Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

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

Active alerts

Page ownership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[1]] Galbarm (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bobthefish2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bobthefish2 takes editors with different view for disprutive editors. His attitude has been always uncivil. He was warned here in October for the first time. But he hasn't changed. See these. [2] and [3]. And this is not the only one case. I was taught it was more contemptible to talk ill about people behind their back than to directly call people names. Furthermore, Bobthefish2's problem is not only his Wikiquette. IMHO, this thread should be moved to ANI. Oda Mari (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Bobthefish2's turn

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

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

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

Background

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

Senkaku Islands

Senkaku Islands

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

Senkaku Islands articles

Articles of Senkaku Islands

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

Content Disputes

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

Dispute on Inaccurate use of a Primary Source

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

Dispute on Protests

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

Accusations against User:Bobthefish2

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

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

User:John Smith's Gentlemanly Accusations

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

User:Oda Mari's Heart-Melting Complaints

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

User:Qwyrxian's Vindictive Inquisition

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

Final Words

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

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

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

The Rest of Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you follow through on your comment "I will try to be more careful about striking the nerves of others", then things will probably be a lot better. Much of the 'substance' of this complaint really seems to stem from a bit of 'putting on airs' by you, Bob. When you communicate with someone from another nation, you learn their language. When it is here on Wikipedia, there is language that makes editors more successful in working with one another, and language that doesn't. You sound like a person who has no problem grasping complex concepts and situations, and it really appears you have a tremendous amount to offer others here. Just understand that others are being put off by some of the ways you are approaching situations, and even if you haven't intended any insult or fault, it is still causing you and them problems because it gets in the way of success. Your effort is appreciated, and thank you for participating in the process. -- Avanu (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

USER:David spector

The above User Page appears to be self promotional and may be in violation of WP:UPNOT, WP:SOAP, and WP:FAKEARTICLE. Could someone please take a look at it and give their objective opinion? I have notified the user that his page is under discussion. [4]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

User: Mallexikon keeps calling me a “vandal” when I delete completely unsourced material, and he just reverted my edits twice here[5]. He inserted completely unsourced material stating that technical claims of esoteric Traditional Chinese Medicine terms was as obvious as that “the sky is blue” so did not need any sources, and that the limited material he inserted with Chinese language sources was OK per WP:RS. He did not respond in any way to my comment at talk pointing out that Chinese language sources are not WP:RS in an English language encyclopeida and pointing out WP:BURDEN for the editor trying to insert unsourced material here[6]. Instead he again called me a vandal]. Instead he reverted my deletions under WP:BURDEN and he again called me a “vandal” here[7]. PPdd (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Calling a good faith edit vandalism, as here [[8]] is uncivil.

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

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

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

He just called me a vandal again[9], and reverted again, despite a 3R warning. PPdd (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right I shouldn't call PPdd's deletions vandalism (still, I never called him a vandal). But I reverted again because he deleted properly sourced material, like here [[10]]. Mallexikon (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Resolved

173.18.86.157

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

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

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

User:Dicklyon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

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

Dicklyon has been uncivily accusing me of bad faith editing or other false accusations, without even telling me he is doing so, in places I just happen across, such as here[11] where he accused me of being "on a destructive binge", just because I applied WP:MEDRS to medical claims in an article making them, and here[], where he says MEDRS is "being applied by User:PPdd to dismantle articles". I am not dismantling articles. I am deleting medical claims that are not MEDRS. This is a much more serious matter than BLP, for the reason stated at MEDRS, and I am deleting completely unsourced claims that I cannot verify. Dicklyon has reverted my edits, in violation of WP:BURDEN, then is going around and making false accusations about me and violating etiquette in doing so. It is causing an unpleasant atmosphere to edit in, especially as I do not know where else he has falsly attacked me. PPdd (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But most of what you removed were not assertions of medical efficacy. Dicklyon (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point I missed. In a sense, the content added by dick is really about human physiology according to Chinese medicine. In WP, I believe the topic of human physiology is not under WP:MEDRS since it's more of a science article. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, you should take this to RFCU, NPOV, or some specialized science discussion forum. User:PPdd may take RFCU a bit personally. WP:NPOV is a bit inactive. You can try this, but it doesn't seem too active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 (talk • contribs)

