Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive62

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User:Nukes4Tots

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere: Referred to WP:ANI please comment there

This user has a long history of abusive and abrasive communication, enggages in edit warring and accuses others of it. S/he didn't like an edit I made, and posted a 3rr notice to my talkpage prior to any violation. I gave him/her the same notice, with an explanation, followed by a discussion of wikiquette. This editor then went to a page which I've long worked on, which s/he has no history with, and accused me (falsely) I've edit-warring there. To tell the truth, the stalking and hounding is to me a mere annoyance, but I have no doubt this user is driving away good contributions. DavidOaks (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the actual edits in question. The (removed) warnings on the user's talk pages are easy enough to spot, but since Nukes4Tots is relatively active as an editor, it would help uninvolved editors greatly if you provide links to the edits so we don't have to look through tons of pages Nukes has edited recently to find what you are referring to. Also, please notify the user in question of this Wikiquette alert. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I do, of course, enjoy the tit-for-tat warnings and 3RR filings (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, never tried a diff before; here goes -- the reversion of my edit at Missouri: [1] and the accusation that I was engaged in edit-warring there: [2] Yup, I gave him the same 3RR he gave me, on the same basis. Probably shouldn't have. I just want someone to tell him to note his behavior. It's pretty destructive. DavidOaks (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
David, I believe he's talking about diffs like these, showing you going out of your way to characterize my warnings as harassment: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Really, this user posts something and I revert it. After two more reversions, I stop and warn him as ettiquette requires. I then post on the WP:GUNS project that I'm a member and active editor on and also on another user's talk page, one who has done extensive work on the Lee Enfield article in question. I believe I've been completely above board on this. I checked the user's edit history once and found that he was edit warring on Missouri. I reverted his edit there and re-warned him that he was now edit warring on two articles. Don't know what I could have done differently. I took his edit to the talk page on Lee Enfield and tried to engage him in a meaningful discussion but he bowed out of that discussion and just began edit warring again. Again, I'll leave this up to a judgement call but if you're going to sanction anybody, look at the diffs I provided and then examine the diffs he provided... nuff said. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that works. Thanks for the example (note: the diffs were made functional). DavidOaks (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree that deleting material I was placing in response to a suggestion by another editor is a simple reversion. And I think I made quite extensive and civil use of the discussion page. Nor did I characterize your contributions as vandalism, as you did to mine, repeatedly. A grave accusation, and I do confess it brought me close to my temper line, though I tried to restrict myself merely to responding to mischaracterizations. I haven't been at my very best behavior here, for which, I repeat apologies. DavidOaks (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add that the user in question has placed "rvv" (revert vandalism) as summaries for his edits. His contributions page shows reverts as a majority of edits. Most of these edits are not vandalism: on some, he has removed edits to his talk page discussing his abuse of the 3RR rule, even abusing it to make sure his revision stands. He seems to mark a lot of things he doesn't like as vandalism and reverts them. -- OsirisV (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Nukes4Tots is currently edit warring to modify the content of my words on an article talk page. He keeps trying to change my phrase "Regarding the attempted POV change in the lede" to "Change in the lede." he calls the phrase "POV Change" "hate speech", "uncivil", and "offensive" in his 3 reverts to try to change my words. he also calls other editors retards, retards again and admits to baiting other editors. calls editors fucking morons, and this, and he also permanently scared away a new editor here, after getting into a kamikaze edit war with them and getting them both temporarily blocked. turns out nukes4tots stalked the new editor onto an article nukes has never edited before, then edit warred until they both were blocked. the new editor never returned, and Nukes4Tots went back to business as usual. [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]]. Nukes4Tots 4RR'd to edit war on a talkpage to include the insult "are you blind?" [[12]] but was never reprimanded. [here] is the article Nukes4Tots stalked the new editor to just to revert them with the message "your use of this colon offends me" [[13]] and [i dont like your grammar], Theserialcomma (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
a few minutes ago he decided to WP:BITE this new user who only had one edit (this edit [[14]]) by calling it a ["vandalism account."] really? one good faith, but unsourced addition that nukes4tots doesn't like, and this is a vandalism account? really? Theserialcomma (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
and how many times can Nukes4Tots call any IP (from many different ISPS) that attempts any mention of the phillipines in a gun article "filipino bandit" before it's uncivil? how about 24 times going back just a few months? [[15]]

[[16]] [[17]] [[18]] [[19]] [[20]] [[21]] [[22]] [[23]] [[24]] [[25]] [[26]] [[27]] [[28]] [[29]] [[30]] [[31]] [[32]] [[33]] [[34]] [[35]] [[36]] [[37]] [[38]]

This issues is at WP:ANI which is the proper place as administrator intervention is necessary. The section is here. Please provide all further evidence at that thread until this issue is resolved. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith towards me

Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs) has recently made posts at ANI (thread live link) which I think are rather bad faithed towards Polish editors in general and me in particular: "where editors who happen to come from Poland (coincidence I'm sure) ... and will probably win just because of numbers", "Piotrus, partizan campaigning with personal attacks and straw men on AN/I is not likely to produce any results for you" (update: another rather uncivil comment about me on ANI). He also moved my post (second diff), potentially confusing readers. Further, during a related discussion, in responce to me citing a naming guideline ([39]) he actually edited the guideline, changing it to remove the example I cited. I think that such comments and behavior are uncivil, violating WP:AFG, WP:CIV and WP:NPA and I deserve an apology. It would be appreciated if other editors could point out that such behavior is not the best standards on Wikipedia. I would also like Deacon to assume more good faith towards me and other Polish editors in the future. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Re AN/I, the discussion was about Greek editors voting en masse at certain pages taking a Greek nationalist line. The discussion moved onto parallels, and I pointed out the parallel at Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655) where Polish editors were similarly coming down on a similar line. Quite legitimate. You then joined in with straw men and personal attacks, accusing me of saying "Evil Poles".[40].
The truly bizarre thing is that though I've been very moderate about using the "N word" in the context of Piotrus' campaign to change the name of a Lithuanian city to a Polish spelling on Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655), and ignored many personal attacks, Piotrus himself has used it freely "remember that no amount of logic and evidence will change the opinion of a nationalist true believer. For some, Vilnius was forever 100% pure Lithuanian Vilnius, likely created that way when the universe begun.". So although he thinks he's free to accuse a Scottish editor of Lithuanian "nationalism" just because he opposes Piotrus' position, he's come here expecting sympathy when someone doesn't use it towards him. Apparently my nationalism changes btw, because during his 2nd ArbCom case he was accusing me of being a Russian nationalist just because I posted evidence against him, and that I was part of a "Russian cabal" which consisted of a Ukrainian editor and a Russian editor who'd left wikipedia almost a year before. You gotta wonder sometimes! Piotrus, please stop with the frivolous forum-shopping and please let a "debate" remain a debate without trying to escalate it into a dispute. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I have never said that Deacon used the phrase "Evil Poles", nor I have ever called him a "nationalist true believer". Those quotations are taken out of context, unlike his statements, which clearly relate to my person. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, Piotrus, "Evil Poles" and "nationalist true believer" were posted in relation to my statements, but they had nothing to do with me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Note, Piotrus is continuing to disrupt the AN/I thread with personal attacks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I am certainly not accusing you of being either, despite you trying to misquote me to the contrary. If I did, please clearly post the diffs where I am saying "Deacon is xx" and I will apologize for them. You, however, accused me directly and clearly of various unethical behavior; hence I would like an apology for your statements that I am "partizan campaigning with personal attacks and straw men"... "stacking up Polish votes to to Polonise the name of the Lithuanian capital"... "nationalist"... and so on, as visible in the linked diffs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The phoney indignation is boring, and nothing's gonna happen here. Please just stop all this drama-mongering and let's keep things to topical discussions on Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655). Thanks, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I see nothing new, but the same old pattern - report your content opponent to various venues in hope, for getting upper hand in content dispute. M.K. (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well maybe Polish and Lithuanian editors are lining up predictably on this naming issue. But I don't think this is as clear-cut an issue as FYROM. So I've attempted to steer the discussion away from mutual accusations of nationalism and put it on a more scholarly basis (the crux of Vilnius/Wilno debate is not national preferences per se, but between using the common modern English name and the "historically correct" one for the period). I suggest continuing down this route will be more productive. --Folantin (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
This is not about Poles and Lithuanians. This is about Deacon's comments about me, which I find uncivil and offensive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Blakegartner

I'm having trouble explaining most of 5p to Blakegartner (talk · contribs) (aka 24.185.178.252 (talk · contribs)). I've started to loose patience and am afraid I'm becoming rude. Could someone look over Blakegartner's talk page and give an outsider's perspective? NJGW (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like an etiquette issue to me. Seems like a dispute about a source, maybe post at the RS noticeboard for a wider view. --neon white talk 14:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The top of this page reads:
  • "Intervene as a neutral third party to talk to editors who are engaging in incivility, or who might be new or unaware of Wiki policies"
The user says "There can't be a negative review or a positive one. Unless you make it big, gate-keepers like yourself will prevent the information from being seen."[41] which shows a clear miscomprehension of wp:N. I've tried over and over to explain that only notable views are included here, but he insists that this will help make this source notable. It is a 2005 book that has no reviews in the press, only support from "hundreds of internet forums" (according to Blakegartner). NJGW (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I came here because this page describes itself as "an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors, so it can be a good place to start if you are not sure where else to go." I thought it was like a 3PO for communication, a step before RFCU. Is it really a source dispute when the other editor admits a source isn't notable? I predict RSN would just say what I've already said: a source with absolutely no notability fails [all the policies I already listed]. I'm asking more for future reference than anything else. NJGW (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It's mainly for etiquette| issues. I don't really see any here. You are communicating with the editor and discussing the issue civiliy as far as i can see so what's the problem? You are both in disagreement but that's not a problem with civility. I don't see why you need to be thinking about WP:RFC/U (I presume you meant WP:RFC/U rather than checkuser) over a disagreement.
*Some of what you have written actually suggess to me that you in fact are misunderstanding policy. WP:N is the policy by which we decide whether a subjects merits an article. It doesn't limit article content nor does it effect the reliability of a source. WP:RS is the guideline by which we judge the reliability of sources. In terms of books but you need to be looking at things like the reputation of the publisher, for example books published by Oxford University Press would largely be considered reliable. Ultimately there is no solid criteria for what is reliable and what is not and often it is down to a community consensus so if you cannot compromise and no consensus can be formed ask for wider input from other editors such as the reliable sources noticeboard as i suggested above. --neon white talk 13:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
...and there's a warning template about notability. It's a key tenet of WP - if the other editor was ever given a Welcome template, they should know it ... it becomes potetentially blockable (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

user:Haberstr

Is repeatedly insulting to any editor that disagrees with himin his attempts to push his agenda such as myself, O'fenian and Mcenroeucsb.

