User talk:Miqademus/Alastairward

Backup copy from Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Alastairward

Alastairward

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Please take to RFC/U Gerardw (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm concerned about what I perceive as uncivil behavior from Alastairward aimed at me in a dispute over application of WP:V at Butters' Bottom Bitch. There's been an ongoing dispute over the inclusion of a cultural reference that is going nowhere and is in my view of me trying to offer compromises and with Alastair constantly reverting me. The core of the argument is disagreement of WP:V, but I feel that it's by now gotten personal with the edge aimed at me. My and another user's position is that this is a case where WP:V can't be applied strictly since there are mitigating circumstances. Alastair on the other hand believes that there is no room for compromises, with partial support from two other users.

The problem is that I feel that Alastair is forcing his own position on the article and disregarding the need for mutually respectful, multilateral discussion. I feel that Alastair is also doing this with needlessly belligerent and openly provocative methods:

• Alastair has made an open implication that I have been engaging in point-making[1] and despite my attempt to ignore it, it was repeated only about 12 hours later.[2] When I tried to point out that it was unnecessary to imply bad faith,[3] I got nothing but a cryptic answer that seemed to imply that I had made the accusation.[4]
• Despite knowing that I'm an experienced user Alastair has left messages intended for newbies (mixed with accusations of incivility) on my talkpage[5]. When I removed[6] what I felt was a pointlessly provocative gesture, it was followed by a rather accusatory misrepresentation of recent events.[7]
  • Later came comments like "If the veterans can't take onboard wikipedia policies, they shouldn't complain when they are reminded of them."[8]
  • User:Gigs commented the templating at Alastair's talkpage,[9] calling it "poor form", but from Alastair's reply I get the impression that the only option with Alastair is to keep reverting if things go against his opinions.
• I'm also concerned that Alastair is gaming the system when he openly admits that he'd rather keep reverting than continue discussion as long as it doesn't technically break any rules.[10]
• One of my recent attempt to introduce a compromise which would not violate WP:V have been promptly reverted with demands constantly placed on me to move discussion forward.[11][12][13][14]
• This follows a pattern of swift and unilateral reverts[15][16][17][18][19] that have been typical of my interaction with Alastair since I first edited the article. I've tried to bring up my concerns that Alastair is pushing his own interpretation of policy as objective truth. I've also complained about what I feel is a lack of interest in genuine consensus building with dissenting voices. Discussions can be found on Alastair's talkpage and mine, but I sense no mutual respect or will to acknowledge conflicting opinions.
• What really makes me think that Alastair is not aware that his particular interpretation of Wikipedia policies isn't set in stone is a reply to my explanation[20] on why I moved a citation from the middle of a sentence to the end of it: "No. Citations go where they're needed, if you have to cite mid sentence, do so." There's always room for debate on the placing of citations, but taking such a adamant stance on How Things Are Done isn't justifiable in a collaborative environment.

I'd just like to stress that it seems to me like Alastair is doing a good job in general, and that it's important to be vigilant when it comes to unreferenced speculation, particularly in pop culture articles. However, I think that his good-natured and usually positive zeal for verifiability has an unfortunate tendency to manifest itself in a touch of fanaticism when it comes to gray areas. I get the impression that upon first raising my concerns I was immediately placed in the same category as all previous "scrubbings" of trivia, speculation and perceived nonsense.[21] In the dispute between us, it seems also to be combined with a very swift dispencing of niceties and needlessly condescending behavior towards an experienced colleague.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and open up all those diffs in tabs, but it feels like this is just going to be a contest of bumper sticker arguments if I try to address each one.

This one. Having tried to add unverified information to the article, you then called into question the use of a comment from reliable third party source, by way of comparison with your own edits. It came across as "if he can do it why can't I".

This group of diffs, where I have asked him to discuss before putting his edits back into the article. Yes, I have asked him to discuss before putting information back into the article. I don't see how doing it in the opposite manner would help, I'm sort of lost with that one.

"I'm also concerned that Alastair is gaming the system when he openly admits that he'd rather keep reverting than continue discussion as long as it doesn't technically break any rules." I honestly don't see anything in this diff that supports what you said. I said that my opinion wasn't a lone one and that the policies and guidelines of wikipedia agreed with me.