I was actually about to reword things as "beliefs or practices of author", rather than assertions of fact supported by scientific journals, just as I did at anthroposophica medicine, which resulted in this[12], but when I had gone through it all, I noticed that there was abosultely nothing, that was not in acupuncture, so was about as clear a case of WP:CFORK as could be under its first definition, and the stuff had long been up after the identical stuff was deleted from acupuncture, as clear an example of POV abuse as there can be under the second definition in WP:FORK, so rather than doing the work to reword it all, I brought it to AfD for consensus to redirect under CFORK. Instead of providing arguments as to why it was not clear cfork, editors attacked me ad hominem, calling me "destructive", a "butcher", accusing me of bad faith editing, etc. As of today, there is still not an example of something that belongs in the acupoint article and not the acupuncture article, only ad hominem attacks on me, unresponsive to the stated reason to redirect, and not in the acupucture article, leaving my requests to cite one example to disprove contentfork. The only thing that happened is User:nageh changed his vote from keep to redirect. I am still mystefied others have ignored me repeatedly, and not either changed their vote or provided a single example that shows it is not Cfork. I am still awaiting an aopolgy from User:Colonel Warden for calling me a butcher, which set the tone for the whole "discussion". Perhaps another etiquette alert is in order for that. PPdd (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Content discussion isn't best done here, nor comments regarding other parties. Please open an WQA if you wish to discuss another editor. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• This alert is supposed to be regarding Dicklyon and has been marked resolved for a while...is there anything left to discuss regarding his behavior??Gerardw (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No problems with Dicklyon. :) PPdd (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:KnowIG

Resolved

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

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

As you will see from this editors block log they have a history of blocks for personal attacks and incivility. They have obviously not learned from these blocks because the attacks have continued both here Talk:Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II#Winner of Blue Peter contest and specifically here [13]. The warning for this attack was immediately blanked here [14]. If this user could learn to discuss without personal attacks then that would be a good outcome but it seems other eyes and comments on their behavior are needed to bring that about. MarnetteD | Talk 15:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The user has logged in with a new IP (2.102.254.209). Please block it too. Galbarm | Talk 00:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pretty much that, yes. I usually do focus on content, but when the behavior gets to be a problem, I comment on that, too. Above, Damorbel misquotes me as saying "Damorbel is 'stupid and pig headed'" when what I actually wrote was "your 'contributions' are stupid and pig-headed"; now, I agree that it's odd to apply such terms to contributions, but what I was trying to tell him is that if he would stop writing stupid stuff, things would be better all around. I spent a lot of energy explaining exactly what was wrong with what he was saying, e.g. in the section I linked on his talk page, where I was pretty patient with him, and then he'd just come back and say it again, as it he was not paying attention. Oh, well. Dicklyon (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Yes, you did. Keithbob later moved your interrupting comment to a more appropriate place.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Yes, you did" Get it now! I'm accustomed to discussing bullet point by bullet point. Sorry! Happy to conform with the local practise. In cases with multiple points it is better to number them rather than 'bullet' them, it localises the subjects better. --Damorbel (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Damorbel-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's directed to everyone in this thread.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Offensive comments by WikiManOne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, he did not say "them", meaning "Christians", are idiots -- which is what you inferred. The original point (of whether his banner was offensive) may be moot, but your mischaracterization is not. Nor is it isolated: at the FRC talkpage you linked one of his ANI comments, then jumped to an offensive oversimplification: "To some of our left-leaning friends here, conservative Christians = the KKK." [15]. I attempted to address the issue at your talkpage but you ignored it. Again I ask, is the misinterpretation intentional? -PrBeacon (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

