Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Griswaldo (talk | contribs) at 12:12, 20 April 2012 (→‎Brendon's answers: not likely). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    Shortcut
    Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
    Search the Wikiquette archives

    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:


    Active discussions

    A concerning matter.



    The user TheDarkLordSeth has made claims of operating with an aggressive bias, misrepresentation, accusations of lying, and operating in bad faith. It all began with an error I noticed on the article space in which the same person is listed as both a 'he' and a 'she' in two separate interviews. During the discussion I let slip a well-marked personal observation on the similarity of the statements as reported by various outlets to the witnesses identity. When I admit I am wrong I elaborate why I was wrong with evidence as to which identified witness caller it was and redisplay the critical thinking in what looked like WP:OR. I also state that the credibility of the witness testimony was questioned by AC360 immediately following the interview and critical responses from the show itself, newspapers and police statements which counter the witnesses statements on the interview as being contrary to known information. While I did not mention it myself, I trying to adhere to WP:BLPPRIMARY because the selected witness paraphrased was not neutral and omitted the controversy surrounding those claims. Since he continues to attack me and another editor named Avanu whenever something reflects better on Zimmerman. The full and lengthy discussion can found here. [1] Fills this discussion.[2] And another third major section which broke into further discussion about me here: [3]

    I've previously discussed the matter on his talk page and attempted to explain my feelings about his personal attacks and clarify my argument made by using the source which presents information about the contradictions and issues raised during the interview with that guest. I post diffs showing I am not biased. [4] His response. [5] Where I mention my feelings on the personal attacks. [6] His dismissal of the validity of my arguement and assertion that he doesn't care about my feelings. [7] Trying to explain why it matters and why I feel that way. [8] His dismissal again. [9] Final attempt to explain the self contradiction is important. [10] Then he deletes it here. [11] Two days of no progress on the talk page, I attempt again to clarify. [12] He claims I am making it up despite it being in the source. [13] Final attempt to point it out from me. [14]

    I do not care to argue with this editor endlessly or endure attacks on every post. All I want to do is restore the peace which existed before this. I've twice tried to resolve this on his talk page, but my attempts have failed. The discussion in the talk page has failed and is not the best place for it either. Because of this continuation that is why I am requesting assistance here. Additional note: TheDarkLordSeth made a post on MBisanz's talk page about WP:FORUM, MBisanz disagreed. May I notify this on MBisanz's talk page as he is an admin who responded to TheDarkLordSeth about my post? I do not want to be accused of WP:Canvassing, but he was a party to the interaction

    I take it I'm supposed to post here as well. Feel free to delete if I'm not to take a part in this process. First of all, I'm curious about where I ever used the phrase "aggressive bias" or accused him of lying. I don't remember at all where I said "you're lying." I'm sure the accuser could kindly provide the necessary diffs for his allegations. Second, I'd like to point out that the conflict already moved on by now. We're actually working on it from the start under a section in the Talk page. Third, my objection started with this post: [15] I saw a clear sign of using the Talk page as a forum to evaluate the information in the sources rather than the sources themselves. Two other members agreed with me [16] [17] pointing out that we shouldn't abuse our role as an editor. Chris actually accused others of attacking him as well [18] so I'm a little touched that I'm the one that's focused here. Though, it was mostly me who pursued the discussion on not introducing our own arguments to the article. If you read the "Anonymous eyewitness on AC360" thread on the Talk page you'd see that it's like a forum thread where people are throwing ideas about witness based on their perception of what's logical and what's reasonable. I even tried to address his points and raised an issue with an other witness [19] to see his reaction which he kindly ignored. After that point I no longer assumed good faith. I also read the sources he posted which is how I realized that he was making stuff up. I asked him to kindly quote the sections [20] which he kindly dismissed it. Now, we can all behave as if the Talk page is a blog page but we shouldn't. We can't start dissecting information to use them against each other. The example I always gave was that if a witness involved in a case stated that Earth is flat in his testimony then our job is to say "the witness X stated that Earth is flat" and not try to refute this statement because it sounds illogical to us. That's what I and some other members felt about Chris's and some of Avanu's posts. I believe that's the essence of the matter. We're working on the edits now and I'm genuinely trying to understand what he wants to add. So, if anyone can tell me the point of this I'd appreciate it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As requested. You accuse me of lying with comments like, "Let's not make stuff up, shall we? Your link doesn't even say what you say it says." [21] Though I'll focus on the matters of bias for now. First instance which begins it all. [22] Another. [23] Again. [24] Accusation of Avanu's bias. [25] Again on Avanu. [26] Another bias claim. [27] Though this response sums up the disconnect in our views of Wikipedia nicely. "Second, we're not here to spoon feed people. We're here to convey information not to explain it. So, we say that the funeral director said that he didn't see any bruises on Martin's body. Readers are free to read the whole article and find the contradicting findings from different sources themselves." [28] He doesn't care if the material has conflicting information he wants to represent a selective portion of a primary statement. Even the contradictory statement comes from the source itself. Even after Avanu links to WP:ABOUT and WP:Wikipedia in brief he continues to contest the matter. Avanu's post. [29] His reply. [30] Avanu's comment. [31] Accusation of pressing bias as noted before. [32] While the discussion itself is easier to read then all these diffs, I will if requested post many more. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I'm not gonna comment on accusation of "lying" as the quotes speak for themselves. Second, I'd like to point out that in this particular one [33] I'm not claiming that Avanu is biased but I'm asking why he wrote "Potential bias" in the edit summary section of his previous post. So, please read more carefuly before accusing me. Third, I asked you to show where I accused you of operating with aggressive bias. I never rejected that I accused you of bias. It took me a while to actually make such a claim though and I was not the first one to make that claim about you even in this particular case. The fact that you're focusing on me is quite touching. Fourth, Avanu posting those links doesn't really end the discussion on his claim that we should evaluate what the sources (witness interview footage) say and try to use them accordingly (pointing out the holes in their stories) even if we're citing them for what the witness testimony says. Once again, the links of diffs you provide after that point is not about me claiming that Avanu is biased but about me referring to the "undue material and bias" phrase that Avanu himself used initially. You're accusing me of harrasment and I can only ask you to present these diffs accurately. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    TheDarkSethLord has numerous warnings from admins and other users about civility on his talk page and archive 1. Could someone please offer some advice on how to proceed? I have been avoiding discussion with this user in the mean time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    My past, mostly from 2 years ago, is not relevant this issue. My attempt to address ChrisGualtieri's concerns have been ignored and dismissed by him in the Talk page of the article.[34] TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realize the use of the term "numerous warnings" of civility as well. In my talk page, more precisely the archive page, I have three admins making warnings about civility. All these warnings are about a single edit conflict (my first and last one) I had two years ago. I believe it is important to accuse people accurately and not use such sensational language. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They are numerous and they are for more then one edit. You attacked editors and were topic banned from the Armenian genocide section, and were warned by one user prior on your talk page. When you were blocked you were warned for your incivility by the admin. Dougweller pointed out others as well, not a single edit, but several. Edward J. Erickson aside as well. For the latest, I've warned you and other editors have warned you. Your own responses here are also uncivil because you are attacking me under accusing you accurately when by all accounts you have had a history of it. This article section has no responders, but I'll wait it out some more, I want an end to this issues, but it seems you do not. Accusing another editor of lying is one of the reasons I started this discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The warnings by four admins (I counted three before and I apologize for that) KillerChihuahua, Dougweller, PhilKnight, and Ryan Postlethwaite are all about the same edit conflict that started with reverting the same revert 9 times by me which they gave me a topic ban afterwards two years ago. On the case of Edward J. Erickson, we actually have an other editor calling me a clown which turned out to be a Edward J. Erickson himself who, I talked to in real life, appreciated my concern. On this particular case where you're accusing me, I've already given a sufficient explanation above and I do not appreciate that you're misrepresenting my past to make a case here. As I said before, "the quotes speak for themselves" about the accusation of lying. I never accused you own lying. I never used the word "lie" because I don't know your intent for making a nonfactual statement about a source you used. This case now turned from your accusation of my alleged incivility to your incivility about my profile. I don't appreciate that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on posting here at WQA: if you guys want others to weigh in, you have to stop bickering here. El duderino (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    request to stop personal attacks

