensus building. Enough accusations of not having good faith and the like. My suggestion to Bob: stop being sarcastic, please (even if it's funny; you can be funny, but not sarcastic funny, even with Polandball). My suggestion to John Smith: have a thick skin and discuss the issue, and forget how snippy Bob is. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually care about being poked nor was I the one who called an Wikiquette. However, I do want to shake my head a little when you suggested we should focus on consensus building. Again, it's based on everyone has good faith. In case you didn't know, a WP:Mediation was attempted and some people flat out refused to let it happen.

I also find it a bit of a shame that nobody has yet commented on how User:John Smith's made this vast right-winged conspiracy theory of some alleged edit-warring on my part. I don't know, I guess that's not a WP:CIVIL violation. Or have I erred in letting the accuser getting all the pity before stepping in? Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: I could not agree more that everyone just needs to quit it (other editors on the page, probably including me, have other problems they need to stop, but that's for another place). But, isn't the whole point of WQA to say to someone "Hey, you're not being nice. This type of behavior isn't acceptable, so please stop?" I mean, this isn't an RFC/U, it's not a request to ban, block, or topic ban him. It's a way of getting people who are uninvolved to look at Bobthefish2's edits and say, "Yeah, that's an ugly mess over at those articles, but your incivility isn't helping things." And, in my opinion, the point at which he really crossed the line wasn't in the nationalist/ethnic jabs (although "turnip heads" was pretty harsh), but when it became clear that his incivility was driving other editors away from even commenting on proposals. This, to me, is why we have WP:CIVIL—it's not just to engender some sort of abstract politeness-for-politeness sake, but it's so that people who don't want to have to snip or be snipped at can still provide useful interaction. I don't want anything to come out of this other than for Bobthefish2 to dial back the sarcasm, pointed comments, and general assumption of bad faith. I want him to keep editing on the topic. I want him to keep pointing out, where appropriate, when someone appears to be pushing a POV at the expense of article integrity. But I want him to do it in a way that makes collaboration possible, rather than contributing to the overall battleground that are these articles. 00:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs)

I consider it very naive to assume I've driven away other users (as in User:Oda Mari) with my assumption of bad faith. I mean... I don't really want to lose patience with you, but somehow I suspect you don't read my posts that address the issues.

At the same time, it is as if you do not realize how other people railed at you. I don't know, I found User:Tenmei's walls of rhetorics and User:Phoenix7777's direct insults of your various abilities to be gruesome violations of WP:CIVIL. But somehow, you managed to think that's nothing and proceeded to call me the menace of it all.

But if you really want to convince others that I don't tolerate disagreements and like to bully away others, you can try. I've already addressed the bully part above (which you somehow probably refused to read). I will deal with your ridiculous slander of my intolerance of disagreements later. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Did I say you don't tolerate disagreement? I can't find that comment above; if I implied that, my apologies. What I'm trying to say is that you consistently characterize most disagreements as examples of bad faith, POV pushing actions by editors on the other side. Sometimes you're right; sometimes you're not. The problem is that you keep defaulting to this negative stance, and that when you respond to what you see as bad editing by others, you do it through incivility (not always, just often enough that it's become a problem). You yourself summed this up in your statement on my talk page linked above that said, "“I feel it is important to realize there are times when cooperation is impossible." Also, note that I didn't call you the menace of it all, and that previously (on my talk page? On Elen of the Road's? I don't recall), I clearly pointed out that your incivility is only one of the problems. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

One more thing: the fact that you don't even realize that you're doing it here, in this WQA report, is where the problem lies. Calling any of us "dear friends" is obviously sarcastic. Calling Oda Mari's complaints "heart-melting" trivializes them. Calling my listing of diffs a "vindictive inquisition" mischaracterizes the whole process, when 1) you yourself asked me to do so on your talk page a few days ago, and 2) the whole way we show problems is through the use of diffs, rather than through general, vague accusations. I can't tell if you simply don't recognize that you're being uncivil in a way that makes discussion difficult, or if you know but think your incivility is justified due to "context". Either way, it's still a problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask all of the editors involved to go their separate ways for a while? Maybe just find other articles to edit and let other people fill in for a while on the ones that have been in the middle of this contention. Bob seems to have an AWFUL LOT to say about things, and one thing I haven't seen is a spirit of apology in his words. So rather than re-hash a bunch of stuff, maybe it would be simplest if all the parties just went to other articles for a while. What do you think? -- Avanu (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

@Avanu: Suppose you were in a hostile exchange with 4 other people and one of them filed a complaint against you for being hostile. Would you feel it is appropriate to apologize to others for being hostile? Of course, it is not a mutual apology type of thing and completely one-sided.