I assume this is 80/86.xx.xx.xx again. There's no evidence of insults by me, but many accusations of vandalism from 80/86.xx.xx.xx. As I'm sure he and others realize, his/her disruptive behavior slows the engines of NPOV productivity here at Wikipedia.Haberstr (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

User:LibStar

Resolved: User no longer posting on complaining user's talk page
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Cornflakes, which represent the joy of MarshalN20 when LibStar stated "I'm no longer posting on your talk page." MarshalN20's reponse: "That's Grrreat!" Boston's response: "Bust him on a 3RR violation."

This user keeps bothering me in my own talk page [42]. I've already told him plenty of times to stop with his childish arguments and leave my talk page. Of course, I've left it open to him to write constructive comments on my talk page, but thus far he continues with the argument. I feel that he is bothering me on purpose, expecting for me to blow up and insult him. He also keeps accusing me of personal attacks, but you can read all of my comments and notice that most of what I have said tend to be jokes to his more serious paranoia that I'm attacking him and that he is doing the right thing by continuing a pointless argument in my talk page. I'm sure this falls under some sort of Wikiquette issue, so please somebody help me!--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

in response: continuing personal attacks (at least 7) on me such as these edits: [43], [44], [45], this personal attack was placed AFTER reporting me on this Wikiquette alert...not sure if that is in good spirit: [46], [47],[48], and the worst personal attack was the edit summary here [49]. This all results from MarshalN20's ownership of Peru national football team. obviously wants to point score by wasting people's time listing it here. I thought this was over but he wants to continue.LibStar (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • LibStar, saying what another editor "obviously wants" is a poor tactic because no one can read minds. And MarshalN20, you should know it's inappropriate to "joke" in such a way with an editor with whom you have a disagreement -- such an audience will almost invariably find such comments offensive as indeed they should. From what I've seen both of you have been rude, but thankfully neither of you has been egregiously or unforgivably rude either. How about right now, here, you both apologize to each other and promise the community and yourselves to make every effort to be more pleasant in the future? I think this sort of "verdict of Solomon" is the best you're going to get and it's in everyone's interests to agree, apologize, forgive, forget, move on, and make effort to behave better starting now. --Boston (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thanks Boston, I'll happily apologize and move on as long as the personal attacks stop. I've got editing to do! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talkcontribs) 02:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
lol. I still find this to be quite ridiculous. I asked LibStar to leave my talk page several times (in a highly kind manner), but he kept coming back to continue the argument. On note of the paranoia this user has with the edit summary he priorly mentioned, even User:Timeshift9 made an input that, word by word, went: "There's no personal attack in the edit summary. Grow up." To me jokes are just jokes, and I like making jokes both in real life and in the Internet. An insult is something that is actually poignant to a person. However, stating facts is separate from the matter of jokes. LibStar is being paraonic, he kept arguing on my talk page over something silly that did not need much discussion, and he is now accusing me of ownership of an article. If that were not enough, he also now attempts to pull a Pontius Pilate by claiming that "I thought this was over but he wants to continue," when it was him that kept continuing the argument. If my jokes hurt LibStar then I apologize for them, but I will not apologize for the facts I presented. All I want is for this person to stop posting on my talk page if he has nothing constructive to say (That's all I ask! In fact, that's all I've been asking!).--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Timeshift didn't understand the context, that edit summary was clearly aimed at me.End of story. LibStar (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
No. I just made a broad statement. You should have assumed good faith, and you should remember what Boston just said: "no one can read minds." Stop trying to read my mind, because you're doing a bad job at it.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
ha, the irony of the above statement...isn't accusing someone of doing a bad job a personal attack? LibStar (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Yet again, you're showing paranoia. Once again, all I ask is for you to stop posting on my talk page if you don't have anything constructive to mention.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm no longer posting on your talk page. LibStar (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
That's Grrreat!--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Shame on you both. LibStar, saying "I'll happily apologize and move on as long as the personal attacks stop" is a small step in the right direction but it's not an apology; it's a repeat of the accusation with the prediction of an apology within. And MarshalN20, your little illustrations with catty captions? Do you think they are okay because they are masquerading as humor? There not okay as it is obvious you're doing it to "dig" at another editor. If you don't want to continue this trivial slap fight on either of your talk pages you shouldn't continue it here either. It's an unflattering "lose-lose" conversation you should both stop immediately and walk away from before it makes you look even worse. C'mon, seriously. Just stop. --Boston (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you found my illustration to be of humor. Also, as far as it concerns me, I have not posted anything trivial on LibStar's talk page. However, the argument is already resolved for my part. My whole point coming here was for LibStar to stop posting pointless things in my talk page, and he just said he's no longer posting on it. So that's that.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Boston, as I said the snide remarks continue including a graphic which is just a snide remark at me. The aim of apologizing is to cease personal attacks and move on. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was a step in the right direction...you certainly reacted with more maturity than MarshalN20 did. MarshalN20's misrepresentation of my opinion of his image captions was bait that I didn't bother to take. MarshalN20 doesn't seem to want to accept this very applicable advice. My only advise to you is avoid interacting with this juvenile editor as much as possible. Bust him on a 3RR violation or something like that if that becomes applicable, but don't bother talking to him. --Boston (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Why would I want to accept advice from you? I came here to ask for LibStar to stop posting on my talk page, and he finally agreed. Like I mentioned above, that is all I wanted, and that is what I got. Also, on the matter of the picture, there is no "Wikilaw" that prevents me from making picture boxes that I see as humorous. If you think that me making that pictures means I'm "being a dick," then you obviously have no sense of humor and, like LibStar, seem to think that every other thing is a personal attack. However, I do perfectly recall the "wikilaw" of WP:Good Faith, which is the one I most closely follow on everyone.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Continuing the argument above, I held good faith when LibStar discussed things with me in the Peru national football team (Which he later accused me of "owning," once again not assuming good faith). Yet, that "good faith" of mine broke when he began to post idiocies on my talk page; which is why I in turn came here asking for him to leave my talk page (which, although it sounds redundant, he did). If you don't like me because I make jokes, and because you think that Wikipedia is supposed to be a boring and serious place, then you seriously should begin thinking on creating your own project as Wikipedia is open to all and to everyone's way of contributing to this fantastic idea.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I would just want to disagree with Boston on one point; don't try to "bust him on a 3rr violation" as that would appear to be retaliatory and immature; the best thing to do is ignore him, try to avoid him, and if you can't avoid him, ask for third opinions to avoid conflict. This advice goes to both Marshal and LibStar, for what it's worth. The Seeker 4 Talk 11:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Good day The Seeker! Nice seeing you around again. Lol. When I read the "bust him on a 3rr violation," I laughed my lungs out because I had previously posted: "That's Grrreat!" (That's 3 "r". lol). Have a good day and thanks for your comment.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Good Olfactory

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This user has been uncivil towards me while discussing Allan F. Packer and if said person is notable or not. Rather than discuss the merits of the case this user attacks me, makes snarky comments, and accuses me of being a puppet. At no time has this user commented on the article or the points I have made about why I feel the aritcle is not notworthy. I would request the editor stop his uncivil personal attacks, and discuss the article without rudeness. IowaRussell (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the complaint and I'm closing this with prejudice. You are looking to file an article WP:RFC about a content dispute. I don't see any behavior problems here except for some fairly outlandish comments made by you about the religion of other editors that are bordering on WP:NPA. Plus, you are using an SPA to wage your little battle. Sorry, but this isn't the place to continue your little campaign. Viriditas (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Blaxthos and, heck, me too!

I have a pretty strong opinion about criticism articles, and I've been butting heads with this other user over on the Talk:Criticism of Bill O'Reilly page. A calmer head and a new set of eyes to play referee on the discussion would be great. I should probably open an RFC on the actual question, but for now I'm just concerned that the conversation has taken on an unpleasant tone. SDY (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide some evidence? --neon white talk 12:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Mostly issues with WP:AGF, i.e. this diff, along with repeated accusations of disruption. My guess is simply that so many other people who have tried to make changes to the page in question have done it that even if I try to make changes to an article that I view as falling afoul of a legion of policies, the only defense is simply a condescending "no, you're against this article therefore you're wrong.  :)" If you look at the history of the article, this is a typical modus operandi of people trying to preserve badly sourced ramblings from sources which should not be given much weight at all. SDY (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you notify the editor of this alert. I don't particularly find that comment incivil, he/she explains the objections in a reasonable way. There may be ownership issues but it's best not to start accusing or you're not assuming good faith either. I'd you just go with a rfc with this one and get as much outside input as possible. --neon white talk 08:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Binarygal

Stale: editor won't acknowledge her behavior as incivil and continues to play the victim, this is going nowhere fast

