Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

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

Active discussions

Jayjg Personal Attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the diff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly. Personal information should not be used to marginalise anyone's opinion, and attempting to do so really isn't acceptable. Editors should not have to provide credentials to make edits on wikipedia, it should be enough to backup arguments with facts from reputable secondary sources. And as the perpetrator is an administrator, doesn't the offence become much more serious? Administrators intimidating editors with ad hoinem attacks! Is that what we want here at Wikipedia? Shoudn't some kind of warning or reprimand be passed onto Jayjg? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg and 'cognitive issues'

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

User:Jayjg seems to think that suggesting that another editor has "cognitive issues" [2] and "disordered cognitive or thought patterns" [3] is appropriate for his talk page. I'd appreciate some input on whether this is considered appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forgive me if it seems tiresome me continuing this, but I have also been the object of what I regard as an ad-hominem attack by Jayjg over a period of a month or two, which I have hitherto chose to ignore. But it has reached a point where I feel I should bring it to the attention of the Wiki community in some way. I'm not sure which is the best venue for that. And in searching for that I came across these TWO complaints of the exact same transgression here that are in my opinion being allowed to pass without any action [4]. I do not think this is one-off behaviour by Jayjg. Plus his apology was done in a "walking back" way that further repeated the ad hominem by implying there really might still be something mentally wrong with the editor, "but if you are in fact OK, sorry". I must confess to being rather surprised and dismayed that this standard of behaviour is being allowed and excused like this.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

"unclean hands"? You appear to have got this back-to-front, Jayg. It is your behaviour that is under discussion here.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Carol, as usual I don't understand much of what you have written, but you and I have had editorial disputes for years, not just "lately". Your post, filled with vague accusations and odd epithets (e.g. "big stick administrator"), is exactly the kind that brings this board into disrepute; an attempt to use the board to get your licks in against someone with whom you've had lost of editorial disputes. And Mystichumwipe, if you think this board is the place you can finally get your revenge for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#Mystichumwipe and conspiracy theories, then I submit that you have misunderstood this board's purpose. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Other administrators have in the past attempted to "talk down" to editors in an attempt to perhaps get them to behave or act more rationally. Being condescending (God, I hope I spelled that right) is so far as I know not necessarily a violation of any sort. On that basis, although I myself do think Jayjg may have crossed the line at some point, like virtually any other editor of his long standing, I question whether this criticism is entirely appropriate. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on the fact that you indeed spelled "condescending" correctly, I think we should close this discussion (I thought so a long time ago).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg wrote: [[Carol, as usual I don't understand much of what you have written... That more recent complaint of yours sounds like a new variation on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. In any case, to whatever extent Jayjg will be positively influenced by these two complaint sections, the purpose has been served so let's archive this so I don't have to keep taking a peek at these two Jayjg threads. CarolMooreDC 22:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree w/Carol's reasonable suggestion that we seem to be at a (though she didn't use those words) more heat than light phase of the conversation. Editors all said what they had to say, many of them are seasoned and "get it" though they have different views, and there is now a record of their positions, but this doesn't seem to be moving in a particularly linear direction at this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Assumptions of bad faith about ARS concerns

Resolved

 – It appears I have reached an understanding with this editor regarding the conduct issues mentioned here.The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And sysop TParis wrote to Night:

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

And in July, sysop Shirik wrote to Night:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Would you be willing to disengage from Epeefleche, Night of the Big Wind? --Guerillero | My Talk 22:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thats a loaded question night should disengage but Epeefleche is certainly not faultless here some gf the comments here have been pointy at best and he has clearly done what he accused night of. The best thing would be for them both to step away because its just making things worse.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting that Epeefleche was accusing me of hounding and digging through his edits. Now I try to disengage a bit, before I get really angry (and I admit, his harassing and PAs are getting me angry), he is showing that he is digging through my edits. Going back 7 months for that in an attempt to damage me. Defdinately, he has no real arguments to solve this disagreement. And in the mean time he still goes on with his dodgy PRODs, nominating Asiatic subjects based on Zero RS gnews hits/gbooks hits. Yes, for a Pakistani album Gnews and Gbooks are the best places to guaranteed find nothing. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I am of course not hounding you in the least. All I have done is provide the information needed for sysops to examine what is happening here, in light of the fact that "Editors may be blocked for disruptive behaviour, which can include repeated or extensive violations of the civility policy, refusal to work toward consensus, or repeatedly ignoring community feedback." The above multiple warnings to you for parallel behavior are relevant to that.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me that there is a difference of opinion on what constitutes WP:N. It seems that Epeefleche is acting in good faith that certain types of articles (examples provided with initial statement) do not meet WP standard. Upon cursory review, I agree with this opinion and his actions. It seem that Night of the Big Wind feels that for certain topics, where WP:RS are hard to dig up and may even be non-existent, the standards for WP:N are so different that general WP:N should be largely disregarded. I have never seen a policy in support of this belief. These two editors have taken actions consistent with these conflicting viewpoints of WP:N. If this matter is merely a difference of opinion of WP:N, I side with Epeefleche. However, it also seems that there may be a bit of hiding behind a hard to believe interpretation of WP:N. I think either voluntarily self-imposed or community-imposed interaction restraints should guide Big Winds future actions in this regard. In terms of personal attacks, I think they are either the result of the difference of opinion of WP:N or a difference of opinion on WP:N is being used to cover personal attacks. The long and the short of it is that if we revert the articles to the PRODed state the namecalling should stop. Thus, I encourage the involved editors to either source articles or have them PRODed and cease ancilary huffing and puffing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Not so much as you think, TonyTheTiger. The problem is far more his high-speed serial nominating combined with substandard research for those nominations. I am trying to disengage from on the, I guess 15 or 20, nominated GAA-articles. He has annoyed enough people by now to get them in action, so I can walk away from it. He has been serial nominating schools, if I am correct (this is based on comments from others), about 200. Again according to others, just because there name contains "primary school" or "middle school". I not or hardly involved in that, although I am running a RfC at the moment about schools and notability. Bigger problem are his PRODs of African and Asian subjects. He comes up with a reason that, in general, reads like No references found on Google News and Google Books. I don't question his results on GNews and GBook. On the other hand, I question the very use of GNews and GBooks in these cases. With the strong focus of both on American, Canadia and West-European sources, it is highly unlikely that you will ever find a mention on any Asian or African subject not covered by Western newspapers or books. So it is far more related to WP:V then to WP:N. And yes, Tony, I am trying to disengage but without giving him a free hand in continuing this way. Living strictly by a narrow interpretation of the rules, conflicts with the spirit and goals from Wikipedia. And with conflicting rules and guidelines on Wikipedia, a conflict is close by. See for instance WP:LISTPEOPLE versus Wikipedia:Red link. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There might be Asian and African sources in Gnews and Gbooks but you won't find anything if you search for the English transliterated name instead of the name as spelled in the local language. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 15:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The relevant essays are Wikipedia:Systemic bias and Wikipedia:Recentism. To check sources for a school, for example, you have to know not just the current name but the previous name(s). Dahliarose (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Civility. I wonder how Night's comment to me that: "you can stick that hurling article straight up in your <censored>" (later redacted) fits into all of this.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• And — now, another incident. I PRODed an album article, and Night arrived at it to de-PROD it. After another editor beat me to nom'ing the article I had PRODed for deletion, Night !voted against the deletion I had supported — on what appears to be a fictitious basis, as discussed at AfD Hum Sab Ka Pakistan.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• And - another current incident. I just nominated a small Irish mall for deletion. Night arrived at the nomination to confront it, mis-representing its prior AfD record (and then not responding when his mis-statement was pointed out), at AFD Letterkenny Shopping Centre (3rd nom).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• And - another current incident. Since I posted the above, I tagged 2 refs that 3 editors believe are non-RSs as "unreliable source?" in the above-referenced Hum Sab album article. Night reverted. Saying only, in his edit summary, "If you want me off your back, then you should not be baiting me."--Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • jaysus, man. Don't you have anything better to do then whining? Stop assuming that I act in bad faith with everything we meet. Stop digging through my history/assume bad faith/baiting me if tou really want me to disengage. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that everyone is acting in good faith even if opinions differ. There is no vandalism. The standard of research being carried out by Epeefleche on some articles is poor. For example, Letterkenny Shopping Centre is well referenced. At least as well if not better than similar articles on shopping malls e.g. Streets of Chester or Burlington Center Mall. It would help if Epeefleche kept on one topic rather than nominating articles from a wide range of interests. It would also help if his PROD noms detailed why they were being nominated rather than a generic explanation. --HighKing (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Now at ANI.[5].Edinburgh Wanderer 19:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, forum shopping. No success here, so lets go to another one. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

