Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Only in death (talk | contribs) at 15:18, 13 August 2012 (→‎Anxiety disorder article). 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

    Niteshift36 uncivil


    My first time having to do this but I would like a discussion on the uncivil behavior of Editor Niteshift36. To quote some of his posts, "Since you are apparently struggling with reading comprehension," "If it offends you, that's your problem. " and "First off, don't tell me about my bias. You don't know half of what you think you know. " he needs to be reigned in, just because a few of us do not agree with him does not mean he can abuse us. Warcraftninjas (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I have edited this report for format only, no endorsement of the matter reported should be implied. Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actually, his report is misleading and without context. Yes, when an editor said my opinion was "based on nothing but thin air and perhaps your own political biases", I told him the above about not knowing my biases? There is no violation there and nothing to defend. Yes, I told the complaining party that he apparently struggles with reading comprehension after his multiple mischaracterizations. Snarky? Yes. Violation? Not so much. Did I tell him, after multiple attempts to illustrate the differences that if my suspicion offends him, it's his problem. Yep. Again, nothing to defend. In short, nothing to see here, move along. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that an uninvolved admin was invited into the discussion and also can't see how the incident alone merits inclusion. Also note the complaining party's intent to edit war [1] and his own statement to me "You have some serious mental health issues" while he is here complaining about being told "if you don't like it.....". Niteshift36 (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, when the Ninjas decided to complain about my alleged "uncivil" comments, he took it upon himself to edit my talk page, removing the signature from another editor letting me know this thread existed, changing the title of the template to "uncivil" and adding his own assessment of what he thinks fo my editing. [2] Niteshift36 (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He clearly states he was being "snarky" that is his opening, it was rude and uncivil. I will not debate the page here, you can if you wish it is not why I am here. The above mentioned Admin asked if there were other sources other than HoPo and encouraged us to create a stand alone page for the situation showing that he felt it was notable enough it's own page. And finally please note that he is point blank being less than untruthful when speaking of deleting another editors signature and changing the title when I was clearly instructed to do so. I originally posted in the admin section in order to get him blocked for his "snarky" statements and was told I had to post here so I edited the notice (which I am SUPPOSED TO do) accordingly on his talk page.Warcraftninjas (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, I was snarky. I'll say it again. I'll even bold print it for you. You seem to think that "civil" means something that it doesn't. The admin I mentioned said "Standing on its own it seems WP:UNDUE", which is what I've said all along. Further, he said "perhaps an article Death of Nick Christie might be in order, if the incident is, indeed, sufficently notable for Wikipedia mention" MIGHT be. IF sufficiently notable. He never said he thought it was notable enough. That is part of the problem here.....you tend to read what you want to hear, not what is actually said to you. I haven't mischaracterized any of your actions. Another editor posted a notice to the conversation on ANI. That is not your talk page my friend. You have no right to remove or alter his notifications. I'll take care of my own page, without your assistance. I provided a diff to the change....anyone can see it. Further, I notice that you want to nitpick about the signature, but completely ignore the hypocrisy of posting a notification about your complaint here while posting "You have some serious mental health issues" at the same time. That is far more a violation of NPA and uncivil than telling you "If it offends you, that's your problem.".
      • I would presonally think that an editor of your "stature" would know that "snarky" means "unpleasant and scornful" snarky (ˈsnɒːkɪ)

    — adj , snarkier , snarkiest informal unpleasant and scornful

    [C20: from sarcastic + nasty ] and sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner

    so yeah, you apologize for your uncivility and I will just move on. I do not know why you think that "seasoned" editors are superior to any other editors. By the way using one example of your nasty hurtful tone is cute. You should read what you write before you press save page. Warcraftninjas (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wow, someone found dictionary.com.......and cherry-picked a definition. Unpleasant or scornful doesn't mean I violated any policy. I won't apologize for any of those remarks sunshine. Whether or not you choose to move on or not is not my problem. I'm done with your hypocrisy. Enjoy the sound of one hand clapping in this nuisance complaint. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the complainant started by accusing Niteshift of bias etc (actually, the party started with this), a clear lack of assuming good faith. I don't see any breach of civility on Niteshift's side and if I close my eyes I almost can't see the breach of civility on Warcrafninjas' side. I suggest someone close this useless complaint real quick. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:CIVIL says "Don't Make snide comments and Make personal remarks about editors." Niteshift's comments just above, saying an editor is hypocritical and the one hand clapping comments fall under the second don't and first one respectively. A study of Niteshift's edit history will show this is the way he behaves towards editors he disagrees with or thinks disagrees with him. The Lee County Sheriff's Office article edit dispute I was and still am inclined to agree with him, but his snide remarks he used[3] towards me are annoying and unnecessary....William`
    • You have no room to cite WP:CIVIL my friend. Yes, I called his actions hypocrisy. Big deal. They are and I'll say it again. As for the "one hand clapping" remark....do you even understand it? I suspect not. It means that he will have only himself to hear from (one hand clapping) and not me to entertain his ramblings. Get it? Or will a drawing be required? I also have nothing to apologize to you about about. I freely admit to snarkiness from time to time. What I don't do is pretend that I'm some sort of victim when I'm doing it and someone does it back. Your own comment here, calling my actions "annoying" or telling my that my edit is a result of my own political bias, is no less "uncivil" than my telling you not to act witty. Don't play the victim and don't pretend you are any less guilty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs)
    Don't tell me I can't raise WP:CIVIL. Any editor can raise that issue when a editor constantly belittles and talks down to anyone he thinks isn't as intelligent as himself. You've questioned whether I can read, called someone a troll, and admitted to snark. That's 3 strikes...William 22:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I mostly agree with Drmies. Niteshift doesn't seem to be making actionable uncivil comments, and Warcraft seems to be making ruder comments, but still not really actionable (but darn close (though the talk page edits are almost definitely uncivil)). Let's close this frivolous complaint.LedRush (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Actionable uncivil comments (aka personal attacks) are for ANI. WQA -- assistance -- is exactly the place for the unactionable ones. Nobody Ent 20:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and Niteshift36 appears to be quite open with his incivility by apparently acknowledging being snarky, unpleasant and scornful; so I still think there is something to discuss. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then discuss it amongst yourselves. There is nothing actionable here, so I'm done discussing who is more rude or who got their knickers twisted. This is a waste of server space and the only reason it's still open is because I was foolish enough to respond in the first place. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole point of WQA is discuss civility issues that aren't actionable. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but that's not the whole point. Many times the civility issues are actionable, and people wish to work them out. Sometimes there aren't civility issues and someone is being too sensitive. Sometimes, people file these merely to gain some kinda gotcha moment in an edit war. Anyway, this doesn't seem like a real issue, to me, and it seems that the original filer needs to look in the mirror a bit. And regardless, if Niteshift doesn't want to participate, pontificating about the point of the board isn't helpful.LedRush (talk)