Yes, I might feel it is appropriate to apologize, because it might help move things back to a place where everyone could contribute peaceably. That, and the suggestion that everyone take a cooling off period, would give each of you the chance to contribute without this hanging over the situation. -- Avanu (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok. What if you don't have good faith on any of them? Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Now, please do note that I haven't really finished writing. I will probably wait till tomorrow to get back to it and maybe I will write a bit of reflection on myself and others' roles in this.

@Qwyrxian: I suppose we may have a fair bit of miscommunication going on in this etiquette issue. For whatever reason, what I thought was clear did not get through to you. To make it clear, I did not ask you to provide the diff's. If my memory serves, I said:

You are not obliged to elaborate on your accusations regarding my behaviour. In turn, I don't feel obliged to take this issue seriously when I don't find the arguments to be convincing

and I felt the statement was fair since only presented me with a large block of ambiguous complaints and flatly refused to respond to my reply.

I use the adjective "vindictive" because I felt what you did was some pretty damn vicious character assassination. Perhaps that was not your intention, but the interpretation of the diffs and your other commentaries of me does largely suggest I am some sort of bigot who condemns all forms of disagreements, indiscriminately assumes bad faith, and never ever thinks I am wrong.

While I agree with you that this is a colossal waste of time, I have done my part in address this issue privately with you in a much simpler manner. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is going to address your content concerns here Bob. As for your mode of addressing others - it is apparent you don't see the problem that others do. Wikiquette is here to provide low level dispute resolution by opinion and advice. If you don't accept others opinions as having any validity and are not prepared to accept any advice then no doubt this issue will appear again later in another forum.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with Fainities 100%. Although I haven't seen the entire exchange, its pretty obvious that one of the larger factors involved is the way that you (Bob) are approaching the situation. You say "Bob's turn" and then devote more space to your 'turn' than everyone else combined by a factor of 2 or 3, while simultaneously coming off with an air of superiority. Even if you are 'right', which I'm willing to concede as a small possibility, I have a feeling that you could have defused the entire situation with a very small and sincere apology for your own behavior. Sometimes it doesn't matter if we're right, other people want to be able to *feel* that they have respect in an exchange. You seem to offer very little. -- Avanu (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Gerardw (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Conversely, I'd argue that you don't see the problem I am facing too. First of all, I've never said I retained a saintly attitude towards everyone or I am infallible or whatever (as someone else had accused me of). However, I've never seen a single criticism directed to the attitude of any of my accusers. I believe in such a discussion, both the accused and accusers should be assessed equally in order for the process to be fair. I don't know about you, but it's very hard to force a one-sided apology from an accused when his accusers are major contributors to the perceived problem. A more sincere way of going with this Wikiquette is to expand its scope to all the accusers involved... then maybe this will have a chance of working.

And of course, you can most certainly find my confident or dismissive tone to be annoying. It's true that squirming victims gain the most sympathy, but I refuse to resort to such tactics.

Finally, I am not sure how I can defend myself any other way. For all intents and purposes, a lot of these are sound-bites. I guess I shouldn't address any of them? Or maybe you are just looking for one simple "OMG I AM SO SORRY. EVERYTHING IS TRUE. PLEASE LYNCH ME." to get this over with? I am sorry for being sarcastic here, but I hope you see why I sense some serious problem in how this is being handled. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

These are merely suggestions that are intended to help detoxify the situation. If all of you take a cooling off period, then maybe in a few weeks or months, everyone can come back with a cool head and better willingness to work together, or maybe simply find other interests. If you (Bob) wanted to apologize, rather than the hyperbolic "I'm 100% wrong", a simple apology along the line of "I regret that I may have offended, and I am sincerely sorry for any actions that might have been percieved badly. This was not my intent. Again my regrets, Bob." There's really no excuse to be sarcastic or hyperbolic in the response, and if that's all we're going to get, I'm not sure this forum is going to provide value to you. -- Avanu (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not feel a need to apologize to my accusers. If forcing an apology out of me is the goal of this, then I don't think this is going to work. However, if your purpose is to increase the level of etiquette between editors involved, then you may want to consider critiquing others involved as well. Suppose anyone find my stance to be completely unreasonable, then he is welcomed to direct this to a RFCU or ANI. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say what we are looking for is a change in future behavior. Just continue editing but do so in a manner consistent with the community standards. They apply all the time. An editor is responsible for they post regardless of what other editors do. Gerardw (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of your cautionary about WP:CIVIL and will give it a more in-depth read in the near future. Although I consider my actions to be largely within standards, I will try to be more careful about striking the nerves of others (although in User:John Smith's case, it can be hard). I hope that's fair enough.