His comments speak for themselves. This issue is resolved and trying to start something is not particularly useful. --B (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually you opened the door here by continuing to distort his words. By not responding to my question, we can only assume you are deliberately attempting to twist his words into something far worse, thus adding fuel to already heated topics. That seems highly improper behavior for an admin. -PrBeacon (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I decline to participate in your loaded questions. "Is the misinterpretation intentional" is kinda like asking, "have you quit beating your wife yet". If you interpret from my declining to answer that I am, in fact, beating my wife, that's a you problem, not a me problem. --B (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What an odd comparison, and not the first time you've used that faulty logic to deflect and distract. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are trying to pick a fight. You seem to be trying to provoke a reaction from your comments here and with the ones on your talk page. I decline to participate. --B (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again. Now you're twisting my words. Shame. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Seems like the talk page would have not gotten significant exposure if it had simply been ignored. Lacking a clear consenus that the item must be removed, I recommend just ignoring the page Gerardw (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well this almost unpublicized event is finally getting some coverage. I can only hope my moral outrage expressed on my userpage over the issue was the immediate cause. At least the thing is getting some recognition. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears that quiet diplomacy involving many nations has been the strategy at work behind the scenes, and that it has proved effective. He was released several days ago, per these articles.[16][17]Slp1 (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

70.67.12.154

IP editor 70.67.12.154 (edits here [18]) has been engaging in edit warring/content removal on global warming-related articles. However, what brings me here is a specific accusation toward another editor of socking here: [19]. I was torn between coming here and ANI, but figured it would be best to head here first. Kansan (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP asked User:Vsmith (an admin) whether he's a pseudonym of User:William M. Connolley... I wouldn't worry about it. Apparently Vsmith isn't concerned. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/Sean.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Colonel Warden

• Colonel Warden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acupuncture point (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acupuncture point|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Colonel Warden accused me of “butchery’’, and misrepresented my good faith and meticulously edit summarized edits. He refuses to apologize, instead inserting false and MEDRS violating content and edit warring. In doing so, and refusing to respond, he changed the entire outcome of the discussion, which thereafter centered not on the clear WP:CONTENTFORK violation in the article, but on attacks on me. No “keep” vote after his “butchery” comments suggested any content that was not already in the article to merge to, but Colonel Warden’s revert to NRS and NMEDRS content created the false impression that there was. Here is the exchange. He tendentiously refused to respond to me.

*Speedy Keep WP:AFD states emphatically, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". The nominator should please not bring every bold edit he wishes to make to AFD. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Colonel Warden, per WP:CONTENTFORK, what specific content should be in acupuncture point, and not be in acupuncture. Provide it and I will change my vote to "keep", but if you cannot, you should reconsider your vote per WP:CONTENTFORK. (An ad homonym comment on my own edits is irrelevant to consideration.) PPdd (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Colonel Warden, your comment is completely nonresponsive to the 2 reasons stated above to redirect. WP:MEDRS is every bit as important as WP:BLP when it comes to WP:BURDEN, and trying to circumvent consensus on a delete by NRS or NMEDRS at acupuncture, by simply copying ans pasting to acupuncture point, as clearly happened by identical sentences, violates not only MEDRS and RS, but CONSENSUS. Also see my reply to Anthonycole above, and Nageh below. Please apologize for your personal attack calling me a "butcher", as it is uncivil and violates WP:Etiquette. PPdd (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to the appropriate section of Acupuncture. No point in saying the same stuff twice. Colonal Warden, per PPdd, if the appropriate section at Acupuncture becomes too big, then is the time to create a sub-article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• This article has existed for 7 years and was quite substantial until recently. PPdd has butchered most of the content and now seeks to delete its history while it is a mutilated state. He seems to believe that cut/paste copies are acceptable in such cases but they are not. I shall now revert this butchery so that editors may fully understand what is being proposed here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Would you watch your tone please? PPdd is a serious, neutral, good-faith editor. Restoring unsourced and poorly sourced biomedical claims in any article is grossly irresponsible. If you think any of the deleted content should be in the encyclopedia, the onus is on you to provide appropriate sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)}}

