Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive103

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prajwal21

Prajwal21 is continuously striking a deadlock regarding the signature of Priyanka Chopra. He says that I have wrongly copied the signature provided by him, only changed the format and uploaded it. I can't understand that why his says that the image is ineligible for copyright... when I can't even upload a better image. He is jealous of me and thinks that I am stealing the credit when I have provided him due credit. He has already listed the image for deletion and, outrageously, even for speedy deletion!. You can also read a detailed arguement about the topic at here. He has reverted my edits 4 times as you can see over here in diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, and diff 4. I have repeatedly told him to assume good faith, remain civil, and understand the Commons transition to SVG images. I havn't seen one signature on Wikipedia which is not in SVG format. In the end of the fourth reversion, you can see that Prajwal21 has labelled me as bogus and non-sense. I've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page as you can see over here in this diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page and in this diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page. I would like this issue immidiately resolved as he is acting as if he OWNS THE ARTICLE GaneshBhakt (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/WFVA

User keeps removing true and pertinent data to this particular page. Citations from FCC information, station ownership and licensing that may put the station in a less than flattering image are being censored. 71.161.44.88 (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Appeared to be vandalism from my perspective. Page has been protected, and IP blocked for 24 hours. If you run into something where you're being reverted, it's always best to discuss the issue on the talk page after the revert. (see: WP:BRD). If you have questions, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. — Ched :  ?  06:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Lack of civility from Admin: Killervogel5

I was editing the page List of World Series champions. There was a table here that listed franchises by appearance which I tried to edit. I added my explanation for doing so but the edits were promptly removed by another user, with no explanation given. I re-added the edits, this time with a more detailed description. This time my edits were removed by the admin Killervogel5. He simply stated that the table was to be arranged in a different manner than what I had been trying to do. He did not link to any policy or previous discussion that showed a consensus had already been reached on this issue; he seemingly just was making an argument from authority. (Namely, that he knew how it should be done and I didn't.) He then wrote on my page and warned me of edit-warring, which I believe was unfounded claim. I then wrote on the discussion page why I thought my edit made sense. I also alerted him and we began to discuss the issue. He told me initially that I was being uncivil, and he was probably correct since I was angry at the time. However, I calmed down and attempted to reach a conclusion on the issue and he continued to act in an abrasive manner. We both admitted to having felt "badgered", at which point he told me "Then go about your merry way." I pointed out that we hadn't reached a conclusion and he responded, "I don't need to "give you" anything. I disagree with your edits but I don't feel like arguing about it. So move on."This is how the conversation continued until I eventually gave up seeking an answer. The issue for the article itself remains unsettled, but what concerns me is the manner in which I was treated by an admin. I am not claiming to be perfect, for I certainly was not. But while an admin may correct me, no one will say anything to him if I don't bring it up. The entirety of the discussion can be found on his talk page, although I believe that he has deleted it.Talk This is where the discussion can be found. Thank you.Ultimahero (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know there Ultimahero, while I didn't research the "article" in question, I did read through the talk page discussion. I'm not sure I really see anything that breeches the civility threshold, but I am concerned about your acceptance (or rather lack thereof) to drop a matter that KV5 clearly was attempting to walk away from. If you're looking for a conclusion to the article in question, I may say that our articles are never "finished" and can be edited at any time, by anyone (for the most part). KV5 mentioned several times that he simply was not interested in bickering about the issue, and yet you continued to press him for some sort of resolution. Personally, I'd suggest that you simply allow the matter to drop, and continue about Wikipedia in an effort to improve articles. Best of luck to you both. — Ched :  ?  09:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Upon further review, I also note that while you (Ultimahero) have not technically broken the 3RR rule in any one day, the continued reverts with two other editors (User:Staxringold and the aforementioned User:Killervogel5) which puts you dangerously close to an edit war. I note that you have been warned about this, and your removal of said warnings indicates that you are aware of the issue. I do see some conversation on the talk page; perhaps asking for a 3rd Opinion would be a way to achieve consensus. I trust there are no shortages of baseball fans here at WP, so I can't imagine it would be difficult to gather a group to achieve the desired goal of consensus. Cheers and best, — Ched :  ?  09:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
As for the dispute behind the edit warring, see WP:LAME. RichardOSmith (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Definitely agree with the citation to WP:LAME. This just ain't worth fighting over (whether the 2nd organizational variable for a table should be A or B). Staxringold talkcontribs 17:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can contest to the way Killervogal acts towards anyone who disagrees with him, having been in "discussions" with him in the past. I found him to be very quick to remind people to be civil, even when there is no hint of incivility in the comments. Anyone who disagrees with him is contentious by his standards and once said I deserved to be banned, even though he had little to no support for his interpretation of policy. (This being on whether or not, team names should link to a teams season or just to the team in general.) So I can understand if someone else has a similar issue with how he discusses. JOJ Hutton 18:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As far it being a lame edit war, that was my point. I don't believe I ever did start an edit-war on the page. So to be accused of it after 2 edits (which even stated above was not violating any policy) seems absurd to me. I believe my questions for User:Killervogel5) were not out of line; he had involved himself and I was simply asking him for a resolution to our dispute. I didn't want to walk away not knowing if he would revert my edits the next day; and I don't believe that I was out of line to feel that way. I readily accept that initially I was indeed uncivil, and will accept any correction that is due to me. I simply believe that User:Killervogel5) acted out of haste (accusing me of something, then refusing to give a simple answer.) I don't feel he should get in trouble or anything; I just feel that as an admin his behavior was a bit questionable. I would simply like another admin (whom I believe would have more credibility) to ask him to consider his tone in the future.Ultimahero (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You both do realize that admins have no "special powers" or anything? Just tools that other editors don't? Just because I'm an administrator doesn't make me accountable to any higher standard than any other editor. If this is all a problem with me being an administrator, I'll willingly relinquish the administrative tools without a second thought. But I don't have to stand the flat-out lies in Jojhutton's statements above. I was simply trying to end the unproductive discussion which Ultimahero insisted on pushing. If I didn't have an answer to give, there's nothing wrong with that, and I would think that my telling him repeatedly to "drop it" and "move on" was case enough. I have no further comments to make on this matter, and I will not return to this discussion thread. I leave it to an appropriate bureaucrat to determine whether removing my admin bit is the preferred course of action, but I will not see my good name impugned without response by baseless accusations. Good day. — KV5 • Talk • 19:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The conventional way to arrange lists like this is to sort them initially in order by column. Hence, with the first column being number of wins (descending), and the second column being franchise name, franchise name should be the second sorted item; not the year, which is the last column. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect you ARE accountable to a higher standard. Or, at the very least, more is to be expected out of you than the average editor. You have the ability to block people, and thus when you warn people it carries weight. For you to accuse me of an edit-war, despite the fact that I only made 2 reverts in a day (thus not violating any policy) and gave good reasons for them, all the while not warning the person who changed my edits without explanation, is inappropriate. If you had been anyone other than an admin I would have ignored such a silly accusation because it's obviously false. But, since you are an admin I had to pay attention because I don't wish to be blocked. As for the discussion we had it was only unproductive because you refused to contribute. You boldly involved yourself and then simply walked away when I asked you for an answer. I simply asking other admins, who carry more weight than myself, to explain that such actions BY AN ADMIN are not okay.Ultimahero (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Administrators there is a list of expectations for admins, which proves that indeed admins are held to a higher standard. Most notably for our purposes is this line: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others".Ultimahero (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Once you get reverted, you should go to the talk page instead of getting into an edit skirmish. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, that's what I did. There was no edit-war. That was my point. I made one edit and explained why I made it. It was reverted without any reason given. I made the edit again with a fuller explanation and it was again deleted. So then I edited the talk page and this problematic discussion ensued. I appreciate your desire to help but please familiarize yourself with the issue before offering a critique.Ultimahero (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:3O and/or WP:RFC would be a step in the right direction. To be honest Ultimahero, after reading a few of your posts, I honestly can understand where someone might be taking your efforts as being aggressive, which seldom works well here. Yes, I an understand that you simply want to "improve" the article; but, it's rather difficult to find fault with someone who has simply walked away from the issue. To be perfectly frank, I just don't see that there's anything actionable here. While it's true that admins should endeavor to adhere to high standards, I just don't see that Killervoge did anything all that wrong. In fact, since the table is sortable by whatever column you wish simply by clicking on the title, I honestly don't understand the big "ta-do" over it. (but then again, it's not my area of choice either). I wish you luck in all your efforts, but it just seems like a mountain/molehill thing to me. — Ched :  ?  06:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I've been unclear. I'm not frustrated over the table arrangement. I am frustrated that an admin would accuse me of edit-warring after a mere two edits. I am frustrated that I alone am chastised, even though by definition it would take multiple people to revert a page back and forth. I am frustrated that when I went to discuss it with Killervogel5, he refused to listen. Walking away from the issue would be fine, but telling me things such as "go your merry way", "move on", as well as the general combative tone he employed are beyond simply walking away. These are certainly not the types of things that one would define as "civility", right? You state that he didn't do anything "all that wrong". So then it was wrong, just not REALLY wrong. Forgive me but that makes no sense to me. If it was wrong, in any sense, then it deserves some level of correction, does it not? I said from the beginning that I didn't think that he should be banned or anything; I would simply like a fellow admin to take two minutes to remind him how administrators should lead by example.Ultimahero (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Adhoc82

Attacked me in pretty rude language here. Besides, the allegation that I removed his contents cannot be true, since he only registered today (on Apr 18, 2011 17:40:24), after I did the cleanup. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to tell him about this. You should try discussing with a user before seeking recourse in noticeboards. The purpose of WQA is to resolve disputes between two or more parties, but I don't sense that's why you're posting here. Focus on the content - he shouldn't have said what he did, but the most important thing is getting the article right. And he never said it was his work, actually. Fences&Windows 01:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I fully support Gun Powder Ma and the excellent work they are doing in cleaning up an egregious misuse of sources (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup—thanks very much Gun Powder Ma, and sorry I'm not helping much). However, Fences&Windows is correct about this incident. We should not bring a new editor to a noticeboard unless the issue is extreme, and while it is obvious that the comments made by the editor are totally misguided, I am afraid that we are supposed to tolerate initial outbursts. I see that Fences&Windows has left a good warning at User talk:Adhoc82 and that probably is all that is required at the moment. I am now watching the user's talk page and will respond if they show signs of not understanding the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, the advice left by Fences&Windows at User talk:Adhoc82 is very apt and appropriate. Agree, this is probably is all that is required at the moment.--Whiteguru (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:71.174.128.244 at Causes of autism

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Taken to ANI.

This IP editor made 4 reverted edits with information that wouldn't meet WP:MEDRS. They seem to be on some sort of crusade to push mercury in vaccines causing autism which has been thoroughly, and when I mean thoroughly, I mean without a doubt, debunked. One of the researchers in one of the studies has committed a fraud of stealing money. One of maybe 10 studies, so deleting the one with monetary fraud (and no indication of scientific or medical fraud, but it's not good), we still have numerous studies that have shown no link. Nevertheless, and even if we should consider mentioning this issue, the IP editor is making a number of posts in Talk:Causes of autism. He's been asked by several editors to chill out. And of course, he/she/it is at 4RR on the article. They're not getting it. Block 'em. Ban 'em. Take his computer away. Do something. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this was the right place to bring this; WP:AN3 or ANI is the place. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I never know where to put these things. Why not here? And why ANI? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
See the top of the page: "Avoid filing a report if" "You want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures to be imposed/enforced." AN3 could deal with the edit-warring, and if there is generally otherwise problematic behavior which warrant an additional sanction, it could be discussed at ANI before being enacted by an admin. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

OhioStandard

This user has made repeated personal attacks on me in several articles. In the case at hand, I shortened an extensive quote which had nothing to do with the journal, and was greeted with this sort of comment: user Collect (talk · contribs), who often follows my edits and who had no prior involvement with this article, and with whom I'm currently in contention over an unrelated matter at AN/I, deleted the quote, saying it was a violation of NPOV. Partly because Collect claimed at AN/I that this journal is a reliable source and Collect is perfectly welcome to try find sources that claim this web site represents a sterling and unbiased example of the highest standards in medical research publishing, and . I will not be debating the question with Collect, however, as I've learned from previous experience that doing so is invariably unproductive. (all in [1]. I would hasten to point out that I became aware of the article at AfD, and not by following anyone around at all. And that Ohiostandard also !voted !keep for the article. [2].

Further examples: [3] *Comment. Collect apparently doesn't understand the word "retain", and I've reverted his deletion of the passage. Shooterwalker, Fred, do either of you have any changes you'd like to propose to the language, at all?  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC) To make this one clear see [4] Herostratus (talk | contribs) (52,998 bytes) (remove contentious unproven material per WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, see talk ("re collectables")) (undo) precisely confirming the correctnes of my position.


[5] where he indicates that he is actually following me Sorry, Collect; I understand the concerns that motivated your edit, and I have some sympathy for those concerns, but you've introduced too marked a deviation from long-established policy, and I've reverted your change. You'll note that at the top of this talk page there's a notice that says, in part, "Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus." We're at the "D" stage in WP:BRD at this point; if you find a great majority of editors strongly support your desired change that's one thing, but right now it's just you. You'll need pretty broadly-based support before your changes can become policy.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And at AN/I: [6] et seq. Again he managed to follow my edits <g> but accuses an admin I'm sorry to have to bring this here, but it seems pretty clear that Rklawton won't tolerate any critical information being fairly represented in this article if he can possibly help it, and that he's perfectly willing to try to bully other editors to prevent that from happening. I know he's an admin, but he's still obliged to conform to our policies disallowing personal attacks, battleground behavior, and article ownership, and I'd appreciate it if the community would take whatever steps are necessary to try to make him understand that ... [7] Gamaliel, I've never interacted with Rklawton before that I can recall, although Collect has been pretty unhappy with me since I took part in a discussion last year that ended in his being blocked etc. (OS has been after me a number of times, and the "block" was soundly berated by other admins bythe way), etc. Then the hubris of [8]. Yet another attack: I think it'll probably be more productive if I refrain from responding to any further accusations from Collect, if I can reasonably do so. I'd appreciate it, though, if an administrator would take a look at a recent development

Ohiostandard is apparently unable to post anywhere on Wikipedia without attempting to demonize me personally. [9] represents yet one more article where his first edits were well after my edits. Heck [10] he even admonishes me for posting a new subject flush left! Especially, please don't post at flush-left, since doing so prevents others from using normal threading protocol to reply to posts.) [11] Is it really so onerous a burden to refrain from posting at flush-left, Collect? What would be the harm in extending the very simple courtesy of allowing others to respond to the original post without being prevented from doing so by your post? I've again indented the above to preserve other editors' ability to reply to the original post. I'll not insist on the point, but is it really too much to ask that you allow them the right to do so?