Now, on a different sort of business. Since our goal here is to be helpful in attenuating the mutual behaviour of editors, I'd like to have this RFCU expanded to include User:John Smith's as the subject of examination. I'd be willing to consider giving collaborative editing with him a second chance if the business on his part is sorted out. I'd leave User:Qwyrxian off the hook because he and I had no qualms other than this matter. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an RFCU. You could also try RFC on content. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. But now that I've finished posting my part of the story, I'd like some comments regarding the allegations of bad faith, intolerance to disagreements, and intimidation of other editors. There were enough comments about my sarcasm, but these are much more serious accusations. My impression is that if I don't settle these once and for all, other users will use it against me in the future and say: Oh, User:Bobthefish2 was warned for assuming bad faith, blindly labeling disagreements as sabotage, and intimidating others. Thanks. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

USER:David spector

The above User Page appears to be self promotional and may be in violation of WP:UPNOT, WP:SOAP, and WP:FAKEARTICLE. Could someone please take a look at it and give their objective opinion? I have notified the user that his page is under discussion. [41]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Concur that it's self promotional. Gerardw (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The guideline prohibits "Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia." The user page in question is rather short and the material in question does not appear to be "extensive". Much of it appears to fall instead under the provisions that allow "Limited autobiographical content" and "Significant editing disclosures".   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It certainly seems to fall under WP:UPNOT: "Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links)." It also comes across like an article as well. Denaar (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a blatant violation, but it's much more than what I've come to expect from appropriate biographical information on a user page. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus that USER: David spector should adjust his user page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The userpage looks fine to me. The user in question has been a steady editor for over eight years; it seems appropriate to me for them to have a userpage describing their offwiki life (particularly in this case, as they do try to edit articles related to that work and those hobbies). –SJ+ 22:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Underween

Resolved

 – handled at ANI

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

A new user's only edits are to nominate five AfDs and write on two talk pages. Two AfDs have been speedily closed [42] [43], while the other three currently don't have comments. His talk comments are uncivil. [44] [45]. I'm out of my league when it comes to handle matters such as this. Bgwhite (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't remember the indeffed user, but nominating Transformers-related articles for deletion is the MO of someone recently shown the door, and who socked to get around it. Any ideas? Dayewalker (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Upon further review, this is clearly a returning disruptive user. I've opened a discussion on the ANI page here [46] to try and get some admin attention. Dayewalker (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

offensive comments in Farsi Wikipedia

• user:94.182.107.202
• fa:حسن بن علی

In the article above I required the person who editted the article, i.e. Mr. Behzad.Modares to leave a referrence by adding tags. I explained what I meant in the discussion page. Right after that, Some user with IP address 94.182.107.202 undid my tags and left an offensive comment in the summary section, directly attacking me. Besides, same person editted my talk page and left me a vandalism warning while accusing me of using doubles. This is while I had not even editted the article in at least 24 hours except for contribution in the discussion page. I wonder how I can remove the vandalism warning.Kazemita1 (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User: Mallexikon - Repeatedly calling editor "vandal" when they delete for NRS using WP:BURDEN

• Mallexikon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Traditional Chinese medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

User: Mallexikon keeps calling me a “vandal” when I delete completely unsourced material, and he just reverted my edits twice here[47]. He inserted completely unsourced material stating that technical claims of esoteric Traditional Chinese Medicine terms was as obvious as that “the sky is blue” so did not need any sources, and that the limited material he inserted with Chinese language sources was OK per WP:RS. He did not respond in any way to my comment at talk pointing out that Chinese language sources are not WP:RS in an English language encyclopeida and pointing out WP:BURDEN for the editor trying to insert unsourced material here[48]. Instead he again called me a vandal]. Instead he reverted my deletions under WP:BURDEN and he again called me a “vandal” here[49]. PPdd (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Hi PPdd, I never called you a vandal - I called the heavy-handed deletion of my edits vandalism (there's a difference). WP:BURDEN is not an excuse to go around and just delete material you think doesn't carry enough citations. If my material was unsourced (it's not) the correct way of dealing with it would be as follows:
  • "Dealing with unsourced material:
    If a claim is doubtful but not harmful, use the tag, which will add "citation needed," but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.
    If a claim is doubtful and harmful, remove it from the article. You may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless it is very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to the talk page either. Use your common sense.
    All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed from articles and talk pages immediately. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel."
    