His accusations caused a huge amount of negative remarks from others, and extensive talk page discussions attacking me. Ultimately two of the attacking editors apologized, one changed their vote to merge and redirect, and another said they wanted to stay out of the fray, which was all caused by Colonel Warden. PPdd (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I see differing views as to content, but no personal attack that warrants a posting on this page. I'll take a look at the page and comment elsewhere perhaps on the substantive points at issue, but see no actionable complaint appropriate for this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I thought that accusing me "butchery" would be considered an etiquette violation. PPdd (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Butchery" is a comment on your contribution, not on you. And being a butcher is perfectly honorable, so there's no implied slur there, right? Enjoy your new snow tonight. And don't expect everyone's etiquette to be quite as nice as yours, when you're provoking them. Dicklyon (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

@Ppdd: Once again, you are demonstrating an unsuitably thin skin. You seem to think that you can go to an article and remove most of its content because the sources (in your view) do not satisfy MEDRS, and then everyone discussing the matter must not use terms like "butchery" to describe the edits. Yes, we know that ideally all editing and commentary would be emotionless, but it is quite reasonable for an editor to use the term "butchery" in relation to the savage cuts—you were not personally insulted. Yes, the editor should not use that term, but this noticeboard should not be used to discuss trivia like this. I see no effort at User talk:Colonel Warden to discuss this issue. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

PrBeacon personal attacks and baiting

PrBeacon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the WikiManOne discussion above PrBeacon has repeatedly [[20]],[[21]].[[22]], [[23]] made unsubstantiated generalizations about B without providing any evidence.

In addition, contrary to WP:REFACTOR, PrBeacon has refactored his comments after someone responded [[24]]. Gerardw (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks? Baiting? Is that what you call my attempt to hold User:B accountable for his inflamatory comments? In your apparent haste to file this false report, you've given three links [25] to the same diff. And you skipped the one where I did provide evidence of User:B's willful distortion of another editor's comment elsewhere, in addition to the one he made earier in the thread. The revision I made to my own post (for clarification) did not change anything to which he responded specifically. -PrBeacon (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• The title of this thread does not follow WQA guidelines above, specifically "neutral and non-judgemental." -PrBeacon (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Corrected. Gerardw (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the posts. Stop being insensitve and allow discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.254.209 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Judaispriest

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

A legitimate discussion regarding content at Talk:Led Zeppelin#Album Sales has degenerated into bullying and name-calling, primarily by Judaispriest, which is making any meaningful discussion about the article impossible. This recent edit is an example of this user's behavior. Piriczki (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Not initiated by me, of course, as you all can see. It's between three involved parties: Me, LedRush and Revan ltrl. Revan Itrl was the first one who started being uncivil and did personal attacks on me and LedRush. My comments were just a response of his repetitive swearing. Judaispriest (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Piriczki is only telling one side of the story, mainly because Revan Itrl was his only ally in the discussion. Judaispriest (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

And he's still busy swearing on LedRush's talk page here. Judaispriest (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The first attacking sentence on me and LedRush by Revan, "You're both barking from some small corner of shame". Before this, I did not write anything objectionable to him. Revan is being uncivil from day one. Judaispriest (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that personal attacks and uncivility was started by Revan, I, as a new wikipedia editor, has recently read all the relevant policies. I will try my level best to ignore uncivility and personal attacks by other users, while being patient and assuming good faith. Thank you very much. Judaispriest (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope this issue has been sorted out here. Judaispriest (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

While several editors on that thread are pushing the boundaries of civility, this post today by Jadaispriest ":-P While you, as we all know, are you a filthy cave troll... A complete waste of oxygen" is a clear personal attack and violates WP:NPA. I would recommend that you all take a breather for a few days and then go to WP:RFC/A or here [26] and get some outside input from the community to resolve the content issue.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

While inappropriate, it doesn't seem that much worse than the preceeding since I strongly doubt you have anything that even resembles a life out there. [[27]]. Concur that all parties should racket down the rhetoric. Gerardw (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting. Did someone forget which sockpuppet they were supposed to be using? Piriczki (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