I encountered Binarygal over on Information technology infrastructure library after responding to a request for a third opinion. Originally editing anonymously, BinaryGal challenged an editor, Ashleyvh, for removing two links that were in apparent violation of the external link policy. The dispute got out of hand somewhat quickly, and Binarygal (still editing under an IP) began making personal attacks [50] and a legal threat. After more exchange and more personal attacks from Binary, [51], [52] Ashleyvh put in a WP:3O request. I put my two cents in (which supported the removal of links on the basis of WP:EL). At this point, BinaryGal started spewing even more personal attacks [53] directed both at me and Ashleyvh, accusing that among other things that Ashleyvh asked me in advance to pose as a neutral third party. Any thoughts on how to proceed? - 2 ... says you, says me 06:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Can you just tell us how it has been established that 86.167.136.66 is the same editor? I think overall there is a lack of good faith with some disruptive bad faith accusations and the editor needs reminding about WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The so called 'legal threat' really isn't in this case as there is no really threat of action so we should just consider those comments as part of the general poor civility of this editor. I see a first warning has been issued recently i think we should keep a watch to see if it improves things. Please make sure you imform the editor of this alert. --neon white talk 07:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Binarygal continued where 86.167.136.66 left off. I think we can draw that conclusion based on contributions. - 2 ... says you, says me 14:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
She's been notified, she also removed warning on her talk page. - 2 ... says you, says me 14:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Binarygal explained they were the same editor as the IP here diff.—Ashleyvh (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate posting on another noticeboard, and subsequent conversation, moved here. Uncle G (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


I encountered Binarygal over on Information technology infrastructure library after responding to a request for a third opinion. Originally editing anonymously, BinaryGal challenged an editor, Ashleyvh, for removing two links that were in apparent violation of the external link policy. The dispute got out of hand somewhat quickly, and Binarygal (still editing under an IP) began making personal attacks [54] and a legal threat. After more exchange and more personal attacks from Binary, [55], [56] Ashleyvh put in a WP:3O request. I put my two cents in (which supported the removal of links on the basis of WP:EL). At this point, BinaryGal started spewing even more personal attacks [57] directed both at me and Ashleyvh, accusing that among other things that Ashleyvh asked me in advance to pose as a neutral third party. I think some admin input could really help in this case, I think we're beyond the point of assuming good faith, the gross incivility has continued even after being approached concerning the personal attacks. A legal threat may also still be outstanding, its not clear if Binarygal ever actually withdrew it. - 2 ... says you, says me 07:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I have to say that I am not seeing personal attacks, and I did not locate the legal threat - although I did see quite a bit of short temperedness from Binarygal. Can you post diffs of the specific legal threat, and comment which terms you feel were personal attacks? It may be that I have grown a little calloused and have missed the things that have caused you concern. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The personal attacks are pretty obvious in these diff diff. They are full of bad faith accusations. --neon white talk 12:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The mention of legality is at the beginning of this diff. This was an indirect threat of legal action as the statement was "In fact some of your statements verge on the actionable in a legal sense", though this obviously would fall under the guidance of WP:NPLT and Binarygal (at that point editing under an anon IP but later confirmed themselves as the same editor, see below) failed to explain or clarify the intent of this sentence or who would be the potential parties in any legal action. This indirect threat has not been withdrawn though Binarygal did back it up with the later statement "Also, I didn't threaten anything, so please do not twist my words. I stated that your allegation might be actionable, and they might be." and at the time of writing these statements are still on the talk page.—Ashleyvh (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Forum-shopping? This is still in-progress in WQA. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I didn't intend to forum-shop, I was concerned about the legal threat, which I hadn't noticed until after I made the Wikiquette alert. - 2 ... says you, says me 14:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


I will be honest: I find this to be extremely offensive and hurtful, and will most likely not edit again when this matter is settled. There were no insults and clearly no legal threats. I simply had and still have serious doubts regarding the edits of Ashleyvh. I tried to articulate these, but ironically I was the subject of what I consider to be personal attacks a degree of hostility. Please DO check the edit history very carefully and closely. I genuinely feel that I am subject to some degree of bullying, when all I have been trying to do is protect the integrity of an article, and ensure that a change I consider to be dubious was properly debated to achieve consensus. Indeed, I contact an Admin last night to request input. Please do chekc it out. BinaryGal (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There were quite a number of incivil comments made by yourself towards this editor, such as accusing him/her of having a agenda, questioning thier motives and applying that they are trying to disrupt a consensus discussion by canvassing. One of our most important behavioural guidelines is assume good faith, this means we should assume every editor is here to improve the encyclopedia rather than damage it unless we have strong conclusive evidence otherwise. I see no evidence that this editor was not acting in good faith and your comments were not helpful. You are welcome to question other editors contributions but you must do it within the behavioural guidelines. If you abide by these in future there is no reason why you cannot edit in a productive way and i think you will find communicating with other editing and establishing compromises alot easier. Asking for third opinion is a good way forward. --neon white talk 15:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The evidence suggests an agenda: am I supposed to hide that and pretend it doesn't? Please look more closely. Look at the repeated deletions when all I was doing was asking for consenus first. Look at the bizarre justifications for deletions. I tried very hard to reach an accomodation by simply asking for time for other inputs. It was futile. That is why there was friction, apparently because I dug my heels in by trying to protect the integrity of the article. And now I am accused of this for doing so. I wouldn't worry too much about future edits from me.
Edit warring is poor practice but nowhere near evidence of an disruptive agenda. It is understandable that there is friction during intense discussion but you must remain civil that is all that is being asked here. You are not being asked to stop discussing the issue but to do it in accordance with the guidelines and assume good faith. Guidelines such as WP:EL are often open to interpretation and other editor may have different views on how they should apply, this doesnt mean they have are here to disrupt the project. It's a simply difference of opinion. When this happens, dispute resolution is advised. --neon white talk 08:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Please don't stop editing, that wasn't the intent of this at all. I was only making a good faith attempt to improve the situation and gain some perspective, since my third opinion didn't seem to help. We want you to be a part of this community, any community has disputes, all we're asking is that you assume good faith and don't make personal attacks when approaching disputes in the future. Staying cool when the editing gets hot has some great ideas about dealing with disputes. Also, I'm sorry for not assuming good faith concerning the legal threat. Wikipedia has a strict policy against legal threats, but given the situation I should have made a mention on your talk page instead of an ANI report. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Please understand that there are a lot of competing interests in the ITIL world. A lot of factions. Two large communities for example, both currently listed, as they should be. A commercial company now licensing ITIL as opposed to the UK government: politics all over the place. So I think I am rightly sensitive in defending the page and insisting on consensus when changes are made, and yes when attempts are made to force them through via repetition, especially when I can see clearly that some of the edits support one external faction at the expense of the others yet lack solid rationale.
I thus tried to buy time for consensus, and however you put it, I was pushed, my sound arguments were just ignored, and I felt I was bullied. Yet all I have done is try to defend an article's integrity. Then I am accused of all sorts, notes appear on my own page, and this segment appears about me.
I can live without this. Sure, some people know a lot more about Wikipedia symbols and the like than I do: but not about that article topic and the backgound. So I just stated the truth in plain English throughout and held my ground hoping for an Admin or a senior person to come in. But this is where it ends up.
An while I am at it, I have always edited from different PC's because I travel. When not here I don't always login, because I am just passing a few minutes on someone else's machine. Something else I seem to be under attack for.
Given all this, would you feel like editing again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binarygal (talkcontribs) 18:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
This is not an attack it's merely a way for others to help you improve the way you communicate with other editors. There are many many controversial subjects covered by wikipedia and the same civility rules apply on every one. --neon white talk 19:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
So have you informed the person who was demonstrated no civility whatsoever to me? All I did was protect an article from an extremely dubious set of repeated edits. That is all I did, as I have been doing for years until now.
No, you did not assume good faith and launched accusations of bad faith at another editor without evidence, you need to recognise this if you want to become a productive editor. --neon white talk 08:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I actually pointed out the repeated and bullying behaviour of another editor, with some of the supporting evidence regarding the trivial and ridiculous rationale for his edits (which ANYONE who knows the topic would consider to be suspicious). That is entirely different. As stated earlier, I don't think you need to worry about future edits from me at all, after how this has unfolded. I suspect, when I am long gone, that won't be the case with respect to the other guy.
I have always focused upon edit quality and protecting the topics I know about, rather than the meta structure supporting Wikipedia. To some people though the latter seems to be much more important than the content of the pages, which is why I am here, defending myself, and the other guy isn't. That is wrong and it is a pity, because I believe that my departure will be a loss to those articles. But I simply don't have to put up with it. BinaryGal (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Snappy

In discussing some minor editorial points in the article Celebrity Bainisteoir with User:Snappy, I'm disappointed with the disrespect, insults and mockery with which this fellow long-time editor has communicated with me. Besides choosing to label my editorial choice as "crap", and informing me the subject discussed is one "of which you are totally ignorant", this editor has informed me "...oh purlease, darling! I don't suffer fools gladly, and if you are the easily offended type then that's too bad, Daphne!" I am a male editor and addressing me such is apparently an attempt to be insulting. I'm not interested in discussing the editorial disagreement in this forum but rather would like to draw attention to and provoke comment on the tone of discussion User:Snappy has chosen to adopt. Thanks. --Boston (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been insulting; blunt yes, rude no. Admittedly I do have a strange sense of humour which does not come across well, if at all, online. Addressing you as Daphne was a joke, if you didn't get it, then I withdraw the remark. As for you gender, I don't know or care what it is. Also, I didn't say that your editorial choice was "crap", I said that repeatedly inserting non IPA pronunciations was crap, as this is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy on pronunciation issues. Wikipedia has a policy on this issue, you may not like it but the policy is clear. Snappy (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't live in a cave and I well understand the "campy" register in which these comments are made. This register doesn't justify calling a fellow editor a fool, their edits crap, and their state ignorant. Its unwise to expect that such comments are good ingredients for the improvement of Wikipedia. We all feel tempted to drop the Wikiquette and speak harshly at times. The best of editors never do. Most of us could do better. Only the most disruptive editors revert to such rudeness with little provocation as Snappy has done. I don't doubt that Snappy understands that civility is one of Wikipedia's ore principles. I don't doubt that Snappy understands that language which is funny when we kid around with our friends is hostile when we are debating with a stranger online. Am I to understand that Snappy's response above indicates that when we think we are correct about something then Wikipedia guidelines about civility don't apply? At any rate, this is extremely immature and disappointing behavior from an editor who has reached a stage in their Wikipedia career when they should be helping the process run smoothly and setting a good example for newbies rather than prompting a Wikiquette alert. I want to make it clear to Snappy that Veteran Editors have not earned a right to lower their level of civility. Rather, these (and Administrators) are the ones who must show they understand why better behavior is necessary. --Boston (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
If you understand the "campy" register in which these comments are made, then why are you complaining? You have also misrepresented most of my comments. To explain, 1) I didn't call you a fool, I said I don't suffer fools gladly, that is a statement about me, not you, nor does it imply that you are a fool. If I inadvertently implied you were a fool, then I withdraw the comment unreservedly. 2) Once again, I didn't say you edits were crap, I said your repeated violation of Wikipedia policy on pronunciation was so. 3) I didn't say your state was ignorant, I said that you were ignorant of the Irish language, there is a difference. Please don't attempt to assign words to me because no, I do not believe that Wikipedia civility guidelines don't apply when someone thinks they are correct about an issue. Of course, they always apply. You say I have been uncivil, I think I have not, but I will take what you are saying on board in my future dealings with you and my fellow wikipedians. Snappy (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Actual admission of rudeness and apology for the same is rare on Wikipedia. Admirable indeed is the editor who can rise to apology. We're unwise to expect it often and I correctly didn't predict one from Snappy. Despite the verbal gymnastics in the above response ("I didn't call you a fool, I said I don't suffer fools gladly, that is a statement about me, not you, nor does it imply that you are a fool", etc.), Snappy's statement about taking my objections "on board in...future dealings with...fellow wikipedians" is a well-enough resolution to the matter. I consider my point made and the conversation closed. --Boston (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Too good a quote to waste - "It is a good rule in life never to apologize. The right sort of people do not want apologies, and the wrong sort take a mean advantage of them." ~ P.G. Wodehouse, The Man Upstairs. ;-) Snappy (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Since I didn't predict, want, or demand an apology, I appreciate the compliment. --Boston (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Smiley face murders