  • I'm editing in totally good faith, my edits are in no way harmful and we're talking about TCM here, not living persons. So please, PPdd, relax.
  • I'm definetely not happy about how you have been acting here - you make a very aggressive impression on me. This is what you wrote on my talk page:
    "If you continue to ignore WP:BURDEN and revert my edits, I will report to the RS violation alerts, and you will be in violation of 3RR and get banned."
    Why do I feel like I'm being bullied here? And why do I find our dispute at the Wikiquette alert page when it's only 3 days old? Mallexikon (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Calling a good faith edit vandalism, as here [[50]] is uncivil.

There's not minimum time requirement for an editor to request assistance here.

PPd is correct, the burden of proof is the person added unsubstantiated claims. The preferred course of action would be for Mallexikon to properly source his additions prior to adding them to the article. Gerardw (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Gerardw. From his contribs, Mallexikon appears to be a relatively new, and single purpose editor for an alternative medicine and its spin offs, who did what he thought was alot of work, and does not understand why the Traditional Chinese Medicine article can't be a nonMEDRS advert for TCM, so he is likely frustrated at Wiki policies and guidelines, which is understandable. But on the other hand, he seemed to know well the term "vandalism", so maybe he is not really so new, but had to assume a new account for some reason. PPdd (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

He just called me a vandal again[51], and reverted again, despite a 3R warning. PPdd (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right I shouldn't call PPdd's deletions vandalism (still, I never called him a vandal). But I reverted again because he deleted properly sourced material, like here [[52]]. Mallexikon (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh and yes, by the way, I actually am a new editor, and I do find Traditional Chinese medicine quite fascinating. I don't want the article to be an advert for TCM though (quite ineffective therapeutical methods all in all) - it is the culture-anthropological aspect I'm interested in. How about your intentions here, PPdd? Mallexikon (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I have tried to find RS for anything I deleted from TCM, and most of the material was reinserted with RS or MEDRS before you returned from your vacation. I even put the material you wrote on the talk page and made a call to other editors to help me find RS for it, but you probably did not see it buried up in the talk page when you got back. I have no way of knowing which editor makes which edit, so if one editor does not put RS on their edits, it might appear to that one editor that I am picking on them, when I am not. I am marking this respoved. PPdd (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

173.18.86.157

• 173.18.86.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:173.18.86.157 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:173.18.86.157|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Comparison of platform virtual machines (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Comparison of platform virtual machines|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This IP has refused to collaborate with me, instead resorting to personal attacks and a false edit war accusation. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not committed any personal attacks, thank you. There is, however, an edit war, at least in my opinion. If it helps, we're mutual participants, so we're all in this boat together. Pseudonym 02:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.86.157 (talk)

User:Dicklyon

Resolved

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

Dicklyon has been uncivily accusing me of bad faith editing or other false accusations, without even telling me he is doing so, in places I just happen across, such as here[53] where he accused me of being "on a destructive binge", just because I applied WP:MEDRS to medical claims in an article making them, and here[], where he says MEDRS is "being applied by User:PPdd to dismantle articles". I am not dismantling articles. I am deleting medical claims that are not MEDRS. This is a much more serious matter than BLP, for the reason stated at MEDRS, and I am deleting completely unsourced claims that I cannot verify. Dicklyon has reverted my edits, in violation of WP:BURDEN, then is going around and making false accusations about me and violating etiquette in doing so. It is causing an unpleasant atmosphere to edit in, especially as I do not know where else he has falsly attacked me. PPdd (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for not notifying you that I mentioned you. This was an etiquette violation, I agree. As for the rest, I don't think it was uncivil, and I think I explained my edits and started appropriate conversionations about them. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

@PPdd: If that is all the evidence there is of uncivil behavior, I do not think that raising a report here is warranted. Yes, everyone should be nice at all times, and I have not looked at the underlying issue, but if you are going to make an edit like this which removes most of the content from an article, you need to expect some stiff comments. Most editors are human, and no matter how correct your edit is in terms of policy (I have not examined that), you should not worry too much if an editor who supports the old content regards the matter as a "destructive binge". I am not saying that such a description is warranted or acceptable, and you do not have to accept the comment, but it does not warrant a report. From the above, it looks as if simply registering your concern with Dicklyon on their talk page would have been adequate. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. There's no minimum time limit on when an editor may ask for assistance in resolving an issue; too often WQA's are not requested until parties have been in conflict so long that resolution here isn't possible. Could this have been resolved elsewhere? Probably. Does that make requesting assistance unwarranted? No, it's fine. Gerardw (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