In short: Ohiostandard appears quite totally obsessed with me, and I am just getting tired of it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


and also: [12] Likewise, the Eridu-Dreaming account exhibits the same tendencies toward formatting and placement of posts that Collect also employs with the effect of setting off talk page contribtions more prominently in a thread than is usual. As I said, I sincerely doubt Collect would ever try anything like this. OTOH, I also think it's better to initiate an SPI when one has any doubt than to just wonder, since socking is such a huge problem on Wikipedia. I imagine Collect will take this personally, given our negative history, but for my part, I'd want anyone who had any suspicion I might be socking to initiate an SPI. Anyway, he asked me to stay off his talk page after I took part in a discussion that led to his being blocked last October, so if it's required to inform him of this, would someone please do so on my behalf? Thank you which is an overt accusation that I am a sock puppeteer. I expect Collect will respond with his usual misstatements of my actions, but I'm not going to try to correct those that I'm sure will be coming, and will trust instead to the diligence of other users to just examine any claims he makes, if they care about any such claims. More generally, because he's been so extremely reactive to me since I took part in a discussion that resulted in him being blocked last October, I'm not going to respond to Collect any further here, to try to keep the drama level as low as it can be in this. But I'll of course be glad to respond to any questions or comments any uninvolved user or SPI admin might like to direct my way. If anyone has any, any comments or questions about any of this, please post them after the e-mail that follows so this post and that disclosure remain together on the page. Thanks same accusation. I acutally considered repeated accusations of that nature without even a wisp of evidence other than hatred to be a violation of Wikiquette as well. His mileage appears to differ. Collect (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I find reading Ohiostandard's communications unpleasant for several reasons - chief among them would be his vociferous complaints should I actually presume to list them. We're all unpleasant at times, and many of us started off as clueless noobs. However, if we use "unpleasant" as our standard for removing editors, we wouldn't have any. And if we're not proposing to block him from editing, then we're just wasting our time here. And no, I'm not proposing we block him. If he wants to continue behaving as he does, then people he offends will continue to point it out and eventually he'll get tired of it all and go away on his own (this happens all the time). Or he'll learn to work more cooperatively and we'll all be better off. Either way, the problem will solve itself. Rklawton (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I have not looked into what was going on at all, but your behaviour in this incident RKlawton is not commendable, that is certain. Passionless -Talk 01:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Gamaliel (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why this dispute started, but judging from what I've seen on Talk:Prescott Bush and Wikipedia:ANI#User_Rklawton_.22A_dirty.2C_rotten.2C_low-life.2C_disruptive_trick.22, no one has acquitted themselves well here and there's great examples of boorishness all around. Gamaliel (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC) (AN/I thread in archives)

Thanks, Passionless and Gamaliel, for your comments. Gamaliel, I'm sorry that you've been exposed to this through your participation at the Prescott Bush article. Of course, I know it's hard to recognize how one might have contributed to a conflict when one feels (correctly or incorrectly) that he's being attacked, so I'd value any perspective or suggestions you can offer as to how I might have been able to deal with this conflict more productively.
If you also choose to comment on the examples that Collect brought here, I'd only ask that you don't look only at the diffs or quotes he provides, but at the full context in which they occur. Seriously, I'd value any constructive criticism you might be able to politely offer, especially on the part of this that your already familiar with, and will do my best to hear that and not to respond defensively.  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
(Comment deleted by author. While my advice (stay cool, always make sure your own behavior is above reproach) is good advice for anyone involved in a dispute about wikiquette, the attempt at humor fell flat and it may have looked like I was implying something I wasn't, so I deleted it. Again, I have no opinion as to who, if anyone, is at fault in the matter.) Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

OhioStandard's response to comments made above

Okay, I'd wanted to give time for third-party opinions to be expressed here before I replied, myself, but I guess I'll go ahead add my own reply now. First I'd like to say that I'd be glad to address each of the many points raised here if I could reasonably suppose that this had been filed in good faith, rather than as a retaliation for my having initiated a now-archived thread at AN/I that was politely critical of Rklawton and Collect. As will appear from the following, though, I can't reasonably do so, and thus won't be taking the very significant amount of time that would be necessary to reply to each of the many points Collect raises above. I do hope, however, that anyone who's inclined to accept any of the accusations made above will take the time to examine the diffs he presents carefully, and especially to look at the original context in which I made the comments he cites above, rather than merely relying on his own characterizations and commentary. For anyone who does so, I believe a very different picture will emerge than the one he presents here.

This began when I had the impudence to perform a single revert of one of Rklawton's edits to the Prescott Bush article, and to propose some impeccably sourced (NYT, CNN, AP, FOX, etc.) content on the article's talk page (permalink) that he didn't like. For exactly that, and for very politely citing the policies that support that content for literally days on its then-current talk page, I was told by Rklawton that I'd be reverted on sight, that my behavior was "dirty", "rotten", and "low-life", and called "sneaking", "disruptive", "a wikilawyer", a "clueless noob", and "an ass". I never responded in kind; not once. His "clueless noob" comment was made here, actually, just above, which is really pretty ironic if you think about the venue we're in.

Collect's part in all this was to support Rklawton to the maximum extent possible, first at the Prescott Bush talk page, then in the AN/I thread I began (concise summary), and finally, in my view, by filing this frivolous report. The article in question is evidently dear to not only Rklawton, but also to Collect, who has been fighting for almost five years to keep any negative content out of that article. Since my single reversion restored the last mention in the article of content they apparently loathe, my single reversion touched a nerve with them both, and they both responded as if they'd been personally attacked, which was absolutely not the case. Collect and I have had conflict previously; as he notes in the text he cited above. It's my impression that that conflict has been largely motivated by my having commented extensively in a matter last October that led to his being blocked. He felt and feels that the block was hugely unfair, and I doubt he's ever likely to let go of his evident anger at me over that.

Alright, that's the sordid background for all this. Since I don't consider this WQA report to have been filed in good faith, I'm not going to devote much more of my time to responding to it. I don't mind responding to the first point Collect raises here, though, which I think is actually a pretty fair example of the rest.

In the first point of Collect's complaint, he objects to my comments on the talk page for our article on an astroturf/stealth web site that presents itself, falsely, as a typical, NPOV medical journal. That he would try to use that particular interchange to try justify his actions and discredit mine demonstrates a degree of cynicism that's astounding to me. It really amazes me that he could try to use something in which he's so indisputably and egregiously in the wrong to try to accuse me of incivility, misconduct, and (at AN/I) of copyright violation. It's a regrettably harsh thing to have to say, but his strategy seems to be to fling whatever mud he thinks might have a chance to stick.

As Collect wrote right at the outset of this report, "In the case at hand, I shortened an extensive quote which had nothing to do with the journal," and goes on to object to my response on the corresponding talk page.

I can only guess that Collect is hoping users won't bother to click a link to examine his accusations. I'm hoping you will. If you don't examine any other claim he's made, please examine this one.

If you don't want to click the link to investigate his claim on this first point, I'll provide it in brief, here. After he followed me to the page and deleted the passage I'd added there, Collect then performed his "shortening" of the restored quote which, he says, "had nothing to do with the journal". The words that are shown below as strikthrough text represent his deletions:

Also referring to this journal, authors in the Canadian Medical Association Journal wrote,

Efforts to undermine the science specific to HIV prevention for injection drug users are becoming increasingly sophisticated. One new and worrisome trend is the creation of internet sites posing as open-access, peer-reviewed scientific journals. One such example, funded by the Drug Free America Foundation, [this journal] contains a review of the research supporting needle exchange program and declares that the "effectiveness of NEPs [needle exchange program] to reduce HIV among IDUs [injection drug users] is overrated;" it further claims that the WHO position on needle exchange programs "is not based on solid evidence."

Collect's edit summary for this was merely, "wp:undue". Please note that this change radically distorts the meaning of the passage from its authors' intention. Nor was the intact passage "verging on copyvio", either, as he claimed at AN/I. Again, please look at this in its context, if you have the least doubt about the propriety of my actions, and to determine for yourself whether Collect's accusation holds up, and also to see what a third-party had to say about his actions there.

It's my opinion that anyone who's capable of making so egregiously cynical an accusation, where the example he uses to do so actually documents a misrepresentation on his part that any RL encyclopedia writer would be fired for on the spot, is not to be trusted with respect to the balance of the complaints he makes here, either.

I'll close by saying two things: One is that this was the first time that anyone has ever taken any complaint against me to any of the dispute resolution boards. I sometimes miss the mark, of course, but I usually try hard to keep things collegial, and to try to understand anyone's objections or complaints, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. Second, I've had more than enough strife with Rklawton and (especially) Collect at the now-archived AN/I thread, already, and I'm not going to provide any further defense, here. I have no more time that I'm willing to spend in that way: This has cost me far too much time and trouble already.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

My sole response: [13] Collect (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I see. So let's recap, then, shall we? Collect filed this very deceptive report to support a pal whose behavior is indefensible, and when called on it, his only response is to throw out a glib little proverb to criticize me for having answered it, as if he were somehow taking the high road. I don't really wonder at it, though: There's not much else he can say to defend his actions here.
His reply gets points for audacity, but people aren't so naive that such an answer will prevent them from seeing through the cynicism it exhibits: If Collect really cared about incivility, he would have filed a WQA report against his friend, Rklawton, who responded to my single revert by calling me a slew of vile names, none of which I replied to with anything other than a patient discussion of applicable policy. Try as he might to spin it otherwise, an intelligent child of six would see the truth, and would condemn his behavior accordingly.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

LedRush

LedRush stated that I was "unnecessarily combative," and told me to "settle down and try and be constructive," on an article where he had pledged to "try [his] best to avoid comment on the behavior of other editors." My attempt to get him to stop was reverted by him with the comment "being combative is not civil." I would appreciate assistance. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you wish to defend edit summaries such as Remvoing extranious details from lede. People who added it never had consensus to do so; consensus also shows it is supported to be removed. Only rampant WP:EDITWARRINGing retained it, and your removal of your name from the "Dramaout" with the comment Pledges only work if pledges follow them. The choice of others to comment on editors makes it inappropriate for me to remain here. seem at odds with your post here, alas. Granted the article is going to be totally unmanageable by anyone at all due to the intensity of emotions involved. I think your best best is to re-sign the DRAMAOUT pledge. Collect (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Collect, thanks for you opinion. I removed my name from the Dramaout because other pledges determined that it was ok to call others "unnecessarily combative" and tell them to "settle down and try and be constructive," whilst their name was on said dramaout - the dramaout would only work if everyone followed it. Since the dramaout I have not engaged in problematic behavior, but I certainly was on the receiving end of such. I don't see how removing my name from the pledge is relevant, nor how conduct before the pledge is relevant. Thanks, though. Any comments on the subject at hand? Hipocrite (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Excision of the entire article would be too much to hope for? Collect (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Hipocrite has a long history of harassing me and of engaging in personal attacks. Below please see some of his insults: a detailed attack blaming a world of problems on one editor [14], accusation of grandstanding[15], purposeful misrepresentation of another's position [16], insultig an editor for not making the least bit of sense [17], insulting a specific editor, and others at the same time [18], calling another editor's contributions a "word salad" constitution "grandstanding" [19], says editor is listing random factoids and says "who cares?" 4 times [20], accuses an editor of "bloating Wikipedia and distorting the facts via selective presentation" [21]. A completely unsubstantiated personal attack by Hipocrite on Wikid77 and me, misrepresenting our positions and edit histories and imploring us not to edit the article any more.[22]
  • Hipocrite opened up a Wikiquette alert on me earlier, an alert which garnered no support at all. I believe that was also another example of harassment as the edit in question wasn't uncivil, wasn't directed at Hipocrite, and the person it was directed at didn't seem to mind. [23]
  • Regarding Hipocrite's most current complain, I am shocked that it rises to the level to be discussed here. We had an ongoing discussion on the MoMK talk page where some editors were asking for some new paragraphs be introduced. Other editors were suggesting ways in which it could be improved. Hipocrite went into the original proposal and added tags behind virtually every sentence with these six edits [24] and then changed the original text with these 4 edits [25]. I reverted his second set of edits and moved his proposed changes to the original text at the bottom of the discussion [26]. Before I could finish (after the explained revert, but before the move), Hipocrite attacked the proposed language as an "unencyclopedic linkfarm" [27]. He then attacked me for moving his text (I called the text "Hipocrite's proposed revisions") asking me not to speak for him, implying that I somehow misrepresented his view.[28] I thought that this was uncivil, and I wanted him to know that I did not intend to misrepresent his views (and I in fact think it is impossible to interpret my actions as misrepresenting his views, but, whatever), and I said "Settle down and try and be constructive, please. I was merely trying to make your edits more easily accessible so your proposed revisions, (the "compromise" if you want to be unnecessarily combative) could be discussed without ruining the other people's work (and making the conversations impossible to follow)." [29].
  • Finally, Hipocrite did not warn me of this Wikiquette alert...I had to learn from someone else. This despite that we know Hipocrite knows that he must inform me because he did when he made his last unsubstantiated and harassing claim against me.

Personally, I find this whole thing a non-issue, other than the fact that Hipocrite has seemed to make it his policy to pursue a vendetta against me through personal attacks and harassment. I believe he tries to anger me on the talk page and then takes any chance he can to try and catch me in a "gotcha" moment of not being 100% civil. LedRush (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

1/10 the amount of material would have sufficed to make your point here. More simply amplifies Hipocrite's points. Collect (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I feel like his individual comments are barely uncivil, but uncivil nonetheless. Unless you see the scope of the harassment, it's hard to demonstrate harassment.LedRush (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, he continues to represent that he is not allowed to make proposals regarding text[30], even though I explicitly requested that he merely make new proposals under old ones. It's an ongoing pattern of overly dramatic behavior (like unsigning the dramaout petition) coupled with deliberate instigation and harassment.LedRush (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
(just discovered this Wikiquette alert) As I have viewed these events over the past weeks, I believe that User:LedRush has been more than cordial (and friendly), but there is a limit to how much harrassment a person can endure and remain civil. On the other hand, User:Hipocrite has launched numerous personal attacks, especially against me (User:Wikid77) as in this edit to Talk:MoMK, so consider this latest attack by User:Hipocrite against LedRush as just another case of "crying wolf" against LedRush to distract matters. I think this is painfully obvious, but I am just stating that conclusion here, in writing, for the record, to keep an eye on User:Hipocrite as promoting a WP:BATTLEground mentality, which is disruptive in his intense focus on article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" when most of us do not have time to fight over one article, among 3.6 million. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I've spent over an hour reviewing this matter, and my conclusion is that this WQA filing was merely "strategic", i.e. a wholly meritless attempt to harass and annoy an opponent, in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a matter not related to civility at all. Nor was the previous WQA report that Hipocrite filed against LedRush at all called for. I have no previous interaction history with either editor, but it's clear, from reviewing the history, that Hipocrite's characterizations of LedRush's behavior are without basis in fact, and that, on the contrary, Hipocrite's own behavior has been aggressive, uncivil, and disruptive. For example, in the matter of marking up and then re-editing another editor's talk-page proposal so as to make the other editor's original proposal wholly inaccessible, except in page history, Hipocrite's behavior was certainly very disruptive. It's hard to imagine that he wasn't aware that it would be viewed as such, and that his action in doing so would be likely to erode the trust among contributing editors.
Further, Hipocrite's refusal to respond to legitimate issues presented on the talk page of the article in question, in favor of going for the "gratuitous win" of glib comments like "TLDR" is troubling, the more so as it was expressed with a belittling and inaccurate claim that the editor's post didn't "make even a little bit of sense". I understand that conflict has run high around this article, but that's not a constructive way for one editor to address another; it comes much too close to the nature of a personal attack. And this post in which Hipocrite temporarily "resigns" from Wikipedia does in fact move into that territory, into actual personal attack. Finally, I think Jimbo's comments in this diff ( scroll down to review "Request for edit: Forensics Section" ) are very much to the point of this WQA report. Jimbo asks Hipocrite, "Why are you being so hostile?" and "Do you really think it is 'shockingly civil' to misrepresent me in this way?", and says, speaking of Hipocrite, "LedRush, you are correct. I did not argue for a mass revert. He simply made that up."
As with the first WQA complaint Hipocrite filed against LedRush, it's clear that this current complaint is merely strategic: A bad faith attempt to gain the upper hand in a different dispute by making wholly gratuitous accusations. Contrary to Hipocrite's assertions, it's actually he, himself, who has been uncivil, in this case. Further, his apparently willful misrepresentation of other editors' positions and comments, and his interference with the normal flow of talk-page discussion cannot, in my opinion, reasonably be viewed as anything other than aggressively disruptive.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your review. Whilst I disagree, it's obvious that I'm coming off poorly - I'll make an additional effort to lower my snark level. I'd appreciate your heads up if you see me devolving again - please contact me on my talk page if you would be willing to monitor and review. Hipocrite (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hipocrite is much to be commended for this response: It's normally pretty hard to accept strong criticism productively, and he appears to have accomplished that difficult task here. It's my opinion that, with his comment above, this thread could be appropriately marked "resolved". If he and LedRush agree on that point, I'd suggest that it be so marked. I'd also like to mention that in response to my comments here, Hipocrite posted to my talk page and correctly pointed out that his comment mentioning resignation did, in fact, refer to an earlier action, rather than one being made in that post itself. I've accordingly struck through that interpretation in my preceding comments.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
OhioStandard, while you are correct that Hipocrite's response is commendable, he has been able to edit constructively after being warned of personal attacks in the past. I fear that this might merely be history repeating itself. I am willing to mark this as resolved if Hipocrite is given an explicit warning that any similar future actions by him (either using Wikiquette to game the system or engaging in personal attacks) will result in some sort of admin action (a block or a topic ban perhaps). I am sorry if my response seems ungracious, but this harrassment has gone on for a long time, and I would like to seize the opportunity to stamp it out.LedRush (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Your response doesn't seem ungracious, LedRush. I don't know the long-term history here, but I do know how unpleasant it is to be met with very negative behavior over an extended interval. I don't mind withdrawing my suggestion that this thread be marked as resolved, though; that suggestion was wholly conditional on the prospect of your and Hipocrite's agreeeing to do so, in any case.
I will observe as a practical matter, however, that admins don't generally post warnings to anyone's talk page as the result of a WQA thread, regardless of how strongly such a warning is called for. I actually think it would be more productive if that weren't the case, myself; I think such warnings against repeat behavior, based on WQA reports would be helpful, in other words, and I agree that one is called for in this case. But rightly or wrongly, such warnings hardly ever seem to be made, from what I've seen. The only "satisfaction" one typically receives arising out of a WQA thread is that uninvolved users may carefully analyze the accusations, and a boomerang result may occur, as appears to have been the case in this instance.
I certainly understand the frustration you might feel at the prospect that an explicit warning against repeat behavior, or against starting gratuitous and "strategic" complaints here or elsewhere, may not be forthcoming. But that doesn't mean the outcome here has been without value. On the contrary, it's clear that Hipocrite is perfectly aware of the outcome here, and he can't avoid knowing that any future behavior in the same vein can appropriately cite and refer to this thread. If it becomes necessary, for example, because of future conflicts, to initiate an RfC/U or to ask for assistance at AN/I ( both of which do routinely result in sanctions or warnings being imposed ) then this report should be referenced therein, and will provide a supporting basis for any such future complaint. The outcome of this thread does, in fact, constitute a de facto warning to Hipcrite to modify his behavior in the future, in other words, and it shouldn't be construed as being otherwise, merely because admins are generally reluctant to post explicit warnings based on WQA threads, alone.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful reply. In looking at the "resolved" issues on this page, both have ended in either blocks or warnings. When I look at the archives, I see many of these instances as well. Of course, this doesn't mean that you feel comfortable making such a warning or block. While I still hope that a warning is issued, I am fine with closing this as "resolved" and I hope that this thread really will work as a de facto warning and that Hipocrite and I will be able to engage in constructive dialog in the future.LedRush (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
It's up to you entirely. I did see the blocks at other threads for edit warring; I should have said that I've seldom seen civility blocks here, but perhaps I'm mistaken in that. I do note that the top of this page says this isn't the place to seek "blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures to be imposed/enforced," and that's my perception of the nature of this board. I should clarify that I'm not an administrator, however, and any admin can ignore that if he sees grounds to do so: Some admin may yet choose to issue a block, topic ban, or an explicit warning after all.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, and thanks again. I am not sure that a "formal" warning will accomplish much more than this de facto one, so I am fine with this being marked as resolved.LedRush (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor Brian Josephson at Talk:Energy_Catalyzer