There are some constant issues going on with the Talk:Smiley face murders page, where an anonymous IP is outing a fellow editor and making inappropriate comments. I don't know if there is a way to permanently delete information, as the IP has placed the editor's address on Wikipedia. Please take a look, as I believe sockpuppetry is also going on. Angryapathy (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be advised: This is WAY beyond WP:WQA now. There are legal threats and OUTING and... it's a mess. I have added to the previously resolved entry on AN/I and also directly notified an administrator about this. Padillah (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User:NonResidentFellow Keeps calling legitimate edits "vandalism"

Resolved: editor hasn't edited for a while, keeping an eye on it

User:NonResidentFellow Keeps calling legitimate edits "vandalism" (see [58] [59] [60]), despite explicit requests on the User's talk page to stop doing so [61]. Mashkin (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Left a message reminding the editor about the rules at WP:VANDALISM. See how the editor responds. --neon white talk 07:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere: to ANI for block reviews. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This admin has initiated a block against me unfairly. His exact words were that he did because "This is only a short warning block". However, wikipedia states explicitly that :

  • Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect

I have done absolutely nothing wrong; I presented an opinion at the Assyrain People article that was supported by consensus and opposed by a certain admin. When I called in another admin and posted the logic explaining my position, I was blocked by this admin, and he gave no reason other than the faulty warning block.

No warning was given to me that a block was imminent. And blocks are not meant to be used as warnings either.

In his very poor choice of words, "disruptive filibustering" was why I was blocked, and Mango juice then went further to point out this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assyrian_people&diff=284006672&oldid=284006519#Affected_articles_by_the_article.27s_new_title as being disruptive to good faith edits of the article - really? Take a look for yourselves please and judge whether or not I was doing this.

This admin has even gone so far as to accuse me of having a "blatantly hostile, non-cooperative attitude", even though if you look at my edits, which constitued roughly 2 or 3, I made no such attitude develop.

Finally, this admin has refused to respond to where my mistake was.

Gabr-el 17:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


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

User:Robotics lab/User:Homebum

Resolved: Users have already been blocked as abusive sock puppets. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Robotics lab, previously posting as User:Homebum and under other aliases (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hobojaks), has been persistently abusive at Talk:Classical Hamiltonian quaternions. In this sarcastic post, which I find especially offensive, he accuses me of "random clueless deleting of text" and being part of a "plot on ever more clever ways to wiki-hound less experienced users". I am walking away from this, but perhaps someone could have a word with him. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Both User:Robotics lab and User:Homebum have now been blocked indefinitely as abusive sock puppets of User:Hobojaks, so any further discussion would appear to be moot.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

an untenable personal attack

editor SaltyBoatr launched into this diatribe on the talk page for the second amendment. it's an unbridled personal attack, employing commentary from my talk page dating back to 2005! he also included a test edit i'd performed using twinkle, where i added a warning to my own talk page about adding defamatory content to wikipedia - and used this as evidence of my incivility. indeed, this is a remarkable documentation of his willingness to exceed all boundaries in his attacks on me, which in recent weeks have been getting ever worse. what's the next step?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=prev&oldid=284440887