    22:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

    You think there is nothing wrong with his behavior? Niteshift admits to being snarky and that is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Look what it says about snide comments....William 22:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy cow this is messed up.LedRush (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If civility issues are actionable, they are speaking about by admins. There are clearly civility issues here as Niteshift36 has made abundantly clear. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It feels like a pile-on

    In order to resolve issues between people, all parties (including the filing party) need to recognize their own part in the communication problem/situation, and not simply implausibly deny things. Without this, the WP:BATTLE mentality has taken off. WP:RFC/U is one direction that can be taken as needed dangerouspanda 12:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion 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.

    I'm bringing up three people at once, not because they're identical or all of their actions are synchronized, but because they're like-minded fellow travelers who have acted in concert, sometimes tacitly, sometimes (see below!) quite openly, to make things difficult for me. At this point, I feel singled out and piled on.

    I ran into these people while working on adding citations and correcting provable bias in political articles, which led to some frenzied reverts and fruitless WP:DRN attempts. Things took a turn for the worse when Lionelt publicly discussed his plans to get me removed from Wikipedia.[4] To show that this is an active plan, not some innocent editorializing, he followed up with an attempt to get me blocked for what looked to him like edit warring[5]. This flopped for lack of substance, but one of my comments was misconstrued and used by Belchfire as the basis for a spurious ANI claim[6]. (Correction: Belchfire didn't file the "insult" ANI, he just piled on.) The pièce de résistance was Lionelt's next 3RR report, which falsely claimed I hit 4RR [7]. Even though the claim was false (and even after I revealed it to be false), the block stuck.[8]

    Since then, I've barely edited at all, except in talk pages, but that hasn't slowed their efforts. I noticed ViiriK talking about me, but said nothing until the conversation switched to openly conspiring to harm an editor who had supported me[9]. After I warned their victim, ViriiK struck back with an ANI [10], which got him nowhere. The latest attack, this time by Belchfire, is a secret fishing expedition claiming I'm a sock puppet[11], which will flop soon enough.

    Throughout all this, the three have acted as a bloc. They speak to each other and their allies in code phrases -- "a certain person", "M", and "our mutual friend" -- like they're stock characters in some badly-written spy novel, slinking around in alleys to exchange attache cases packed with military secrets. Their choice of covert language reveals that they know that what they're doing would not be seen as admirable. They've been absolutely unrelenting in their repeated attempts to get rid of me, and I think it's fair to say that WP:AGF is no longer relevant. While they've attacked me many times, and had only one small success so far, it's a game of odds and it's only a matter of time before they fill my score sheet with ever-lengthening blocks, an assigned mentor[12], some topic and interaction blocks, and eventually a community ban. To remind you, this is exactly what Lionelt promised to do in the first place.

    Just for contrast, consider that I haven't filed anything heavier than a few WP:DRN attempts that got mobbed to death by them. I'm not trying to make trouble, I'm trying to get them off my back so that I don't have to spend all of my time defending myself against false accusations and a concerted attempt to blacken my record and get me pushed out of Wikipedia. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but it sure does look like they're out to get me. :-)