The above editor, failing to get his way in a dispute over article content, has made an escalating series of personal attacks, culminating in this one, directed at me: "Please don't display your complete ignorance of science any more than you have to. You probably don't even know what the term [calorimetry] means" (diff). The assertion is of course laughable, but I think that Josephson needs to be reminded that WP:NPA applies, and that continual breaches are likely to result in action being taken against him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey AndyTheGrump I would just like to point out to you that Prof. Josephson is a Nobel prize winning physicist. His statement with regard to calorimetry was entirely correct. Do you really want your only interaction with a Nobel laureate to be adversarial? Anyhoo.. enjoying the exchange on the discussion keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.179.18 (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Assuming for the point of argument that the user actually is Brian Josephson (which is not entirely implausible), that does not excuse gross incivility. And his statement is indeed "hogwash" except in the most literal sense. Rossi claims power production in the order of kilowatts. They measure this using very crude techniques indeed, not carefully calibrated high-precision calorimetry. Their claims of fusion are, to be generous, incompatible with our current understanding of nuclear physics. In particular, the lack of detectable gamma radiation all but precludes fusion. The chances that this is either a fraud, a hoax, or that the experimenters are deluded, is much greater than the chance of a scientific miracle in a garage solving the worlds energy problems. Josephson should know that. It's his prerogative to defend his opinion, but if he wants to do it here, he has to abide by our policies. That includes avoiding personal attacks and, for that matter, using iffy and self-published sources to support extraordinary and contentious claims. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
@Stephan Shultz: I can only comment that most people would consider the use of the term 'hogwash' to be uncivil language and, in effect, a personal attack. I did not start this. 'Ignorance' on the other hand is a purely factual term: it would appear that the editor concerned either did not know what the term meant or lacked the ability to see the connection; his response above does not enlighten us on this issue. Possibly my whole sentence could be considered abusive, but no more I suggest than the use of the term hogwash when the identical point can easily be made in non-emotive ways.
The other point is that given the gross disparity between apparent output energy and other energies involved, high precision is not necessary. I assume that the experimenters had figured this out and did not use high precision instruments for that reason. I have already made this point and wonder why you are nevertheless insisting on this issue.
Fusion at ordinary temperatures may be incompatible with regular physics as far as free particle collisions is concerned, though it is hard to prove a negative. When we take the condensed matter environment into account, the situation is up for grabs. For example, nanoparticles may both exhibit quantum order and by virtue of the number of particles involved have the right amount of energies to surmount the Coulomb barrier. A whole range of theories have been proposed. While it is true to say there is no generally accepted explanation, it is not true to state outright that the claims are incompatible with current science.
And re the absence of gamma rays, the usual calculation presumes high energy collisions. For slow processes the gamma ray component may be much reduced. Absence of gamma rays is not a conclusive argument. I'll leave it there for now but hope we can have continued constructive discussion. --Brian Josephson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC).
"Hogwash" is a very tame insult, even a tad old-fashioned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
"Hogwash" is an insult? ... I thought it was a place you went to in order to learn how to ride a broom — Ched :  ?  12:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hogwash: nonsense. See also _political speeches_. Collect (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I would consider bringing someone where for that "insult" to be more of a personal attack than what was said originally. In short, the complainant sounds more like a whiner than the accused sounds like he's got an etiquette problem. Suck it up or go away. Wikipedia isn't for the thin-skinned. On a tangential note, we need to confirm that User:Brian Josephson is entitled to use that name since the name also belongs to a notable person. Rklawton (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that it has been established that User:Brian Josephson is the Nobel laureate of the same name - I certainly have no reason to doubt it.
Regarding my complaint, had Prof Josephson's remark been an isolated incident, I would undoubtedly have 'sucked it up'. However, as I noted, it wasn't. Josephson has consistently disparaged other contributors to the talk page discussion, questioning their qualifications, and generally insisting that only he is qualified to state how the 'energy catalyzer' should be investigated. This is not only WP:OR, but plainly illogical, in that a knowledge of physics, even at a Nobel-prize-winning level, is no qualification when it comes to investigating a possible hoax - and given the circumstances not to assume a hoax as the most likely explanation would seem perverse. Rather than dealing with the issue at hand however, Prof Josephson has repeatedly resorted to ad hominem attacks. Frankly, for someone of his standing to do so is unworthy. Maybe I could have chosen a more polite phrase than 'hogwash' (I could certainly have used less polite ones), but having already had him insist on learning the qualifications of others, and then dismiss those who haven't reached his exalted level like so: "The situation demands proper evaluation, not airy fairy universals. Your field confirms my suspicion that my critics were not qualified to judge. Any advance on social sciences? Roll up!" (diff), I think he can hardly claim to be the initial victim in an escalating situation. I note that in his response here he claims that he "didn't start this", but the evidence seems to suggest otherwise, and he goes on to again suggest that it was "ignorance" on my part which led me describing his comments in the way I did. Hardly polite in itself. Perhaps it would be best to let the matter stand. I think neutral observers will be well able to see that Prof Josephson's responses to any questioning of his authority in regard to the topic have been unworthy of a man of his stature. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
a "...neutral observer... will be well able to see that Prof Josephson's responses to any questioning of his authority in regard to the topic have been unworthy of a man of his stature." Strangely enough, he's absolutely right. He wins. You lose. You don't have a tiny fraction of his qualifications, so suck it up, learn, and move on. Rklawton (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Since when has asking contributors about their qualifications and then making disparaging remarks about them been considered polite, civil, or the proper way to behave on a talk page? I am not questioning Prof Josephson's qualifications, I am questioning the appropriateness of his claiming talk-page 'ownership' based on them. He evidently thinks that the 'catalyser' is producing heat through cold fusion, in which case he is clearly more qualified to discuss the topic than the rest of us. I on the other hand suspect that a hoax is a much more likely explanation, in which case he has no specialist knowledge whatsoever, as far as I am aware. In any case, time will tell one way or another, and if it does turn out to be cold fusion rather than hogwash, I will offer the esteemed professor my profound apologies. Can I assume that if instead I am proved correct, the professor will respond in a similar manner? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
@Rklawton: I couldn't disagree more. Even if the user is the prize-winning physicist, he doesn't get a "free insults and condescension" card. The rules about civility should be applied equally. --JaGatalk 17:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
You'll probably want to look a bit into Brian Josephson's recent career before declaring him worthy of absolute deference on all topics physics-related. Having a Nobel prize, while certainly a noteworthy achievement, is no guarantee of universal aptitude or correctness, nor for a firm grasp of Wikipedia's approach to neutral point of view. In recent decades, Professor Josephson has drifted off into (and beyond) the fringes of science. His staunch defence of putative cold fusion results may be the most mainstream of his interests. One finds that he has some rather remarkable views about the link between string theory, paranormal phenomena, and telepathy, as well as water memory and homeopathy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not see that the discussion has gone beyond acceptable etiquette. I have seen far worse language considered acceptable. This is a dispute over whether the topic is presented in a neutral point of view. I suggest you use content dispute resolution in order to attract other editors. We should be clear that the article is about a disputed area of physics. The fact that one editor is an authority does not mean that viewpoint represents scientific consensus. Brian Josephson's views on physics are controversial, but that is the nature of his area of study. TFD (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Abusive, edit-warring DeadSend4

Resolved
 – Blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring.

Though multiple editors including myself, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, User:Nymf, and User:Crohnie have reverted his edits at Nicole Kidman, he continued to edit war, just narrowly avoiding 3RR, and as you can see by the subhead of a post he left on my talk page ("Your continous attempts at blocking my edits for no reason other than having no life? Or your personal distaste for Kidman"), he is being uncivil and abusive toward other editors.

As you can see by his talk page, he has been blocked in the past, and is currently causing the same commotion at Cate Blanchett and possibly other articles. I implore you to intervene.Tenebrae (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

He has just made a second insulting and abusive comment on my talk page, dated 20:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC). --Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
And here is a third abusive post, in which he now threatens to harass me and exhibits WP:OWN:

Then leave me and my edits alone, in fact don't visit Nicole's page since all you're going to do is whine about me, like you're doing now. Again, YOU'RE COMING AT ME, so if you post on my page I'm only gonna come back and make you whine again. ENOUGH! DeadSend4 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

--Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This editor hasn't been rude to me but the comments to Tenebrae are definitely rude and violate civil and no personal attacks. The problem I have is that this editor is rewriting multiple articles. With having a low edit count and the mistakes being made s/he needs to slow down and not make such big edits. The Cate Blanchett article has a lot of mistakes in it. From overlinking to the articles not saying what the sources say, this is a major problem and a major clean up esp. if this needs to be done at multiple articles. The threatening posts to Tenebrae should bring a block for being uncivil. Also the editor usually signs first and then makes their comment (see my talk page). The comment on my talk page shows the lack of assuming good faith. I'm sorry DeadSend4 but you have a lot to learn here and you could learn a lot from Tenebrae which would be better than picking an argument with him/her. Please, slow down and don't rewrite articles. Also, notability is important for things along with biographies of a living person plus other core policies that you are not applying or do not know. Either way it can't continue the way you have been. More later if needed, I'm going ofline for now so ping me if I'm needed. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 23:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling that DeadSend4 and his socks/IPs aren't going to reason with us, considering that he has been owning/edit warring the article for well over 5 months. ANI next? Nymf hideliho! 13:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, as I said - won't reason. Nymf hideliho! 19:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing pretty much with all of the above. This is an aggressive editor who appears to insist that all of his/her changes must stand absent an overwhelming consensus, if not more, that they are unacceptable. With the exception, perhaps, of the edits regarding Ghost, none of the edits appear to involve policy or guideline, but are style and emphasis choices, where no more than simple consensus is required. If DeadSend4 were making a case relating to accuracy, NPOV, OR, or some other BLP-rooted matters, some level of aggressiveness might be justified, but I see virtually nothing here beyond a refusal to deal with a contrary consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree since I just got another message telling me to read what he is doing instead of seeing he is going against consensus that others have said. He's made another dozen edits or so the Kidman article again. I'm going offline but ping me on my page if this goes to AN/i please. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 23:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I just blocked DeadSend for 48 hours for edit warring. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
To other admins and users:It may be worth talking to this user on his/her talk page, as he/she does not get the concept of edit warring.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Update: I have tried to explain all of this to this user, yet he keeps insisting we didn't read his edits and (supposedly) that justifies his edit warring. I don't think a block extension is necessary, but, after trying repeatedly to explain things, it may be necessary.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE - User has made a legal threat. Reported at WP:ANI. CycloneGU (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Maunus making accusations of White nationalism at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Latin American

See [31]. I have explained my position and asked him to retract his accusation: [32][33][34]. But he refuses to retract: [35][36][37] Miradre (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Miradre has unduly personalised a discussion at AfD. Maunus' description of Miradre's editing patterns seems accurate: his edits are solely to race-related articles and follow a very sharply delineated point of view. Mathsci (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping for some comments by uninvolved editors. Not from someone who is already for long time personally involved with me and Maunus and consistently objects to my views and consistently states support for Maunus's views.Miradre (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • comment In lieu of a statement I refer to the statements I have already made in the original thread. I have no intention of hurting Miradre's feelings but the characterization is the most neutral description I can give of Miradre's editing history. Note that I have made no comments about Miradre's person or beliefs, only a characterization of the pattern of argumentation that is immediately observable in his actual edits. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
@ Miradre: Please try to remain WP:CIVIL. I have been just one of nine or ten editors to criticize your current edits and use of sources. I have no idea whether your edits reflect your personal views or not. Mathsci (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
You agree that I am "pushing a pro-White Nationalist viewpoint"? Miradre (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Your edit just above and for example here[38] during the AfD are unduly personalised. Mathsci (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
You agree that I am "pushing a pro-White Nationalist viewpoint"? Miradre (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Please read my response when you asked the question the first time. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
You avoided answering. So I ask again. You agree that I am "pushing a pro-White Nationalist viewpoint"? Miradre (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
It is not really fair to pose that question given that you apparently take offense to one of the possible answers.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
You've asked the same question three times now. Is that appropriate on WP:WQA? Apparently this report was about Maunus, but you now seem to be grilling me. Please could you stop? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I am obviously interested in if you are repeating Maunus's personal attack. If you do not, then I ask you to just say so.Miradre (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
When in a similar situation a wiser man than I denied that the earth revolves around the sun. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Miradre, please read WP:BAIT and WP:HARASS. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
In this situation not denying can only be seen as tacit approval.Miradre (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
What nonsense you write, Miradre. Mathsci (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked through the thread and Miradre's edit history going back to his very first edits. While Maunus's comment was not worded as civilly as it could have, calling someone an SPA is only uncivil (lack of AGF) if there is not clear evidence that they actually are an SPA. Miradre's edits show that he is clearly an SPA, so that is not an attack, and once you have clear evidence that someone is an SPA, the bar lowers for when it is acceptable to point out percieved POV pushing, so I don't see Maunus's comment about him pushing a pro-White nationalist viewpoint as being an actionable offense. I think everyone should just back up, take a breath, and move on with the AfD. Not saying anyone did anything terribly wrong here, but I think in this case maybe it is best to even more scrupulously than usual avoid commenting on editors and their editing patterns. Maunus, if you really think the SPA issue is important information for the AfD, maybe just use a SPA tag on one of Miradre's posts, so that people can be informed but decide for themselves if it matters in the AfD. Mmyers1976 (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that I was not the one who personalized this issue, his first post accused me of being ideologically motivated in nominating the article for deletion.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Let it be noted that in strongest possible term objects to any characterization that I am pushing "a pro-White nationalist viewpoint" See reasons above. Let me state it like this. None of my edits favor Whites over East Asians.Miradre (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
... ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
So why did refer to it as "White nationalism" when none of my edits have favored white separatism, a white state, or any of the other distinguishing features of white nationalism? Miradre (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
He looked at your edits, thought he saw a pattern, and identified what he saw. If he's wrong, nothing more will come of it. If he's right, all you're accomplishing is more scrutiny of your edits. Personally, I think you should let it go. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
If anyone can find evidence for white nationalism features such as white separatism or white supremacism, please state so. I welcome all scrutiny.Miradre (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
That's not exactly what 'letting it go' would look like. To 'let it go,' just leave this thread alone, and edit something else for a while. Maybe even something that isn't about race and white people. You are certainly a single-purpose account, interested only in race and whiteness, as far as I can see. That isn't specifically against the rules, but it does often tend to become problematic, and it's hardly surprising that someone else noticed it. I don't think that there is anyone interested in blocking or reprimanding a user who notices a frequently-problematic editing pattern and comments on it, so you aren't likely to accomplish any more here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
"Whiteness"? I cannot think of an edit I have made that favor whites over East Asians. What are you basing your claim on? Miradre (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay. If you aren't going to 'let it go,' I can. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Good.Miradre (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
It's quite strange that you would bring up the fact that you don't "favor Whites over East Asians" as a piece of evidence here. Do you favor Whites over Blacks, or Whites over (Brown) Latinos? I mean, otherwise, why not just say "I don't favor Whites over OTHER RACES" or "I don't favor East Asians over OTHER RACES"? This kind of particularity is ... "strange".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not consider any race to be superior. What I have written is for instance that IQ tests, on average, favor East Asians. On average they score higher than whites. That is however of little relevance for individuals who should be judged on individual merit. There are many blacks who score higher on IQ tests than the East Asian average, for instance. The average score is only relevant when looking at group effects on society such as in IQ and the Wealth of Nations.Miradre (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Miradne, no one really cares about your personal philosophy, so you don't need to defend it here. That's not the issue. However, you ARE an SPA (like FisherQueen said, not against the rules, but can be problematic), and that coupled with your edits gave Maunus reasonable cause to suspect POV-pushing. He may be right, he may be wrong, but given your edit history, his comments were not unsubstantiated, commented on the edits, not the editor, and so were not a personal attack or uncivil. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see, each of Miradre and Maunus made remarks about the motivation of the other which had nothing to do with the question of whether the article in question should be deleted. Each of them might do well to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, and I did say before that I thought Maunus had not phrased things as civilly as he could have, but it did not rise to the level of a personal attack. I also said to all involved parties that in this case maybe it is best to even more scrupulously than usual avoid commenting on editors and their editing patterns going forward. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Anarchangel