In any case, I think this is resolved with Dicklyon agreeing that he might be peleted by a rare caliifornia snowball (even though he did not give me a LOL for my "tiger's penis" comment). PPdd (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL. And if you got blocked for making fun of my name, you wouldn't be the first. Dicklyon (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I almost got blocked for my own name, and had to change it at the last minute before the block to PPdd. You know, nominating someone for an etiquette violation might be a good way of making friends around here... :) PPdd (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What a strange Wikiquette conversation... Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobf, its Dicklyon's fault. He put that irritiatingly pleasant smiling photo of himself on his user page, disrupting my attempts at being nasty. So I guess you might call him a "disruptive editor". :) PPdd (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if Dicklyon grows taller when he is excited. Sorry, couldn't resist... I think I may have to accuse him of WP:BAITing me into a WP:CIVIL violation. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, who doesn't get turgid when excited over wikipedia? Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Charming though he is, PPdd's behavior is very troubling to me. At a rate of many hundreds of edits per day, he's having with way with alternative medicine articles, and when he gets pushback from me and others, he's trying to rewrite guidelines like WP:MEDRS to better support what he's doing, which is to move the altmed articles toward a very non-neutral med-only POV. So if I get grouchy at him again, that will probably be why. I'm not saying "bad faith", just that he hasn't fully embraced the concept of WP:NPOV and is on a tear to promote his own POV. Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, "grouchy", now I'm accusing you of bad faith. Here's why. Your talk page says you are on a Wikibreak, so I spent time cooking up all these nasty things to say about you here, thinking you were on break and would not be able to defend yourself here, so Bobthefish2 wouldn't say "What a strange Wikiquette conversation..." again. But you are not on break, and can defend yourself against my inane nastiness... so failing to take down your wikibreak was bad faith that cost me my prescious "nasty attack the defenseless" time. :) PPdd (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

More seriously, I am trying to add to MEDRS re medical claim sourcing, per the spirit of MEDRS not to have Wiki contain any assertions of medical efficacy that are not backed up by reliable sources, and the discussion can be seen at the WP:MEDRS talk page. My last such suggestion got unanimous consensus, but it only applied to a specific case for one alternative medicine. PPdd (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User:KnowIG

Resolved

 – looks like this users action resulted in a block before others could comment. If they return any future interactions will bear watching

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

As you will see from this editors block log they have a history of blocks for personal attacks and incivility. They have obviously not learned from these blocks because the attacks have continued both here Talk:Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II#Winner of Blue Peter contest and specifically here [54]. The warning for this attack was immediately blanked here [55]. If this user could learn to discuss without personal attacks then that would be a good outcome but it seems other eyes and comments on their behavior are needed to bring that about. MarnetteD | Talk 15:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User notified here User talk:KnowIG#Notice. MarnetteD | Talk 15:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh for the love of God!. The first time this user sees me the first thing he thinks is lets get him blocked. At the end of the day I haven't been rude and he can't get his own way and doesn't like it. And this admin is abusing power cause he doesn't like a response how pathetic. And this is exactly what annoys me with this place. People need to grow up stop acting like a child and grow a pair. Forgoodness sake. KnowIG (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Lets get a few things straight. A) I have not asked for a block but you behavior needs to be examined. B) You have been rude as you continue to comment on editors and not on material to be entered. C) I am not an admin. D) Wikipedia is a community and if you can't act civilly within it you should expect to have that fact commented on. D) My pair is just fine and grew many moons ago. MarnetteD | Talk 15:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well lets get a few things straight. Sice your not and admin. DO NOT USE TEMPLATES ON MY PAGE!!!!!! Don't not comment on me. DO not do anything keep your mouth shut and learn what incivity is and then you will learn how rude people will go. Watch your mouth sunny KnowIG (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Warnings templates can be posted by anyone and I think the incivility in this last post speaks for itself about why your behavior requires examination. MarnetteD | Talk 15:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_body#Black_body_problem

• Template:Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dicklyon
• Template:Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Damorbel
• {{Black body}}

I have not made any previous complaint but now I feel that I am just wasting my time trying to engage on the matter of Black body physics. Writing in the talk pages and requesting consideration of technical matters concerning the explanation of the physics of Black bodies I am getting only personal abuse from editor Dicklyon who when unable to respond to my points advises me that "I think you should stop trolling" and "find a physics tutor and learn your way around your confusion". This sort of response has been repeated many times. I have largely ignored the abuse but on occasions asked him to desist but this just provokes renewed abuse.