    I'm here on the advice[13] of User:Alanscottwalker, in the hopes that this problem can be solved voluntarily, without escalating to WP:ANI or even WP:RFCC. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest you find actual evidence of a cabal before making any such assertions here. From what I have seen, you made a great number of contentious edits in a very active manner in the political silly-season area, and with a propensity to revert when people pointed out that you should read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Else you may, indeed, be faced with community-imposed sanctions. Cheers. `Collect (talk)
    I thought about whether I should include you and Ebe, but decided that you're not really important enough. As for actual evidence, I think that Lionelt's threat is pretty good evidence. Don't you? But, hey, thanks for coming in here and threatening me! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you view my comments as a "threat" then I think I understand exactly where the problem is. And I suspect so do the others here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's very funny. If only you were a neutral third party, maybe you could get away with calling this a helpful suggestion instead of a threat. If only. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For more on the edit warring question, see User talk:Still-24-45-42-125#Edit warring at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your "help", but I already linked to that. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to publicly thank Collect and Guy for proving my point by joining in the pile-on. Thanks, guys! I couldn't do this without you. No, really, I couldn't. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This entire issue has gone on long enough. I suggest that all parties refrain from making any more reports and refrain from talking to or about eachother. Ryan Vesey 19:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would love to, but they keep reporting me! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me clarify that I don't believe it is only you that needs to drop this. To the extent that a failure to report is not damaging to the encyclopedia, both parties should not report eachother, should not warn eachother, and to every possible extent should refrain from reverting eachother; however, BRD should be followed if necessary. If an edit is reverted in the sake of BRD accusations of bad faith on either party should not occur. If BRD was followed, any concerns about reports for edit warring would be moot. Back to my earlier comment,if possible, I'd like to see a Bold, Discuss process being followed by these editors, without the pre-discussion revert. (Applicable to non-contentious information). Ryan Vesey 19:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, what you're suggesting is tantamount to an interaction ban, and that item is on Lionelt's road map for getting rid of me. I think you can see why I would reject this suggestion. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to be nit-picky here, but... I didn't file that "spurious ANI claim" that I've been charged with. Personally, I've been doing my best to avoid this editor, and I wish he would do his best to avoid me. Unfortunately, that's not what's been happening. [14], [15], [16], [17]. The SPI was given Check User endorsement by the responding admin, so it's really not at issue here. Absent anything else that really requires a response on my part, I think that's all I need to say. Belchfire-TALK 19:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See, you're doing it again: calling me an SPI. That's a lie and an insult, especially when you know that, back when I edited as an IP, I focused primarily on philosophy articles. What you're doing here is slinging mud on me in a desperate attempt to get the focus away from you and onto me. The result is that you're still proving my point. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So far, Belchfire has come here only to insult me and state that he won't be participating. This is almost better than ViriiK, whose only response so far has been to erase my obligatory notice[18]. Yeah, sure, the problem is all me. If only I wasn't so difficult! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To the WQA reviewers: this is false. Why?
    A) I initiated a conversation with Lionet expressing my frustration dealing with a POV warrior here: [19].
    B) The conversation between myself and I later on took place at my own talk page which is still up there. I knew who Lionet was talking about in regards to "Our Mutual Friend" because I started the conversation 13 minutes before the post on his talk page.
    C) Still-IP apparently made a friend a long time before all that and I didn't notice that so I went to leave a comment at Machine Elf's page here [20] which Machine Elf later minimized that here [21]. You'll notice that it says "BITE ME". The subject was over the accusation he made that we're supposedly conspiring to get him banned although his first 3RR warning came before that conversation even happened.
    D) He claimed that I'm speaking in code word in regard's to "M" aka Machine Elf but that was on Ebe123's page so I didn't have the name off hand. I was thinking it was "M something 1975" so I instead shortened it to M. Maybe Machine Elf should feel honored he has the same acronym as M from the James Bond series? [22] and I edited that title to avoid saying Still's name because he has a HABIT of jumping in my conversations that I've started with other people. See: [23], [24] [25] [26] and there's plenty more.
    E) Ebe123 was trying to advise Still-IP such as taking on a mentor but that went nowhere and he ended up getting in a debate with Machine Elf on Still-IP's page which I was following BUT did not comment except on Ebe123's own talk page. Machine Elf was debating Ebe123 in defense of Still-IP hence why I brought up the conversation there. There was no "plot" to get Machine Elf banned. I simply stated that Machine Elf made a template that had the obvious message of saying "BITE ME" and Ebe123 merely opined that I could submit an ANI which I did not submit. Why? Because it's just a "BITE ME" comment, nothing more. Machine Elf did nothing to me outside of that so there was no point to file such a report. See: [27]
    F) He's been warned and advised to leave me alone constantly from multiple editors such as leaving stupid comments on my talk page and making small changes my inactive projects which I have touched for almost 6 years [28], [29]. He's been trying to come up with clever ways to get my attention and say something against him that he hope to use against me. Notice I'm not talking to him here? I still refuse to talk to him and still request that he stays off my talk page permanently. He however refuses to do that and has been leaving useless statements such as: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. He claims to be discussing those reverts I've made against other people and why I shouldn't be doing them. However he should not be discussing them as I did those reverts against other people. I use a tool called "Vandal Fighter" to stop vandalism from IP addresses and he found selective cases where I made a mistake but if you look at those page history, there were obvious cases of vandalism which I've reverted.
    Here he acknowledged that I told him to stay off my talk page [36] and did not heed those commands from myself to him.
    [37] This one is a funny gem because that page he's accusing me of vandalism, it was being vandalized by a DPRK Apologist who has been banned for a week now see: [38]
    Another thing is that I've been involved in a DRN that he initiated which he ended up being the adverse party and he did not accept the outcome. That was one of his three DRN's where everytime he ended up being the adverse party.