Anarchangel's behavior at AfD has become disruptive and downright nasty. He accused Collect of lying, was forced to redact, but then wrote "You [Collect] assert untruths even when they have been disproven." And then, "you have a promise that I will continue to show your prevarication and obfuscation as I have here." Collect is content to make his points and point out Anarchangel's bias and disruption to the closing admin, while Anarchangel has made this his personal battleground based on years of disappointing interations with Collect. He wrote (and later struck) "For years, I had given up hope of actually catching you lying. It's almost sad in a way, the end of an era." Indulge a literary analogy: Collect is the whale to Anarchangel's Ahab. Lionel (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have gotten rather used to Anarchangel's rants - the part I like the most is his prolonged refusal to accept that 14 pages of Google Scholar hits is more than "10% of 135 results" for which he repeatedly accused me directly of "lying" and after admitting it was not "lying" he toned it down to "prevarication." <g>. His last comments include And therefore you have a promise that I will continue to show your prevarication and obfuscation as I have here. . The real problem is that he hijacked the AfD discussion for the pure purpose of attacking another editor - which is a gross abuse of that process. He came there with a clear intent: For years, I had given up hope of actually catching you lying. It's almost sad in a way, the end of an era (which he later struck out, although the obvious reading is that he was stalking me on this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe I can cut short the accusations of bias against Collect by showing recent AfDs in which we both voted the same way: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Muslims, where we both voted, roughly speaking to Merge, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Conservatives of Texas, where we both voted Keep.
My first edit to the 'brain' AfD was "You checked all 135 of Ryota Kanai's articles cited on Google Scholar? If you know the title of his study, please share", with the summary, "Q?". I confused the "pages" in Collect's answer, (each page has 10 entries), with the total entries he had searched, and so believed at the time that I had caught Collect in a lie. All of the text I wrote in that belief has been struck. What was struck, and what remains, are both critiques of the assertions made with respect to the AfD. "assert untruths even when they have been disproven" is empirically observable, and I stand by "prevarication" as a personal judgement of the greatest likelihood, based on the evidence of hundreds of edits squeezed into a couple of months in late 2008, and a Wikipedia proceeding with respect to Collect (I forget the exact one, it was at a higher level than ANI). However, he has not been active in the same areas as myself for years, until the past week or so, when I began to see his edits pop up at AfD. There are many assertions here of bias and bad behaviour based on personal reasons, and I deny them all; I never let my personal feelings interfere with my work here at Wikipedia, whether that be to show the deficiencies in arguments and the detriment of behaviours, whatever side of the debate they may be on, or to support material and arguments that are to the benefit of Wikipedia, no matter how hard they may be to defend.
Anarchangel (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Kindly note that I have !voted on a huge number of XfDs. That Anarchangel "just began" to see them is a teensy bit odd. And note that he retains the claim of "prevarication" which, as nearly as I can tell, is the same as saying "liar." On a personal note, if Collect and Ferrylodge are both banned, I will come back to Wikipedia. Kelly, I can handle. does seem to be a teensy bit judgemental at the very least, and I can not say Anarchangel has mellowed. Collect (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User: Revan

Stuck
 – This has become a giant wall of text, consisting mainly of a small knot of people sniping endlessly at one another. It is completely impossible for anyone new to wade thru all this crap and try to resolve this; you're just wasting electrons at this stage. Please go find another page to have your flame war, where you won't disturb the rest of us. I'll offer User talk:Floquenbeam/Boring flamewar if you've got nowhere else to go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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.

Revan was previously blocked for personal attacks and uncivil behavior.[39] When his block ended, we was instructed to stay away from me.[40] We had interacted almost exclusively through the article on Led Zeppelin. After his block expired, he came back to the Led Zeppelin board and continued to levy personal attacks against me (like calling me biased and a fanboy, among others).[41] I decided to try and wait him out and hope that he would demonstrate some more maturity with his posts. He has not. Most recently, he stated that another editor and I have "no credibility"[42], accuses me of bias[43] and drops an F-bomb while telling me that I am obsessively preaching and condescending [44].

I would merely like the terms of his initial blocking enforced, and have him stay away from me in general.LedRush (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave this for an Admin, but having looked over the thread I see that both users have issues with each other and USER:LedRush is also capable of personalizing comments to USER:Revan.("Everything you're talking about is original research, and not very believable, either") but he seems to be showing more restraint than Revan. Neither of them have recently made what I would call a personal attack just yet, but Revan is getting close with the F word and since he has a prior block and instruction to stay away from LedRush, a warning may be appropriate.In general I would suggest to both of them that they take this and future disputes to RfC as soon as it is clear they are not making progress and let go of the personal stuff.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with Keithbob's analysis. He used the quote, "Everything you're talking about is original research, and not very believable, either" to substantiate a personal comment by LedRush. But I fail to see how this is personal. Telling someone that they're inserting original research is not personal; it's directly addressing the information being presented. At the same time, though, I don't agree with all the examples LedRush posted. Saying someone is biased is not a personal attack; it would be perfectly true and legitimate for me to say that LedRush is biased in this dispute since it has affected him. There is no personal attack there. Also, saying that someone has no credibility is not necessarily a personal attack, either. The reason for lack of credibility would determine if it's personal. If he said you had no credibility because you smelled, then that's personal because it's being based on a personal reason. However, if a person vandalized a page repeatedly then they could be said to have no credibility and that would be perfectly fair and on-topic. So we need more context to establish what whether it was proper or not. But the swearing by Revan is surely out of line.Ultimahero (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

LedRush has on numerous occasions unfairly accused me of attacking him. You've seen an example here. He has also, after my block, provoked me by bringing up the now dead issue that I was blocked. He has posted on my talk page many times after I've told him explicitly not to post on my talk page. He has erased a post I made on the Led Zeppelin discussion page. And now I log on and see that I'm reported. I've made no attack but merely stated what I observed. I can't adjust my attitude according to everyone's sensibility's fragility. You might want to consider blocking him for a few hours, since I've felt hounded by him, having him over my shoulder every time I write a word here on wikipedia, hounding me even on my talk page after I've, both before and after my block, told him not to do it. I was instructed by a biased admin to "stay away" from LedRush so I don't write on his talk page. But you can see that he feels that the Led Zeppelin article is his backyard that I should stay away from. He's being unreasonable in so many ways. Blocked, warned or not, I feel hounded by this user. Revan (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit: An IP address called LedRush a "fanboy". Is he blaming me for attacking him anonymously? Revan (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that before, but Revan is right. It does seem that LedRush is being very liberal in the citations he uses. LedRush did not call him a fanboy, he simply said that fanboys will hypothetically engage in a particular practice. That's not calling him anything and is not a personal attack. Revan did call him biased, however, his reason was that LedRush was, "driven by making Zeppelin look as awesome as possible". That's specifically related to the article and I don't think it constitutes as a personal attack. (As opposed to something like name calling.) LeadRush quoted Revan in citation 52 as saying he had, "no credibility". However, I do not see that anywhere in the citation. In 53 Revan does NOT call LeadRush biased; he points out that others have accused him of that. Again, the cursing is the only thing that I find inappropriate.

One of LeadRush's biggest arguments is that Revan was blocked and instructed to "stay away" from Revan. However, in checking edit histories I noticed something interesting. Revan was indeed blocked on March 4th, specifically for edits made to Judas Priest and LeadRush's talk page. After March 4th, however, Revan never again edits LeadRush's talk page. LeadRush, on the other hand, has edited Revan's talk several times since that block (March 24th, 26th, 27th, 28th, and April 19th to be exact). I bring this up because LeadRush has clearly interpreted the instruction for Revan to "stay away" from him to mean that they should not even edit the same pages. (This is obvious from this very page where he says Revan was instructed to stay away, but then says that Revan returned to Led Zeppelin, implying that by continuing to edit Led Zeppelin Revan was violating the "stay away" order). However, if that's how LeadRush interprets the order, then why does he continue to edit Revan's talk page? By LeadRush's own standard Revan would not be allowed to reply on his own page, lest he violate "staying away". Should Revan stop using his own page to ensure he won't run into LeadRush? Obviously, LeadRush is using a double standard (criticizing Revan for editing the Led Zeppelin page while at the same time intentionally seeking Revan out to edit his page).

Thus, given the frivolous citations brought up by LeadRush (except for the swearing) and the ridiculous double standard being employed, it seems to me Revan is being unfairly lampooned.Ultimahero (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of statements and opinions here which I don't quite understand, so let me tackle them one at a time:
1. When Revan states that only fanboys can have a position that he has accused me of having, he is obviously calling me a fanboy, and claiming otherwise seems disingenuous to me.
2. Regarding the biased statement, he has accused me of being biased in the past, and his extremely thinly veiled accusation of bias is again an uncivil personal attack. The reason he called me biased: because I don't agree with his argument regarding a genre and I had asked for reliable sources? That is an unacceptable reason, but it still isn't the real reason. The real thing he is saying is a rehash of old accusations of bias because we disagreed on the sales numbers.
3. Yes, I edited Revan's page in response to personal attacks made by him either on the Led Zeppelin page or on his talk page.
4. I am perplexed by Ultimatehero's accusation of a double standard. Revan was blocked for uncivil personal attacks and harassment. When he began to engage in this behavior again, I warned him to stop on his talk page. This is not me seeking him out. This is him disobeying an Admin's directions by not only reengaging in the very same article and discussion which led to his block, but doing so in an uncivil way. He sought me out in the only place we had ever interacted. That same admin recognized that Revan wasn't doing what he was supposed to, but suggested that I just try and relax and hope the attacks stop. They didn't. Particularly odd is Ultimatehero's assumption that I would consider it a violation of the "stay away" order if Revan responded to my posts about his personal attacks on his talk page. I never stated this, and I definitely don't believe it. However, I do interpret the stay away order to mean that he should not go back to the very same article on which he levied many personal attacks which led to his block.
5. Regarding the "no real credibility" statement: I accidentally put in the wrong diff. Here is the real one [45]
In the end, we are left with Revan clearly disobeying an Admin's direction while continuing to fight old battles in clearly uncivil ways. Ultimatehero's point about context is true in the abstract, but is clearly not the case here. Unsubstantiated claims of bias are uncivil. Swearing at someone is uncivil. Calling someone a fanboy (or that having a view that that person has is a view of fanboys) is a personal attack. Saying that a person has "no real credibility" and giving them advice for their real lives is not civil. Are these the worst statement ever? Of course not. But they are part of a pattern that has continued despite repeated warnings and despite a block.
Furthermore, Revan accuses a completely uninvolved admin as being biased right on this page. He has absolute no proof to back this up, and absolutely no context in which to make that accusation. But I guess we can just add this to his growing list of uncivil acts.LedRush (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

1. No, he is not. You are inferring that he is speaking about you, but he does not call you that. The obvious subject of his statement is the average reader. You shouldn't mix contexts, infer, and assume bad faith.

2. No, it is not. Saying someone is biased is not a personal attack. I can say you are biased in this discussion because it has affected you. Does that mean I am attacking you personally? No, it simply means that it will be very difficult for you to objective, or that you have not shown objectivity. It is addressing your actions toward the article, not you as a person.

3. If they were on the Zeppelin page, you could have simply told him there. No need to go to his page.

4. According to what you linked to, he was blocked for editing Judas Priest and your page, not Zeppelin. That's what the blocking admin cited. If you say he sought you out to harass you then prove it. Link to it, don't just assert it. My point was that you clearly interpret "stay away" as not to edit the pages you frequent. So why do you go to his page intentionally? Again, you could simply warn him at the Zeppelin page. But no, you make the effort to tell him on his talk page, even though by the standard you established he shouldn't even be able to respond or else he wouldn't be staying away. And he did not "go back to the very same article on which he levied many personal attacks which led to his block" because Zeppelin was no cited by the blocking admin.

5. I don't see how it's a personal attack. It's about your edit history and your ability to fairly interact with the articles. It's not about you as a person.

You have not demonstrated that his calling you biased in unsubstantiated. All you have shown is that he called you biased. Prove he's wrong. Even if he is, though, it's not a personal attack because it is not about you as a person. I don't think you understand what personal attacks are. He did not call you a fanboy; you're assuming bad faith. It's not a personal attack to say someone lacks credibility because it's not about them as a person. How did he give you advice for your real life? I don't see that anywhere in that last link. Are you talking about this: "Of course, having endless discussions about some mere sub-genres in a box is also ridiculous when taking a step back and reflecting"? Because that would seem to apply to him as well since you're both discussing it. I think you have a persecution complex. You have not shown anything that constitutes as "personal attacks".Ultimahero (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I find your positions very difficult to defend and difficult to justify. A personal attack is a statement about an editor which can insult or belittle the opponent [46]. When an editor drops F-bombs, calls you biased (without any substantiation), implies that you are a fanboy, says that you have no credibility to discuss the topic and gives you advice on how to gain such credibility in your real life, he is engaging in personal attacks. And even if you can contort his statement not to be be personal attacks under WP policy, they are still clearly uncivil. You have repeatedly assumed bad faith about me, attributing wild opinions to me which I don't hold and have never intimated. Your fixation with how I would warn him about his personal attacks on his talk page is odd; that's what you're supposed to do (and you're assertion that he wouldn't be "staying away" if he responded is even odder - I've never stated that opinion and it is obviously not true. If someone posts on your wall, of course you can respond. Why continually bring up this red herring?)
Furthermore, you have ignored his unfounded and unsubstantiated claim that the Admin was also biased. It is simply uncivil to go around calling all the editors you meet biased. It is simply uncivil to drop F-bombs when people are trying to explain WP policy to you. It is simply unacceptable to continually make arguments about the editor (biased, fanboy, no credibility) and not the edits, but it is even worse when you have been blocked for doing the very same thing in the very same context.
However, it clear that I will get no joy here with you, so I suggest we close this topic and hope that Revan can began to follow WP policy and address arguments, not editors.LedRush (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, you're claim that I need to prove past harassment is odd. He was blocked for harassing me. [47]. An Admin has looked at the issue and decided what he was engaging in harassment, and asked Revan to stay away from me and not engage in the harassment. Continuing to swear and make uncivil adhominem arguments on virtually the only page you both have edited is not staying away. It's engaging in the very same behavior which got him blocked the last time. However, I didn't seek another block here, I merely wanted him to receive a warning about WP policy. Unfortunately, I fear that the arguments here will do nothing but embolden Revan to engage even more flagrantly in the actions which led to his block.LedRush (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

When an admin answers in this way: "After your block expires, I suggest you make it a point to forget LedRush even exists", after I fairly tried to defend myself against the block, I call that admin biased. Not objective. Perhaps that word isn't such an insult you believe it to be. This report didn't really do what you wanted it to. But I'll remember to revise what I write before I post in order to avoid the f-word as much as possible. Revan (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

LedRush: First of all, he did not call you a fanboy, and you have to assume bad faith to sustain that he did. I explained that clearly in my last post and you completely ignored it. Secondly, calling someone biased or saying they don't hold credibility are not personal attacks. A bias is not saying that you are dumb or anything of the sort; it's simply saying that you're edits are not being objective. It's not personal because it addresses the content of the article. If I wrote,"Clearly, Led Zeppelin is the worst band in the history of the universe", then by the standard you are putting forward you could not call me biased because you would be attacking me personally, even though the hypothetical edit clearly would be biased. You standard is ridiculous. Claiming the bias is influencing edits is not an attack on the person. Again, saying you're biased in regards to this issue would be be very true and is not an attack on you. Also, I asked you before how he gave you personal advice, and you clearly avoided that as well. When you make claims, I challenge them, and then you ignore the challenge and simply repeat the claim, then it doesn't reflect well on you. (And I've said several times that the cursing was clearly inappropriate.)