Anastrophe (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a policy at Wikipedia to Try to discourage others from being uncivil. There is good reason for this policy, because incivility impairs our ability to collaboratively edit an encyclopedia. In this instance I see an editor who has left a very long trail of hundreds of incivil acts, causing immeasurable damage to the collaborative atmosphere. I am following policy by speaking up and trying to restore civility to Wikipedia. My 'crime' consists of asking for civility (see here) and making direct quotes from Anastrophe's talk page to call attention to a long pattern of complaints from other editors who also see a clear pattern of lack of civility. At what point does a pattern of lack of civility begin to be taken seriously? It harms our encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
hyperbole does not help your argument. "hundreds of attacks" - utter nonsense and exaggeration. you betray your zeal to attack me by having included my own test edit regarding defamatory content as being an example of my incivility. furthermore, addressing your concerns about my behavior in a lengthy diatribe on the talk page for the second amendment article - while the discussion was one you started about an anon IP's behavior - further reveals your zeal to attack me. your post was in the wrong place, about the wrong editor. i've started the process here, in the appropriate venue. i'm quite sure that the talk page for the second amendment is not the correct venue for bringing up your charges against me. you've committed numerous acts of incivility towards me, also, misrepresenting things i've written. the curious thing is that your attacks on me have increased ever since i recently tendered a long-overdue apology to you for previous comments i'd made.
there is a vast difference between speaking bluntly and being genuinely uncivil. i frequently speak bluntly, but in the main, i direct my commentary at the edits that others make, not at the editor him/herself, unless that editor needs to be shown that what they're doing is outside of wikipedia policy. i won't coddle vandals, nor editors who attempt to introduce content into the encyclopedia that is patently contrary to policy.
are you an admin? i'm quite sure you're not. your responsibility, your obligation, is to tend to your own behavior. if you believe my behavior needs correction, you bring it up at the appropriate noticeboard, you don't post a lengthy diatribe on an article talkpage attempting to impugn me. that very act was textbook uncivil, contra- AGF, and a personal attack. i'm quite certain that you know your way around wikipedia, you know very well that your diatribe was in the wrong place - and because of that, it's clear your intent was to publicly attack me, rather than to work within the WP framework to correct my 'bad behavior'.
i filed this report because you are showing an escalating pattern of attacks on me. this needs to be addressed. if you wish to file a grievance about my past behavior, you're certainly welcome do so. hijacking my grievance isn't how wikipedia works. you know this. Anastrophe (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
SaltyBoatr, if you call for civility, and then accuse another editor of incivility based on things that happened in 2007, nobody is going to take you seriously. Looie496 (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Re-reading your comment, it makes more sense now, let me re-phrase my response. My comment that Anastrope sees as "an untenable personal attack" was preceded by several months of frustrating build up and flame war on that talk page in which Anastrophe played a central role. (Please take a moment to review that history.) In my opinion, the article has suffered because this has degraded ability to work collaboratively. Anastrope asked me four questions which I tried to answer: "again i ask, what is accomplished by the speculations? you're aware that on usenet, just like here, nobody knows you're a dog. maybe anon has been trying to impersonate cramer for years? who know? who cares?", well I care, and Anastrophe does not, and my answer was taken as 'an untenable personal attack'. I view my answer to be a plea for civility, in opposition to Anastrophe's self admitted penchant for "speaking bluntly" which many editors besides myself find to be incessant discouraging uncivil behavior. I gave examples of the views of these other editors using quotes from Anastrophe's talk page. This, in part was out of frustration at Anastrophe's rationalization that fighting the flame war was, "nobody knows you're a dog". Not to mention that I view it uncivil to compare my work to end the flame warring to bring civility to the talk page to "the folks wearing tinfoil hats out near area 51". Tin foil hats? Really. Is that civil? I guess I need leather skin around here, OK. Yet, my post using simple quotes from his talk page is an untenable personal attack. Anastrophe needs leather skin too. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
more misrepresentations, which are really the crux of the issue with editor saltyboatr. the repeated use of selective quoting, misrepresenting what other editors are saying, and impugning the editor rather than arguing the merits of the editor's edits is what got us here. have you read the lengthy introductory textbox on Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - the same textbox of which appears on countless other WP talk pages - wherein in states that it is not a general forum, it is for discussion of article improvement? you may believe - and i suspect you honestly do - that reproducing some negative comments from my talk page history (while ignoring non-negative, and positive comments) - on the talk page for the second amendment is somehow related to article improvement, but you'll find scant few other editors, or admins, who will agree with your belief. if you have a beef with another editor, and it matters this deeply to you that you'd troll through my talk page history, selectively finding quotes to back up your claims (whilst including a test edit of my own as 'evidence') - then you most certainly know that there are quite a number of appropriate noticeboards, much like this one, where you can take up your grievance. the talk page for the second amendment is not one of them. you know this, you know your way around the various noticeboards on wikipedia, evidenced by your frequent requests to block editors, or lock articles, or requests to take matters to dispute resolution (which you even requested within the last few days regarding a matter i'm uninvolved in on that same second amendment talk page) - yet you feign ignorance of what the appropriate venue is to discuss my alleged incivility? please. spare me this song and dance. your posting on the 2nd amendment talk page was a clearly calculated attempt to attack and impugn me, not an attempt 'bring about greater civility'.
finally, your linked to quote about tinfoil hats - yet another misrepresentation, though perhaps it was merely misunderstanding. i said (the full quote, not selective, for the benefit of others):"you're citing a 1994 (note - 94, not 95) USENET alt. groups FAQ posting as something being "publicly documented"? wow. your threshhold for reliable sources has taken a nosedive. ;^) :while i love a good conspiracy theory, i give same about as much credence as the folks wearing tinfoil hats out near area 51. this falls in the same category." do you think i was talking about you? if so, you're mistaken. i was talking about 'conspiracy theories', and how much credence I give them, which is none. i find conspiracy theories amusing, but neither your conspiracy theory nor anybody else's gets me particularly wound up, since 99% of conspiracy theories have no actual substance. your conspiracy theory is interesting and amusing, but belongs better on your talk page, or on a blog somewhere, but certainly not on the talk page for an article. speculating about whether an anon IP is actually person X may be fun for you, but it's not related to article improvement, and it's not productive. again, clearly you believe it is, but policy argues otherwise. Anastrophe (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Anastrophe writes: "there is a vast difference between speaking bluntly and being genuinely uncivil. i frequently speak bluntly, but in the main". "vast difference" Well, not to me, and not to the dozen other editors registering complaints on his talk page. "genuinely uncivil?" As if there is another form of incivility. "in the main"? As if his passing form of incivility is not rude.
Anastrophe flatly declares "i frequently speak bluntly". Speaking bluntly is usually considered rude, and rudeness is a policy violation at Wikipedia. Anastrope cannot deny that people have repeatedly advised him that his style of speaking is considered rude. Anastrophe has in effect stipulated here to knowingly have committed a serious policy violation causing harm to the encyclopedia.
Anastrophe apparently wants us to believe that he can deliberately speak bluntly and bears no responsibility that people perceive him as rude and uncivil. An insult can be crafted carefully, like his 'tin foil hat' analogy, so that it serves to convey an insult while simultaneously being plausibly deniable. The civil thing to do is to apologize and Anastrophe rarely does this. I, and the other editors, feel outrage at Anastrophe's deliberate unrepentant rudeness. My personal hurt at this doesn't matter much in the scheme of things. What does matter is the effect on the encyclopedia.
Anastrophe has hurt a long series of editors and has caused immeasurable damage to the encyclopedia, take a look. If you don't have time to look it all, look at this one example. Notice that Anastrophe taunts: "...i believe i hurt mr. shoessss feelings..." and belittles: "...as well as the correct spelling of 'inflection'..." Notice that Anastrophe takes extreme personal offense to criticism and lashes out with intense counter attack. Notice that this 2007 example is similar to this recent event which establishes that this is a very long term repetitive problem. Hurt personal feelings aside (mine and Anastrophe's), the real problem here is the long term pattern of harm he causes to the collaborative editing atmosphere at Wikipedia. Harm to the encyclopedia is a very serious concern. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
more hyperbole. there's a short list of editors who've had a problem with my style; of those, many have been unrepentent trolls and vandals who objected to having their attempts to push outrageous (policy violating) stuff into the encyclopedia being met with a firm hand. 'tough love' is appropriate when dealing with those sorts of editors. i repeat that speaking bluntly is by no means uncivil - one is not required to color one's language in flowery terms and pretty lace in order to be "civil". you, saltyboatr, frequently attack the editor, characterizing the editor, making claims about the editor - that is textbook uncivil, and this is what you engaged in with your attack on me on the talk page to the second amendment. for the most part (i admit i stray occasionally) i direct my commentary at the edit not the editor. your exaggerations are not helping your argument. for those here on wikiquette alerts who wish to review the real record, all of my talk page history is available archived on my talk page. you'll find not only a smattering of complaints (and if you follow through and check the history of the editors registering those complaints, you'll see what i've spoken of above), but also praise, and also just the standard mundane discourse found on user talk pages. your suggestion that i take "extreme personal offense to criticism and lashes out with intense counter attack" is yet more exaggeration. what i lash out at, so to speak, is when you directly violate the standards of AGF, civility, NPA. your violations of these standards are egregious; you are harming WP with your attempts to smear and misrepresent other editors - you've done so patently with your post that is the subject matter of this grievance.Anastrophe (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"...'tough love' is appropriate..."? No. Your campaign to dole out 'tough love' violates the WP:Civil code of conduct and causes harm to the encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
your personal opinion is noted. you're welcome to file your own grievance elsewhere. you've already hijacked this greivance with hyperbole, exaggeration, and misrepresentations. your exaggerations alone constitute patent personal attacks - conflating a few complaints with 'hundreds'; claiming that i've caused "immeasurable harm". editors who grossly violate AGF, civility, NPA, rarely last long on wikipedia - they never last without clearcut sanctions. i've never been sanctioned for speaking bluntly. you may believe that i should be - then file your own grievance. you yet refuse to acknowledge how utterly inappropriate your attack on me was on the talk page for the second amendment, ignoring it was the wrong venue, ignoring that you leapt at an opportunity to attack me in a thread where you were speculating in conspiracy theories about whether an anonymous IP was a particular human being. you need to acknowledge that you engaged in an overt, public, personal attack on me in the wrong venue. i'm not looking for an apology, we've been down that road before. i merely want your attacks to stop, as i've asked about a half dozen times in just the last few weeks. Anastrophe (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I apologize. Hopefully you and I will be able to find a way to get along better in the future. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
i'm willing also. Anastrophe (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I think that you could both benefit from a reading of these essays. —Travistalk 17:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Zagalejo's conduct at AFD

The aforementioned user initially made a personal attack towards me on an AFD ([62]). I then sent the user a friendly warning and reminder of some policies([63]), but he continued to try and justify his actions by making more attacks ([64]). Not much I can do as I'm not an admin so... Dalejenkins | 22:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No offense to you, but it doesn't seem like either one of those diffs is a personal attack. Dayewalker (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree, there are no personal attacks there, however the comments [65] left by User:Dalejenkins on the talk page of User talk:Zagalejo were a considerable over reaction verging on rudeness. In future if you do come across any genuine personal attacks it is better to leave a polite message such as the templated one at Template:Uw-npa1 --neon white talk 23:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Ratel

Stuck: The various thorny issues here have become too long to digest properly, expanded beyond the scope of WQA, and are now generating way more heat than light. Parties should proceed to formal arbitration or RFC. Eusebeus (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In the discussions for Interstitial cystitis (Talk:Interstitial_cystitis/painful_bladder_syndrome), two parties had a dispute regarding the proper implementation of citations and text in the article where it regards acupuncture (please note the policies on pseudoscience in WP:NPOV). While one party (Transity) attempted several times to reach compromise and form a consensus to improve the article, the other party (Ratel) tended towards abusive and non-constructive behavior, including constant accusations with regard to the WP:SPA policy.

Having come to the article for information, I noticed the edit war and read the discussion with disbelief. Transity put a request for opinions in the discussion, and I contributed mine. As they were at odds with Ratel's opinions, he chose to ignore the topic of conversation (not the first time he was in violation of WP:TPG in this discussion - I've never wittingly read any of his other contributions) and continue to accuse, insult, and insinuate rather than engage in discussion.

Ratel's behavior is clearly confrontational, rather than constructive, and his baseless and immediate accusations are in clear violation of WP guidelines WP:RFC:

Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions.

I would like to invite other users to examine the discussion and contribute their opinions, both on the actual subject of the discussion, and on Ratel's behavior. I am informing Ratel of this Wikiquette alert, as well as informing him of my intention to consider an official RfC if both the issue and his behavior remain unresolved.