    I considered the quote from the Common Rail talk page to be a personal attack, so I notified the editor in his talk page (as recommended by WP:NPA). His impolite response continued the personal attack, so I request that this be investigated please.1292simon (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm sorry. Where are the diffs of the personal attacks? I See
    "shows such a lack of knowledge about the topic" and
    "you obviously don't have a clue about the subject matter"
    WP:NPA doesn't deal with this sort of thing. Was there something specific you had in mind?
    This is the closest which essentially denigrates American youth in what is almost an "ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". However he seems to think that the other editors lack WP:COMPETENCE in the subject matter, and that may be a case of not assuming good faith.
    So what specifically do you want us to look at? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the Gran Turismo references were in violation of "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". 1292simon (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So you report the activities without stipulating which activities. You let me go on a fishing trip and then after I indicate there may be a mild case you agree with me. OK. I've notified the editor, but I suspect that this isn't going anywhere unless you can refute his evidence on the talk page. It's one thing to be discussing facts and then be told you're a not a subject matter expert, it's something entirely other to not be discussing facts and be told that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Walter, thanks for looking into it. Sorry that I described it badly which made it harder for you to investigate. I was trying to follow WP:NPA policy (ie not engage the editor in the article Talk page, just leave a polite message in his talk page, only reported it once I considered it to have occurred more than once. Again, sorry for causing you hassles 1292simon (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't appear to want to discuss so I left a note on his talk page requesting that he focus on content and not contributors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, thanks for your help. 1292simon (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Iterated personal attacks

    [35] clear personal attack

    [36] clear personal attack

    [37] removal of obvious adjective with absurd claim that "radical" is "OR" when referring to the "Radical right"

    [38] He is quick to assert other editors have "insulted" him!

    [39] snark on other articles

    [40] further snark about yet another editor accusing him of "projection"

    [41] accusing an editor of deliberately misrepresenting policy

    [42] You appear to have difficulty understanding what Courser is saying, but I have explained it pretty clearly

    [43] The result of your edit is to inject bias, and place the Tea Party in a more favorable light than it is normally seen. That is POV-pushing. (the edit was to actually quote the source!)

    [44] Collect, do you understand the difference between someone saying "most scholars believe x, but I believe y" and saying "y is true"? Our role is to accurately represent opinions on the basis of which they are held in mainstream sources, not to shill for the Tea Party

    [45] again about another editor And you seem to characterize all writers with whom you disagree as Marxist. This is circular reasoning [46] Instead of coming to this article with a pre-conceived view ("Tea Party good, liberal pointy-headed professors bad") Collect should commit to reflecting sources accurately

    [47] Instead of pushing your views, you should try to ensure that articles represent published views weighted to the degree of their acceptance. You have made your views clear, but we are not here to argue our personal views but to explain how subjects are viewed in mainstream sources. I really wonder at your tenacity to continue to argue points long after clear evidence has been presented to you

    [48] That is original research, the sort of argument one expects in articles from 9/11 truthers and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists

    And that is not even going back a full month of the attacks and snark about multiple editors.