You say that calling someone biased is uncivil. Perhaps it could be, if it was an unfair accusation. However, you missed my entire argument when you said this: "Also, you're claim that I need to prove past harassment is odd." But that's not what I said. I never said that you need to prove harassment in the past because I know he was blocked. What I actually said was this: "You have not demonstrated that his calling you biased is unsubstantiated. All you have shown is that he called you biased. Prove he's wrong." Don't prove harassment, prove his claims of bias are, as you stated, "without substantiation". So far all you've done is come here and say, "He called me biased, he needs to be punished". If you are making fair, constructive edits and he calls you biased then that would be uncivil. But you have to prove it. You can't simply throw out the claim.

I would agree that the admin was biased, or at the completely overstepped his bounds. Telling Revan not to go to you're talk page is one thing, but to say "forget he exists" would mean, among other things, ignoring you entirely, even on matters of productive conversation. It would mean that by definition he couldn't respond to you if you post on his talk page. After all, if he's to view you as not existing, then how can he answer you posts? So I do think that admin went to far. Simply telling him to not post on your page would suffice.

I'm not "fixated" on you posting on his page, I simply believe it's hypocritical on your part. You act as though you are the victim of abuse; that Revan has maliciously sought you out, even after his block, to harass you. But what I see is that after being blocked Revan never again posted on your page. You, on the other hand, have frequently and intentionally sought HIM out. I don't find that fair. If you want him to "stay away" yet you continue to frequent his page? That makes no sense.Ultimahero (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is obviously going nowhere. I feel that I have already addressed the recent statements made by Ultimatehero above, and believe it unfruitful to rehash them. Let's just close this as unresolved.LedRush (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Ultimahero, here, on at least two points. First, on reading the "fanboys" comment, it seems pretty clear to me that was aimed at LedRush, while trying to skate under the radar. I think it qualifies as uncivil. Second, on the bias issue, my read of Ultimahero's opinion on this is that LedRush is biased in the conflict between himself and Revan, because LedRush is affected by the conflict, so Revan saying he is biased is okay. If that were how Revan was calling him biased, I would agree with Ultimahero, but that is not how Revan was leveling the accusation of bias. He specifically said that LedRush was biased about "trying to make Led Zepplin as awesome as possible" - basically accusing LedRush of not having a neutral point of view on Led Zepplin at all. That is uncivil. And overall, I simply don't swallow the defense of "I'm not calling you [a fanboy, biased, without credibility], I am just pointing out that others are have called you that." To me that is trying to game the system, trying to get away with making an uncivil comment by saying you're just mentioning that others have said it. It's clear his intent was to level that accusation at him, and that is the same thing as saying it yourself. Normally, such behavior would not (imo) merit needing to officially warn someone here, but when Revan has just come off a block for similar (though higher magnitude) behavior, it's clear the block did not help him back up and cool off and reevaluate his behavior. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that there is anything wrong with saying someone is biased on an issue. As I said above, if I wrote, "Led Zeppelin is the greatest band ever", that would obviously be biased. I don't think it would be wrong for someone to say, "You're clearly biased." I don't see that as uncivil. My point was that LedRush needs to prove that the "bias" claim was untrue. All he has done is prove that he was called biased, but as I said, I don't see a problem with that in and of itself. To bring this up here would put the burden of proof on LedRush to back up his claim.

And the "fanboy" comment was about the average reader of the article. It's possible that it was an under the radar attack, but you have to assume bad faith to substantiate that.

Finally, Revan is not commenting on LedRush's page. He is not seeking LedRush out, so it's unfair to say to say that Revan wasn't changed by the block. Revan was banned for attacking LedRush on his page, and he has since then not commented on LedRush a single time.Ultimahero (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, LedRush doesn't need to prove that the bias claim was untrue. On the contrary, the principle of assume good faith would dictate that everyone assume there is no bias unless bias is proven. That puts the burden on Revan. Simply being a fan of a band doesn't mean you are incapable of fairly criticizing them. "Fanboy" itself is a derogatory comment, so using it, whether leveled at LedRush or the average reader of the article, is evidence of bad faith, and WP:AGF does not require us to assume good faith when bad faith is evident. Taken in isolation, it would not be the worst thing in the world, but given other comments and Revan's recent history with LedRush, that is all reasonable enough evidence that at least some of that bad faith was meant for LedRush. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding, Ultimahero. Sometimes, administrative back-up is needed in order to prove a point. The fan boy comment is closer to a fact than an "under the radar" insult; I was not in any way directing it towards LedRush. I was merely stating an example in direct relation to the article. You'd have to assume really bad faith (making you biased) in order believe that it was directed to a specific person, and on top of it, it's not really possible to prove, either. It surprises me that another admin really interprets this as an insult. But no, it was not in any way directed to LedRush. That this was one of his main points only enforces my opinion that he's hounding me. I'm not an absolutist like the biased admin who instructed me to erase some of my own memories, but I don't want him writing on my talk page unnecessarily, provoking me by reminding me of my recent block, accusing me of attacking him when I'm not, or reporting me when he shouldn't. Revan (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarity, Revan, I don't believe either Ultimatehero or Mmyers are Admins. Also, I have agreed not to edit your talk page unless you engage in more personal attacks about me (despite Ultimatehero's belief, the talk page is the only place to address personal attacks without brining a case on either this board or AN/I) or to answer specific questions or accusations made against me on your talk page [48]. I have stated this clearly before, and I have not edited your talk page for over 3 weeks, except to warn you of this action as I am required to do.LedRush (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, but that doesn't change the fact that you're being unreasonable. Both I and Ultimahero have explained why. Revan (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, Revan. This is silly. Mmyers1976: You didn't address my example. I wrote, "I don't think that there is anything wrong with saying someone is biased on an issue. As I said above, if I wrote, "Led Zeppelin is the greatest band ever", that would obviously be biased. I don't think it would be wrong for someone to say, "You're clearly biased." I don't see that as uncivil." In that example, would it be fair to say someone is biased? If not, then how do make corrections? You could say the edits are biased, but it seems superficial to me to try and distinguish between incredibly biased edits and a biased editor. If an editor continues to make biased edits then it seems fair to conclude he is, in fact, biased. Again, the only way to solve that problem would be for LedRush to prove he is not biased (And again, he is making accusations here so the burden of proof is on him) and thus prove the Revan is attacking him unfairly. But if he cannot, or refusing to, then there is no grounds to say that Revan is not acting proper.

Assuming good faith doesn't mean that you don't point out bias. Assuming good faith would mean not assuming another editor is attacking you. Like, oh, i don't know.... when an editor is talking about the average person that comes along to read Wikipedia as opposed to assuming that he secretly means you personally. "Taken in isolation, it would not be the worst thing in the world, but given other comments and Revan's recent history with LedRush, that is all reasonable enough evidence that at least some of that bad faith was meant for LedRush." So, even though he didn't actually say anything about LedRush we're just going to assume he was insulting him because they've had problems before? Sir, THAT'S assuming bad faith. The only one who knows his intentions is Revan, and unless he directly calls LedRush something then you can't attribute malicious intent to him.Ultimahero (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ultimahero – no, the burden to prove bias was on Revan when he called LedRush biased. Pure and simple. Your attempts to argue to the contrary change nothing. He didn’t do that. Since calling someone biased without proof is a prima facie insult, all LedRush had to do was bring the insult, with the diffs, here, which he did.
Did LedRush in fact say anything like "Led Zepplin is the greatest band ever" in ArticleSpace? If not, then your example simply is not worth addressing. Let's not make this about silly hypotheticals, let's keep this about actual comments we can observe in diffs.
Yes, you can point out bias, but where Revan went wrong was that he outright called LedRush biased and made his comment about LedRush doing everything to make Zeppelin look as awesome as possible. That was unnecessarily snarky. Remember – “comment on the edits, not the editor”. When you comment on the edits, not the editor, not only are you making it less personal, but commenting on the edits provides built-in evidence of the accusation of bias. Maybe LedRush is biased, maybe he isn’t but had Revan commented on the edits, not the editor, we wouldn’t be here today. Wikiquette and civility is all about choosing the right words and right phrasing, ESPECIALLY when you are bringing up another editor’s perceived actions, and Revan could have phrased his concerns about perceived bias better by commenting on the edits, not the editor, so it is perfectly valid for me to talk about that here on Wikiquette alerts.
As for your attempt at rebuttal on the fanboys comment, and your attempt at spin by accusing me of assuming bad faith, you are way off base. AGF policy tells us “This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence.” A pattern of behavior is contrary evidence. A pattern of behavior is BETTER evidence than a single, explicit comment, because anyone can have a single moment of weakness or even just poorly word a sentence. A pattern of behavior is what Revan has, otherwise he wouldn’t have just recently been blocked. Once that pattern of behavior has been noted, AGF does not require editors to assume good faith, and so a comment using the derogatory term fanboys, in the context of Revan’s other behavior towards LedRush, including using profanity, is pretty obviously uncivil against him and anyone he may be directing the term against. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sir, the burden of proof is on LedRush. Revan must demonstrate bias in his conversation, but not here. LedRush is making accusations here. It is LedRush's responsibility to link us to the appropriate areas so we can see what's going on. If LedRush just came and said, "Revan is being mean", with no examples to back it up, we would all scoff at the lack of evidence. So LedRush is obligated to provide examples of everything he says. It can't be unsubstantiated. So LedRush must link us to his arguments and demonstrate that he was not biased. That is the only way to show that Revan was, in fact, wrong in saying such things.

As to my example, you completely missed the point. It was intentionally outrageous. That's the whole idea. I'm trying to demonstrate that some edits are ridiculously biased and the only way to characterize them is as "biased'. If an editor continues to demonstrate such behavior then what other conclusions can be reached other than that he is, in fact, biased? And it would not be Revans responsibility to demonstrate here that this was the case, because he did not bring this issue to this page. LedRush did so he must show us where the evidence lies.

Again, it's superficial to distinguish between continually biased edits and a biased editor. It's similar to vandalism: If an editor continues to vandalize, we don't say, "Well, he's not a vandal, just his edits are". That would be ridiculous. We recognize that such behavior is definitional to the person's intent. We call that person a vandal (not bothering to worry about his feelings) and he is dealt with. Similarly, if an editor continually pushes a biased point of view, even after corrected several times, then what else re we to conclude than that he is trying to insert a particular viewpoint into the article? He is biased if he refuses to stop making biased edits. (Also, "address the edit, not the person" doesn't really work here. If you are calling the edit something negative, whether it be biased, stupid, etc., how does that NOT reflect on the editor? Would it be appropriate to say an edit is "stupid"? "I didn't say YOU were stupid, just that what you think and said are stupid." I just bring this up to say that in this context it seems worthless to try and distinguish between the editor and his edits because on necessarily reflects the other.)

Finally, you last comment is, quite frankly, silly. If an editor continually threw direct insults at another editor then that's one thing. It's clear that he has no intent on being civil. The point of the policy is if an editor is continually called direct names, like an idiot, he doesn't have to put up with it. But the policy DOES NOT mean that a prior history allows one editor to take another editors words and interpret them any way he likes regardless of context. Please, I would love for you to show me the policy that says, "If you've had problems with an editor in the past, then go ahead and take all his words as insults, even if he isn't talking about you. You no longer have to be objective." That's what you're arguing. That LedRush can take any comment, regardless of who is actually being addressed, and insert himself into it because he and Revan have had problems in the past. That is absolutely assuming bad faith. And your last statement is just a hodgepodge of all the accusations against Revan with all context thrown out. Your attempting to paint a worse picture than what actually exists. That's why we deal with each statement one at a time, IN THEIR OWN CONTEXT, to avoid the type of rhetoric you just exhibited.

I'm not saying that Revan has been perfect. However, it's unfair to say everything is on him. After his block he never went back and edited LedRush's page again. By all fair standards he has "stayed away"; he has not intentionally sought LedRush out. LedRush, on the other hand, continues to post on Revan's page. LedRush will go to Revan and say, "How come you aren't staying away from me?" It's hard to not see this as instigating on LedRush's part, at least to a certain degree. Surely we don't take the block to mean "LedRush and Revan can never edit the same page again". Even if Revan left the Zeppelin page and stared editing elsewhere, would he be forced to leave again if LedRush showed up? Mmyers1976, you must address this point because this is central. Does Revan's block mean that he and LedRush can no longer work on the same page? If not, then is it really fair of LedRush to go to Revan and accuse him of "not staying away"? Wouldn't that be instigating?Ultimahero (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the only thing silly here is that you seem to want to browbeat and pick apart the opinions of uninvolved editors like me if they don't agree with you. This WQA was supposed to be about uninvolved editors mediating the conflict between Revan and LedRush, but you've turned it into a conflict between you and me, and I was silly to let you draw me into it, but I'll fix that now. I don't know if you are an uninvolved editor or not, but your insistence certainly doesn't make it look that way, you make yourself look very partisan. I wonder how many other uninvolved editors might have helped out here, but they didn't want to be browbeaten by you as you play Wikilawyer for Revan. I don't think your arguments are valid, but I respect your right to make them without being browbeaten by others, and I expect you to have the same respect for others. I don't know what you think you are going to accomplish by this browbeating, but my opinion is based on sound reasoning, Wikipedia policy, is still here for anyone to read, and there is nothing I would change about it, so there is no reason for me to waste my time repeating myself or continue discussing this with you. Let it go, and let other people give their opinions on this without harrassing them. 69.15.156.226 (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has lead to the following: LedRush defends himself instead of I, which ought to be the case here, since he reported me. The accusations he made of me are farfetched, and it either ends with nothing, or with LedRush getting a warning for wrongfully accusing me several times and for hounding and provoking me. I have already said that I will try not to use the f-word, which was the one thing third parties found problematic. Revan (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No, Revan, that "ought" not to "be the case". The person reporting someone is not required to defend himself. He is only required to provide diffs of your behavior, which he did. For the record, I didn't take what LedRush said here into account in my judgement, I only looked at the diffs - your pattern of behavior. I am not siding with LedRush's arguments, I am giving my opinion of your behavior, which is how a WQA should be judged. The only thing LedRush's reporting you did was bring your behavior to my attention; had I noticed it on my own, my opinion would be exactly the same. Let me say it again - reporters aren't making accusations, they are bringing someone's behavior to the community's attention, and then letting the community decide - that's why they provide diffs. Therefore, they aren't required to "defend" themselves just because they are reporting. You, as the person who is being reported, are perfectly entitled to defend yourself, but are not required to do so. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I meant exactly what you said: I ought to defend myself because I was reported, but I pointed out that this discussion has lead to the contrary, which only shows how inappropriate his reporting me is. Revan (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If I misunderstood, it is because you expressed yourself poorly, because I look at it now in light of your "explanation", and it reads exactly the same as it did before. I'll say it again, you expressed yourself poorly, and I do say it again because I think it is at the heart of this disagreement. If you are as innocent as you claim to be, then you are here because you expressed yourself poorly. You made a comment about fanboys that was open to interpretation by more than one editor as being a thinly veiled insult, and it wasn't even a constructive comment, so it was unnecessary. Had you not expressed yourself so poorly, you wouldn't be here. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Or you misunderstood because you just misunderstood. Maybe you read it too fast. You misunderstood the fanboys comment when the context was explicitly clear, so it perfectly reasonable that you could miss the point here as well.Ultimahero (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You are a lot of "maybes" and speculations, Mmyers. You (and LedRush) dismiss logic in preference of a more farfetched and defaming explanation, a result of bad faith. I'll say it again, your theories and speculations and "maybes" are farfetched. Your theories are farfetched and less logical. Revan (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, this whole thing is opinions against each other, yours and LedRush's being more farfetched. You're talking about a "pattern of behavior" as proof that what I write is hidden insults. This pattern of behavior excuses other users' bad faith. I already explained that the fan boy comment didn't have anything to do with LedRush, but that you both keep insisting that it is an insult is like calling me a liar and defaming me, is it not? There is also no point in arguing against Ultimahero's very appropriate logical observation that calling the fan boy an insult is assuming very bad faith. But hey, my "pattern of behavior" excuses that. Let's hope you come across many patterns similar to mine. Simultaneously, LedRush also has a pattern, which is more like hounding: he got me blocked for writing on his talk page, yet he kept writing on mine multiple times; he provoked me several times by reminding me of my block when responding to me on the Led Zeppelin talk page, what I wrote having nothing to do with the recent block. That is pure provoking. I had even explicitly told him to drop the dead issue.