    What's next? He's going to claim that I'm following him here although he used the WQA notice on my talk page? I'm done with him and I still refuse to talk to him. He's clearly hounding me and refuses to stop doing that. ViriiK (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, ViriiK. Thanks for coming here, but please don't make false statements. In that link, I pointed out that you were edit-warring, accused someone else of vandalism and marked a non-minor edit as minor. Anyone who doubts what I just said is encouraged to check. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, the part about refusing to stop posting to your talk page isn't true, either.[39] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is issues with POV, but I don't think WQA can help with this sort of long term issue. I think it is evident that some editors aren't editing for neutrality, for example, Lionel wanted, to add to the Chick-fil-A article, Talk:Chick-fil-A#Gay activism and vandalism by protester, about "the persecution of Chick-fil-A restauranteurs by out of control militant gay activists". This seems blatantly POV. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    IRWolfie-, I'm also skeptical about WQA helping, but I'm giving it a try because it was suggested. I think this problem is complex because it's fundamentally a content issue that manifests as an ongoing series of attacks on whoever messes with "their" content. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the issues are fundamentally about content then I suggest WP:DRN or similar. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To be frank, I tried DRN first, but it turns out that there's no real effort to resolve disputes. Instead, a volunteer counts up how many people are on each side of an issue, ignores any policies about content, and declares a winner. It's basically pointless, particularly since it desperately depends upon good faith. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is WP:MEDCOM above that. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I saw that. Along with WP:NPOVN, these are two places to discuss specific content issues. I thought of escalating, but I'm spending all of my time just dealing with the onslaught of attempts to get me blocked. Moreover, the problem isn't the content of a specific article, it's that these three, along with a handful of others, are conservatives who seem to believe that they WP:OWN the contents of all articles about conservatives (such as Romney) and seem willing to do whatever's necessary to maintain that ownership. Is there a place for reporting that? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said, this just isn't stopping. Just now, Belchfire posted a "friendly" message [40] to Guy, providing ammunition against me in the form of a post that can be taken out of context. On the one hand, Belchfire studiously refuses to respond to anything I say on talk pages, conveniently avoiding any points I make that he can't handle. On the other, he talks about me behind my back, again in cryptic little ways. This is not my imagination here; there's a pattern of stalking. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, so we've seen a lot of debate take place on this, but let's cut to the chase. @Still-24-45-42-125, what specific changes could these editors make to their future behavior that would satisfy your complaint here, keeping in mind that they are human beings and not perfect, and still allow a reasonable give and take in debates? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanu (talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If I suggest anything about how they should be convinced to follow policy, I'd just sound bloodthirsty, so I will instead speak of my goals and leave the methods to administrators:
    1) I'd like to be able to edit Wikipedia without having to constantly look over my shoulder to see what they're doing next to get rid of me. I suspect this would require them to admit that this was their agenda and make a binding promise not to further it. I don't want them to go pick a new target, either (see User:SkepticAnonymous). This just has to stop. The lynch mob must be disbanded permanently, whatever that takes.
    2) I'd like to be able to do my part in keeping political articles neutral without having this whole group pile on to out-!VOTE me (which is a fair description of what talk pages and WP:DRN routinely turned into). This is part of a larger issue of fighting ownership and resolving disputes on their merits, not just a show of hands. A small but cohesive bloc can fake consensus all too easily.
    3) I'd like a clean record. The block I have now is the direct result of an intentionally false report, and it's a stain.
    4) Anything that stops me from being able to edit Wikipedia normally -- interaction bans, topic bans -- would be a cure that's worse than the disease.
    That's all I've got. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided that information to Guy because it appears he is still trying to reason with you. You seem to be insisting that 3RR is an entitlement, and that edit-warring up to the 3RR limit is your right. But it isn't, and the diff I provided to Guy clearly shows that an admin has already clued you in on that. Put another way, you have no excuse for not knowing the advisory nature of WP:3RR. I think Guy should be aware, so I informed him. Belchfire-TALK 23:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but that's demonstrably false. I never claimed that I could revert up to three times regardless. In fact, the comment that ViriiK immediately deleted from his page also made that point to him, showing that I understood this.
    To remind you, the problem with the block is that Lionelt's false 4RR claim is what convinced the admin to disregard my BLP defense and conclude that I was edit-warring. He thought I was using BLP as an excuse to hit 4RR, when in fact, I was using it to explain why I went as far as 3RR despite normally restricting myself to 2RR. Take away the fake 4RR and the BLP defense makes sense, leaving me at 2RR. At that point, it becomes pretty hard to claim that I'm violating WP:3RR while keeping myself at 2RR voluntarily. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I see it, you were blocked for violating WP:EW, not WP:3RR, as shown pretty clearly in the notification you were given [41]. It was a 24-hour block, for crissake. Get over it. Belchfire-TALK 23:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The way you see it has nothing to do with the way it is. The way it is, Ed was convinced that I hit 4RR. Lionelt went so far as to poison the well against me by saying, "The pièce de résistance is revert #4. He knows he's about to cross the bright line so he invokes the BLP exemption." And Ed was too hasty to actually bother checking whether Lionelt was telling the truth, so he bought this story, applying the same generalization to my two previous edits.
    It was only after I pointed out the correct count that Ed changed his tune and found a new excuse for the block. Problem is, this excuse could apply just as easily to all of the other editors who hit 3RR on that article in the last 24 hours before my block, which shows that this was just a way to avoid admitting to an error. Bottom line: Ed didn't even bother counting. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And to put this in context, no, it's not just a 24-hour block, it's the first of the many blocks Lionelt swore he'd hit me with. Just like your "innocent" fishing expedition to get me blocked as a sock. Both are a means to an end: shutting me up so that you can edit political articles without having to deal with my corrections. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Monday