One second. Let me clarify, before you make further allegations. I've known this editor Judaispriest for quite a while (I met him on some music forums). He wrote to me about the situation and asked for advice. I wrote him a reply, and instead of sending him on the IM application, I mistakenly added the text there with my account. I apologize for any inconvenience, and if such a thing violates any wikipedia policy. I'm a retired (and hopefully respected) editor. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I had asked for Scieberking's help to handle this situation. He's my fellow member on a forum. Judaispriest (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this sraight. Because you happen to know him online from some other web site, your computer was somehow logged in under his account at wikipedia.org? Let me guess, you're also roommates. Checkuser please! Piriczki (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, never got the chance to see that last comment, Judaispriest, until now. I'm pleased to see that you got the worst out of our discussion, addressed here and all, and rightfully so, considering your hitting the low-point, the comment about my being a waste of oxygen = You'd enjoy the news of my receiving cancer, being shot in the head, or drowning and such. So, Gerardw, obviously it is much worse than my preceding comment about my own impression of LedRush's life when he answers my posts within minutes. Much worse, and you know it, no need in saying otherwise. My cursing was never directed towards anyone, and my incivility directed towards others were never attacks, merely metaphors and illustrated impressions. I hope you see, Judais, how your bragging about knowing LedRush makes your bullying cases more shameful, along with wishing other people's deaths. I don't know what I did to have that effect on you two - I had the decency to acknowledge my incivility (I said how I didn't care about being "loud", and I didn't attack as you did) and be consistent in my intentions with the discussion, and I did not shift from offering a source to wishing someone else's death. But, as you so dearly stated, "I will try my level best to ignore uncivility and personal attacks by other users, while being patient and assuming good faith. Thank you very much". Endearing. A piece of practical advice: it would be beneficial to you ethos if you didn't include expressions like "LOL" or "ROFLMAO" with death wishes or bullying, or even attempted contributions to discussions. Revan ltrl (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR

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

User DIREKTOR has donne this revert of an edit of mine with his edit summary being "Rv pro-Chetnik nonsense" which in his words, and just for unninvolved people to understand, is the same as "Rv pro-Nazi nonsense". That is intolerable. And beside, his edit-warring constitutes disruption beasically because he insists in having in the sentence the mentioning of an occupation of one country that didn´t existed yet, exemple, like saying "The occupied United States in 1439." He are the diffs:

• Revision history of the article
• First direktors revert where he also reverts another user for an unrelated issue.
• Second revert with the offensive edit summary.
• Same revert on another article.

The user made some explanation on my talk page explaining the reasons why he insists in inserting a name of a country that didn´t existed in the period events occured in 1941, but I really want to have the issue solved and the user called for his attention for actions such as the ones he made. FkpCascais (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This ([28]) also happend on this talk page just after I posted this section here. I wan´r speculate why, but anybody will probably understand why it happend. FkpCascais (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No need to notify me Fkp, I still have the page on my watchlist. In fact you'll notice I helped you with the report earlier, when you (accidentally?) posted my entire userpage here for some strange reason :) [29].

First of all "just for unninvolved people to understand", "pro-Chetnik" is by no means the same as "pro-Nazi". I must also emphasize that User:FkpCascais (who has up to this point been defending the Chetniks in numerous historical disputes on enWiki), knows this full well.

In addition, my post clearly does NOT refer to the editor himself. I make an effort of following WP:NPA at all times. I had explained the issue in detail - for the tenth time - to User:KkpCascais on his talkpage, which is also the tenth time I have shown that the state he considers not to have existed during WWII did in fact exist (SFR Yugoslavia 1943-1992). In short this is a content dispute, not a Wikiquette issue. The user is another in a long, loong line of editors trying to remove me as an obstacle. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Concur no significant incivility. You could avoid characterizing things as pro-anything, right? Just say "reverting nonsense..." Gerardw (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I will. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Rv nonsence" is that the advice Gerardw has to give? Is there any admin here? FkpCascais (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