And I agree with Ultimahero that LedRush should prove that he wasn't biased, which he can't, because I based that comment on concrete posts he made and not on my general impression of him. And it's not an insult either, that's reading in too much in wikipedia policy, which is what LedRush has done by accusing me all to easily of attacking him.

We all know I won't get blocked by this. For all I know, it's LedRush who should receive a warning or 24 h block for the reasons I've stated. You can see on my talk page that I have considered reporting him. Revan (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Revan, you call my opinion "farfetched" and Ultimahero's "very logical" for no other reason than Ultimahero sides with you and I don't, duly noted. I am as uninvolved an editor as you can get. I have never edited on the pages in question, and I have never had any previous interaction with you or LedRush, so I have no reason to show LedRush any favoritism or you any animosity. No, I am not defaming you, and trying to build the case that I am is unconstructive and is just going to escalate things. I am completely within WP:AGF policy on this. The term "fanboys" itself is a perjorative term, it was unnecessary to use it. Whether your intent was to insult or not, use of the term, coupled with your other comments around it, provided enough evidence to question your good faith. AGF policy clearly states “This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence.” Note it says "evidence", not "final proof". No one has to prove what you were thinking or what was in your heart. Even if you weren't acting in bad faith, if there is enough that a reasonable person might see as evidence of bad faith, then that person isn't guilty of violating bad faith. Finally, yes, you aren't going to be blocked over this - there was never any chance of that since this is WQA. However, I have noticed that guys like you who argue and argue over and over again in WQA and don't take responsibility for their tone usually end up getting blocked another time, another place, because they don't ever figure out how to moderate their tone to express themselves better. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
They are farfetched. The fanboys comment is inexcusable due to the context. It is obviously farfetched to take as an insult something that isn't even about you.Ultimahero (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, very farfetched, and not my opinion because of any childish side-choosing mentality you accused me of having, Mmyers1976. On top of it, you generalize my behavior as "guys like you" and employ something that looks like wishful thinking, "end up getting blocked another time" and accuse me of taking no responsibility for my tone when I actually have. It's very clear that you have a negative view of me. It boils down to this: I don't have to defend myself for any of LedRush's accusations; I have, in the beginning of this discussion, said that I will try not to use the f-word.

I consider this report of me a giant part of LedRush's hounding of me. If he continues, I will consider reporting him. A last question, to you two, even though I assume you will be light on him, and I don't mind if you are: do you think his hounding warrants a warning? Revan (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and therefore have no authority to offer warnings. But I do think he is instigating and deserves to be told to knock it off. At the same time, though, I think you could check your tone a little more, as well. I understand that he's provoking you, and getting frustrated may be perfectly justified. However, the world of Wikipedia isn't always fair, and unfortunately you may receive more problems like this (or worse) in the future if you aren't careful of how you sound. I'm not trying to lecture you, nor am I blaming you for being frustrated over this. I'm just saying that tone can be very hard to gauge over written text and you may get accused of stuff unfairly if you aren't careful.Ultimahero (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that. Revan (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I find this to be an incredibly telling statement by LedRush: "My goodness. Thank you for that incredibly gracious response. I often act like a magnifying mirror in conversations, reflecting either kindness or incivility back at the people with whom I communicate. It is not such a bad thing to be reminded to be more civil. I will take your advice regarding Revan and appreciate your thoughtful responses to my issues.LedRush (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)". This was posted on MLauba's talk page.Ultimahero (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

A Little Algebra

Here is a little algebraic proof. Revan's comment to LedRush is: "It's made clear that you're biased and driven by making Zeppelin look as awesome as possible." Then just a few lines later, he says: "And naturally, fan boys and stupid journalists will choose whatever makes Zeppelin look the bigger and the better."

So, in Revan's eyes:

LedRush = driven by making Zeppelin look as awesome as possible

and

Fanboys = choose whatever makes Zeppelin look the bigger and better

"driven by making zeppelin look as awesome as possible" and "chooce whatever makes Zeppelin look the bigger and better" are equivalent figures, so

driven by making Zeppelin look as awesome as possible = choose whatever makes Zeppelin look the bigger and better

Which means

LedRush = Fanboys

Farfetched indeed. Mmyers1976 (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Context, context, context. Even if he said the same about both of them, they were in different contexts. It's still bad faith to assume that he was intentionally trying to call LedRush a fanboy.Ultimahero (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The two comments were in the same reply, separated by only two (2) sentences. Your perception of "context" is very narrow. Mmyers1976 (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


Not it's absolutely not narrow. But your algebra lesson is extremely ridiculous and FARFECTHED and a result of BAD FAITH. Here's another equation for you: I was referring to the average reader who might take wikipedia's word too much for granted. But I'm very very aware of the fact that LedRush is better oriented with wikipedia than the average reader, so therefore he isn't an average reader, hence not one of the fan boys who might interpret wikipedia information as "fact" all too easily. I've already said that the comment wasn't about LedRush, but you keep implying that it is. You're trying to justify misinterpretation as a result of bad faith. My explanation is less farfetched than yours, truer, and less ridiculous.

LedRush = not the average wikipedia reader who takes wikipedia's word for granted and uses it as a source in articles or academic papers.

LedRush = not fan boy according to the fan boy comment.

On the other hand, LedRush invented ridiculous theories in an attempt to justify a known vandalism that occurred on the Zeppelin article in 2005. The vandalism was left unchanged for a while, which led to Reliable Sources quoting it (I refer to them as "stupid journalists" in my fan boy comment). And instead of accepting the logical and known fact that the vandalism caused that made up fact, and instead of acknowledging that no reliable sources state the same fact before the vandalism occurred, he makes up ridiculous theories in order to justify the absurd and false fact, just so it can stay in the article and make Led Zeppelin look bigger and more awesome than they would if the article only stated the real fact. That is why I called him biased (as you see, Mmyers, this is not very far from calling Led Zeppelin "the best band in the world"), and it can't be more substantiated and less of an insult. The issue is whether Led Zeppelin have sold 300 million albums (the false number) or 200 million albums (the better sourced and more likely number). You can see his theory in his first post in this discussion. It was called "inconceivable" by respected user Pirizcki, and LedRush avoided acknowledging the simple question: are there any sources claiming 300 million before the time of the vandalism? LedRush was clearly driven as a fan, not a neutral editor, to make Led Zeppelin look as awesome as possible. Less than this would qualify as clear bias. Hence, my comment being substantiated and not a "you're biased because you smell" kind of thing.

His theory is in his first post of this discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Led_Zeppelin/Archive_7#300_million Revan (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Revan is drawing a distinction between calling people who believe that WP's numbers (the 300 million) are accurate (fanboys and journalists) and me, who argued that WP's numbers could indeed be accurate? I don't quite get it. But then again, I don't "get" much of this discussion. All this discussion has done is embolden Revan to call uninvolved third parties' ideas ridiculous (in addition to my ideas), and hurl accusations (IN ALL CAPS!1!) of bad faith on a board designed to report "impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications" in order to increase civility. Despite the fact that more editors have criticized his actions than defended them, he has taken this thread as a go-ahead to continue his insulting and condescending tone. Ultimatehero's greatest contribution to this discussion is to make future actions against Revan more likely as has not taken the lessons of his blocking.
Can we please close this thread, as it is clear that no party will get any joy from continuing this discussion, and it has, in fact, disrupted the other threads on this page, which is intended to increase civility, not decrease it?LedRush (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed on all your observations above and on the thread going nowhere and needing to be closed. By all means, can an admin close this as unresolved? Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Your under the radar insults are dearly noted. Nice try reporting me, LedRush. Revan (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And I don't know if you deliberately misspell Ultimahero's nic name or if you've misread it all along, but can you rephrase the sentence where you mention his greatest contribution? I suspect there's a grammatical error that prevents complete understanding.

Also, if you think I have continued my attacks and insults here, your hounding has simultaneously also continued. You keep blaming me all too easily for insulting and attacking, and you will get reported if you continue, at some point. You both engage in pointing out everything outside the context at hand, claiming that what you point at is proof that shows that you're right, which you really aren't... You're just farfetched, taking angry tones too personally. Revan (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit: I just saw that you reported Ultimahero, Mmyers76. I wasn't convinced by one word and Ultimahero's response was very concise and with an appropriate length. Revan (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And yes, LedRush, of course I draw a distinction between the average reader who might not be aware of the possibility that wikipedia articles can include vandalism and false facts, and a well oriented wikipedia editor who knows more about how wikipedia works, of course I do, Even if you and the average Led Zeppelin fan (not well oriented with wikipedia) support the same number in this case. Why not draw a distinction when the means differ and the goal is the same? One takes wikipedia information for granted, and another tries to justify it with implausible theories. Which is worse? Revan (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Collapsing a user's comments

I have a question about collapsing another user's comments. The specific situation is near the bottom of Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011, section "Evidence that not ending the trial has harmed Wikipedia" but I am looking for general guidance and a pointer the the right guideline or policy.

(Should this question be asked somewhere else? Perhaps the Village Pump?)

The situation is this:

User A posts a somewhat lengthy (37 lines on my monitor) argument.

User B put tags around it collapsing it.

User A revert the tags, asks User B to not collapse his comment.

User B reverts, putting the tags back, and tells User A not to revert.

User A, not wanting to edit war, leaves it collapsed and asks WA what to do. Is it proper to collapse another editor's comments when he has expressly asked you not to do so? Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not appreciate not being notified of this discussion to which he has not named me as one of the two users above; I found this in the user's contribution history myself after having a gut feeling he'd posted somewhere else about the issue. I will note that this user has been posting rather destructively and not really been helping the conversation at the page quoted. He repeated quotes from earlier in the page, and felt the need to start a new section that consisted entirely of these quotes followed by a two or three sentence (all right, six often extremely short sentences) statement with merely his own opinion. Merely in the rules of common sense, I condensed the quotes that already appear otiginally at the top of the page without changing any of the text in the quotes or in the rest of the post itself. He blatantly removed them in an attempt to enforce his point, leading to this edit from me. He then collapsed both of my replies trying to enforce his point, a change I reverted while adding my reply and better stating what the collapsed section contains with no prejudice.
I don't think my action in this thread is a case for a Wikiquette concern, and look down on this user for his suggesting I am not following proper Wikiquette. What I did was merely for the readability of the thread that was no doubt to follow, a thread that contributed absolutely nothing meaningful to the discussion. I think there is harm caused in having this process going on because it shows bad faith on this user's part while my actions were entirely in good faith towards advancing the discussion while he prefers to quote nonsense (in my view).
I should add as a note that I did create my own section with a series of quotes after this following the same guidelines I had suggested for his post. The difference is that my section addresses reasons the system should stay on, which is relevant to the discussion; not various editors' feelings, which contribute nil towards any form of consensus. I should note that I followed my own suggestion in that post, and it makes it obvious exactly what is quoted by other people and what is my own statement. Even my own quote from the Oppose section I marked under the quotes. CycloneGU (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Cyclone, but policy is against you on this one. Collapsing another editor's comments is a form of talk page refactoring, and our policy about that says, in part:
Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.
You collapsed Guy's edit, and he objected. I understand your dislike for his edit, but your low opinion of the value of another persons edit, where that edit is not unequivocally disruptive, doesn't give you the right to suppress it. Given the strife at that page, policy says you shouldn't have collapsed it in the first place, and you certainly shouldn't have reinstated that after he objected. The right thing to do at this point would be for everyone to leave everyone else's edits alone, regardless of how much anyone dislikes them.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, it was entirely in good faith for the simple reason of making it clear what was his unique comments and what wasn't. I think the entire discussion will soon be worthy of being collapsed in whole soon in any case (not just that section, but the entire section including mine and Off2riorob's posts) because it serves absolutely nothing to the overall discussion on the page. Regardless, that phase will be closed in a day NEway (based on UTC time), and I doubt it'll have an effect on closing as it's not related to the issue; it'll simply be archived. If Guy feels the need to discuss this issue in a venue that it doesn't belong in, that's entirely his choice, but to bring up a pointless argument and attempt to turn the discussion into something it isn't, while not Wikiquette specifically perhaps, is just downright ridiculous. I acted entirely in good faith, but it might be worthwhile for him to agree to have the section closed as it has no bearing on the discussion at all. CycloneGU (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Cyclone, saying your own actions were, "Merely in the rules of common sense", implying the other editors weren't "common sense", isn't a productive way to try to resolve a problem. Nor is your statement, "I think there is harm caused in having this process going on because it shows bad faith on this user's part while my actions were entirely in good faith towards advancing the discussion while he prefers to quote nonsense (in my view)" likely to win you any points at a board where the purpose is to deal with incivility. The accusation of bad faith is uncalled for in this case, and characterizing another editor's contribution by saying "he prefers to quote nonsense" is just flaming, as well as being flame-bait. Similarly, your "pointless argument" and "downright ridiculous" comments are, as well. I understand that you're annoyed, and that you feel your characterizations are accurate. But you need to stop making them. I'm not an admin, but my prediction would be that if you continue in that vein that you won't be doing yourself any favors at all. Please try to tone it down. And incidentally, I see that the "collapse" you implemented is still in place. You need to revert that immediately now that you've been made aware of WP:RTP, viz. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I suppose I must apologize, I did not mean to suggest that the user was lacking in common sense; just that condensing something like that is common sense to me. If the user wishes to have it uncondensed - if that's a word - he may do so at his discretion (I will strike my comment saying don't remove it again). It doesn't change the fact that it contributes nothing to the discussion or to the actual outcome, and that perhaps the entire section ought to be condensed. All it is is a repetition of quotes about how editors are hurt by what they perceive as an ongoing "trial" followed by comments from supporters of PC saying that the section is useless; there are a number of users who argue that the reason the system was not removed is because it's working, and it's working well in some places, so there's no point in removing it. I still think there is no consensus in the RFC, but again, that itself has nothing to do with this discussion. If he wants to remove it, by all means; the section itself is useless however. CycloneGU (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Note, I just saw the talk page post, I'll respond to that. CycloneGU (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Please note that this same discussion continues immediately after the flush-left comment that appears below.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • All right, I thought of a possible compromise. It seemed like such a good idea I also did it to my section. I still think compression is the way to go now that I know how to do it, but in this RfC I'll make an exception. CycloneGU (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I was about to post a different message when I saw that Cyclone responded on his talk page saying he wanted to try something different, instead. What he did was to uncollapse and then separate Guy's comments out into one Level3 ( === ) subheading, with a separate Level3 subheading for "Discussion", following just below. Perhaps the effect can be most easily seen by comparing the respective table-of-contents entries for TOC item number 18 "Evidence that not ending the trial has harmed Wikipedia" "before" and (subsequent to multiple intermediate changes) "after" versions.
I don't have a problem with this endpoint myself, but please remember going forward that talk-page refactoring shouldn't be attempted on contentious pages, and that it's not a negotiation. If it is attempted, even with the best of motives, it has to be reverted if anyone objects. Sometimes that will leave the page harder to read than would be desirable, perhaps most times, but those are the rules that we all agree to operate under, for better or worse. Thanks, Cyclone, for uncollapsing. I doubt Guy will object to the current state of the page, but if he does, he will certainly have the right to insist that it be restored to its structure before you attempted any refactor at all. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I am quite happy with the current state of the page. I think it's a good framework for further discussion about pending changes.
Also, I apologize if my attempt to get general guidance and a pointer the the right guideline or policy without dragging anyone else in by name or notifying the persons I had not named caused offense. That was not my intent. I honestly did not know policy on this, and just wanted to know if I had done something wrong. I was prepared to apologize if it was me who had violated policy. Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The person who keeps posting the same stuff, loses the argument. Collect (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's twice you have posted the above (irony noted), and in both cases nobody had done anything which could be fairly described as "posting the same stuff."
In addition, even if the accusation was true, the above is not based on any Wikipedia policy. If someone actually does post the same thing over and over (as opposed to being falsely accused of doing so) that is a behavior which should be dealt with just like any other annoying behavior, but the available remedies do not include declaring that he has "lost the argument." Editors can and do make valid arguments in the wrong way. If someone is, say, uncivil while making a good point, that does not invalidate the point. Even if an editor is so disruptive that he ends up being banned, that still does not mean that he automatically loses the argument (although in many/most cases the disruptive behavior is a substitute for rational argument as opposed to being an addition to rational argument.) Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ultimahero hounding uninvolved editors in WQA

Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC) I weighed in on the WQA on Revan as an uninvolved editor. I don't listen to Led Zeppelin, don't edit on any of the pages in question, and have never had an interaction of any kind with either editor. I gave my opinion. Ultimahero doesn't seem content to just give his opinion, he must browbeat and pick apart the opinion of any other uninvolved editor who takes a different opinion. His tone has been extremely condescending. Actually, I call him an uninvolved editor, but I cannot be sure if he is uninvolved or if he actually has some previous involvement or affilation, as his badgering of others as he wikilawyers on behalf of Revan certainly seems very partisan to me. I don't mind if someone starts off their opinion on the case by "i don't agree with (other user), here is my take on it" (I do it too), but I do think that feeling the need to offer a rebuttal to every post that takes a different position from yours derails the discussion. It certainly did in this case. The WQA should have been about mediating the conflict between Revan and LedRush, and instead a lot of it became a conflict between Ultimahero and me, when comments should have been directed at Revan and LedRush. I for my part accept my responsibility for allowing him to drag me into this, but Ultimahero calling the opinions of uninvolved editors who have volunteered their time to help out "silly", "farfetched", accusing them of bad faith, putting words in their mouths to mischaracterize their positions, calling them out for not responding to his offtopic scenarios that he latter admits were "intentionally outrageous" has a chilling effect on these kinds of discussions and will discourage uninvolved editors from volunteering their time. This is all very uncivil behavior, and when an uninvolved editor responds to a WQA alert, he should be trying to model the behavior that users failed to show in the discussion leading to the alert. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  • UltimaHero is uninvolved. I did a quick search on the first 500 results for recent edits (which goes back to 2006) and did not find "led" anywhere. In the last month, I did not locate any edits to anything that sounded like a song or album of his, either. CycloneGU (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll accept that he's uninvolved. Makes his behavior all the more difficult to understand. I don't know what he expects to accomplish by arguing with other uninvolved editors by telling them their opinions are wrong and reiterating his own - pressure them to change their opinions? Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not know either editor, and do not particulary care about Led Zeppelin. So I am uninvolved just as much as Mmyers1976, as my edit history will confirm. I gave an opinion, just like Mmyers1976. Yes, I do believe Revan was correct in this particular instance. That's what I think and I am free to have such an opinion.