As someone said over there at ANI, it's not forumshopping if Epee isn't the one who brought it up there. (And he didn't.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• IMO, Night of the Big Wind is out of line, and Dahlia's comment that because Epeefleche AfDed some articles he wanted kept justifies Epeefleche being hounded, is outrageous. Night of the Big Wind should be forced to disengage, and perhaps even be blocked for his disruptive, incivil behavior Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Trying to stop this before it starts

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

Short version

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

Long, detailed version

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, it is my opinion that the CREWE group on Facebook are fairly malign from what I have seen so far, as has been discussed on a Wikimedia Foundation official's talk page previously: User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Wikimania_Panel and as Jimbo has said, it's a serious problem that cannot be ignored:[6] (I recognise your name from his talk pages attempting to defend paid corporate advocacy editors there, too). As you know from my criticism of them...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and this edit proves that Silver Seren has been wp:wikistalking me after I stated my opposition to the Corporate Representatives group as I had guessed. This seems to be normal tactics of the group Silver Seren founded supporting corporate editing in retaliation to wp:PAIDWATCH to try harass dissenters, as I also had a similar issue happen 2 days ago when I added Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. to the PAIDWATCH wikiproject at 9:23[7], "bob rayner" arrived at 9:58[8] along with "Bilby" at 11:13[9] to talk:Websense to defend the companies' paid PR sockpuppeting — both whom are not members of wp:PAIDWATCH, but apparently founding members (the 5th and 7th respectively) of Silver Seren's previously mentioned Wikiproject working with the Corporate Representatives PR group, which most of them including Seren - as stated on their site - are also supporters of. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 00:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This report has nothing to do with what CREWE is or is not doing, but about Selina's accusations against CREWE and myself in a very obvious breach of civility. Silverseren^C 22:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been the only one that was uncivil here... I wasn't even talking to you on the page, and you jumped in, and then complained that I addressed you... As I said on the page, if you do not want to be addressed in your capacity as a member of Corporate Representatives, do not reply to messages addressed to the ringleaders of the group then? I was completely civil about it, far more than you have been to me in deliberately trying to start up drama here than actually trying to talk to me like the top of this page says to...

How exactly am I not being civil? The only thing that you could possibly bring up is me saying that you're acting a little paranoid. And your comment just below accuses me and others of being "zealots", which is the kind of incivility that is replicated in pretty much every comment you've made to me or about me. Silverseren^C 23:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks King, as I said on the wiki page, I scrolled through their whole thing to look for slipups in their PR line, I know how those types can be :p ;) Hehe. It's cool you seem genuine at least. And that Claire Thompson, you should team up she seems cool too, I wouldn't be surprised if she go banned by them for being far too ethical too.

It's good that the discussion is continuing on that, it seems the idea of wp:COOP is being turned sour by a few bad apples turning into zealots, I'm glad wp:PAIDWATCH exists at least though there's a sad lack of interest in the whole thing considering how this type of stuff can be far far worse than obvious vandalism :|

I'll go check out the talkpage --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:SMcCandlish

Moved to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks by User:SMcCandlish

 – due to lack of assistance. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