    Thank you for the reply, Still-24-45-42-125. #3, I don't think there's any way presently to remove things in the block log. I myself have an unfair block from SlimVirgin, who made an assumption about me without proper evidence, but it is there and I live with that 'stain', as you put it. #4 is something that is very much in your own hands. My only recommendation is that you do your best to stay cool and respond calmly. Learn to discuss before editing or edit with caution and revert more than once at your peril. Its more tedious, but safer, to just debate an edit than to make an edit and revert and revert.

    OK, so I'd like to hear from the other editors now. He's clearly enumerated what he'd like to see from Wikipedia, and for simplicity's sake, let's focus on his top two items. Lionelt, ViriiK, and Belchfire, can you guys see his perspective on this and work toward some resolution? Maybe just take a break from each other for a bit, and maybe take a break from whatever articles seem to be causing the most contention? -- Avanu (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I'll step back and let them speak. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are only the three names listed allowed to speak, or can the rest of us that Still-24-45-42-125 has accused of wrongdoing speak as well?
    Let's review, shall we? So far Still-24-45-42-125 has informed us of the following:
    The WP:DRN Process is the problem.[42] Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.
    The first of two dispute resolution volunteers to review the case is the problem.[43] Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.
    "The problem is with Wikipedia."[44] Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.
    The admins at WP:AN/EW are the problem.[45] Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.
    The admin who blocked him is the problem.[46] Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.
    The second admin who declined his unblock request is the problem.[47] Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.
    The third administrator who reviewed the case and agreed with the first two is the problem.[48] Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.
    The second of two dispute resolution volunteers to review the case is the problem.[49] Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.
    All of WP:DRN is the problem.[50] Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.
    I am going to go out on a limb and predict that the next thing we will learn is that WQA and its particpants are the problem. Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.
    Also see:
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Still-24-45-42-125 reported by User:Lionelt (Result: 24h)
    User talk:Still-24-45-42-125#Edit warring at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012
    User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 112#It's not over.
    --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When you posted t his earlier, I pointed out that the list is very misleading, to the point of being counterproductive. It's mostly just two items -- the block was unfair and DRN amounted to voting -- stretched out, and some of these items (like the one about Wikipedia being the problem) aren't even about me. But, hey, if you just want me to look bad and don't feel constrained by intellectual honesty, you're doing great! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, wouldn't it be better to maintain at least some vestige of the detachment you demonstrated while the dispute was at DR? Again you're going out of your way to interject yourself emphatically to Still's detriment. Again, by objectifying him as a problem, if not the problem, you attempt to rubbish his grievances without engaging them in a substantive way. Given your admirable efforts at DR, perhaps you feel slighted by Still's failure to qualify the exasperation he expressed to me on my talk page (later scandalized at AN/I. “M”... "the evil queen of numbers", God save me). Perhaps you even feel objectified yourself as a disposable process? Your first link to Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Critique of DRN process (diff with discussion) was innocuous: Steven Zhang responded "That does make sense, and is what we try to achieve at DRN - the problem is that long posts given by parties can make it easy for a volunteer to lose track..." and you give him 'The Teamwork Barnstar': 08:36, 30 July 2012 (→‎A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message). Yet, on your list above, you dismiss his efforts sarcastically: The WP:DRN Process is the problem.[51] Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem." How that comically applies to the newcomer in every case, I too leave as an exercise for the reader and I'll leave it here as well and return to his talk page.—Machine Elf 1735 07:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "the block was unfair": Two admins reviewed the block and decided that it was proper. Re: "DRN amounted to voting", another dispute resolution volunteer reviewed the case and found that it was properly handled, plus you complained on the WP:DRN talk page and got zero support. Pointing out that the consensus is against you is not "voting." You are having a lot of conflict with a wide variety of people. Perhaps you should ask yourself what the common factor in all of those conflicts is. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a patient person, but I do have my limits. Do I really need to explain why a block based on a 4RR that doesn't exist is less than proper? Do I need to explain why a process that solved nothing and led to more conflict is less than perfect? Do I really need to repeat why blaming the victim is highly counterproductive? I hope not, because this stuff should have been pretty clear the first time around. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really paramount that you understand that little to nothing can be done about a previous block. You requested to be unblocked, it was denied and now it has expired. There is no expunging of block logs that is possible to the best of my knowledge, and if there was, it wouldn't be wasted on such a petty matter (especially on an expired block). Now that that is out of the way, is there something recent to discuss, or is this a simple rehashing of issues now gone? If your intent is to not be troubled by a particular group of editors, it's probably not best to have dragged them all here for an issue that is over. If there is a future or on-going thread about your behavior that one of them reported (to the best of my knowledge, there isn't one, though I could be wrong) kindly link to it so there is something to review at present. Regards, — Moe ε 09:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? What stops Ed from adding a one-hour block with the comment, "The previous block was my mistake. Sorry." and then cancelling that block? It would leave a clear notice for future admins that I have never been legitimately blocked. This one block is meaningless, but Lionelt has stated that it's part of his plan to get me banned for life, and that adds some meaning. I am frankly amazed that no admin has taken it upon themselves to block Lionelt for his threats. If there can be anything less civil than plotting to remove an opponent, I can't think of it. Can you? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still-24-45-42-125, I understand your frustration here but fairness is not an absolute. Just as the SPI that was filed against you was shown to be an error, other errors will happen when you dive into hotly debated areas. Like in the real world, the side with the most numbers tends to "win", and in an argument, those with the calmest demeanor tend to get taken more seriously. Sometimes style wins over substance. Over the long haul, Wikipedia is actually pretty good about self correcting but there is no justice here, only a bunch of editors, some more fair than others, some more biased than others. As to the block, every admin is different as there are no hard and fast rules so blocks will happen faster on controversial topics than they would on more mundane topics. From my observation, there are a lot of opinions on this topic and none of the editors are exactly neutral, which is why the talk page (and sometimes full protection) is needed. But Wikipedia is never going to be "fair" because that means different things to different people.
    • Articles on heated topics sway left and right, but eventually settle into neutrality once the heat dies down. Right now, there is more heat than light with this topic. I do empathize, but people "acting as a bloc" isn't always a cabal, sometimes it is a consensus, and consensus can change with time. Edit warring loses you support and you have to be patient about change when you think you are right, but outnumbered, and present your ideas on the talk page and politely work towards change. This isn't the only hot topic here, it is just the hot topic du jure, and if you want to be effective, you have to do things differently. It isn't enough to be right, you also have to get along. I didn't say it was always fair (and it isn't), it is just how things work on this imperfect Wiki, in this imperfect world. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Tuesday