    He also asserts that he knows a lot such as [49] the cited source is wrong

    The Four Deuces has been repeatedly warned about personal attacks - including at [50] his own talk page by another editor entirely just today. Some of the other attackess as well as Paul Siebert have also now been notified. Collect (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an ongoing problem - I have abided by DNFTT enough at this point: Collect, it is unfortunate that you are unable to distinguish between mainstream and fringe theories and I was trying to be helpful. TFD (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC) , I am pointing out the inherent anti-Semitism in the point of view you are pushing. TFD (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC), and on and on and on. Collect (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In the first example, I responded to an editor who said that the article on Nazism was incorrect on Martin Luther's influence. I responded,
    "A footnote quotes an article by Johannes Wallmann in the Lutheran Quarterly (1987) saying, "The assertion that Luther's expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment have been of major and persistent influence in the centuries after the Reformation, and that there exists a continuity between Protestant anti-Judaism and modern racially oriented anti-Semitism, is at present wide-spread in the literature; since the Second World War it has understandably become the prevailing opinion." Do you have any sources that question this statement about prevailing opinion? TFD (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)"[51]
    Collect then misrepresented my remarks in three separate postings:
    "...All of which is somewhat in countervention to your assertion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)"[52]
    "...My first comments were about TFD's poorly chosen "claims."... I trust you noted the sources I provided above (in agreement with you) - that the Catholic basis for anti-Semitism seems quite important, contrary to TFD's assertions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)"[53]
    "...You specifically cited a source as "prevailing opinion" that Luther was the one who is behind modern anti-Semitism.... I provided substantial sources (note Paul's and Kim's comments thereon) which clearly countered your assertion about prevailing opinion....Collect (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)"[reply]
    Collect imisrepresents my posting by saying that I made claims or assertions, when I merely mentioned the sources for the information in the article. I certainly did not cite a source as prevailing opinion, but cited a source that made a statement about prevailing opinion. This attempt to associate editors with the opinions expressed in sources they provide creates a battleground atmosphere. The result is to confuse other editors and start an argument that detracts from article improvement. Note that a discussion about Nazism, Martin Luther, Protestants, Catholics and anti-Semtism is likely to attract strong opinions and Collect is attempting to stir up a hornet's nest, and create discord on the talk page rather than improvement of the article. Collect has a pattern of similar behavior accross a range of articles.
    TFD (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In the next example, Collect says, "Again you assert that anyone to the right of the Republican Party is "radical" which is absurd.... Collect (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)"[54] Of course I said no such thing and Collect is again misrepresenting me as he has done continually throughout the discussion on that page. TFD (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh? Examine the edit:
    [55] in order to have the first sentence of an article read:
    The radical right consists of American political movements that are more conservative than the main political parties.
    How can anyone read that as not saying that anyone to the right of political parties is "radical"? Note that TFDs edit was to remove "radically" from the sentence, so the intent is crystal clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "radical right" was coined by Daniel Bell, {Martin Lipset]] and others to describe groups to the right of the Republican Party, and is the most commonly used term, although some writers reject it. You are aware of this because you posted extensive comments on the talk page and it was repeatedly explained to you. (See archives.[56]) and voted to have the article deleted. You throw a loop by claiming both that these groups are not racial yet adding to the lead that they are. TFD (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In the next example, I removed "radically" from the lead of an article with the notation "Remove OR".[57] Collect had added the term description which does not appear in sources, hence is original research. Certainly not a personal attack. TFD (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The entire sentence is unsourced - so how can adding "radically" to a sentence which starts with "Radical" be OR? Amazing! Collect (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Re Collect: A few of the comments could have been phrased a bit more politely. However, pointing out differences of opinion is not a personal attack, but a necessary part of any robust discussion. In my experience, you do indeed seem to suffer from reading things out of context and interpreting them strongly flavoured by a particular world view and preconceived notion that is often at odds with academic consensus. As far as I'm concerned, if you continue to argue your point of view, you must accept criticism of your arguments. We can "tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it", but you cannot get a free path by claiming hurt from legitimate if sometimes forceful argument. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    TFD also attacks other editors, StSch -- not just me, and this is an ongoing problem of his, noted by others. Attacking the messenger seems quite odd here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder how anyone can treat Collect, whether you lack basic reading comprehension or are being deliberately obtuse, your continued misrepresentation of other editors' statements is very annoying and a disservice to other editors and I am pointing out the inherent anti-Semitism in the point of view you are pushing and That is original research, the sort of argument one expects in articles from 9/11 truthers and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists as simply "robust discussion"! Collect (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been on the receiving end of Tdf's barbs on several articles i edit. [58] The source was an encyclopedia from 1901, which I supplied the page number. To this day the mention of this early National Socialist is not included in the article about such. "The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to present original theories not previously published. I suggest you remove your comments while are disruptive and boring. TFD (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)" Darkstar1st (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You were pushing your theory that nazism is a form of socialism by citing an encyclopedia from 1901 (years before the Nazi Party was formed.) The result was long discussions but no changes to the article. In another case you found a 19tb century re-print of an 18th century book, where the typesetter had misspelt a synonym for scholasticist as "socialist", then claimed you had a copy of the original in a castle in the Czech Republic and that it really did say socialist, although that made no sense in the context of the writing. That particular pointless exercise drew in a number of editors. TFD (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I was referring to a private library in the building, not castle, where I live in Budapest Hungary, not Czech Rep., but the same book exist in the National Library as well[59]. You seem intent on excluding mention of an early national socialist from the article on Nazism, which is fine, if you did not also argue to keep the redirect from national socialist. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Another example of personal attacks is at The discussion about sockpuppetry can be found here. You admitted sockpuppetry but no action was taken because you had registered an account. TFD (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC) The problem is that the SPI case specifically resulted in an IP registering is not sockpuppetry. meaning TFD knowingly accused a registered editor of sockpuppetry who had been cleared of that charge - which, last I checked, is a "personal attack" Cheers. Can anyone doubt that such an accusation after the editor was cleared is an impermissible personal attack? Collect (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That was a reply to another editor at ANI who had written, "you (falsely) accused me of being a Sock Puppet, and as soon as only a couple of days ago you were (again falsely needless to add) accusing me of being a dynamic IP, which sounds a pretty serious allegation to me, even though you knew full well that the IP in question could not have been me".[60] The closing administrator at SPI wrote, "I'm closing this for now, as ERIDU has admitted that the IPs are theirs".[61] Collect should be aware of this because he participated in the SPI discussion. TFD (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no actionable complaint here. The provided diffs show strong but not destructive behavior. Binksternet (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Since my name has been mentioned here, I would like to make some explanations. Yes, I advised (not "warned") TFD to modify his post, however, this my step was dictated by the desire to protect this good faith user from possible Collect's attack, which, as anticipated, would follow. This thread serves as an indication that that my prediction was totally correct. Collect is really a problem editor, who repeatedly misinterpret reliable sources and the viewpoints of other users (including myself). Therefore, I totally endorse the main thesis of TFD posts addressed to Collect, although I strongly disagree with their form. TFD should have to be more polite.
    In connection to that, I hope that, since the problem is not with TFD, but with Collect, our community will advise Collect to seriously think about his editorial pattern.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Collect continually misrepresents what other editors have said and continues to do so here. The result is lengthy unproductive discussion on talk pages. Also, it is discouraging to editors who wish to make positive contributions. Another pattern is the shotgun approach of providing numerous references with little or no explanation of their relevance or context. That requires time from conscientious readers. Could explain why he does this and how he plans to proceed in future. TFD (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Collect is canvassing for this discussion: User:R-41,[62] Paul Siebert,[63] Lionelt,[64] and ERIDU-DREAMING[65] Collect is in violation of the behavioral guideline which says, "Inappropriate notification is generally considered to be disruptive.... Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions.... Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking." TFD (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Absurd - especially since notification is required here if a person is mentioned. Or do you think I notified Paul in order for him to lace into you? LOL -- REQUIRED notifications are not Canvassing. Period. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I just stumbled on this after looking for a similar report that I have just recommended be moved here - So I will comment - all the diffs at the top of the report are of User:The Four Deuces demeaning repeatedly User:Collect. Such repeated demeaning comments, repeated and over a length of time are a form of bullying that are clearly a form of personal attack. - they are some awful examples, but its the repeated and continues method of the attack over a period of time that is the biggest problem - I see the user is wiki lawyering his way here and has failed even for a split second to admit his comments were out of order. I would like to ask User:The Four Deuces, what is so hard about admitting your comments were rude and demeaning and you shouldn't have been so rude and you will be more polite in future? - Youreallycan 17:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see both sides of this issue. OTOH, the articles involved are controversial and often generate heated comment. OTOH, I agree with YRC that TFD's principal problem is the cumulative nature of his comments. Thus, I propose that TFD doesn't have to go so far as to admit his comments were "rude and demeaning" but he could agree to rein in his comments in the future. At the end of the day, these sorts of comments are simply not constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, although you usually have problems with your reading comprehension you amazingly seem to have understood the simple point I was iterating. (that is an example of how its done, comment by comment a user repeatedly demeans a user with snides and low level insults) if User:The Four Deuces will at least see the problem with repeatedly commenting in such a way in regards to a single user and will then agree to rein in his comments in the future that would be a great starting point at reconciliation and good faith collaboration moving forward. Youreallycan 18:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, what a sly way to get in a personal jab, and on WQA no less. Why don't you be a good fellow and strike it?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not a personal jab at all , and I am sad to see that your interpretation of our relationship is so low. Its an example of how such is done, and not personal to you at all. - Its an example of all the diffs at the top of this report and you immediately ask me to strike it - , if you focus on the report what will you ask the reported user to do? Youreallycan 19:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish we weren't airing this here, who is the you in "although you usually have problems with your reading comprehension you amazingly seem to have understood the simple point I was iterating"?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Its a fictional example of the actions and diffs presented of the person being reported - why you think it is something I would say to you after all our interaction on and off wiki is beyond me and as I said, saddens me. - Youreallycan 19:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I accept YRC's explanation as to what he meant, I think it's a major stretch to read it that way. Must be my usual lack of reading comprehension. After his explanation, I attempted to obtain permission from him to remove our side discussion, but he declined. That prompted this hopefully final comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a long history of dealing with Youreallycan under his previous identity as account, as has Collect, which he failed to mention, and notice that he has been blocked three times this year for "Personal attacks or harrassment". TFD (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And what sort of horsefeathers are you purveying with that comment? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Its all about others problems then is it, you have acted completly correct. No response to this comment above, "if User:The Four Deuces will at least see the problem with repeatedly commenting in such a way in regards to a single user and will then agree to rein in his comments in the future that would be a great starting point at reconciliation and good faith collaboration moving forward." ? - Youreallycan 20:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In the first example provided by Collect I was responding to his misrepresentation of my posting, which he falsely said was a "claim" or "assertion" by me. Why do you think Collect does this and what approach should other editors take? TFD (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not looked at Collects comments prior to the diffs that are reported here. I think users should attempt to take as friendly as possible approach and treat all users as friends - rather say, "please allow me to explain myself better" than say (as some of the diffs presented in this report), "your educational standard is repeatedly failing to understand my message" - You will be the winner and better still, all around you will benefit. Youreallycan 20:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) In response to your specific question, you could have said what you just said - tackle what you thought was Collect's false claim, rather than go on about obtuse and reading comprehension, which wasn't constructive. In addition, you've picked one example out of many, which ignores YRC's valid point that there is a cumulative effect to your comments that cannot be explained away by allegedly debunking one.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Collect has applied a shotgun approach taking comments out of context and going back years. He continually misrepresents what I and other editors say, which is very annoying and disruptive to talk pages. None of his examples stand up. Take for example his third posting, where he complains about my edit summary, "(Undid revision 487202500 by Collect (talk) Remove OR)". He had inserted text that was not supported by sources and in fact misrepresents the subject. In fact Collect has continually misrepresented the article over the last year. See for example his discussion thread, "major problems": "This article is entirely synthesis and original research, presented in a non-neutral fashion, using coatrack to a vast extent, using absolutely zero sources verifiable by users, and relying almost entirely on a single source."[66] He then tagged the article, saying, "(seems full of "original research" and synthesis as a start, relying almost entirely on one source, no internet verifiablility whatsoever)"[67] At the time the article relied on thirteen sources. Notice too the double standard. It's fine if Collect calls something OR, but a personal attack if someone else does.
    Take his next example, "He is quick to assert other editors have "insulted" him!" He links to where I wrote, "Insulting other editors is unhelpful". It was in reply to an editor who wrote, "I looked at the Talk page for the far left politics article, and it seems we have a few of the usual suspects using editorial tricks to block information which makes the Left look bad and the Right look good."[68] Could you explain what you find unmeasured about my reply?
    TFD (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh, you apparently just don't get it or your dislike of Collect is too pronounced for you to be conciliatory. The fourth diff you note was intended partly as irony. In other words, you tell another editor it is not helpful to insult other editors (true), and yet you (arguably) insult other editors yourself. This board is not intended to work out the the many content conflicts between you and Collect - it is intended to get editors to respect other editors in their interaction with them. What would be so hard about telling Collect that you will keep the personal stuff out of your future comments and just focus on issues? What do you want, some sort of no admission of liability, like in legal settlements? Come on, YRC is right about another thing, you will benefit from being more flexible and less confrontational.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Here by the way is a selection of comments that Collect made recently at Talk:Radical right before I complained about his general behavior rather than addressing specific edits.