Mmyers1976: "I gave my opinion. Ultimahero doesn't seem content to just give his opinion, he must browbeat and pick apart the opinion of any other uninvolved editor who takes a different opinion." I'm not sure how I browbeat anyone. According to dictionary.com, browbeat means to "be bossy towards" or to "discourage or frighten with threats or a domineering manner; intimidate". I don't see how I was could be characterized as bossy, because I don't believe I made any demands or told anyone what to do. And I certainly never threatened anyone. So I don't see how I did any of that. I simply stated what I thought, and was quite bold in stating it. But I don't see how that could be classified as bossy or threatening. I did attempt to "pick apart the opinion of any other uninvolved editor who takes a different opinion". I'm not sure what could possibly be wrong with that, though. If you offer an opinion, would you rather have me selectively take out single statements (and thus risk pulling them out of context), or thoroughly work through your entire statement, addressing things point by point? Maybe Mmyers1976 and I are just completely different people but I consider it to be respectful to interact with all of what was said by someone who disagrees.

"His tone has been extremely condescending." The problem with making arguments about tone is that A) It's all extremely subjective to begin with, and B) It's made even more difficult because you're attempting to gauge tone from written text. I perceived things he said to be condescending, as well, but I would think that in general it's good faith to assume the person isn't trying to be rude. That's why I never made accusations of "tone".

"Actually, I call him an uninvolved editor, but I cannot be sure if he is uninvolved or if he actually has some previous involvement or affilation, as his badgering of others as he wikilawyers on behalf of Revan certainly seems very partisan to me." Like I said before, I simply feel Revan is being wrongly accused. That's all. Speculating on my motivations like this seems as though it might be a violation of assuming good faith.

"I don't mind if someone starts off their opinion on the case by "i don't agree with (other user), here is my take on it" (I do it too), but I do think that feeling the need to offer a rebuttal to every post that takes a different position from yours derails the discussion." Why? How could thoroughly discussing every point derail the discussion? Again, is Mmyers1976 suggesting that I ignore large parts of his response? Perhaps addressing everything can be a hassle because it takes so long, but neither of us is compelled or obligated to be on this page. At any time we could say, "Eh, this is taking too long. Forget it". So I don't see the problem.

"The WQA should have been about mediating the conflict between Revan and LedRush, and instead a lot of it became a conflict between Ultimahero and me, when comments should have been directed at Revan and LedRush." It's true that we dominated the conversation, but it was always about them and their conflict. It was never personal between us (Until now, I suppose). So if was never off topic, then what's the problem.

"I for my part accept my responsibility for allowing him to drag me into this, but Ultimahero calling the opinions of uninvolved editors who have volunteered their time to help out "silly", "farfetched", accusing them of bad faith, putting words in their mouths to mischaracterize their positions, calling them out for not responding to his offtopic scenarios that he latter admits were "intentionally outrageous" has a chilling effect on these kinds of discussions and will discourage uninvolved editors from volunteering their time." First, it seems odd that Mmyers1976 would claim responsibility and then in the same sentence blame me by saying that I "dragged him into this". Again, how did I drag him? Was he obligated to respond? No. He freely chose to, so I don't think I dragged (which implies I forced) him anywhere.

Next, I do no appreciate Mmyers1976 cutting up my sentences and throwing them together like this. All of those (silly, farfetched, etc.) were in different contexts and by putting them in one string like this is to ignore context and imply that I said them as insults, which is not true. First, to say "opinions of uninvolved editors" is misleading because while I did talk to multiple editors in the above post, all the things cited were in my discussion with Mmyers1976 specifically. So to use plural pronouns implies I was repeatedly having problems with lots of different people, which simply is not the case.

Secondly, I understood (and still do understand) Mmyers1976 to have been saying that if two editors have had problems in the past, then one editor no longer has to assume good faith and can take whatever the other says and insert himself into the statement, thus allowing the editor to perceive insults when he was not even being discussed. I said that comment was silly. (I would like to point out that Mmyers1976 repeatedly stressed Wikipedia policy to address the edits and not the editor. He specifically said, " Maybe LedRush is biased, maybe he isn’t but had Revan commented on the edits, not the editor, we wouldn’t be here today." The context was calling an editor biased, so it seems Mmyers1976 is saying that it's okay to call edits biased as long as you don't call the editor biased. Yet here, even though I specifically said the COMMENT was silly, Mmyers1976 seems to think I am insulting him.) I did not call him silly, and I think my response is fair. If Mmyers1976 believes that I misunderstood his point that's fine but I don't see the problem with calling an extreme opinion (at least extreme as I perceived it) silly. I'm talking about someone's argument, not them as a person, so what's the problem?

Thirdly, Mmyers1976 had been taking a comment by Revan (the comment was, "My point is, this balanced estimation will leave readers to choose between the two figures in whatever way they seem fit. And naturally, fan boys and stupid journalists will choose whatever makes Zeppelin look the bigger and the better") which was clearly about the average reader and insisted that it was a veiled shot at LedRush. I said, "They are farfetched. The fanboys comment is inexcusable due to the context. It is obviously farfetched to take as an insult something that isn't even about you." Again, I'm clearly commenting on the argument, not the person. And this is also where the "bad faith" remark comes in, because earlier I had pointed out that one had to assume bad faith to interpret something as an insult that was referring to someone else. I said, " So, even though he didn't actually say anything about LedRush we're just going to assume he was insulting him because they've had problems before? Sir, THAT'S assuming bad faith. The only one who knows his intentions is Revan, and unless he directly calls LedRush something then you can't attribute malicious intent to him." I think it's bad faith to assume that someone is probably trying to insult you when they aren't even discussing you.

Fourth, Mmyers1976 says I was "putting words in their mouths to mischaracterize their positions". I'm not sure what he's talking about here, because he doesn't give an example of me "putting words in his mouth", but I feel the second part of the sentence is even more telling. He says the purpose of putting words in his mouth is to "mischaracterize their positions". So apparently Mmyers1976 believes that my intention was to purposefully mis-characterize him. He didn't establish that I actually did put words in his mouth, but for the sake of argument let's assume I did. Isn't it possible that I just misunderstood what he was saying? But no, Mmyers1976 assigns a negative motivation to me, namely, to "mischaracterize their positions". Clearly this is an assumption of bad faith.

Fifth, he says I was, "calling them out for not responding to his offtopic scenarios that he latter admits were "intentionally outrageous" has a chilling effect on these kinds of discussions and will discourage uninvolved editors from volunteering their time". The scenario he refers to was not off-topic. He was saying it's never fair to call another editor biased. I responded by giving a scenario that was obviously biased (The example was someone writing, "Clearly, Led Zeppelin is the worst/greatest band ever") in order to point out that some edits are so extreme that they clearly prove the editor to be biased. He did not address this, so I pointed out that he had not answered my argument. He responded by saying, "Did LedRush in fact say anything like "Led Zepplin is the greatest band ever" in ArticleSpace? If not, then your example simply is not worth addressing. Let's not make this about silly hypotheticals, let's keep this about actual comments we can observe in diffs." (Before I go anywhere else, notice that he said my example was "silly", which is the exact same word I used of his comment that he cited as uncivil.) I point out here that I knew LedRush had not said anything like this, and I didn't accuse him of doing so. I responded to Mmyers1976 by saying, "As to my example, you completely missed the point. It was intentionally outrageous. That's the whole idea. I'm trying to demonstrate that some edits are ridiculously biased and the only way to characterize them is as "biased'." Mmyers1976 never addressed my example again until bringing it up here. I think it's worth noting HOW he address it. He characterizes it as "off-topic", which I "[admitted was] "intentionally outrageous". This, of course, is an unfair characterization. They were on topic, and the example was extreme to prove a fair point. I believe by phrasing it the way he does Mmyers1976 presents an unfair picture of what I said.

Lastly, Mmyers1976 says, "This is all very uncivil behavior, and when an uninvolved editor responds to a WQA alert, he should be trying to model the behavior that users failed to show in the discussion leading to the alert". I don't see how I was uncivil. All of my "controversial" comments were directed towards arguments, never people. So I will allow the reader to determine who, if anyone, has acted with a lack of civility. Thank you.Ultimahero (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ultimahero gives an 1,800+ word response to a a 334 word report. If anyone needed evidence of my claim that his comments derail a WQA discussion, this is it. Mmyers1976 (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my response is certainly long. But that's because I thoroughly went and responded line by line, quoting Mmyers1976 and his accusations, and offering a direct response. That's not to mention the fact that I had to give context, through direct quotes, of all the accusations made against me because Mmyers1976's original post offered none. I know it can be timely to go through all of this. However, Mmyers1976 did not respond to a single point that I made. So, I will ask anyone who reads this thread, which is preferable: A)Someone who takes a long time, but responds to everything you have said, or B) Someone who offers very short answers but ignores most if not all of your carefully worded response. Let the reader decide.

And Mmyers1976, please answer this one question: Are you saying you would prefer it if I ignored larger portions of what you write and instead selectively picked and chose whatever seems favorable to me?Ultimahero (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly this does not rise to a wikiquette issue. "Hounding" is a strong term, understood to mean one editor harassing another by "joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work". I don't see any evidence of that. "Editors" plural is also not established. The length of UH's response to the complaint seems appropriate: UH takes it point by point and addresses it in a civil and reasonably concise manner. As MM admits, a discussion between him and UH on another issue went on too long, went off-topic and it seems to me that each of them was unwilling to let it go. Now why you don't have A nice cup of tea and a sit down? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I'll accept that there isn't any need for action. As far as plurality, you may have missed Keithbob's comment and Ultimahero's reply in all the looooong text there. Keithbob was wiser than me in not replying back. I do wonder if more people might have weighed in if they thought they could do so without Ultimahero picking apart their opinions. I also disagree with your comments about the appropriateness of the length of UH's complaint, and it cetainly can't be called concise by any stretch of the imagination. He might benefit from some of the suggestions for conciseness in WP:TLDR. But I am going to follow the policy that has kept me from having the ongoing feuds that many editors seem to have, and that's when I identify an argumentative editor, I avoid him thereafter. Mmyers1976 (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This was my response to Keithbob:

"I disagree with Keithbob's analysis. He used the quote, "Everything you're talking about is original research, and not very believable, either" to substantiate a personal comment by LedRush. But I fail to see how this is personal. Telling someone that they're inserting original research is not personal; it's directly addressing the information being presented. At the same time, though, I don't agree with all the examples LedRush posted. Saying someone is biased is not a personal attack; it would be perfectly true and legitimate for me to say that LedRush is biased in this dispute since it has affected him. There is no personal attack there. Also, saying that someone has no credibility is not necessarily a personal attack, either. The reason for lack of credibility would determine if it's personal. If he said you had no credibility because you smelled, then that's personal because it's being based on a personal reason. However, if a person vandalized a page repeatedly then they could be said to have no credibility and that would be perfectly fair and on-topic. So we need more context to establish what whether it was proper or not. But the swearing by Revan is surely out of line.Ultimahero (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)"

I fail to see how that's excessive.Ultimahero (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin, just go ahead and close this one as unresolved, no action, whatever you want to call it, I don't care. I just don't enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing as much as some here. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:ClaudioSantos again

Some days ago I had a case here with ClaudioSantos [49] because of his persistent breaches of wikiquette. Once I thought it was more or less settled, I just left it and forgot about it.

However, now I see he has changed his talk page in a spurious and hostile way, posting a copy of the original Wikiquette Alerts thread and tagging it as:

"Some off-topic nonsense, summary: wikipedians have revealed in wikipedia SPK-patient's names, professions, pictures, etc. against their will and/or linked their data to hostile(hostile), mendacious(false), spurious(non-genuine) chatter against them and against SPK. The SPK has not revealed nor published some wikipedians' names, professions, pictures, etc. which has been already revealed by the own wikipedians to anyone all around the WEB included the own wikipedia."

I strongly believe this is yet another proof that Claudio doesn't care at all about wikiquette and building an encyclopedia, and that he's just trying to game the system once again. Sabbut (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated allegations of cabals and conflict of interest by User:Brian Josephson

Recently appearing on this page was a WQA filed by another editor regarding personal attacks by Brian Josephson at Talk:Energy Catalyzer. (For context, the Energy Catalyzer is a putative cold fusion invention. The inventor has made a number of announcements about his device and its possible commercialization over the last few months. There has been extensive and sometimes heated discussion on the article talk page about the quality, independence, and reliability of sources used in the article, as well as the appropriate interpretation and weighting of those sources in the article.)

Over the last day or two, Brian Josephson has suggested that a number of established Wikipedia editors (including myself and at least one other Wikipedia administrator) are part of a "squad" of editors, using abusive and disruptive editing approaches, potentially as part of a secret conspiracy by 'hot' (or 'conventional') fusion researchers threatened by the Energy Catalyzer and similar cold fusion devices.

  • "There is a prima facie case for suggesting that a number of editors of this article have been engaged in Disruptive Editing...."
  • "This was attacked by various people using rather dubious arguments, almost suggesting some kind of conspiracy..."
  • "The 'removal squad' then moved in again...."
  • "A number of discussants then moved in, in a concerted action..."
  • "Clearly, the squad wants..."
  • "The squad could suggest..."
  • "Which leads one on to the subject of ... ===Conflict of Interest=== " (Josephson introduces his next section this way, linking the editors he has named as part of the "squad" or cabal with his conflict of interest claims)
  • ...It has been suggested that some working in this field are seeking to minimise interest in such subjects by infiltrating organisations such as Wikipedia and, under cover of anonymity, doing what they can to 'adjust' or even delete articles of this kind (there has even been a suggestion that the page be deleted on this discussion page (TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:19, 20 April 2011)). Such actions, were they to be occurring (and I myself am in no way asserting that this is the case), would naturally be a serious violation of the guidelines." His "I am in no way asserting" circumlocution notwithstanding, he most certainly is suggesting a conflict of interest, in light of his preceding and subsequent comments.

He has continued to imply a conspiracy against him, with the absurd reasoning

  • "And surely the shortage of people not declaring an interest in conventional fusion is just a teeny bit revealing..."
  • "Would that I could give you people the origins of the suggestions that I alluded to. They were passed on to me by a friend, who got them from another friend, who believes, no doubt rightly, that sometimes it is safest to remain silent about certain issues where power and money are involved."

In response to specific requests that he explain who he believed had a conflict of interest, he declared

  • [52] "I will in fact be documenting these issues...when I have time to get round to it."