    Dennis, thank you for your comments. My take on this is that, contrary to WP:NOJUSTICE, it's entirely up to us whether we want to work to create fairness and justice. Sure, it doesn't happen on its own, but then again, what good thing does?
    Others have expressed deep concerns about Lionelt's "WikiProjects: Conservatism" amounting to little more than a vote-stacking mechanism to ensure a bloc that defines the apparent consensus. What distinguishes this illegitimate illusion from genuine consensus is its built-in disregard for WP:NPOV: it exists solely to add conservative POV. This is, to say the least, troubling. Now that its leader has graduated to issuing fatwas (against both Machine Elf and myself), we should all be concerned.
    I recognize my own lack of neutrality, which is why I consciously edit for the WP:ENEMY. What bothers me are those who imagine themselves to be neutral when it's clear that political or personal concerns control them. I edited the Romney campaign article in good faith while consciously taking steps to avoid edit-warring. Despite this, I was blocked on the basis of a false report. I see no reason why I should pretend this is legitimate. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will note that this diff that Still-24-45-42-125 provided does look like someone passing potential ammo around: [52]. I still think there is an inappropriate cause behind this; but the best plan of action is to hang in and to never give ammo. You can not be blocked if you never edit war, never engage in tendentious behaviour, are never disruptive or uncivil etc. I've edited some highly controversial (fringe) articles and never been blocked for doing so because I avoid all of these things. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and this is my number one concern. I'd like to go back to actually editing, but I seem to have to spend all my time defending myself against one dishonest claim or another. It's tiring. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is becoming a rather useless thread. Edit-warring and WP:3RR are closely related and in some cases interchangable. You can actually be edit-warring after a single edit' in some cases. Having reviewed 24-45's specific edits, the edit-warring is indeed clear and obvious. Arguing that the block is/was somehow invalid is like arguing to a police officer that he should have charged you with driving in the wrong lane and speeding, instead of street racing. When independent admins review the block and find it valid, guess what: it's likely valid.
    The purpose of a block is twofold: prevent current damage, and to lower the rate of repeat offenses. 24-45 ... what's most important right now is how you act in the future. Will you follow WP:DR or simply edit war (you might want to read WP:1RR for a taste of possible future restrictions).
    If you feel you're being "piled-on" (and trust me, I know what true piling-on feels like), your best choice is to accept what was a valid decision, then stop bringing it up. Single-incidents of a problem will eventually fade into nothingness ... unless YOU prevent that from happening. The more noise you make about it, the more likely it will be raised later against you. Simple hint: don't edit in such a way that it will ever need to be raised again.
    In short: the block was valid. Drop it. Become a good editor. Move on. dangerouspanda 11:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with you. A block for past behavior cannot have correctional or rehabilitative effect if it is rightfully seen as illegitimate. If I was edit-warring, so was almost everyone who touched that article. I was singled out only because Lionelt had a stated goal of getting me banned permanently and was willing to bear false witness against me, claiming 4RR when my own count was 2RR. I am by no means the first to point out a culture of mutual support among admins, and I'm hardly imagining it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:NOTTHEM again. Pay attention to what it says. Your answer is there. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a helpful response. In particular, it starts by claiming I was blocked for what I did, when the truth is that I was blocked because of the false accusation that Lionelt made. If not for the false report, I would not be blocked. And, to be clear, if people got blocked just for (arguably) hitting 3RR on that article, there'd be nobody editing it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My response wasn't what you wanted, but it is what you need. Your assertions have been refuted. Repeating the assertions over and over is not going to convince anyone, You need to take responsibility for your actions. Again, read WP:NOTTHEM. Your answer is there. I can't help it is you refuse to accept the answer. I can assure you of one thing, though. If you repeat the misbehavior, your claims that the blocking administrator is a fool who was easily manipulated by Lionelt will not prevent you from being blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You really need to stop trying to stick your words in my mouth. Please show me where I called an admin a fool. If you can't, then you need to immediately strike this claim. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dennis Brown, in the interest of promoting peace and tranquility, it is important that we use precise language here, and not convey any wrong ideas or enable misconceptions. The SPI was not "an error". It was a legitimate investigation that cleared the original suspect. There is a difference. The investigation received Check User endorsement. A sockpuppet was, in fact, identified. Belchfire-TALK 17:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      My words did have precision. I was the clerk that endorsed the CU and followed though. The idea that he was a master/sock was in error. Good faith on both of our parts, but still an error. The socks found were in no relation to him and were not listed. That other socks were found was accidental, but fortunate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Still-24, welcome to wikipedia. It's kind of a messy place. Sorry. The written guidelines/policies mostly describe established practice rather the prescribe a strict protocol. As mentioned, block logs aren't redacted (I've argued for such in the past and been totally shot down). I'll reiterate DB's reference to WP:NOJUSTICE I wrote the original draft. The good news (from a certain point of view) is no one can get you blocked. Whether you get blocked again or not depends on what you do, not what someone else does. The best response to cabals and folks talking behind your back is to ignore them. Nobody Ent 21:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I was blocked this time because Lionelt falsely claimed I hit 4RR. What's to stop him from doing it again? No, really, what? I'm asking. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The blocking admin does not take someone's word for it - they do their own checks. You were rightly blocked for edit-warring; period. Again, and for the final time, you need to move forward as an editor, not backward. dangerouspanda 09:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Citation needed. All the evidence points to Ed not having checked to see whether any of the reported reverts were effectively adjacent. Ed hasn't claimed otherwise, either. Instead, he and the other admins have taken the line that, once there's a block, the falsehood of the original reason no longer matters. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • People can be blocked without hitting 4RR. I've not blocked someone who has hit 6RR, and blocked people who have hit only 3RR before, as edit warring depends on the circumstances. No one is entitles to 3 reverts in 24 hours, it is only that the 4th revert is considered a bright line and no other rationale is needed. This is particularly true with heated topics, since the purpose is to prevent disruption. Sincerely, it is better to just move on. Having a block on your record isn't the end of the world. We just had an admin pass RfA unanimously with one on his record, so it isn't a bar to anything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that everyone who edited that article was entitled to hit 3RR, with exactly one exception. I'd also point out that I was acting under the knowledge that I was exceeding 2RR only for BLP/3RRNO.
    And that's the rub: If the rules are arbitrary then compliance is a matter of luck. I was consciously avoiding edit-warring by sticking to 2RR, discussing content on Talk and using DRN. I went so far as 3RR because I thought it was necessary and allowed. While I slept, someone with not only an open grudge against me but a stated plan to get me blocked lodges a false report against me, claiming 4RR, and I get blocked. Is this really something you want to defend as just? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Still-24-45-42-125, editors can be blocked even if they have not exceeded 3RR. The SPI request was correct because there were similarities between your editing and that of a blocked editor. The fact that you were blocked for edit-warring and reviewing administrators refused to unblock is proof that the 3RR report was not totally unfounded. The fact that the administrators at SPI authorized a check-user is proof that there was sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. In both cases the call was made by administrators and if you had not edit-warred and are not a sock then no action could be taken.
    The ANI report for "have you stopped beating your wife" was in my opinion unfounded and notice it was quickly dismissed. While I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that you meant the comment literally, you need to assume good faith. However, you need to realize that irony, humour and analogies should be avoided because they can lead to misunderstandings. Instead, you should have simply said, "That is a loaded question".
    It seems that other editors are discussing you and I suggest that they stop doing this. If it continues then it may be a violation of WP:CANVASS. However if you then wish to persue a complaint, it will be easier if you avoid edit-warring, and do not complain about the actions of administrators.
    With controversial groups such as Focus on the Family, some editors will try to put them in a better or worse light than neutrality requires. I have not read the article discussion threads and cannot comment on whether that has happened here. However if you believe it has happened then you should persue content dispute resolution. Post to relevant noticeboards or raise an RfC. That will bring in a wider group of editors.
    TFD (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've pretty much addressed all of these points above. I'm not under any obligation to pretend that I agree with the admins who incorrectly blocked me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are going to come here and cry about Wikiquette you should probably not make comments like this. You refer to the Tea Party as "Teabaggers" and wonder why you are having such a problem here? Arzel (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's what they call themselves. Go do some basic research about conservatism. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You have no idea what you are talking about. Word to the wise. Editors that use WP for their political activism typically have short lived times here....or they make a serious adjustment in their approach. You seem to be speeding up as you drive into this wall. Arzel (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what they call themselves? I don't think so. Regardless, it doesn't make it less offensive. Some blacks refer to each other or themselves using the n-word, but the word is still considered offensive. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still-24, there's nothing we are going to be able to do for you until you stop trying to suggest that your block was improper. It was valid - and its validity has been upheld multiple times. Any further noise in this thread (or any other one anywhere) that suggests you do not understand your block will be cause it to be shut down, period. As it's a valid block, it will never be removed from your "record", even if it was technically feasible. Right now, your failure to accept the valid block (whether it was for edit-warring or 3RR is moot) has become more disruptive than anything else you have done dangerouspanda 14:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we go ahead and close this thread? It is serving no useful purpose at this point. -- Avanu (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Avanu, what about Lionelt? He was named and informed, but hasn't even bothered to show his face. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikiquette assistance is entirely voluntary. Nobody has to show. Ryan Vesey 17:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, no one has to participate, either. If editors don't like what Still-24 has to say, or don't have anything helpful to say, I highly encourage them to please go edit elsewhere. It will not harm Wikipedia one iota to let them have the last word. Nobody Ent 19:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Still24 has apparently learned less than nothing per such comments on an article talk page as "Collect, as others have pointed out at length, your research skills are apparently lacking and you have some aversion to answering direct questions. Is social conservatism authoritarian and homophobic? Well, do we have any reliable sources saying it is? We do, and many. Do we have any reliable sources bothering to dispute this? Apparently not. Based on our sources, this is a closed issue." and "As usual, your summary is blatantly false. Not a single source was found to dispute the mainstream understanding, bolstered by scientific research, that social conservatism is authoritarian. When in doubt he attacks the other editor, and avers that he knows the truth. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC) He is also forumshopping on any issue he can vide [53], [54], accusations that Lionel and Belchfire are socks at [55], and so on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Some people see a link and think it must be valid. Others check. I'm one of the others.
    Just for fun, I took the last link in your comment and clicked on it. Turns out that you made a false inference: it's obvious in context that I wasn't claiming anyone was a sock. But, hey, when you take it out of context, you can make it look like anything you like. A cursory glance at some of your other links shows that this is your pattern. On the whole, I find your input here to be counterproductive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the infeerence is clear to me and to others -- that you fail to see it is interesting.
    Are you Lionelt?
    Seems to be quite easy to understand Englsih suggesting that the person to whom you are addressing it is a sock of Lionelt. As it is the entire post, I find it astounding that you can asseet it is "out of context". Pray tell -- when an entire post is quoted how in h-e-double hockey sticks can anyone say it is "out of context"? Cheers - Collect (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'm going to explain this very clearly. After Lionelt reverted my change[56], I responded with:
    Oh, wait, good faith just went out the window because you edit-warred. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