    • that is insufficient for your edit war to insert this material
    • absurd position, as anyone can see
    • it is an abuse of Wikipedia to so grossly misuse a source utterly
    • This is an abuse of how cites are supposed to work
    • but next time I see such a gross abuse of a source, I suspect it will not go to NOR/N
    • Um -- ever read "Alice in Wonderland"?
    • the perversion of the source is improper.
    • It is a perversion of WP:V and WP:RS top so grossly misuse a source
    • By the way, when making egregiously errant claims
    • Courser's direct quote making it clear that he does not consider the Tea Party to be "radical right" is clearly thus acceptable to you, of course.
    • As usual you insist on misusing sources... and I suppose to you, who KNOWS the TRUTNH, the NYT must be wrong. In fact, every source is wrong except for what you know is the [[WP:TRUTH}truth]]. Has it occurred to you that what you know to be the truth, just might be wrong?
    • Meanwhile, I hope readers will see that the mainstream sources do not make the claims TFD here asserts he knows are true.
    • Sorry TFD -- when one totally misquotes a source ofr misleadingly uses a source to imply what it actually does not only not imply, but contradicts, is always going to be "strange" to someone.
    • I fear you are too sure of the WP:TRUTH... that when your chosen source states the opposite that you blame the messengers of that fact.
    • What an amazing claim -- when I use the source you presented and used it honestly, you now think Courser is a minority viewpoint! LOL!
    • weird to the nth power!
    • The term is a Humpty-Dumptyism exercise at best, and a fount of POV-pushing at worst
    • is nuts.
    • An unabated misuse of Lipset.
    • As for the silly suggestion