This accusation (where he uses templates too no less) was in reference to this reversion. I spotted that the cite for a particular comment had suddenly moved position from mid sentence to the end. This wasn't just a simple "hit undo" reversion but an active bit of editing by Peter. It made it seem all of a sudden that a cite supported his entered information, when it did nothing of the sort. I found that suspect and I think fairly so.

Besides all of which, if Peter was interested in moving forward the discussion, he could have done better than to accuse both I and other editors of playing dumb (here and here.)

I have trimmed and pruned and cited a lot in the South Park articles, for well over a year and a half now I reckon. When the featured article drive passed through those articles, the information I had removed as uncited, speculation and what have you did not return, unless cited.

And no, I'm not a newbie and if anyone cared, they would see that my editing on wikipedia has considerably improved over the time I've spent here. I used to add trivia, uncited info and the like and bloody annoying it was too when I was reverted. All that's changed, and I welcome any investigation of such. Alastairward (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems the perceived incivility comes solely from the content dispute itself, which is getting too heated, rather than an underlying behavioral issue with Alistairward. I don't believe either of you are trying to be uncivil or disruptive. Does that sound about right Peter? I think the best way to resolve the incivility issue would be to find a way to resolve the content dispute that is getting heated. That being said, in my opinion, an important way to resolve a dispute is compromise, and if this isn't working, seek a third opinion. Since this obviously isn't working, try taking it to the original research noticeboard for some more opinions regarding the matter. Regards, Swarm^(Talk) 03:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the summary, Swarm. I agree that I've seen no deliberate attempts to insult, but I'm still concerned about the attempts to "trump" consensus discussion by rigid application of certain policy interpretations. I don't believe Alastair has actually acknowledged the mitigating issues brought up or that he has tried to discuss them in earnest. I'll take this to the OR noticeboard and see if it can get us to move forward. In the mean time, I'm introducing another attempt at compromise in the article[22] which I hope will be allowed to stand at least until after the next round of discussion.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