I suggest this kind of activity is outside the purposes of Wikipedia and I would like to know what to do further, if anything. Thanking you in advance for any consideration you are able to give to this matter. --Damorbel (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And I'll say it again. I think you should stop trolling, and find a physics tutor and learn your way around your confusion. Dicklyon (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No Dicklyon I am not trolling by any definition. Merely asking you to clarify matter in the article cannot be considered misuse of Wikipedia process in any form. You have not yet answered my concerns, something which should be easy for an informed editor.--Damorbel (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, when you start talking about me, you're supposed to notify me. Are those broken templates an attempt to do that, or what? Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You write "you're supposed to notify me". I'm sorry if I did not follow the correct procedure and apologise for an inadvertent error but WIKI rules on this are not clear, more suited to the experienced contestants I suggest. I am aware of my inexperience in these matters, that is why I prefaced my remarks with a note saying this in my first complaint. But if you persist in identifying my contributions as misuse, as you have done on this page (which I invite you to withdraw) then it will not be my last.--Damorbel (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Issues often arise when there are only two editors in a discussion--different people have different styles of communication and tendencies etc. Having examined the talk page thread I have a few suggestions for both editors:

• Stick to matters of content--Talk pages are not the place to discuss either editors behaviors. Take your discussions about behavior to the respective users talk page or a dispute resolution forum.
• Wikipedia is about creating and maintaining text that is supported by reliable sources. Sometimes discussions are needed to decide about precise wording and how much text or 'weight' to give to a particular sub-topic or source(s). This is appropriate discussion for a talk page. However, talk pages are not the place for theoretical or scholarly discussions about the topic.

I think if the two of you successfully implemented these guidelines you would make more progress on the article and stay out of each others hair. If not then bring the content issue to a Third Opinion or Request For Comment forum as needed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Take your discussions about behavior to the respective users talk page or a dispute resolution forum." Searching the guidelines lead me here for dispute resolution; your reference (without any helpful link) does not assist me one bit. As for sticking to matters of content, that is why I came here. I asked Dicklyon to consider content whereupon without answering my request he made assertions about my contributions. Your response does not seem to recognise this, I am wondering why you felt it was appropriate to write as you did.--Damorbel (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like assistance in connection concerning the matter of personal abuse, such as accusations of trolling made on the talk page by an editor. Is it appropriate to discuss these matters on an RFC forum? A Third Opinion sounds as though it may be useful, personally I think accusations of trolling have no place on a talk page but I am not sure what is acceptable here.--Damorbel (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that behavior issues should not be on an article talk page. There are actually two types of request for comment, WP:RFC for articles, and WP:RFC/U for generating comments on users. It's very true that the protocols of wikipedia when conflict occurs are very confusing, with "wp:this" and "wp:that." There's even a "wp" about that wp:creep. You're posting here did not follow the guidelines at the top of the page -- no diffs provided, and (moot point now) no notification of the other editor involved. I'd like to see diffs of the edits which prompted you to post the notice in the first place. Gerardw (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Damorbel is "stupid and pig headed"24/04/2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_body&diff=prev&oldid=285808666

Dicklyon abuses others:"Nothing here is political ...... to deny the latter and get confused and also deny the former."

25/04/2009 (Bob Armstrong)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABlack_body&action=historysubmit&diff=286119209&oldid=286117668

Dicklyon claims I am 'campaigning'31/12/2009 (campaign)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_body&diff=next&oldid=335067462

20/12/2010 (Troll claim) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_body&diff=prev&oldid=403290391

(I request revision of "Troll" claim: nothing useful)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_body&diff=next&oldid=403290391

20/12/2010 (Dicklyon: ({you are} stirring up) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_body&diff=next&oldid=403325368

20/12/2010 (Dicklyon: stop trolling)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_body&diff=next&oldid=403342729

04/01/2011 (Why give references to Dicklyon? "I haven't read the Kirchhoff")http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_body&diff=next&oldid=405765921