    I have tried to work cooperatively with Collect, but he has a confrontational approach and objects to including opinions in articles with which he disagrees. TFD (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    i have found several comment where you unilaterally determine a talk page comment is not helpful, therefore disruptive. this may intimidate some editors from joining the talk page discussion for fear of making a less than productive comment as determined by you. perhaps you could withhold your opinion of others and their comments some. many of your comments cite wp:policy, like or, or npov, why not shift focus from "hall monitor" to that of mere participant. after a while you will be noticed by others and nominated for admin, once you are an admin, your help would be received with less friction. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Collect writes, "He also asserts that he knows a lot such as [69] the cited source is wrong". As one can see from the discussion thread, the article misrepresented a quote from the Bible, Leviticus 20:13. Another editor said, "The cited source states otherwise" to which I replied, "The cited source is wrong." The source provided was an article in the Daily Herald.[70] Another editor later added a Fox News which quoted the biblical sentence correctly.[71] I did not assert that I "know[] a lot". Sources may be wrong, the Bible sentence is well known and easily checked, and the sentence was misstated in the article. TFD (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    "Two bald men fighting over a comb". One of them would do well to read and reflect on WP:boomerang and also the Behavior that is unacceptable/Do not misrepresent other people section of WP:TPNO. Writegeist (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Try to not chase me again, WG. [72] shows him using a "mugshot" in a BLP - reverting my proper removal, [73] shows him removing a POV tag, [74] shows his ongoing snark about YRC, [75] as nauseam dating back to his continuing content on his talk page posted [76], [77] his idea of "civility" (I think calling an editor a "wanker" is less than civil?), and his massive screed at [78] where he interpolates his opinions freely about me - and has kept it on his talk page for three years. And drops in here, of all amazing things. And specializes primarily in Palin and Buster7 <g>. Cheers, but the "boomerang" might even head your way, WG. You have also namecalled, shown long-term animus to others, and retained attack material for three years on your user talk page. Collect (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • BlueRobe, you should read about the subject. In fact the whole point of Wikipedia is that people like yourself, who are ignorant of topics, may read articles and elucidate themselves. Other editors are not here in order to provide private tutorials. TFD (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • So my question is why you continue to place objections you are well aware are insulting to everyone's intelligence, including your own. TFD (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Although you may believe that you are striking a blow for your version of libertarianism all you are doing is persuading us that your groupuscule is misleading and sacrifices honesty. TFD (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Born2cycle obviously ignores what other editors write and is wasting peoples' time. TFD (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Darkstar1st (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 12:14, 15 April 2012
    Look out, TFD, they've decided that you're the next target! Yeah, this should be closed as unuseful. Hipocrite (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep -- your idea of a constructive comment is Yes, you killed your opposition, so now you can whitewash the article -- accusing an editor if killing another editor really shows a grown-up attitude. Collect (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What a disruptive WP:BATTLE comment - your comment creates an us and them mentally and then asserts that one side has decided deliberately to target a user. - your comment fails completely in all constructive ways. - Youreallycan 14:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments have not helped much either. You are totally ignoring the disruptive nature of Collect's misrepresentation of other editors comments and sources. What I see is frustration from TFD from numerous attempts of dealing wit Collect and their misrepresentations. Not to mention the canvassing, which is listed above. You don't purposely list editors going back weeks, months and in Darkstar's case over a year and a half, without canvassing motives. Is this WQA or an RFC/U? I tried ignoring this silliness, so it could vanish as it should, there is nothing here that warrants any action. Dave Dial (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Amazingly enough, I do not note any interaction with you at all. And almost all the diffs I gave are within the single past month making your assertion that I went back very far a tad weird. Collect (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I never asserted that we have had interactions. Your response is yet another attempt by you to misrepresent the situation. Your addition of ERIDU-DREAMING(which was resolved more than a month ago) and Lionelt(someone who is in charge of a conservative project and has many page watchers), who is not even mentioned in any of your links, is a clear attempt at canvassing in order to stack more editors who would take "your side" in any dispute with TFD. Perhaps this issue should be moved to ANI. Dave Dial (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the part on this noticeboard REQUIRING people who are mentioned to be notified? If I did NOT notify people, I can be sure that some would attack me for that as well -- so I OBEYED THE RULES. Cheers - now can we get off the inapt charge? Collect (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Cannot fully agree. I think some action is needed. As you correctly noted, TFD impoliteness is a result of their frustration from numerous attempts of dealing with Collect. That explains their behaviour, but it cannot serve as an excuse. TFD should be advised to be more polite, simply to save our time: we could use the time we have wasted here much more productively. However, by writing that, I do not imply that the main problem here is with TFD. In actuality, it is Collect who is a primary reason for this incident. Collect frequently misinterprets what reliable sources say and what other user writes, and it is hard to tell if that is just a problems with his reading comprehension or he is doing that deliberately (I believe I can write that here, because this thread is devoted not to Collect's and TFD's contributions, but to their behaviour). Therefore, I think it would be correct to warn Collect about the need to treat the texts written by others more seriously.
    In summary, whereas TFD's behaviour insults some concrete persons, Collect's behaviour is an insult of common sense, and he definitely deserves a warning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Shuw me where I engaged in name-calling, Paul. In one month, TFD repeatedly did so - and yet you now seem to deny the clear warning you gave him about doing so <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    An excellent illustration to my thesis about your problems with reading comprehension. The main theses of my previous post was that TFD engaged in unneeded name-calling as a result of Collect's misbehaviour, who, being formally polite, repeatedly and persistently misinterprets the words of other. As a result, Collect responded with the request to provide the examples of name-calling from his side. This is exactly the same behavioural pattern that caused TFD's frustration.
    Collect, you have serious problems with understanding what other says, and that your behaviour is much more insulting for reasonable users that direct insults. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Collect, you said that I repeatedly engaged in name-calling in one month. That is inaccurate and you have provided no evidence for that statement.
    Also, could you please explain the meaning of your comment above: "He also asserts that he knows a lot such as [79] the cited source is wrong". [The discussion was about whether a source had correctly quoted a well-known sentence in the Bible, Leviticus 20:13]. TFD (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire' cavil about Bible translations was whether "those" refers to "men" or to "men and women" in the translation. IMHO, the distinction is not worth a farthing, but some appeared to regard the word as a matter of life and death as to what is "right." Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not true. TFD (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is recent example of Collect misstating facts when he discusses article text on a discussion page. The text follows favorable opinions expressed by Arthur C. Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute. I present the article text and the discussion thread set up by Collect.