Scramblecase (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide some specific diffs of the incivility? --neon white talk 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Please note that Scramblecase — see contribs — is an obvious SPA started up specifically to make this attack on me here. I am currently in a tense confrontation with a highly tendentious editor with a long history of obsessive edit warring on the Drudge Report Talk page, and (s)he has decided to expand the attack on me by stalking and starting up this distracting rearguard action. Checkuser probably won't help because this is a sophisticated user who knows how to use proxies and/or the local library's computers to make this attack. Suggestion: ignore or block this SPA. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 22:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
WQAs aren't attacks, they are an informal process to help editors improve difficult communications. If you believe this is a sockpuppet then file a case, we can't really deal with that here. --neon white talk 08:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
See [66] where he leaps into a totally different discussion on an admin's page asserting " I strongly suggest you heed the complaints of other editrs about this individual", [ where Ratel accuses me of actually changing a reliable source, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&diff=next&oldid=283802552 accuses an admin of being "deliberately obtuse", [67] repeats charge that I was able to get a "Reliable source" changed, [68] with es of "this is so clearly an example of admin recruitment that it should be saved for an essay on the topic" and says "Gee, I missed this section, full of lies and misrepresentations from Collect, and lots of lickspittling obsequiousness. This sort of blatant buttering up of an admin is very distasteful.". And on my talk page: [69] "For example, in the last two days you have waited for me to arrive for my daily editing/vandalism removal session, then you pounce, trying to out-edit me and create numerous edit conflicts. It's clearly there in the logs for all to see. It's dirty pool, so stop it. I hope you have no admin ambitions, because I shall monitor your machinations and ambitions on wp and make sure everyone is apprised of your disruptive behaviour if this continues." which sounds kinda sorta threatish to me, and is likely why he is trying to assert that I am in any way connected with the fact that others have found his WP:OWN issues a probles (his edits outnumber anyone elses on Drudge Report and on Matt Drudge by five to one.) His snide claim that I am using proxies if false and defamatory as well. Was he done? [70] " I won't comment on your claimed history of being Wikipedia Master of the Universe. ". But heck let's look at some other diffs ... [71] shows just how seriously he takes facts in an article. Ratel, as can be seen by this small sample, routinely makes accusations, makes demeaning comments about editors and admins, has no conept of what "copyright" means etc. [72] shows more of his temperament. More diffs available very readily, but I suggest the point is made without any editorial comment on my part. And here he is accusing me of "wikistalking." Collect (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, speak of the Devil. Hope all this venting is emotionally satisfying for you. ► RATEL ◄ 05:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd avoid referring to someone as 'the devil' in an alert about civility. --neon white talk 08:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
"Speak of the devil" is an English language idiom that is not uncivil in any way.► RATEL ◄ 02:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Assessment This seems to be a long term dispute between two editors involving incivility and bad faith accusations by both. It is probably a case for Wikipedia:Mediation but i like to see what other editors think. --neon white talk 08:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree. I see a pair of editors who obviously dislike one another. Threats to follow someone around are against WP:HOUND and I would not be surprised to see additional action taken. I would like to think that I can help resolve almost anything, but I believe that this one needs to follow an official mediation path at this point. I'm not going to point out the unique irony of the original article mentioned. This is not the type of behaviour that is expected at Wikipedia, and both editors appear to be willing to continue the argument, rather than resolve it. I can tell you this: the first one who does attempt to resolve it (and sticks to it) will have my admiration. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
But wait. All this history aside, there is a problem on the discussion for Interstitial cystitis, which is why this Wikiquette alert was opened to begin with. I don't know if Scramblecase is working on behalf of Collect, and frankly I don't care. The discussion on IC needs attention, and I second the call for assistance there.
To me, Ratel's response here illustrates the same behavior he has shown in the IC discussion. Rather than addressing the actual substance of a comment (whether that's the changes being discussed on the IC article, or the very accurate characterization of his behavior above), Ratel seems to prefer insults and name-calling over substantive debate. In fact, the SPA label is one he used on me as well, among others. In addition, based on my experience with him plus the other exchanges of his that I've now read, it seems that he has significant ownership issues with several articles that he's spent time on, IC being one of them.
I agree that the larger issue here needs to be taken up elsewhere (though that larger issue, I think, should include a look at Ratel's behavior and not just his interactions with Collect), but please do not close this request out as I need help with the IC issue. I am not Collect, nor am I acting on his behalf, so my issue has nothing to do with their disagreement. --Transity (talkcontribs) 13:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your input, neon and Bwilkins. Neon, the diffs seem to be somewhat irrelevant, as the conversation itself is the crux of Ratel's behavior. (Diffs displaying single responses in a discussion don't seem, to me, to be as valuable as diffs displaying edits and re-edits in an article - discussions are already available in full on their respective pages, and, presumably, will not be "revised.") If you read the original discussion (as suggested in the guidelines for WP:WQA), you'll see his responses in context, and their sheer irrelevance and confrontational style will be self-evident. Both of these traits exist throughout the linked Talk page; my experience with him doesn't come in until the (currently) last section that Transity created, requesting opinions on the previous material.
Bwilkins, I would agree that you see a pair of editors who obviously dislike one another - now that I've perused some of Ratel's other pages, which I was avoiding to keep a neutral point of view myself, I would certainly agree that Ratel and Collect have some, er, tendentious encounters. (It's hard to avoid that conclusion, since the specific word is thrown about so frequently.) However, what you are seeing here is not a "pair of editors," for I am not, in fact, Collect; I have no reason to suspect that Transity is Collect, and as he claims he is not, I am following policy and not assuming so (unlike Ratel); and, if necessary, plenty of links can be provided to demonstrate a number of other users, all of them presumably unconnected to Collect, who have had similar experiences with Ratel (they're all over WP), including User:Gwen_Gale, who attempted some mediation between the now-infamous pair to which you refer.
Collect, while I appreciate your input, and sympathize with your experiences with Ratel, I'd like to try and keep this WQA on topic (as much as possible) for now. Your references to your experiences with Ratel are a basis for a case for repeated behavior, but for now, as I'd mentioned, I'd like to simply get the behavioral issue resolved - not punished. However...
Ratel, I'm not interested in pandering to any paranoid delusions at this point. Your description of a "sophisticated user" who would go through the trouble of proxies and what-not simply to attack you is quite telling of your general outlook on this site. After this response, I will no longer be directly addressing further accusations of sockpuppetry, nor the ridiculous WP:SPA comments, nor your tendency to WP:BITE newcomers (on frequent display elsewhere) - at least, not to you. If you truly suspect me of sockpuppetry, and you are not simply trying your frequent intimidation tactics (again, on frequent display elsewhere), feel free to make a formal complaint. Otherwise, cease these empty complaints and address the two specific issues being broached: namely, the original discussion in the IC article, and your needless and immediate confrontational behavior which does not seem targeted toward improving WP, no matter your frequent claims to do so.
Frankly, Ratel, you seem to have not only taken WP:OWNership of the IC/PBS article and the Drudge Report article (which I drudged through wearily, noting all the usual behaviors from you in your interactions with other users, including Collect), but Wikipedia as a whole, considering your (again) frequent threats and proclamations against other users. Your user history is quite enlightening. I apologize for my newcomer status, as you can therefore not be quite so enlightened by my history. Of course, you're free to continue assuming I'm Collect, and use his history to enlighten you about my character and motivations; however, I'd recommend you not do that, to save yourself the later embarrassment. On a side note: no offense meant to Collect, but as a published, professional writer, I'm somewhat unnerved by Ratel's assertion that I "am" Collect, having now seen a sampling of Collect's writing style. Ouch. (To both of us: apologies, Collect.)
For the record, I've already put in my opinion about the IC article itself (in the Talk page): if pseudoscience is brought in for a citation, then that itself automatically opens the door to a citation offering the majority consensus counterpoint regarding that pseudoscience; and if the second citation debunks the pseudoscience in general, that clearly qualifies as debunking the pseudoscience across the board, including the specific instance in context. ("All carp are fish" doesn't leave much wiggle room for any particular carp; it's pretty conclusive.) I don't really care if Transity's additions make it in or not (apologies to Transity), but would rather all unfounded references to pseudoscience be removed from what is a medical article, and should be held to higher standards.
Meanwhile, in regard to this WQA, I would invite other users to examine Ratel's specific behaviors in the context of the IC discussion - behaviors which are also on display in this WQA, which, sadly, I was hoping would change. Ratel, if anyone is attempting to attack you, then I sympathize; I, however, am not attacking you. WP is not about you; the articles are not about you, your tendency toward WP:OWNership notwithstanding. This WQA, of course, is about you, and I'd think you would like to represent yourself positively, rather than continue the outrageous behavior that motivated me to start the WQA in the first place. Even assuming I were a sockpuppet (apparently, I should remind you that I'm not), your responses do not put you in a good light, and I have remained largely civil throughout our exchanges. I'd urge you to keep that in mind, and begin to display some semblance of civility in return. Eschewing your WP:OWNership and WP:BITE-ing tendencies (along with your irrelevant accusations, insults, and cries of "WP:SPA") would be a step toward putting you in the positive light you would presumably like others to see. Scramblecase (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Can i ask what username or ip did Scramblecase edit under before? This is not a first edit by a user brand new to wikipedia. It shows clear knowledge of some uncommon policies. Don't be offended if Wikipedia:CheckUser is used in this case. If this is a sock of Collect or any other editor involved which i think is a fair suspicion, then it needs to be sorted out first. --neon white talk 14:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Truly and factually, neon, I've never had an account on WP before this one. I do, however, have extremely extensive professional and personal experience with developing and implementing web technologies, so it's not particularly hard to catch on to the protocols here. Add to that Ratel's own frequent citing of policy, and it also wasn't hard to do the research (another thing I'm required to do professionally) and get the hang of WP's policies and guidelines. The typical back and forth in exchanges like this is nothing new, either, as I've contributed to plenty of scientific and technological blog articles and threads before. In short, not only is sockpuppetry an inaccurate assessment of my status, but I am actually, factually a new user on WP. I think it's fair to say that the "suspicion" is certainly possible, just not plausible, and as only I can know that it's flat-out false (though Collect would know as well), I would simply point out that it was the immediate conclusion Ratel jumped to (since I now understand his accusatory pun in his first response to me), rather than making any examination or gleaning any evidence whatsoever. Obviously, there's little I can do to "prove" I have never had a previous WP account (or, more accurately, to disprove that I have had another account), but feel completely free to use Wikipedia:CheckUser - I'm not offended in the least - and in fact, if that will somehow clear this all up so we can move on to the actual issues, I'd urge someone, anyone, everyone, to do so. As I'd mentioned to Ratel in my second contribution, I have no reason to hide anything - I've been both truthful and civil in our entire exchange.
Again, and to make sure this is quite clear: my very first contribution (on the IC/PBS Talk page) was an observation of Ratel's behavior, an admonishment to stay on topic and cease being abusive, and a comment about the actual issue being discussed. The only reason this has escalated, of course, is Ratel's subsequent responses and behaviors. If this were about attacking him, then only Ratel's behavior made that possible. An effort on Ratel's part to focus on the topic and leave off the abusive behavior would have precluded the attack.
I'll be out of commission for the day (East Coast USA time), but I'll be happy to check in later this evening if I'm needed to answer any particular questions regarding the CheckUser procedure. Scramblecase (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Some obvious points here:
  1. Scramblecase is not a new user, but a sock, as any experienced editor can immediately tell. The constant use of links to wp policies is a dead giveaway. I'll eat my hat if this is a new user. In addition, the language style this SPA uses is identical to Collect, who him/herself was recently scolded for edit warring by admin Gwen Gale.diff
  2. Transity is also a SPA, and a quick perusal of his edit history makes that clear (editing numerous articles to attack what he sees as unscientific alternative or complementary ("COM") medicine). Calling him a SPA is simply WP:SPADE. I have now compromised with Transity on the IC/PBS page and instituted an edit that should satisfy all parties.
  3. The topic of this mischievous alert should actually be Collect/Scramblecase, who is disrupting several pages on wikipedia at the moment as well as wasting my precious time. ► RATEL ◄ 00:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you're the only one who thinks that questioning your behavior is a waste of time, Ratel. No one else seems to be coming to that conclusion. The uninvolved parties here haven't said that you have acted responsibly - in fact, they see problems on both sides of your interactions with Collect. So let's not be so hasty.