Thank you for your attention and time.--Damorbel (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What it's about: Damorbel is a climate denier, who tries to claim bad science to discredit even the most basic ideas of planetary science. I tried to explain the error in his pseudophysics to him here: User_talk:Damorbel#Where_you_got_it_wrong, but he wouldn't get it. I later said in Talk:Black_body#Black_body_problem: "As for the rest, I'll avoid feeding the troll" and "And I think you should stop trolling, since I already answered yes and explained on your talk page why your assertion is wrong. Kirchhoff did not make such mistakes as you do." This was in December. And finally this remark. Nothing since. Obviously, I do come up short in being able to follow my own advice, and in maintaining an assumption of good faith when dealing with certain behaviors that frustrate me. Mea culpa. Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Is that "mea culpa" as in 'in the future I'll restrict my comments to content and not contributors?' Gerardw (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

@Damorbel, Thanks for your post. I would ask though, that you please refrain from posting in the midst of my comments and instead post below my comments, thereby leaving my comments intact. Thank you. Also I am happy to provide the link to the Wiki Guideline on Talk Page behavior that you requested WP:TALK. This Wikiquette page is here for editors to present issues to the community and get advice on how to proceed with them. I have given my advice. You may choose to take it or ignore it. As you wish. Good luck!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"refrain from posting in the midst of my comments" I did that???--Damorbel (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) continues to refer to the arguments made by other editors as "Essjay" style arguments or the "Essjay approach", despite being told how insulting this is since it insinuates that those editors are frauds.

• Here he starts a whole section called "Essjay Wikipedia credentials vs Margaret Clunies Ross".
• The editor he's targeting, User:Maunus calls this "condescending", and Norton responds by snidely calling him "Essjay" again.
• Maunus calls this a "personal attack", and asks Richard to get back to the real argument, which sort of happens until Norton decides to tell Maunus again that his comment is not condescending.
• That is where I stepped in to tell Norton that calling someone Essjay is still an insult.
• In response Norton immediately strikes the last Essjay mention and sarcastically replaces it with "my esteemed and honorable colleague".
• Once again I try to explain why this is an insult.

Apparently none of this sunk in, because just today he likened me to Essjay, here. I'm not having it. Norton is poisoning the atmosphere at this entry and in the current disputes related to it. Someone needs to tell him to stop.Griswaldo (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Essjay is a style of argument where personal knowledge is used to trump reliable sources. That is the style being used at the AFD for Norwegian diaspora where reliable sources are being dismissed and no contradictory sources are used in their place, just the weight of the individuals arguments. It is not meant as a personal insult, but is the correct name for this style of argument where reliable sources are dismissed because the arguer says they are do not carry as much weight as their arguments. I am making no comparison that the arguer is faking his resume, he has not offered any credentials and none have been asked for. That came much later for Essjay when he was working for Wikia and stopped editing in Wikipedia, as I said previously, that was just icing on the cake. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Richard you seem like a reasonable and intelligent person and you have described a style of argument that you refer to as Essjay. Since other editors have given you feedback, saying that they find the reference offensive, why not call it something else? Why not call it the 'personal knowledge over sources' argument or something? You could even let your co-editors know that you are going to abbreviate it and call it the PKOS argument. Does this seem reasonable?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)@Richard Norton - No such arguments are being made (by Maunus or myself). It saddens me that you claim they are, but it really offends me that in claiming that these types of arguments are being made you find the need to repeatedly compare me and others to Essjay. Your claims about what you intend by the comparison do not lessing its insulting nature. I'll let someone uninvolved comment on this. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is my last Essjay reference: "Again you are taking the Essjay approach in that you are arguing that your personal knowledge trumps Wikipedia style and reliable sources and consensus, because you know the truth despite reliable sources saying otherwise. Wikipedia style as well as Encyclopedia Britannica use the modern political entity to name the entry then discuss the history of that geographical area back to prehistory. So we have the article on Iraq discussing 5,000 years of history before the modern country of Iraq was formed after World War I. We have 8,000 years of history at Egypt despite the modern state being formed after World War II. And yes Iraq is in Category:Mesopotamia even though as entities they are separated by thousands of years and have no continuity in government or religion or language. So if you want to start an RFC to move all 254 diaspora categories to "migration" please do that, but stop changing just the entries for Norway and Sweden, they are not exceptions to the Wikipedia style." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate him calling you out on your confrontational editing behaviour and telling you that it is not ok to act that way. I admit that at this point I have a personal animosity against you and that I have responded with personal commentary in kind, but would also like to make it clear that I had no such animosity before I was subjected to the behaviour Griswaldo as supplied examples of. Frankly I think that your rude behaviour (as well as that of your anti-deletion allies) is the primary motor in the diaspora related disputes - I believe that if you had been reasonable about it we could have had a compromise or consensus within hours. I am saying this because I am open to burying the hatchet if and when you show an understanding of your responsibility in the escalation of the dispute and an honest will to make amends. I for one am not proud of the snide comments I have admittedly made at you, and I would apologize if I had any reason to believe that you realize that part of the responsibility for the current level of animosity is also on your shoulders.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no personal animosity towards you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