    Article text: "Academic and critic, Noam Chomsky, has compared the Tea Party movement to "late Wiemar Germany." He says that while the Tea Party members have "real grievances" and shouldn't be mocked, the movement has scapegoated real problems, such as stagnating real wages, to liberals much like how the Nazis directed blame for problems in Germany to the "Jews and the Bolsheviks."[226]
    Discussion thread: FORA.tv RS for contentious claim: Is a "collection of videos" and is no more RS than Youtube is for contentious claims (to wit - that the TPM the movement has scapegoated real problems, such as stagnating real wages, to liberals much like how the Nazis directed blame for problems in Germany to the "Jews and the Bolsheviks) which likely hits Godwin's Law squarely. Ought this edit be removed? Collect (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    That is an incorrect description. Fora is used as a source for opinions expressed by Noam Chomsky. It is a reliable source for what Chomsky said. TFD (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    Go to RS/N for that claim -- in the meantime, the opinion from Chomsky, invoking Nazism, is UNDUE as well here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[80]

    TFD (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Um -- the fact that I find calling people directly or indirectly "Nazis" is relevant how here? Or are you arguing that calling people "Nazis" is not "contentious"? What exactly does this post try to show? Do you elide the long passage following the Nazi accusation? Presented here so folks can jusdge just how evil I am and how balanced the article is with the lone mention of Brooks followed by aht Nazi accusation and then this:
    In an April 2009 New York Times opinion column, contributor Paul Krugman wrote that "the tea parties don't represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They're AstroTurf (fake grassroots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey."[1][unreliable source] The same month, then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) stated "It's not really a grassroots movement. It's astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class"[2][3]
    Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is a weight issue, then you should have mentioned that in your post, rather than claiming it was a sourcing issue and representing that the article compared the Tea Party movement to Nazis. Now you are implying that I have stated a position on the neutrality issue, which I have not. TFD (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is another recent example of Collect's non-collegial writing:

    First - I only noted the current court result. Second, I had thought Russia during WW II was indeed Communist, but if you say it was not Communist during WW II, then I assume you know the "truth." Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[81]

    TFD (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Meh -- you posted [82]
    What do you think we should put in? The Katyn massacre is already in the article and Russia is not a Communist regime. TFD (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider my response quite reasonable as an answer to a point which had no relevance to my post. BTW, do you plan to stalk my every post on Wikipedia? Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're going to dish out the harsh words in disagreement, then you better be prepared to take some back in stride. And ending disagreeable posts with the incongruous "Cheers" comes off as more than a bit disingenuous. El duderino (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Cheers" is common on Wikipedia. Like over 200K times. And I aver that my post made no attack nor was in any way less than civil. Nor even "harsh." Cheers. And have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A false allegation of 'stalking' even in half-jest is not civil. Neither is your overuse of sarcasm when you must know that it can be easily misconstrued, especially here at WQA. You're the one crying foul in this thread because someone else chooses to disagree with you. Heed your own advice and brew some yourself, maybe take a break from arguing so much since you can't handle the heat. El duderino (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Collect, it is clear for every reasonable person that each your new response acts against you. It is in your interests to stop that asap.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno, Paul, that's a pretty broad statement, but, in any event, this thread has been going on too long. That in and of itself would be okay if anything constructive was being accomplished, but I don't see it. All I see are analyses of TFD's comments, analyses of Collect's comments, analyses of TFD's comments about Collect's comments, and analyses of Collect's comments about TFD's comments. Venting may have its place as a form of therapy, but it doesn't seem to be working.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The statement might be broad, but I believe my main point is clear, Collect's behaviour on this page successfully refutes his main thesis, namely, that good faith Collect is being insulted and attacked by bad faith TFD. The longer this thread becomes, the more it works against him, so the only reasonable thing he could do is to close this thread as an initiator. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not a big fan of TFD's editing, and I think he is highly prone to inserting his POV in articles. But, personal attacks? I just don't buy it. Most of the points indicated above are hardly worthy of being called "attacks" or "bullying". Perhaps a bit snarky, but hardly worthy of him being subject to any type of discipline.JoelWhy (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This board is not intended to provoke sanctions. It is intended to discuss one editor's complaints that another editor has treated him with disrespect (WP:CIV: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect."). That also means that it doesn't have to rise to the level of a personal attack to be a legitimate issue to bring here. That said, although I may not agree with your analysis of the situation or Paul's analysis (or anyone else's for that matter), I do agree that the thread has outlived its usefulness. Rather than "close" it, as Paul suggests, my recommendation would simply be for TFD and Collect to stop contributing - it will then die of its own accord.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I proposed to close it because I have no hope that any uninvolved user will have a desire to read all of that. However, your recommendation for TFD and Collect to stop contributing is also a good option.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Disagreement (mostly) based on recriminatory Bad-Faith accusations

    Involved editors:

    Involved Pages:


    • Summary

    The thing is User:Griswaldo has been accusing me (Brendon) of being a "Veteran Duck" and also of creating a "single-purpose account" (diff) first on my talk-page, and later in his talk-page. He wants me to disappear (diff) from Wikipedia based on that sheer presumption that I'm simply "too knowledgeable" to be a newcomer. I told him that I don't like his approach because it was primarily predicated upon bad-faith assumptions and to leave me alone (diff). Yet he has dogmatically clung onto his belief. I refrained from using any impolite word against him knowingly. Yet, he was totally against my behavior for which I've submitted clarifications multiple times along with "if apologies". FYI, I gained my knowledge about WP:POLICIES by visiting Wikipedia for various reasons. Is that my fault here? Could I do more to gain his trust?

    [All one has to do is just read the talk pages mentioned above, to understand what is going on]

    • What I did wrong?

    Maybe It's my reaction/retorts that upset him. I really don't know.

    He claims that I was assailing people with personal comments in other discussions about non-related topic, but in his list (he has a list of my "personal comments" on his talk page) I couldn't find many personal attacks.

    He also claims that I'm "quacking like a veteran duck" (I didn't like the tone even a bit and moreover the essay that he was referring to was WP:DUCK and it contains personal opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies. That's why I am not so pleased with Griswaldo's comments).

    Perhaps my fault was that I asked Belorn on his user-talk page to tell me how to report somebody for harassing me, albeit I didn't take anybody's name. It was just a precautionary measure. Because I am really not a "veteran".
    [I hang around Wikipedia whenever I'm free. That's why I know some things about Policies (not much!)]