With regards that edit, compromise implies discussion, which we just haven't had. Peter has never explained exactly the importance of this "fact" to the article. Or what is wrong with an informative, fully cited article that he keeps reverting. Alastairward (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no experience of the article you are referring to, but I will add to this alert by saying that I have edited Wikipedia since 2004, and Alastairward is perhaps one of the most controversial editors I have come across. His edits tend to be of a zealous style, with fanaticism of a magnitude such that I have seldom seen before, applying extremely hard-line interpretations of WP guidelines as dogmatic rules they were never intended to, following what their letter rather than their intent, or rather, his understanding of the letter of the law. He seems to apply these principles and edit articles in a tendentious fashion. Hi seems to show no understanding of the common sense principle, and his edits tend to leave articles in a worse state. He does frequent, controversial and substantial edits, usually purging large sections of valid and sometimes even sourced, information without any prior discussion. He is also prone to edit warring. He tend to use WP guidelines to wikilawyer and game the system. He apparently does not understand or respect consensus or cooperation with other editors, and when engaging in debates generally assumes a simple, stubborn and terse denial of all arguments being presented without indicating in any way to have read or understood what he's responded to. Often he even uses stock replies. He is condescending and superior in his replies, and dismissive of any opinions other than his own. He also displays some nefarious patterns in his controversies and editing: for instance when in a debate about small aspects he will go and change related articles to support his "case", thereafter editing (purge from) the original article. If this were the place for it, I would even go as far as to recommend denying Alastairward the rights to edit any article directly and only to be allowed to post suggestions on talk pages. Miqademus ([[User talk::Miqademus|talk]]) 12:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Miqademus, if you seriously beleive this, why not raise your own Wikiquette case against me? Can you provide diffs to prove the above? Alastairward (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: In response to my comment, above, user Alastaiward has counter-reported me. Miqademus (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To chime in here, while I have nothing personal against this editor (actually appreciated his input on the Cossack article), AW does appear to have a habit of creating conflicts where none really exist with an apparant attempt to "goad" other editors into a show of their own incivility. The entire exchange at Talk:Cossacks#Star_Trek_Reference_of_Cossacks is a prime example of this. A dispute arose regarding the inserting of Star Trek information into this article. A talk page discussion was started and both sides, myself and the other editor behaved with respect while viewpoints were presented. The other editor in fact did a self revert while I gathered my side of the evidence [23]. In the end, it did in fact appear as I was in the wrong, so I removed the material in question [24]. Well, and this is the strange part, AW began posting messages to my talk page that there was an "edit war" going on and that I had "removed the contributions of other users several times" [25]. After copying these comments to the talk page of the actual article, AW appeared again, stating that I was "removing his comments" [26] (when I had simply copied them to the talk page). What made this very bizarre was that at no time was there ever an edit war. AW appeared to simply be trying to say there was one for the purpose of posting warnings and, dare I say, perhaps attempting to get some kind of uncivil response out of me. Even in the VERY END, when the material was removed, all users were in complete agreement that Star Trek info was out and that all concerned were happy, AW posted again on the Cossacks talk page, in a last ditch effort to keep the conversation going with a statement that there were still further disputes going on [27]. So, I mean no disrespect to this user (I even invited him to take a look at my webpage since he said he was a Star Trek fan [28]) but the behavior on the Coassack article is indeed an indication of what is being discussed in this thread. -OberRanks (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Miqademus, I agree with Alastair in his request for diffs. It would make it a lot easier for an outsider to judge the nature your complaint.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter, I'd love to give you the diffs. The problem is, I honestly get sick to the stomach by thinking about this entire situation, and not in the metaphorical sense. :( And A is such an superlatively industrious editor that picking diffs from his various edits and talk pages, articles' as well as his own, would be principally trivial but take days, and those would be days of pain. Let's see if I can get myself to do this later, but meanwhile I think it becomes obvious by even just superficially looking over those resources that I and other commentators are not pulling fabrications out of thin air, or carrying personal grudges. Miqademus (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add a few diffs after OberRanks' and Miqademus' brought their views on this to my attention. I too have experienced what looks like a rather inexplicable tendency from Alastair to drop needlessly accusatory and provocative comments followed up by a tendency to view litigation and formal complaints as a perfectly normal way of interacting with fellow editors. When I complained in the Butters' Bottom Bitch-dispute about what I perceived as unnecessarily personal comments, I was rebuffed and openly encouraged to file a formal report rather than to get some type of recognition of the complaint. Here's the sequence of replies:

• Alastair denies any agreement with my complaints and encourages me to rather report it to an admin
• I try to reply that litigation and formal complaints against one another is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work[29]
• After a few more rounds of discussion and reverting each other over at Butters' Bottom Bitch, Alastair merely repeats the exact same kind of mildly inflammator comment and encourages me to make a report if I wish "authority [to take action]" against him
• My response is to raise my concern that Alastair is effectively asking for the dispute to be escalated and I again insist on mutually respectful discussion[30]
• Alastair's comment after this is merely "I see you have now decided to stop edit warring and are not adding unverified material to that article, I hope it will stay that way."
• I reply with a complaint about how I see this more as a condescending "pat on the head followed by subtle threat"
• Alastair's reply is to repeat the exact same type of comment a third timein a slightly different guise
• I reply that I don't quite agree and that I wish for "more sensible discussion and less rigid argumentation" and I add a somewhat tired comment that if Alastair is so keen on reporting, he should do so himself
• The reply is a (at least to me) completely baffling outcry of indignation

This behavior is almost identical to that summarized by OberRanks above. Alastair seems to a have a tendency to openly solicit verbal dispute by quickly and openly pointing out error in others. In my case this was accompanied by attempts to openly encourage escalation of such disputes rather than trying to smooth them over with even the barest minimum of acknowledgment of how such responses can be frustrating. My impression is that the last reply here shows a deep-seated lack of interest in harmonious interaction with other editors as long as the letter of the law of content policies are followed.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter, this is virtually identical to what is going on at the real-time tactics talk page.

• Alastair denies any arguments against why he shouldn't make radical edits that are protested by other editors. As the dispute deepens, he invites litigation. When it is explained to him that litigation is not a good way for Wikipedia to work, he sees that as a complete vindication and that others are backing down and retracting their previous positions in favour of his: "That you balk when you ask how to report me and I tell you how, suggests that you don't really think there is anything wrong other than that I don't edit as you please." Another point supporting his modus of escalating conflicts is that when I attempt civility to turn the situation away from the path toward flamewar, he sees that too as an admission of "defeat" and enforcement of his own position.