I have no idea if Scramblecase is a sockpuppet. I imagine that an admin would have to look into that. If you want to start that investigation, by all means do so. I have no history with Collect (or Scramblecase), so until I see evidence otherwise, I will assume good faith and believe that Scramblecase is exactly what he/she claims to be.

Calling me a SPA (yet again), though, is what this problem is about. In my interactions with you, you're responses were often nothing more than insults and invective (much like your responses here, and apparently on other pages as well). I also find it ironic that someone who has the overwhelming bulk of their edits on about three articles and the associated talk pages is so quick to toss around terms like SPA. Finally, I think the automatic negative connotation associated with someone who focuses on one type of article or one type of information is undeserved. If a person is doing that to the detriment of WP, then by all means, they aren't acting properly. If they are focusing on what they know and improving WP, then I see nothing negative about their behavior. So when you throw around that term at everyone you come across, it actually makes it clear that you care more about the leter of the law than about the actual content being discussed. That's a problem. You should think about both of these issues I raised before tossing this term around in the future.

No, we have not compromised on the IC edit. Although it appeared we had, Ratel has reversed course and we are stuck at the same point we were when this WQA was opened. He remains intractable.

Even if we had reached agreement, that wouldn't mean that your behavior is above reproach. I'll leave it to the WQA folks to decide if they want to weigh in, or if they feel that they can't say anything more until the other issues are looked at by an admin (they seem to be leaning toward the latter).

Finally, since I think it's safe to say that no one thinks that I am Collect (which is good, because I'm not), we can set aside the dispute between Collect and Ratel, and take my word for the issues I have seen with Ratel. The biggest concern, I think, is his presumed ownership of articles. He certainly behaved that way on IC as the talk page shows, and from what I've now read, he has behaved that way on the Drudge article(s) as well. In addition, even if he assumed he was slapping Collect when he insulted Scramblecase, he did the same thing to me, and he certainly didn't think that I was Collect. That adds WP:BITE to the list, at a minimum. Is questioning this kind of behavior "a waste of time"? I don't think so.

So I would still like to see a review of his behavior, either here or in some other forum. And I still would like assistance in dealing with him over at the IC article as that problem still exists. Dealing with an editor like Ratel makes WP a less fun and less productive place to be, and I can certainly say that it doesn't make newcomers feel welcome all. Most people, upon seeing his behavior, would simply give up and walk away (I was actually about to do so since it was clear he wasn't about to discuss the issues, he would revert anything I changed, and I didn't have the time to go through any formal DR), and that's not what I think WP wants to be like. --Transity (talkcontribs) 02:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

TRANSITY — Ok, if you want me to show what a bite is .. you talk about how people like me make WP a less fun place to be, but in fact the reverse is true: it's people like you who are messing up wikipedia. Your modus operandi, clearly visible in your contribution history, is to go from page to page trying to bad-mouth alternative medicine, to the point of synthesis and orginal research. You insist that all mentions of, for example, acupuncture, carry warnings about "pseudoscience"! This is idiocy. You ignore policy on these matters, even when I went to pains to point it out to you. You ignore consensus, even when other editors join me in telling you that you are wrong. You have a monomaniacal obsession with denigrating a form of medicine that you believe to be tripe, and you're determined to use wikipedia to further your obsessions and foist your unique and odious opinions on the world. It's editors like you who are making this site an unhappy place to be. 02:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratel (talkcontribs)

As I mentioned in my previous response, I am no longer addressing Ratel directly in his off-topic, irrelevant, and tedious accusations of sockpuppetry. I will be more than compliant in responding to anything he has to say on-topic, on any page.

To any and all admins: I will officially, and for the record, put forth that I am one hundred percent willing, should Collect - or any other user whom I am supposed to be "sockpuppeting" - agree to it, to provide a phone number and engage in a live, three-way conference call: the admin, myself, and Collect (or any other user). Let's reiterate that: one hundred percent willing. No, this is not a bluff. Make the request, get Collect, or any other user whom Ratel's paranoia convinces him I must be on any given day, to agree and offer his number, and set up the call. I've had quite enough of Ratel's accusations, and if that drastic a measure is the only way to have done with it once and for all, I'm perfectly willing to deal with it that way. Subsequent to that, I shall provide Ratel with a hat. This is getting ridiculous. Strike that: this is already quite ridiculous.

What I'm after is a WP where WP:OWNership fanatics such as Ratel - his history, particularly on the IC article and the Drudge Report article (the latter of which he indirectly sent me to in the first place, with his accusations), makes his behavior quite clear - cease their tiresome, abusive behavior once and for all, and discuss topics in a civil manner, without any notions of superiority, seniority, or ownership. The point of the site, as Ratel so often states, but rarely abides by, is to improve and maintain the repository of information, full stop.

Enough with the distractions of sockpuppetry. My technical expertise with WP is easily explained; unless one believes it to be ever so hard to look at the code in this text field and the resulting text and see the connections in the formatting instantly (I write code for a living). My ability to catch on to the terminology and policy citations on WP is easily explained; unless one believes that following the links provided by others, following links from there, and getting a firm grasp of why and when they are using those policy citations is difficult. (I also write contracts, business proposals, style guides, and numerous other documents in my profession - this material is quite simplistic, comparatively, which is a good thing, so try not to get offended by that remark.) Please get over this red herring; WP isn't rocket science. Adapting to the protocols of any new situation or environment isn't neurosurgery. And noting the atrocious behavior of Ratel isn't a Sherlock Holmesian feat of observation, even before I discovered that it is, in fact, chronic.

As I said, I'm happy to do whatever any admin would like in order to clear the red herring of sockpuppetry off the table. This WQA was initiated due to Ratel's rude, abusive, and dismissive behavior; I would think any other user would be hard-pressed to see his behavior in this very section and disagree with that assessment. My status completely aside, Ratel's outrageous behavior has been disruptive on more than one article, and in more than one Talk page, as is evident in his interactions with Collect (which he dredged up in the first place), and my subsequent - and directly motivated - searches for his contributions.

Feel free, anyone, at any time, to initiate a WQA or RfC, or further proceedings, regarding the suspicion of my being a sockpuppet. Such issues can be discussed there; it is a separate issue. I disagree with neon's assertion that it must be dealt with "first." No matter who or what I am, other users are free to peruse the material referenced, and decide for themselves whether Ratel's behavior is appropriate. I'm not the issue here. Yet again, Ratel feels no reservation about derailing yet another page with his paranoid and possessive ranting.

This WQA concerns Ratel's behavior. I am more than willing to be taken to task for any misbehavior I may have shown. I don't believe there to be any serious infractions, beyond, perhaps, an occasional facetious remark in response to Ratel - or, apparently, being technically skillful enough (aren't most of the users here?) to use WP's interface with no direct experience (I have, of course, been reading the site for years - why else would I be here?). I am also more than willing to be taken to task for the possibility of being a sockpuppet (which I am not). Again, I encourage any user or admin to initiate any proceedings necessary regarding my own status. Meanwhile, however, this WQA should remain focused on Ratel's behavior throughout his contributions on WP, and on the IC/PBS article in particular. The IC/PBS article itself, unfortunately lost in the shuffle, should be free of his obsessive, possessive, abusive comments - note that I do not say "free of Ratel," but rather, free of those comments - in order for the editors (including Ratel, if he is able to overcome is chronic behavioral problems) to come to some sort of consensus. If anyone disagrees, then please, if you will, explain to me the point of the WP policies that Ratel so readily cites. Scramblecase (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(To Ratel) Once again I see you've chosen to avoid discussing substance in favor of tossing around insults. I don't think I've ever seen anything else from you. I won't defend my edits on other articles to you. I feel they are proper, and I don't care at all what you think of them. My record is available. I'll gladly take criticisms from others, but your opinion is, frankly, meaningless. You simply continue to display the same behavior that got you here in the first place. And I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that I'm not the only person making these observations. Instead of insulting others, you need to look in the mirror. And if you won't, then someone needs to do it for you. --Transity (talkcontribs) 04:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • i have filed an investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scramblecase to clear things up with regards to suspicions of sockpuppetry. Do not be offended if your username is listed there. It is merely trying to establish if this editor is, or acting on behalf of another editor in this dispute. Please don't use thew investigation to carry on the dispute. --neon white talk 08:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I have followed the matter at Interstitial cystitis where User:Transity seems to be straining at a gnat. I have previously encountered User:Ratel at Alain de Botton where I find him to be brusque and bold but not unpleasantly so. The clash then is between an editor who won't let an issue go and an editor who tries to get closure in a brisk, business-like way. Insofar as we are here to get articles written rather than fill up talk pages, the latter style seems preferable. But the matter seems to be essentially a content dispute rather than a matter of etiquette and so should be resolved accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm a little surprised, Colonel, that you could read the thread at IC and come to this conclusion. I obviously do not agree with you. As I said on the IC thread, yes the issue is minor in the grand scheme of the overall article, but to me, that doesn't mean we should fail to improve it just because Ratel says "no" (with no decent arguments to back himself up). Sorry you feel that way, but I think it's clear from all that has transpired on IC, here, and on other posts (now shared here) that Ratel's behavior is a problem that goes far beyod being "brisk." --Transity (talkcontribs) 11:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No offense taken, neon. As I've noted, feel free to initiate any proceedings against me you (or anyone) might deem necessary. In the meantime, I would think that this discussion has not nearly finished, as I have yet to see very much in the way of a response to Ratel's chronic behaviorial problems on this site. What I have largely seen instead are brief discussions of who is right or wrong in the editing dispute between Ratel and Transity, references to Ratel's disputes with Collect, and accusations of sockpuppetry. With all of those being addressed elsewhere at this time, I'd like this WQA to stay on target, if everyone would be amenable to that. Colonel Warden, I find it a misinformed and/or disingenuous position that you see the matter as a content dispute, as Ratel rarely addresses the content itself in the IC discussion without hurling insults and rancor at his interlocutors (just as he has done here), and frequently eschews the content altogether in favor of the insults and rancor. Ratel, there is a perfectly appropriate sockpuppetry investigation on which to make accusations at me, now, so perhaps you could stay on target here (the target being your own outrageous behavior across the board), and in the IC Talk (which I see you've made an attempt to do at this point...not successful, but an attempt, which is not unnoticed). As a note, despite my strong disagreement with Ratel and Colonel Warden on the IC Talk consensus, I am reluctant to voice my opinion there, in that I may taint the issue with the current proceedings here and in the sockpuppetry investigation. Scramblecase (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation concluded, please resume WQA...