    • What have I done to try and fix the situation before reporting it here?
    1. I tried to calmly sort the issue out, although he didn't seem willing at all.
    2. I gave him "if apologies" (although I was unsure if it was truly me who needed to apologize).
    3. I tried to dispel his doubts

    (I don't know if I tried hard enough though).

    • What I hope to achieve here?

    I believe vindictiveness doesn't help anyone and thus I want to gain his trust that I'm not here on Wikipedia with any bad intent.

    Regards,
    Brendon
    04:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion about above

    Brendon, why is it that you've chosen not to use the large amounts of eye-catching formatting that you have been using everywhere else (to the great annoyance of other editors) here? Is it because you know it's annoying and you don't want to annoy people here when you're asking for help?Griswaldo (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You claim "I'm not here on Wikipedia with any bad intent," but what I'm suggesting, quite clearly, is that you're doing something that is against the rules. One could genuinely think that socking is not ill intentioned and one could also cleverly believe that no one could prove otherwise, but the fact remains that its the behavior itself that is against the rules and not the intentions behind it. So maybe it would be better for you to directly address the supposed behavior instead of your intentions. So?Griswaldo (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The explicit/implicit presuppositions don't seem really helpful to me.

    See, here I need not catch anybody's eyes because my personal problems are unimportant as compared to the demands to ignore paramount Pillars of Wikipedia. What happens to me after this discussion is really immaterial (as it only serves personal interests) but what happens after that RfC is far more important (because it will probably impact on the Wikipedia community collectively). Brendon is here 10:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Which is precisely why your clearly illicit editing of the RfC is completely against core Wikipedia principles and against the community's trust in the notion that the decisions we make about our project are made as fairly as possible. You're tainting the process. And now you seem to be suggesting that once you've effectively influenced the process who knows what will happen to you. Perhaps you'll just disappear ... just awful.Griswaldo (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would request anybody to visit the pages he is referring to and to see for themselves If I've been extraordinarily illicit (i.e. see if there were some extenuating circumstances or not).

    And even if it were true, it won't justify a completely needless bad-faith accusation on my talk-page even after my expression of disapproval for the approach used (this is what we're discussing here).

    One crime doesn't justify another. Brendon is here 11:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    On the contrary. Certain behaviors are only crimes in certain contexts. Approaching someone who is socking about their socking is not a crime. If I'm mistaken, if your quacking turns out to be nothing more than a very odd series of coincidences then I'll happily apologize. But it is a well established convention here (indeed its also part of many policies) that vandals, disruptive editors and those who are sock puppeting are not afforded the privilege of hiding behind policies meant to apply to normal law-abiding citizens. For instance 3RR doesn't apply when reverting vandalism, and so on and so forth. I note that you have still not addressed any of my concerns about your behavior.Griswaldo (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Approaching someone who is socking about their socking is not a crime." - but doing that without conclusive evidence is Petitio Principii logical fallacy. An obnoxious one, I must say. Brendon is here 11:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I do have circumstantial evidence. It's presented below. WP:DUCK may just be an essay but it is one that is invoked frequently (by admins), and it is invoked because often there is no material evidence of socking. I see you're getting more joy out of arguing smugly about this than simply proving, or even asserting your own innocence. Add that to the list of behavioral circumstantials -- its typical of rightly accused socks. People who are innocent react quite differently to being wrongly accused. For one they try hard to dispel the accusation, not to evade it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not a sock, man. Come on! Besides "circumstantial evidence" is not "conclusive evidence" that I'm a sock. Furthermore, repeated claims of me being a sock, looks like a gratuitous personal attack here (that's what I'm complaining about). To claim that I've been uncivil as an answer to that (implying that my objection is baseless), would be tu qouque fallacy.
      I guess, you can always start a RfC exclusively for clearing your doubts about my incivility on other pages (apart from your and my talk-pages), but it's not the topic here.
    • Oh I see, are you implying that I'm a sock just because you didn't like my behavior? (It's a question not a statement)
      In that case, your claim is unquestionably hollow. Brendon is here 11:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • More of the same type of argument which addresses nothing I've said just attempts to dismiss it. Your incivility lead me to consider the possibility that you were a sock of some kind because you baited me with it like a troll does. Comments like these are also more evidence of the fact that you're not new here by the way. Of course given your uncivil behavior its also ironic that you started a request here about someone else.Griswaldo (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Your incivility lead me to consider the possibility that you were a sock" — really? Wow! How convenient! Brendon is here 12:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply from Griswaldo

    Let's cut to the chase. Brendon is not a newbie who started editing less than a month ago. What gives it away?

    • His immediate knowledge of Wiki formatting (user page, talk page edits, and signature).
    • The way in which he discusses policy. By this I don't simply mean knowledge but a sense of familiarity that comes from prolonged exposure - e.g. [83], [84]
    • Likewise the way in which he discusses Wikipedia in general (often quoting policy while doing it), as if he has prolonged experience with the project and the community and knows what's best for it from that experience - e.g. [85], [86]
    • And most damningly, the fact that he's an SPA who only edits a community discussion. In fact he created his account on the very day that this discussion started!!!

    The only area Brendon edits is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images and that page is littered with more examples like the ones above, but it's also littered with Brendon's uncivil and battleground behavior. Here are some examples:

    • In one of his first comments he writes: "Even the proposal of such an action seems absolutely disgusting," and "Wikipedia must not mollycoddle pander to the ever-increasing, unreasonable and incessant demands of any religion (no matter how much is its penchant for gratuitous communal violence)." (Note -- the strikethrough of mollycoddle was in his very original comment, and not a later edit).
    • A day later he added this gem: "If — heaven forbid — any restriction is placed on the free use of any Image solely based on the fear of upsetting some over-sensitive lunatics, it will contravene not only WP:NOTCENSORED, but also other policies namely WP:NPOV, WP:PROFANE, etc. Why is this so hard to understand? AFAIK, Wikipedia is not an Islamic proselytising website that it has to comply with the quranic embargoes."
    • This type of commentary has continued throughout. Just the other day he wrote this on the talk page: "What's your intent behind bringing this nonsensical drivel into the current discussion?"

    In the last example I asked Brendon to be civil to the other editor, and instead of apologizing or striking his comment he simply made excuses. More recently, and just prior to my wising up on what was going on with him he accused me of "trying to" mislead people at the RfC. When I told him that's not WP:AGF, he again did not apologize and made more evasions while referring to my "excessively captious attitude, false-reasoning and chicaneries." Because of the aggressive manner in which he was engaging me and others I actually found myself replying in kind, and deleting my own comment when I realized, quite frankly, that I was most likely being trolled.