    Belchfire seemed to think that I was talking to him rather than Lionelt, so he said:

    I edit-warred? Show us a diff, please. Belchfire-TALK 03:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

    I then responded:

    Are you Lionelt? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

    In other words, I wasn't talking to or about him: Lionelt was the one who edit-warred, and that's what got the entire page protected. Now, if you want to pretend this is about sock accusations, go for it, but in full context, your interpretation is plainly wrong. This is true of most, if not all, of your interpretations above. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Your defence is that you were not accusing anyone of socking - but that you were accusing a person of edit war who was not even reported by you - thus your defence is I was attacking Lionelt, and this other editor got in the way, but it was really only me repeating an attack"? What a nice plea here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your quotes have no context, can you provide diffs? Forum shopping, and edit warring is outside the scope of this noticeboard; it doesn't appear to be obviously forum shopping and I think it has little connection to civility issues; this isn't ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    See User talk:Lionelt#Dealing with conflicts involving user behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Or not. Unfortunately, you seem to follow me around wherever I go in an attempt to smear me. Why is this? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that I am no longer responding to this user. Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from the periphery

    I stumbled upon all this because it showed up at one of the articles I watch. It seems to me that there is a certain slap-happy sloppiness manifested in a characteristic alternation between two extremes on certain conservatism-related articles, where the liberal editors put in exaggerated versions of perhaps genuine claims about the subject, and conservative editors react by removing the claim entirely. So far I'm finding that an accurate statement would mention whatever issue is being argued over, but in a much more nuanced, qualified, and in some cases minimized way. Particularly on the liberal side of this there is a careless "everyone knows conservatives are scum" culture warrior quality to the arguments and edit summaries; the bit quoted by Collect above is actually better behaved than average. The conservatives in this need to be less combative. In the end, it would save everyone a great deal of trouble to put down the triumphalism and the endless arguments over bad faith. Mangoe (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Your statements show a good deal of conservative bias. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Report by Mark Marathon

    Stale
     – Seems to have gone stale, people appear to have moved on. IRWolfie- (talk)

    I made good faith reverts to the tree article, accompanied by a lengthy description of why I made the edits n the article's talk page. This poster persistently reverted while refusing to discuss the issue, in contravention of WP:BRD. In an attempt to achieve consensus I raised the issue on his User Talk page, only to be called a jackass.

    At least it wasn't a gentoo - among all the possible sphenisciform insults you seem to have got off lightly, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the Wikipedia community's response to being personally insulted when attempting to achieve consensus? Lame jokes? Clearly my attempts t resolving this issue here have been a total waste of time. I will know better next time. 10:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Marathon (talk • contribs)

    • Well, I stand guilty as charged for the "jackass" exclamation, uttered after the user templated me with a 3R warning after my second revert. This is water under the bridge: the user claimed that the edit was "explained fully" on the talk page; I reverted because the talk page commentary came five minutes before the giant revert and the user didn't see fit to wait for commentary. This was a major overhaul reverted (initially) without even an edit summary, and in my opinion the user should have waited. But it was the unjustified template (which is decidedly different from "raising the issue") that ticked me off--something which I could call an insult as well. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, please don't call other editors "jackass." Mark Marthon, please don't template established users unless you're willing to accept a little blowback. Nobody Ent 20:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Additionally, Mark needs to understand WP:BRD better. He boldly made a change, which was reverted. AFter this there should have been discussion, but Mark went on to revert again and again.LedRush (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure thing, Nobody Ent. BTW, I noticed that days after the event, and 13 minutes after filing here, Mark Marathon tried his luck at the 3R board, again miscounting reverts (note the diff given for my supposed number four). This forum shopping is indicative of sour grapes--he was blocked for the edit war, with a clear 4R. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They've only been here since April. Talks awhile to learn how to work collaboratively. Nobody Ent 21:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    True. But real interest in the Tree article should manifest itself at this stage of the game in the article and the article talk page, not at some noticeboard. BTW, I have no hard feelings--Uncle G has pointed out that some of his comments were perfectly sensible, and what I care about is that the article gets better than it is. It is a core article after all and would benefit from more interest. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivil comments by BatteryIncluded

    I have made some script-assisted ref cleaning edits to Curiosity rover article (ex. [57] and [58]), focusing on reducing clutter through list-defined references and fixing bare URLs through WP:REFLINKS. BatteryIncluded did a partial revert of my edit, [59], created a badly messed up version of this Main Page featured (In the News) article ([60]) that persisted for about twenty minutes before his edits were in turn reverted by another editor.

    The reason I am posting here is that BatteryIncluded besides the damaging reverts posted a disparaging comment on my talk page "you took the time and effort messing with the references and violating not only common sense- but the MOS"... "it is not your talk page which you can load with flashy tricks and exentricities disregarding the effort of others". While not very civil, this would not make me post here, butr afer I responded on his talk in a civil fashion [61] his second response escalated a higher level of incivility with "we have a cowboy that not just ignores the rules but denies they exist"...There is nothing beneficial in your little bot/edit. I suggest you dedicate to articles to your caliber such as Betty Crocker. There, you can place your flashy bulshit and Hello Kittys in the reference section." Using disparaging, uncivil and vulgar language to offend editors ("articles of your caliber"), telling editors to leave an article, violates not only WP:CIV but also WP:NPA, and considering that those comments came after that editors' own edits messed up a main page article, coupled with misunderstanding of policy (while claiming that I am the one who does not understand it) makes this case one where I think an official talk page warning (for incivility, at least) is warranted.