So what are you implying? that you act like an WP:DICK against everyone in equal measure?·Maunus·ƛ· 17:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

People interested in the entire debate can go here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian diaspora (2nd nomination) --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sidenote: WP:DICK is a Wikimedia essay and states: "The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as 'a dick'" .....and goes on to say...... "Implicitly or explicitly calling people dicks is a dick-move: don't use this essay as a justification to do so." I that referencing this essay in this conversation shows poor judgment and is unhelpful in fostering progress towards the resolution of what appears to be a protracted dispute and animosity between editors.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. To address the original complaint, I would think it would be a good idea for all to cease labeling other editor's arguments with the name of a disgraced Wikipedian; Argumentum ad Essjayam, if you will. Tarc (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Concur. The behavior RAN wishes to address would appear to fall under WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH, so he can reference these impersonal guidelines in lieu of making what are perceived as implicit personal attacks. Gerardw (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This Wikiquette page is here for editors to present issues to the community and get advice on how to proceed with them. I have given my advice. You may choose to heed it or ignore it. As you wish. Good luck all of you!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Who is that directed to?Griswaldo (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Offensive comments by WikiManOne

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

WM1 has placed this banner across his talk page calling a handicapped Afghan who was sexually assaulted and is about to be executed by the Afghan government for his religion "an idiot".

WN1 has also placed a (historically inaccurate) banner across his user page demeaning Christianity along with other similar behavior.

Needless to say, all of this is extremely offensive, particularly the sexually assaulted handicapped Afghan who is about to be put to death by the state for his faith. Is there any way to get have these comments removed from his user space? - Haymaker (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The first step would be to ask him to remove it. Gerardw (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion, I would further add that you could suggest to the editor that the basis of your request is the Wiki guidelines for User Pages such as WP:UPNO.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It would also be polite to notify WikiManOne about this ongoing discussion so he can give his input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

WM1 was informed of this discussion previously. Thanks for the guideline, I have never actually encountered something so offensive posted by another user so I had never gone hunting after userpage info. I have asked him to remove the material. Here is to hoping it works. - Haymaker (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be a record-setting sort of attempt. Collect (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's just flame bait, completely unrelated to the encyclopeida or any attempt to improve the encyclopedia. He has a right to express his opinions, however unpopular, but not at Wikipedia's expense, and not when they're unrelated to the goal here, and actually distract from it. Blog space is cheap; let him pay for his own.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"have never actually encountered something so offensive" -- um, how long have you been here again? That's pretty darned mild.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

On a user page, bemoaning a crippled rape victim who is about to by martyred for his faith is a new low for me. - Haymaker (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, the tone of WikiManOne's statement, if not the sentiment, is rather similar to the tone often used by the Daily Mail itself, a very extensively used RS in Wikipedia. Seems ironic. Polemics abound in the hotspots of article space. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, it isn't. WMO's page says, "Why is this Christian such an idiot? Better yet, why do we give them coverage for being such idiots?" In other words, "them", meaning "Christians", are idiots. There's no way in heck that's appropriate here. --B (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's clearly not what he said. Once again User:B misinterprets what an ideological opponent is saying, then argues against that misinterpretation. Is it deliberate? Christianity is a big umbrella, it has its share of idiots and extremists like any other big group. I'm not defending what he said, but I agree with SoV that it is only mildly provocative. Anyway, I believe that WMO has already said he is a Christian. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, that is what he said. However, he has now reworded it, rendering the issue moot. (He's still wrong about his point, but he has a right to be wrong.) --B (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No, he did not say "them", meaning "Christians", are idiots -- which is what you inferred. The original point (of whether his banner was offensive) may be moot, but your misinterpretation is not. Nor is it isolated: at the FRC talkpage you linked one of his ANI comments, then jumped to an offensive oversimplification: "To some of our left-leaning friends here, conservative Christians = the KKK." [56]. I attempted to address the issue at your talkpage but you ignored it. Again I ask, is the misinterpretation intentional? -PrBeacon (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Again I ask, is it deliberate?

• Isn't the issue here WP:NOTMYSPACE? Gerardw (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)