HWWilson and "Kip Noll" article

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

This user keeps inserting the unverified entry about Kip Noll's "death". I tried to convince him that WP:V must be obey, but with no luck. I even reported the article to WP:BLPN; although it was rightfully removed, HWWilson keeps on going, and I keep reverting. I contacted JFHJr, who removed that unverifiable entry. I'm running out of time before HWWilson would violate WP:3RR, --George Ho (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC) WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:OR. --George Ho (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly added the unverifiable entry again. By the way, he called me a "petty litte man", accused me for having "emotional stake" with a "tantrum", and told me to get "a real life". (Would this just as "uncivil"?) Also, he has been warned by other users and reported to WP:AIV. --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This user has been blocked. I guess no replies, eh? --George Ho (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This user will be unblocked for several more hours. --George Ho (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

phoenix79

• Phoenix79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bose 2.1 home entertainment systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On 4 February, Phoenix79 posted sarcastic comment about the intelligence of another user (myself) in the talk page ("What receiver? Do you even know anything about the products you are editing? Do some research before you make edits"). My response was asking him to be polite to other editors. But then on 8 February he posted this edit summary: "Editing with 0 knowledge of the information", again making an insult against another editor instead of sticking to the article. Could you please look into this?

Also, this is a bit unrelated, but I believe Phoenix has ownership issues with various Bose articles (eg edit summary for Bose 5.1 home entertainment systems: "Find a cite to support this and it can stay" which indicates Phoenix believes edits can only stay if he/she agrees with them). What can be done about this? Thanks, 1292simon (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge != intelligence != personal attack. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And insistence on following policy at WP:V and sourcing additions to articles != personal attack. Doesn't qualify as WP:OWN either. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs.

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

Yes ... I got as far as the confusion between an asserted lack of knowledge being equated to a lack of intelligence. To my knowledge they are different things.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, thanks everyone for the replies 1292simon (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg accusing me of wikihounding

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

Links: [[10]] [[11]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Within days of resuming this account to edit circumcision after 2 years of inactivity, Gsonnenf filed a report here about Jayjg.[12] He later suggested the possibility of opening an arbitration case to another user, apparently because of POV concerns on circumcision,[13] Now there is a second report here. Gsonnenf's reference in the second diff to "opposition party" and here to "core of usual suspects", plus these references to Jayjg's editing history from 5 years ago, suggest that Gsonnenf's edits related to Jayjg are not being made in good faith, per WP:HARASS and in particular WP:HOUND. Mathsci (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It's far from the first time Gsonnenf's brought up these entirely unrelated events from 5 years ago. He's mentioned them on the article talk page, and on the pages of administrators. Another editor has already pointed out to him that it is not relevant to this article, and questioned whether it was merely a vague attempt at deflection. Gsonnenf has referred to editors he dislikes as "Puppeteers"[14][15] and "pro-surgery"[16], apparently applying both of these labels to me, and actively attempted to recruit like-minded editors to edit-war with him.[17][18] I would suggest that these actions are far more serious violations of Wikiquette than anything raised in this thread, and in my view corroborate your view that "Gsonnenf's edits related to Jayjg are not being made in good faith, per WP:HARASS and in particular WP:HOUND". Jayjg ^(talk) 08:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Like Garycompugeek, I've been involved with Jayjg and Gsonnenf at the circumcision article. Nevertheless, I'd like to draw attention to a few things. The "old" Gsonnenf appeared to be interested in computer-related topics, and has been inactive since June 2009. The "new" Gsonnenf appeared at the circumcision article together with an number of new users following off-site canvassing at Reddit (which may or may not be a coincidence).[19] At the time of writing, the "new" Gsonnenf has made 196 edits, not including those made using IP addresses. He has shown an extremely aggressive WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing, making frequent accusations, with a pattern of making frivolous, vexatious complaints against other editors; for example he falsely accused me of a 3RR violation, and mistakenly accused Jayjg of miscellaneous perceived Wikiquette issues here and in this thread. That Gsonnenf is harrassing Jayjg is clear as shown by the evidence above. For example, Gsonnenf's first interest in Talk:Jews was in the same thread as and approximately 2 hours after Jayjg's comment to that article. One of his IP edits is particularly disturbing. Jakew (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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