    On an ending note, BatteryIncluded was blocked once for incivility, through it is an old block (2009), and anyway, I don't think the above is a blockable offense. A warning should suffice, I feel. Alternatively, I'll gladly accept an apology, upon which I will remove my request for an official warning. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    BatteryIncluded's edit (and the four after it) are the ones that really concern me. To delete 20k of content, even if you don't understand its technical significance, such that the article turns bright red with what's clearly a broken references list is a problem. With the following edits also being related to references, the editor has no excuse that they didn't notice this. So this is a "current event" article where one's edit (however innocent) has trashed it and their reaction was just to walk away and leave it in that state is a failure on several counts, including WP:COMPETENCE. If you screw up, either fix it, undo it, or at least seek help.
    To follow this up with a comment on the article talk page blaming someone else for the problem, and to place what are very clear NPAs on their talk page, is far from acceptable.
    BatteryIncluded - cut this out, and cut it out right now. If you can't play nice, then don't play. If you won't and proceed to repeat it, then this is clear ANI fodder and I'd anticipate some rapid blocking. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    BatteryIncluded recent reaction: a third offensive post on my talk page, removing the thread about this situation from his talk page, removing an uninvolved editor comment (which I presume is related to this incident). It's one thing to make a mess and fix it, or apologize for it, it's another to keep ignoring it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I did try earlier today to strongly encourage his participation here. He simply deleted it from his talkpage. WP:BATTLE issues it appears dangerouspanda 18:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Anxiety disorder article

    87.114.156.18 (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anxiety_disorder&action=history

    I have tried to add references to an author who wrote in the seventies. Her work has not been surpassed and is not the sort of work that will move forward from decade to decade. Her work gives life transforming help to sufferers of anxiety disorder. Other editors have said that the references were "not particularly useful" and "we do not need a 1973 BMJ article" and "fails MEDRS and unnecessary"

    Please note that it was only since I added a third reference that the second reference was rejected. The 1973 BMJ article had been part of the article for months before it was removed after I added the third.

    I have written the following replies to Jmh649 and also list some questions:

    1. (After "not particularly useful") Who on earth do you think you are to say what is particularly useful. You are not the person chosen to judge this. Wikipedia is for anyone in the world to read. The 2 additions I have made are both from a peer reviewed scientific expert in the field. I have had anxiety disorder - my life has been severely plagued by it. The books and articles that have been of far greater use to me than any other I have read on the subject have been by (the now late) Claire Weekes. Her ideas are not high science (fancy drugs/brain studies etc.) but provide amazingly insightful observations and have an amazing understanding of the psychology of the sufferer. She had anxiety disorder herself. Being highly intelligent, she was able to observe herself and work out extremely effective but commonsensical methods for coping with the illness. I am a scientist myself and have done a lot of reading on the subject - including a lot of the high science. However I know that any sufferer reading this Wikipedia article will have their life transformed by reading Claire Weekes's articles and books. This article is not just for the scientific "experts" in the field. It is for anybody in the world who wants to know about anxiety disorder. If they are sufferers, they will find the references to Claire Weekes work far more useful than anything else in the article. This article is not just for medical/scientific experts in the more technical parts of the field. The irony of your comment is that the exact opposite is true! What I have added to the article, I know as a sufferer of extreme lifelong anxiety disorder, is the most useful information in the article for any sufferer of the illness!

    2. (After "we do not need a 1973 BMJ article")

    Why should we should be using secondary sources from the last 10 years? People writing in 1973 had as much to say as those writing today. The field has got more technical since those days and experts may not be interested in referencing Claire Weekes any more - so I doubt there are many secondary sources from the last 10 years. However as I have said, her work is still as highly relevant today as at any time. Her work was so good that no one has added anything to replace it since. It is not the sort of scientific field that advances greatly from decade to decade. I see you are a young medical doctor. What is said in the article is extremely useful for sufferers. I expect that, as you are a high achieving young man, you have not spent a lot of time being ill with anxiety disorder. I can tell you that it is one of the most devastating illnesses of all. For example, to give you an idea of how awful the illness is - paraphrasing a consultant psychiatrist "I know people with "locked in syndrome" who still enjoy life enough to want to live, many people with depression/anxiety do not want to live" By undoing my edits you are depriving people around the world of vital information which will transform their lives. I hope you went into medicine to help people. You are doing exactly the opposite by undoing my edits. Please have some humility and consider that perhaps you as a medical doctor, do not have all the answers, and may be wrong in removing the information I have added. I think your medical training, and perhaps lack of experience, is making you blind to what I am trying to do.

    3. Could you also explain why I was not allowed to undo 3 edits but Jmh649 is. You can probably tell I am not very experienced on wikipedia.

    4. How have I failed MEDRS? And isn't using the letter of the law sometimes going against the spirit of Wikipedia - to make useful information available to a worldwide audience. If my reference is life transforming, why should being old stop it being available to wikipedia readers?

    How is this a WQA issue? Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clearly not. To 87.114.156.18; you need a consensus to add a link like that, and it doesn't sound like you have one. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    To Jamie (couldn't add my question to your talk page for some reason): To do WQA you need consensus? I'm (obviously) fairly new to Wikipedia. I read the following on the WQA page:

    What Wikiquette assistance can do:

    • Intervene as a neutral third party to talk to editors ....who might be new or unaware of Wiki policies
    • Give guidance on where on Wikipedia to take a particular problem

    I didn't see concensus mentioned here. Where is that mentioned?

    Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.156.18 (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Consensus meaning so far two editors have opposed inclusion of that link; you can now add me as a third. That's a rough consensus. I will not respond further to this topic here because the topic doesn't belong here; it belongs on the talk page for Anxiety disorder. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be a bit clearer for the IP. WQA is for issues of wikiquette. Incivility and such like (see the top of the page). What you have is a content dispute. Unless the other editors are not being civil, there is not much that can be done here regarding that. Content should be talked out and consensus achieved on the talk page of the article concerned. If you are trying to add content and a number of other editors disagree with you, you will have to convince them via discussion. If you cannot convince them, the reality is that its unlikely the info you want to include will be added to the article Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutralhomer

    Neutralhomer is over-personalising a rather standard discussion at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WHJG-LP, and on my talk page openly says he will use ad hominems attacks and make things personal User_talk:IRWolfie-#Poor_Man.27s_Talk_Back. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=507219129"