The "let it stay that way" comment seems to be quite typical of his attitude toward other editors:

• On his talk page a frustrated editor commented that eight months of work was "gone in a flash", to which A answers "Startling, wasn't it? It seems we've all undone the damage though."

Even more disturbing is that he seems to revel in being controversial and abrasive. On his user page he even gloats about it, saying "I'm such a well rounded and liked fellow you see". I have never seen an user page that receives so much vandalism as his. Strangely enough, A seems to have no real understanding of that other users are aggravated by him, for instance again on the RTT talk page he says "the only person who seems to be upset is you". Miqademus (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

By way of reply to OberRanks, I remember a bit more clearly than they the chronology of our interaction. They were trying to add trivia to the Cossacks article. When it was removed, they came to the Star Trek project page to canvas for support (see here). One other editor had disagreed (which Oberanks described as "ownership") and so did I. Galassi removed the trivia (diff), OberRanks added it again (diff) so I removed it as trivia myself (diff). OberRanks persisted and readded it with a rather lacking "cite" (diff). It was after OberRanks then added it that I left a warning about editing warring on their talk page (diff). That was the chronology, the warning was left after they had readded the trivia several times.

In reply to Peter Isotalo, there are many diffs, but the summation is this. They wanted to add unverified material to an article (diff), they disliked that both I and the editor of a third opinion and others after didn't agree with him (long diff, he took the issue to Wikiquette alerts (diff) and the Original Research noticeboard (diff) and in the end, backed down in agreement with just about everyone else (diff).

Miqademus, in response to pretty much everything you've said to me, the heart of the issue surrounding our disagreement is pretty simple. Unverified material is removed from Wikipedia, unless a cite can be found. That's pretty much that.

I notice that in all of this, everyone seems to admit there is no wikiquette issue, can I take it that this is just a place to air general grievances regarding me? That I've removed some material you've added to Wikipedia and you feel bad about it? Alastairward (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that Alastairward comes across as pushy and disrespectful of other people's views. I can't really say much more, as I don't really have a history of editing with him on of articles. SharkD  Talk  19:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

SharkD, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I feel the others here simply bear personal grudges against me. Peter for example, had his chance to report me for something, but couldn't get anything to stick. He backed down from his previously held position, where he was sure I was in the wrong. I can't help but feel it was when he found just above everyone else who commented on the discussion we'd been having agreed with me.

I can throw back at Miqademus every accusation of unfriendlyness, with the added proviso that I make reference to the guidelines and policies that make Wikipedia work. Alastairward (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

AW's statement up above actually confirms what I said. You will see he stated "OberRanks added it again (diff)" yet the diff which he himself provides as evidence is in fact the self revert of the OTHER EDITOR who put the material back into the Cossack article while I gathered evidence for the viewpoint. When I couldn't find any, it was removed once and for all (without any protest from me). Point being...never was there an edit war, hence my point. -OberRanks (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Should also add that, at this point with 4 editors giving input, the best bet would be for an impartial administrator to give opinions and suggest resolution. It would not be fair to AW to keep hammering at these things without offering some way to fix the underlying problem, that of lacking in Wikiquette. -OberRanks (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it as much that he lacks Wikiquette, it rather seems more to be the case that he is genuinely incapable of understanding how normal people interact and how wikipedia editing works, especially cooperation, consensus and conflict resolution (typically he uses the "third opinion" option as a weapon, wherein he can continue exactly the same thing but now claim that he has done his best and others are "refusing to resolve the conflict"). Miqademus (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, having reviewed Butters' Bottom Bitch, I'm not seeing sufficient evidence of incivility that I think Alastairward should be sanctioned. He's been willing to follow dispute resolution -- bringing in a third opinion, inviting Peter to move to report him to the appropriate notice board et. al. While editor's are encouraged to settle differences between themselves, after a couple back and forths if agreement isn't reached it's time to get other opinions. If a third opinion supports an editor's position, why wouldn't he keep doing the same thing? Describing that as a "weapon" seems off. Gerardw (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at the BBB dispute, but I feel that Alastair's abrasive behavior has been the main problem here, not strict interpretations of WP:V per se. I felt I tried to be clear with Alastair about what I perceived as condescending behavior and repeated and unprovoked implications of bad faith. Replying to those kind of complaints with "so sue me"-type comments strikes me as an unwillingness to achieve even neutral relations with other editors.