WQA is intended for editors attempting to resolve disputes without administrators or admin tools. Some admins monitor the board, I think, but if you to be sure to get admin attention I'd suggest WP:ANI. (Personally I don't think the evidence presented warrants an ANI, but that's just one editor's opinion.) Gerardw (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, but just for record, your "advice" (not sure why) gives green light for that user to continue calling perfectly reasonable edits (or corrections, in this case) "nonsence", failing to provide protection against uncivil behaviour and thus giving protection to disruption. Just to clarify, the edit nature has no doubt whatsoever, the "occupation of Yugoslavia" was donne to Kingdom of Yugoslavia and not SFR Yugoslavia as direktor insists in inserting just because he wants, and the occupation occured in 1941, having in mind that SFR Yugoslavia was recognised only in 1945! So because of all this, you can understand why I have difficulties in understanding your "next time say simply Rv nonsence" advice. I´m not sure about the nature of your relationship with this user (if any) but seems to me that you jumped up a bit precipitated into this assuming wrongly the sides here. To resume my intervention here, since this user uses this strategy purpously whenever he wants to discredit an editor he edit-wars with, I will like to adress that this user direktor has been warned not to use those innadequate uncivil labeling again and to be sanctioned if happends again. Can you please provide that for me? FkpCascais (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I have no ability to impose sanctions on anyone on Wikipedia. See list of administrators. I am merely one of thousands of recently active editors. If DIREKTOR and I have crossed paths in the past, I have no recollection of the encounter; obviously you are welcome to review my edit history. By posting here, you have requested the opinion of any editor who wishes to reply. I have given you mine. Do with it as you wish. Gerardw (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That is why I asked for an admin in first place (experience from ANI reports). That is all I am asking here because I am fed up and insulted by constant repetitive attacks of this kind from this user. FkpCascais (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Calgarykid47

• Calgarykid47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kevin Nash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Michael Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Calgarykid47 has begun insulting and making false accusations against users who dare to change or correct anything that he has decided on his own to be definitive. Shows no interest in working with people to achieve consensus. Examples include deeming the edits of others "garbage" or "idiocy." Also falsely accuses others of "agenda-driven editing." NJZombie (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please notify user of WQA and provide diffs (see Help:Diff). Gerardw (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are the requested diffs....

• Accuses user of "idiocy"

• Uncalled for uncivil language
• Taunting
• Unnecessarily refers to someone's contribution as "fan crap"
• Accusation of "agenda-driven editing

Not that offensive. Nobody has told him that his language and behaviour in some situations are not warrented. Feel that the nominator has too much involvement and has to be fair. Only message is this sarcastic comment from nominator. And it is not helpful nor does it encourage good behviiour nor help resolve a situation. Quote from Clagerykid page by nominator "No hurt feelings here. You're the one who gets bent out of shape and makes personal attacks when somebody dares to change or correct your edits. Congrats on finally wording the Michael Cole info in a way that makes sense though". Feels like we have an on going war between body Zombie and Calgery. Action against both. General slap. Behave. Both as bad winding up bullying etc. Pack it in.

Not a matter of HOW offensive the particular words are. Incivility is incivility. I don't deny my one response but if you had dug a little further, you'd also have seen that I attempted to come to a fair compromise on the Kevin Nash article which was ignored and yet the uncivil attitude continues toward all editors and not just me. So do we encourage it by saying nothing at all and just let it escalate towards outright nastiness? Also, not true that nobody has told him his behavior is unwarranted. His response to anybody telling him ANYTHING is to dismiss it or delete it from his talk page. There's no war whatsoever. Just looking for assistance in letting this guy know that there are ways to make a point and changes on here without being nasty to other users.NJZombie (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I've read his talk page. Nothing apart from your sarcastic comment. And you can also be done for incivlity for winding up. I suggest that you both leave each other alone and allow the situation to cool off. Whilst Calgery gains some skills —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.254.209 (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop removing other peoples' statements from this page and start signing your "anonymous" comments as well.NJZombie (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you stop making false accusations. Nothing from you on Nash's page making a proposal. In fact I'm requesting that you should be banned. For being in civial. Since lieing is under that—Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.254.209 (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)