He just doesn't seem to get that this sort of thing poisons any chance of constructive collaboration. He's not going to listen to me; I'm hoping that an independent voice might persuade him that casting these sorts of aspersions on the ethics of good-faith editors just isn't the Done Thing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to cut to the chase on the talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
How many discussions at this board would have been unnecessary if everyone kept to the maxim "Comment on content, not on the contributor" Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Random profanity from User:Francis E Williams

I was hoping someone could help the author of this drive-by talk-page vandalism out with Wikipedia's civility policy. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It's confusing, but the IP user reporting the incident (24.177.120.138) appears to have been involved with Francis E Williams before, in which case the edit cannot be regarded as mere "drive-by talk-page vandalism". The first edit the IP user made was to Francis E Williams's SPI page ([53]). Then there's this edit to the MfD for a supposed sock. And this rather strange, unexplained edit. Someone needs to get to the bottom of this mess (i.e., I don't really understand it. Another sock?). Guoguo12--Talk--  03:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wtshymanski and the transistor AfDs

Stuck
 – Issue moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wtshymanski_failing_to_work_collaboratively

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.

This stems from a series of thirteen deletions for electronics component articles. A convenient list is here. The disparaging comments are Wtshymanski's.

These were PROD'ed, rejected, than AfD'ed. For the purpose of WQA it's not just the behaviour to this point that is at issue, but behaviour since. This has been an unusually ill-tempered (and single-handedly so) set of AfDs with a tenacious amount of flogging a dead horse afterwards.

The basic premise behind these deletions is that, "parts list articles are not notable". These components are all real electronic components, with a huge range of references behind them from any number of standard parts handboooks. Yet this does not, allegedly, confer notability. The problem is some variant of WP:MILL: simply existing and being recorded as such is not notable, in the way that a phone number is not notable, despite being well catalogued. Only components with some real claim to distinctive novelty could be said to be "noteworthy", and thus considered WP:Notable.

The strange part is that no-one, even at the AfDs, seems to disagree with this principle. The dissent is that these components are, by and large, reckoned to be that handful of components that do meet the more stringent criteria for being noteworthy.

AfDs

Most of the debate seemed to take place on this AfD, the rest being somewhat repetitive.

These in turn gave rise to a centralised discussion

Behaviour during this AfD was far from ideal. In particular, I don't believe that AGF extends to comparing other editors to a psychotic murderer.

Talk page comments from other editors, re behaviour

Some rare support:

The AfDs have now mostly closed as keeps. There is some support for deleting a couple where it's agreed that they are indeed just "parts list" items.

So far, process seems to have worked just as it ought and an excess of zeal by one editor has been compensated for. However behaviour since really is getting beyond a joke. They seem incapbable of making any comment without a sarcastic edit summary, they refuse to recognise that there is any other valid viewpoint:

Shortly after one AfD closed as keep, they re-tagged it for notability - yet isn't this what was just discussed?

This is an editor who refuses to respect consensus, or that he might be "right yet outvoted", and that in the interests of the encyclopedia it's time to put the stick down and leave the horse be.

This is not the working atmosphere we're supposed to have to put up with. This editor's behaviour is intolerable. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bad articles need to be improved. Un-notable topics need to be removed. The edit summaries are my relief from endlessly typing "rv v" and help to remind me later what the nature of the edit was. And I'm not plural, there's only one of me. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand the "rvv" thing. I do a lot of that myself, it's not a good atmosphere to work in because first you start to see every anon IP as a vandal, then every editor, then every edit. It's all too easy to forget that some edits to WP are actually constructive and that not every editor is a poo-obsessed twelve year old.
However the edits here are not vandalism. It is wrong of you to approach them in that way. Leave the vandal patrol be for a day or two if you have to and work on the good stuff instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't object to the notability tagging; I do that somethings on articles that are kept after AfD, to remind editors that evidence of notability still needs to be cited. The problem is just that Wtshymanski won't lose the attitude. His calling everything a "parts list item", "Radio Shack catalog", and such is just pouring on negativity, where forward progress is possible. If he can't accept the decision, it would be best to just walk away from these articles. Dicklyon (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, we're either writing an encyclopedia, or something else. If the only substantial facts in an article are breakdown voltage and current rating, and the JEDEC package number, coupled with some praise words and ad talk from some hobby magazine or TAB book, then it's a parts list entry masquerading as an encyclopedia article. I'm not calling everything a parts list entry, I'm calling these rather useless items parts list entries. Forward progress is not possible, sources either don't exist or are unsuitable for Wikipedia usage, and all we've got is repeated appearances in parts lists. If there were sources, they would have turned up before or during this Article Improvement Drive. If you were grading an assignment on, oh, say, "Silicon diodes" or "electronics" or "The Semiconductor Industry", you'd have to give a failing grade to this sorry collection of inaccurately copied data sheet parameters. This is aside from the rather undignified obsession with minutia that so characterizes many Wikipedia topics; learn all about the printing of menus in the dining car, but nothing about the railway. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
We're not writing an encyclopedia — at least I'm not — instead I'm sat here with the IEEE paper on the 2N3055 in one hand (a very good read) and thinking that I should be writing an encyclopedia, but then I think "What's the point?" because someone is being such a persistent negative jerk about these same articles. Your attitude is a major disincentive to anyone bothering to do the very fixes you claim to be wanting done. You're not doing it (you're too busy carping), I'm not doing it because I don't want to work on articles under those conditions. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Tragic. Then let's delete the rubbish until someone more resolute feels moved to properly write an article. That should happen, oh, say, around 2037 or so if we're lucky, based on zero progress in 3 years and 1 sourced fact added this month. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The good news is, no one was working on these articles before the AfDs, either, so at least the situation is no worse. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been concerned about the pattern of Wtshymanski's edits and talk page comments ever since I first saw the behavior pattern on List of 7400 series integrated circuits. There appears to be on ongoing pattern WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:CIVIL problems. Especially troubling was his response when I expressed the above concerns on his talk page: "And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."[54]

Also see:
Search Wikiquette alerts:Wtshymanski
User:Wtshymanski/parts
Special:Contributions/Wtshymanski
User:Wtshymanski/Griping
Search Administrators' noticeboard: Wtshymanski
Guy Macon (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Still is editing against consensus (See WP:MOSNUM), and Still being reverted Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: I recently decided to bookmark Wtshymanski's contributions page and review them every so often. This was not to stalk or harass, but because he is a rare combination of (1) Being interested in the same sort of technology articles I am - I already run into him again and again as I edit. (2) Personally likable (you know how some people just annoy you? For me, he is the opposite.) (3) Makes many edits and comments I strongly disagree with. (4) Makes many edits and comments I strongly agree with. (5) Rock solid technical contributions.

My observation from this is that he is following Wikipedia policies and guidelines a lot better, and that he appears to respond well to criticism or warnings that are backed up by citations to policy. There is far less sarcasm and baiting in his talk page and edit comments, and he appears to be rapidly improving in the area of choosing what to nominate for deletion - he has been finding some real stinkers that other editors missed. In my opinion, this is a good example of the old saying "It is easier to teach a smart person to be nice than it is to teach a nice person to be smart."

Because of what I have observed, in my opinion this Wikiquette alert should be closed. If it is closed, I advise any editors who have a problem with him to put a polite warning on his talk page - but please be 100% sure that the warning is valid, and pay attention if he says it isn't, because there is a high probability that he is right. Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Awww. It's like having my very own hall monitor following me around and handing out smiley face stickers for not running in the halls. I really haven't reformed, you know, and parts list items must die. Luckily the last couple I've nominated for deletion haven't had a legion of fans to defend them. Some day the Wikipedia will be parts-list-entry free, perhaps. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you need another time-out for this one. Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
There are two issues here. One is about content. The above comment "I really haven't reformed, you know, and parts list items must die." shows me that Wtshymanski thinks that I am talking about his views concerning content. Wikiquette alerts are about behavior. I am talking about behavior. I still believe that I am seeing improved civility. I have no problem with him trying to mold Wikipedia into what he thinks it should be as long as he does so while following the standard of behavior we are all required to follow.
As for the edit Dicklyon cites. There is a proper way to handle content disputes of this nature. First Wtshymanski should have been politely informed that another editor disagrees with him on content and invited to discuss the matter on the article talk page. If his edit removed recently introduced material, keep it out while discussing. If the material had been in for a while, revert and keep it in while discussing. Seek consensus on the talk page, and if anyone involved in the content dispute edits against consensus, apply user warning on the editor's talk page. If the behavior persists, walk your way up the steps clearly explained in the dispute resolution process.
Again I must emphasize that it's perfectly OK for Wtshymanski to think that Wikipedia is too much like a random collection of non-notable parts and to advocate that view. The only issue is that he behaves properly while trying to get those parts off of Wikipedia. If he doesn't behave properly, the correct response is to follow the steps listed in dispute resolution, starting with polite requests to be civil and seek consensus on his talk page and in edit comments, and ending (after all other steps have failed) with a topic ban or a total ban. But I don't think it will come to that. Ignoring all warnings and ending up blocked is something that happens to stupid editors, and Wtshymanski is not stupid. Guy Macon (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
He can think what he wants, but his actions are continuing to be obnoxious, to the point where it's difficult to WP:AGF. His removal of material from 2N7000, and his proposal to merge it out of existence, into an article that it has nothing to do with, are not appropriate reactions to his AfD failing. He should just leave it for a while and let his emotional reaction against "parts list" articles die down a bit. Dicklyon (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to know which parts should be included in the rather long and rambling list at 2N7000. What is the criterion for inclusion in that article? I was told it was supported by a reference, but when I check the reference I see a number of other parts that aren't included in the 2N7000 article. I'm told we can have an article called 1N4000 and 1N5400 series diodes because they are related parts. Obviously my respected co-editor has extremely precise notions on which parts go into which parts list entries on the Wikipedia. I'd like to see the definition so that other editors have a guideline. Where do I put the 1N914? Does it go in with 2N7000, with 1N4148, with 1N4000 and 1N5400 series diodes? I'm editing articles, why is this suddenly considered obnoxious? This particular emperor is looking rather chilly. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, obnoxious. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
These edits, to D Battery and N Battery, after seeking, and failing to get, consensus for merge ([55]) are extremely problematic. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed; and his non-constructive discussion and pushing to do away with articles that he lost the AfDs on already is just tiresome, and brings out the worst in me. I've admitted to no longer being able to assume good faith with guy; I've called him xenophobic; I've used words like "crazy," "lame," and "fuckage" in my edit summaries; I'll take the heat for that, but can someone help this guy understand that his attention would be better directed at something more constructive than tearing down articles just because they're not as solid as he likes? Dicklyon (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Umm, are you sure that you didn't mean to write "with the guy" instead of "with guy?" Like another well loved entity who has a three-letter name starting with G, I don't want my name taken in vain (big smile). Guy Macon (talk)
Umm, yes, sorry, that is what I meant. In your case, I assume good faith, in spite of how annoying I find you. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks like I may have to re-evaluate my opinion. Those are obnoxious. So, what should we do about this? Guy Macon (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I think WP:AN/I is the next logical step, to get Admin involvement. I considered it when the above redirs of the battery articles occurred but still hoped some amicable resolution could be reached before it came to that. Unfortunately their reponse to my note on their talk page suggests no change of position. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You ever have an editor you really liked but makes you a little embarrassed for having publicly supported him when he turns out to have a tenuous grasp on WP:CIVIL? Yeah, that basically happened to me with this editor. I think his heart is in the right place, but, he's gotten ruder and ruder. That said I can understand some of it. I wish I could assume more good faith, because I understand his frustration. We have WP:GNG but then we establish project essays and sub-categories that seem to disregard WP:RS WP:N WP:V and WP:GNG. It can be frustrating to take clear cases to AfD only to have them defended against all policy by fans. On the other hand he made many mistakes, including many cases of nominating before even a cursory attempt to look for sources (yes most transistors are not notable, but some of the first, most popular, ect. are very notable). I think he needs to be helped and warned because his viewpoint is a valuable one: an editor that favors strong inclusion criteria even within their area of fandom/expertise. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Fundamentally, he needs to learn to understand collaboration and compromise. When he got the pushback on the multiple transistors AfD, and I did everything I could to be constructive by sourcing stuff that could be found about the notable ones and merging some of the more minor ones, he could have found a way to get a partial victory in that. Instead, he chose to keep beating all the dead horses from the last battle. It's just a weird way to be. I don't think there's really much to be done, though, and I've seldom seen complaints at AN/I come to any good in such situations, just like this wikiquette thing is just wasted hot air; I expect he'll find a better path. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess my take-away from this all is how disappointed I am not to actually learn anything about these parts. Instead I'm getting refrences to the same hobby books that I can read for myself, all of which have the same incidental, anecdotal, and windy assertions about the "popularity" of a part without one documented number to back them up. We still know virtually nothing substantial from these articles that we don't get from the Radio Shack parts catalog. As I mentioned before, it's like opening an encyclopedia, turning to the article on Napoleon, and only reading about his hat size. I'm flabbergasted that "parts list" entries get defended as encyclopedia articles when they say nothing encyclopediac about the part (and when they CAN'T say anything encyclopediac about the part). At some random place on the Wikipedia in the last week or so I read a comment that an encyclopedia is supposed to condense knowldege, not puff it up.
I think the other take-away is just how frail the Wikipedia editing model is. This whole tempest is contained in a teapot of no more than 0.25% of highly active editors ( and probably 0.0025% of editors who've made 5 edits in the last month). A dissenting voice is not welcome, and the personal attacks start if someone has courage of his convictions and is unimpressed by references that amount to rack-filler TAB books or similar low-grade material.
I'm mystified by the personal attacks and generally bad language I've gotten. These are weak articles, everyone seems to agree a parts list entry is a weak excuse for an encyclopedia article, and yet I get pilloried when I try to use the rather feeble mechanisms Wikipedia has to purge poor articles from the system. I've never singled out any other editor for ridicule and yet I get called a dumb Polack because of the last syllable of my user ID. This says more about the illusory nature of the editing "community" than it says about me. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
You can find any excuse to complain, you clearly have far more time to spend typing than I do, so why are you so reluctant to fix the issues you complain of? No one disputes the issue, merely whether deletion is necessary. Take the 2N2222 - there's a good history linked from it, that design was an important first step in the development of epitaxy for silicon transistors, so who's going to sit down to the legwork and actually do something useful? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't in good conscience advocate on behalf of articles on individial semiconductor types; I still don't believe they are individually notable, and any article under one part number is going to have to give so much common background that it might be better to have a single "Development of silicon transistors" article instead. However, since these parts have such a large contingent of interested and motivated authors, I don't doubt these references of which you speak will shortly be turned into brilliant prose. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Lists are often recommended as a way of handling entries that are not individually notable, but that collectively are. Alas, you oppose lists of parts too. BTW, there was an RFC on this question: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists Guy Macon (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, if someone keeps trying SPEEDY before PROD or AFD and keeps getting shot down by the admin who evaluates the speedy, the possibility of forum shopping should be considered. A history of trying to get things deleted any way he can rather than embracing the idea of consensus adds weight to the possibility. Nominated, Declined, AFD.

Here he does it again: Nominated for SPEEDY -- Admin Declines SPEEDY -- Nominates for PROD -- PROD Removed The behavior of trying a speedy and seeing if it sticks is a blatant waste of the speedy reviewing admin's time. The behavior of trying a prod and seeing if it sticks is a blatant waste of the prod reviewers time.
Gentlemen, this has gone far enough. Reluctantly, I am forced to conclude that [User:RichardOSmith|RichardOSmith] is right (see his comments earlier in the thread). WP:AN/I is the next logical step, to get Admin involvement. Guy Macon (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
A speedy or a PROD is a lightweight way of deleting an article instead of the cumbersome machinery of AfD, thereby presumably saving time for all parties. I'm having some agreement with DB and PROD nominations, so I don't honestly believe I'm out to lunch nominating articles for PROD. In at least some cases the entity removing the PROD nomination has suggested moving the discussion to AfD, which I have done. The last argument for keeping Melisande of Tripoli revolved around what she "might" have done had she gotten married instead of going into a convent; this, to me, sounds pretty crystal-ball-ish and speculative unless there's a lot of sources arguing that this is somehow significant. And observe I haven't put DERI into the AfD hopper, since I've now read enough citations on Google Books that indicate there's a whole lot of publications crediting it, which makes it unlikely to pass an AfD deletion. Isn't WP:N still the important principle for justifying an encyclopedia article? --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't have any objection to progressing through speedy and PROD nominations before AfD. It is the AfDs that consume the time; anyone can trivially object to the others. On the other hand, this is a repeat of the battery-redirect problem mentioned above and I'm afraid this should go to AN/I. RichardOSmith (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, his request for evidence of notability on that one went unanswered. There was one content-free oppose to his merge proposal, and that's it. At least in the transistors, we added refs to reliable sources on articles that we wanted to keep. Dicklyon (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussion initiated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wtshymanski_failing_to_work_collaboratively RichardOSmith (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive103&oldid=1140109104"