I'd also like to stress that Alastair never made any attempts to directly comment my main line of argumentation until I took the issue to WP:OR/N. Only then did he suddenly make an open declaration on his views of the factual matter that turned out to be oddly obtuse.[31] Stubbornly disagreement about fact inclusion due to potential policy conflict is in part understandable, but when combined with sudden denial of the entire basis of the main line of dissenting argument at such an opportune moment, it seems more like open provocation. Whether it's intentional or not, in my view Alastair is frequently hovering near the outer limits of civil interaction in disputes of this sort and crosses that line at opportune moments. He appears to be perfectly aware that his behavior leads to friction, but has declared open disinterest in amending his behavior in any way.[32][33]

Peter ^Isotalo 10:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Gerardw, thank you for looking this over. The comment about Alastairward using third opinion "as a weapon" is because he is isn't using it to forestall or manage conflicts, but as moves in a game, in effect gaming the system. Of course it is difficult to accept agitated editors' words for it in settings like this, but I was absolutely serious: Alastairward is using procedures and guidelines to stir up and inflate conflicts (intentionally or not, I don't know) and push his own radical interpretations of policy while appearing to be playing by the book. Miqademus (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter, for a start, this is the Wikiquette alerts page, it has nothing to do with individual articles, such as BBB. Secondly, your diffs do not provide any of the evidence that you suggest at all. Don't you think that you might let this one rest?

Consensus on that one article was against you, we don't appear to have interacted before and from your contribs I don't think we will again in the near future. Might you not just get on with editing again? Alastairward (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

OberRanks, you quoted me as having said "removed the contributions of other users several times", I did not. And yes, you did edit war, just because you didn't do it enough times to be reported doesn't mean you weren't warring. You added trivia, it was removed by one user, readded and then removed by me, then I warned you. After that you removed it yourself. Nothing suggests the scenario you raise. Remember that the edit history of both the article and your talk page is available. Alastairward (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I did review the edit history, the exact quote was: "you were quite keen to add material that at least two other editors had removed, without discussion." This is incorrect for two reasons: 1) There was an active talk page discussion where the other user and I were working it out 2)The other user actually re-added it (not I) while I gathered evidence [34]. So, if you define edit warring as discussing matters on a talk page and self reverting when agreement has been reached, what can I say. WP defines edit warring as constantly reinserting disputed material over and over again without any attempt at consensus. That is clearly NOT what was happening on the Cossack article, which is why I brought it up here. This is now a "stuck" discussion, so perhaps its best to move on. -OberRanks (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, I was very, very clear that I complained about your general behavior with the BBB-dispute as a backdrop. Trying to make it look as though it's a repetition of the inclusion argument is clearly misleading. And keep in mind that disagreeing with you in article space and on talkpages just because you assert yourself more forcefully by citing policy does not constitue a breech of incivility. That's why your attempt to file a separate WQA complaint about Miqademus was referred elsewhere.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• It's been nearly a week and I'm only seeing two third party opinions (myself and Swarm). I suggest either dropping it (preferred) or filing RFC/U. Gerardw (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be fair to mention this [35]. A goading post if I ever saw one. Am I wrong? What do others think? -OberRanks (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is worth mentioning as well.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Guys, see above, two third party opinions have been offered, no incivility has been found. This should be dropped or taken to a RFC/U. Alastairward (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Alastairward, plenty of incivility has been found, but too few editors have chipped in for an admin to take a definite stance. Which is understandable, since they can't be expected to dig through every submitted user's entire history. Again you persist with the provocative and "so sue me!" attitude. As a friendly advice for your continuing interactions with people: civility is not never crossing into outright incivility. It is fully possible, as you continuously show, to be outright hostile and bellicose without ever directly turn to incivilities. Thank you for edit stalking me, btw. Perhaps this must be taken further. Miqademus (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

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