    Because of what I describe above I went to Brendon's talk page to ask him about the evidence of his Wikipedia experience and about his motives. He has evaded those questions and instead is now insinuating that I'm harassing him. Ever since it was clear that he didn't want me on his talk page the conversation has continued on mine. I want to make it clear also that I did not ask Brendon to dissappear. What I said was conditional: "If you're a community banned user then disappear completely.If you are a topic banned editor then please stop editing the topics you are banned from with a second account. If you have another legitimate account then please stick to using that one. Cheers." Now the fact that he claims I asked him to disappear logically means one of two things. 1) He's misrepresenting what I said or 2) he's actually a community banned editor. Either way it's not good. I also want to add that the reason I approached him in the first place is because this is a serious problem. Community banned and topic banned editors are constantly showing up at various community venues to distort the process. Some of them are just vandals but others have an agenda beyond simply trolling. It needs to stop. And in case anyone believes Brendon for a second ask yourself why on earth a newbie editor would show up and engage single minded in a community process only. It just doesn't happen. When it happens you can bet your bottom dollar that it's a sock puppet.Griswaldo (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Brendon's answers

    "Brendon for a second ask yourself why on earth a newbie editor would show up and engage single minded in a community process only" - I am interested in Islamic affars and especially Muhammad article and by chance, I visited that Muhammad page, that was after one week of RfC's initiation (I didn't start commenting until a week after commencement of the said RfC) and if I'm not mistaken, a message was also displayed when I was setting up my preferences or settings or something I honestly don't remember. Brendon is here 12:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes but you made an account on the day it was created. Why did you make an account that day? Your story doesn't add up. You learned about the RfC from the Muhammad page, which you say are very interested in, but you had no knowledge of this situation the numerous times you visited before making your own account? You just innocently happened upon it a week after coincidentally starting an account the day the RfC started? Not likely. Also, how is it that you knew what an "edit-war" was the very first day you started editing? Again not likely. Your reticence to making up a story until now was well founded because the larger the lie gets the harder it is to keep track of or to make sense of. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    One small request from Brendon

    I think, Griswaldo is repeatedly committing

  • tu quoque (heavily),
  • non-sequitur (false exclusionary disjunct),
  • petitio principii

    fallacies all at the same time.

    Griswaldo is not quoting me in proper context and is neglecting to post my replies in their entirety. So my request is, please do visit the talk pages (and if needed all other relevant pages which are being cited by Griswaldo) before coming to any conclusion. Brendon is here 11:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes please do go to those pages. You'll see many more examples of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL violations.Griswaldo (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "You'll see many more examples of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL violations." - again you presume what they will find. Brendon is here 10:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the place

    If you have reason to believe of socking I would go and make a case for WP:SPI and let a checkuser or another clerk handle the matter from then on. The accusations made are serious and offensive, whether or not they are true. Wikiquette Assistance doesn't cover sockpuppetry and given the unusual nature of a community RfC that is plastered on everywhere it doesn't automatically equate to a sock puppet. Circumstancial evidence is no reason to go back and forth here, especially since the RfC deals with an ArbCom Case, it is an area in which sanctions can be imposed easily. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Except I didn't bring this here, Brendon did. If he is going to complain here about my suggestion that he's a sock then of course I have every right to explain myself here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    "The goal of this page is to request assistance in moving disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour - users can seek assistance regarding impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors."

    This is a place to resolve disputes, is it not? And that is what I am trying to do. So, I believe, for my part I chose the right place.
    However, this is not a right place for anyone who wants to continue dispute as opposed to resolving it, which is what perhaps Griswaldo here is trying to do. Brendon is here 09:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    While true. I've had this exact problem before and it is frustrating. Even if you defend yourself it doesn't deescalate the situation. Also this is a matter for WP:SPI. Any issue concerning sockpuppetry or sanctions should be handled by that group and they have the ability to resolve such a situation. If he is, he'll be dealt with accordingly. If not, then you should apologize and try to understand that this issue is very important to him as well as yourself. Even if you do not agree with him, certain responses have caused some personal suffering and we should try to resolve it. If you do not want to go to WP:SPI about it then try not to respond or let it concern you. Let the problem fade away and try not to let it concern you unless you are asked otherwise. You've made your point and this is not a formal process which action will be taken against you. The goal of WQA is to curtail such issues before they become actionable. The topic is a point of conflict for many editors, just please refrain from continuing it here. If you want I will go through the process and we can discuss the matter here. First one then the other. If both of you agree then we can settle this calmly here. Do both of you want to give this a try? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, you can include me in the group of people who are dubious about his origins and believe Brendon to be a Sock. I would support a SPI investigation as he is way too knowledgable for a newbie and basically was created about the time of the RfC and that's where 90%+ of his edits have been too. I have zero doubt that he is a "duck."---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 02:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Balloonman, your certainty is not on par with the evidence available. It doesn't comply to policy of assuming good faith either. Since you're accusing of me being a "duck" (seemingly abusive use of the word). I take it as a gratuitous offense.

    It's like also a breach of another Wikipedia policy namely civility. Hence, I don't like your or Balloonman's approach. This kind of approach may in turn prove to be highly detrimental to Wikipedia. Please change your way of doubting the authenticity of everyone who disagrees with you. It doesn't help. Learn to respond to friendliness of a stranger. At least don't bite the hand of friendship. That's my request. Apart from that, you're free to believe whatever you want. Just refrain from violating any Wikipedia Policy. Brendon is here 12:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikistalking, uncivility and ad hominem attacks from Koertefa

    Involved editors:

    I would like to report Koertefa. His discussion is full of despise against editors with different oppinions. This is his last ad hominem personal attack: "This is getting weird. Please, do not waste our time if you do not know what you are talking about." [87]

    Very annoying is his wikistalking, he always react shortly after my edits and change my content without propper discussion: [88], [89], [90], [91], [92],...

    He is often involved in edit wars, espetialy in national disputes which belongs under WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions rule: [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99]

    Btw I was for similar behaviour topic-baned by Fut.Perf.. --Samofi (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    "Please, come back after you have read some history books and have a strong argument backed up by sources. Otherwise, I do not see the point of this discussion." this also looks like personal attack. --Samofi (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ Krugman, Paul (April 12, 2009). "Tea Parties Forever". The New York Times. Retrieved April 24, 2010.
    2. ^ Hannity, Sean (March 2, 2010). "Pelosi Backpedals on Tea Partiers". Hannity's America. FOX News Network.
    3. ^ Pelosi: Tea parties are part of an 'astroturf' campaign by 'some of the wealthiest people in America.' ThinkProgress, Apr 15, 2009. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
    • Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=488323791"