Now then - neon, I appreciate your thorough examination of...me. And my thanks to Colonel Warden for his contribution on that examination - as I indicated, it was quite enlightening (and I'm actually not being facetious there - I learned quite a bit following Colonel Warden's link, and in my subsequent searches). As I said, I have no problem whatsoever with the sockpuppet investigation that was opened regarding my account. It seems that the following, from User:Nathan, should be noted, in his listed reasons for closing the investigation:

...no significant evidence of a link between the accounts listed has been presented, and by all appearances this case is being used as a weapon in a content dispute...

Strangely, this is precisely what I suggested regarding the accusations against me. As the investigation has been closed by an admin who, in case any question remains, found precisely zero evidence that I am a sockpuppet (which makes sense, as I am not), I would appreciate it if the keen interests of neon and Colonel Warden, as well as Bwilkins, and indeed, any others who might read this WQA, be returned to the subject of Ratel, who is, after all, the focus of this WQA. Ratel's abusive, dismissive behavior has yet to be even cursorily addressed (in no small part due to his wild allegations - part and parcel of that behavior itself - and the resulting digressions from this WQA to my own status).

Ratel, you have created the WP:SPA you so thoroughly despise. I would very much like for this to be over, in order that I may freely look into WP articles that fall under my expertise and interests, and contribute to the encyclopedia as a whole. (And yes, knowing me, I will likely join a few conversations I find where one party is exhibiting terribly inappropriate behavior toward another - I'm simply not a fan of that kind of behavior.) However, my single WP experience as a user (that is, an editor rather than strictly a reader) has now left quite a bad taste in my mouth, and until your behavior - not just toward me, but toward many other users - has been addressed directly, without any of your red herring accusations derailing the proceedings, I will quite readily (though wearily) keep this WQA active. I would never ask for the elusive apology from Ratel, as I've already encountered you, and therefore, sadly, I would make no presumptuous claim that such a mythological beast exists. But the fact remains: your behavior is inappropriate, and must be addressed; and preferably rectified on your end, of your own volition.

Enough with the attacks and distractions. I would simply ask that you own up to your mistakes, and strive to improve your interactions with others on this site as much as you claim to strive to improve the site itself. We're all (supposed to be) part of the same team, here, and it would make it easier on everyone if you would offer more cooperation and polite responses to the rest of the team - even those who disagree with you on any given content issue. After all, I do still have a delicious hat to offer you, if you can begin to understand that your behavior truly has been inappropriate, and my actions have only been a response to that behavior. (I promise it's a very tasty hat. That's a joke. Lighten up, Ratel, and remember how we human beings - I firmly believe you are one - interact with each other.) Scramblecase (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to edit wikipedia, there is nothing prohibiting this. I tend to agree with User:Colonel_Warden that this is primarily a content dispute but with the added trouble of difficult and often incivil communication between User:Ratel and User:Collect. If they cannot edit this article without being at each other's throats then stepping back from this article might be best for both but if they are to continue with these discussions and interact they need to assume good faith and discuss civily and leave off the acusations. --neon white talk 16:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Collect isn't editing the IC article and having problems with Ratel - I am. The IC content dispute is being sent to RfC (pending resolution of some template issues, I believe). But that doesn't really address Ratel's behavior. Is that something that this WQA can do, or should that issue be raised elsewhere? My initial read of the purpose of a WQA was that third parties could look in and, providing the knowledge that the conversation was being monitored, hopefully spur good behavior in order to assist in resolving the content dispute at hand. If that is the extent of what WQA is meant to do, then the request to look at Ratel's behavior should be taken elsewhere. If not, and if WQA is meant to launch a review of a user's behavior, then we are right where we belong. Forgot Collect for now - I have a problem with Ratel's behavior, and it has been determined (rather anticlimactically for me) that I am not Collect. Please let me know if this is the proper forum, or if the issue needs to be raised elsewhere. --Transity (talkcontribs) 16:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the sentiment, neon, but something is preventing my feeling comfortable contributing to WP - my immediate and as yet unassuaged impression, upon first creating an account, that other users labor under no requisite (or feel none) to be civil and stay on topic. I'm not sure how I may have been unclear, but here's a clarification in case you've misunderstood the point of my continuing this WQA: on a site where chronic abusive and dismissive behavior such as Ratel's is allowed to continue unchecked and unanswered, I find it hard to find any comfort or interest whatsoever in contributing.
The problem remains unchecked and unanswered, because in your latest response, you have once again ignored it, and by your own words imply that you have accepted as fact an accusation which an admin has already put to rest as baseless. The conclusion of the investigation - and the correct one, I apparently need to add - is that I am not Collect. Explain, then, please: where exactly do you see the "trouble of difficult and often incivil communication between User:Ratel and User:Collect" adding to this content dispute? Collect is not involved. Collect was not even connected to this until Ratel brought him up. The content dispute was between Transity and Ratel. Upon my contribution to that content dispute, a behavioral dispute grew between Ratel and me.
By all means, discuss the content dispute - but on the IC Talk page itself, including the RfC that has been started regarding the dispute (at [[73]]). As David Wilson correctly points out there, that page should remain focused on the specific merits and drawbacks of the content under discussion (the citations regarding acupuncture). For precisely the same reason, this WQA should remain focused on Ratel's behavior; not the original content dispute, nor any accusations against me, nor any irrelevant references to Collect. To reiterate: the WQA has yet to focus on the subject of the WQA. That seems more than strange; it seems suspicious, and I'm getting quite uncomfortable with far too many users' seeming lack of motivation to address Ratel's behavior directly.
I have just as much "reason" to suspect that neon white and Colonel Warden are sockpuppets of Ratel as he had to suspect that I was a sockpuppet of Collect - which is to say, none at all, beyond the random and arbitrary point that they refuse to address Ratel's behavior. Ratel's singular reason for suspecting me, of course, was the the fact that I disagreed with him - if I had agreed with him regarding the content, let's keep in mind how plausible it is that he would have made any accusations based solely on my newcomer or alleged WP:SPA status. Does this mean that any user on WP who disagrees with Ratel must undergo a sockpuppet investigation to prove they are not Collect? When do we get to the point where we acknowledge that Ratel's conflicts can be a result of Ratel's behavior, and not a vicious conspiracy against him? Note that I'm not defending Collect, here - I certainly disagree with at least some of his opinions and behavior in his conflicts with Ratel, though I could approach his opinions with the objective of consensus and his behavior with a civil tone aimed at accord. However, this WQA has yet to focus on Ratel's overall abusive behavior, and his specific abusive behavior in the IC discussion.
Again, in an effort to come to some form of conclusion on these proceedings, I'd suggest we keep this WQA focused on its focus: to wit, Ratel. Enough with Collect (who wasn't involved) and Transity (who, while his behavior was less than pristine, was certainly not anywhere near as out of line as Ratel except in specific responses to Ratel's abuse and dismissal) and me (I'm the one who, you may recall, is not a sockpuppet, finds Ratel's behavior quite distasteful, and would like to come to a peaceful resolution to the whole thing - though I'm quite willing to go up to the next level of procedure if it becomes necessary).
All this takes is users discussing Ratel's behavior. Not the content, not my status: Ratel's behavior, period. Better yet, Ratel should be discussing his own behavior, rather than attacking anyone else's. I note, with little surprise but much regret, that he has returned to the IC discussion, continues to ignore the points Transity has made (as does Colonel Warden, in part), and is conspicuously absent from both this discussion and the sockpuppet investigation. In certain real life legal proceedings, we could compel him to show up for a hearing of this nature. Obviously, that's not possible here. But it does make one wonder: why is Ratel refusing to actually participate in his own defense, or admit his guilt and make amends? Instead, he has merely made accusations. I agree with Nathan: by all appearances this case [the sockpuppet investigation] is being used as a weapon in a content dispute.
Ratel: try to be genuinely constructive and honest about this. Discuss this without abuse, and without dismissal. That is in the best interests of WP. Not your stubborn refusal to acknowledge your own behavior, and your continued behavior of running roughshod over other users, particularly on articles you seem to feel you WP:OWN. If you feel you will have "lost" by owning up to your behavior, please accept my absolute and honest opinion that you will not: being able to admit one's mistakes, move on, and take part in the spirit of cooperation that is the basis of WP, is without a doubt a clear victory. I'm not interested in "lording" anything over you. And I'd be happy to include a pomegranate iced tea with that hat, to demonstrate that this isn't about a vendetta: it's about straightening out this unhelpful behavior and moving on to more important things. The iced tea is fantastic, by the way. I'm just not sure how I'd ship it to you. Scramblecase (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No substantive evidence presented here

Despite all the hot air from 2 editors here —both of whom have admitted to being SPAs, one of whom is involved in a content dispute with me (where I am right and he is wrong, as shall soon become obvious), and the other of whom I maintain (despite the predictably unsuccessful checkuser) is a sock of Collect (himself now the subject of an extensive RfC)— no real evidence as to my awfulness has been presented. On the other hand, I can point to the absurdity of accepting that the sock Scramblecase is a new editor (pah-leeeeze! I've seen many new editors arrive on the scene and not one has shown Scramblecase's knowledge of rules, formatting of responses, and aggressiveness), and having been Collect's interlocutor for a few weeks I can recognize the same style and diction a mile away. Regarding Transity, I can ask why we are entertaining any input at all from an editor whose sole purpose runs counter to the rules of wikipedia? Transity joined WP to vent about something he hates: Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM). Check out the SPA_style diffs: [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] etc. All this is in direct, flagrant conflict with OR and SYN rules, as is his attempted edit to IC/PBS. What we need to be doing is blocking editors like this, for they are damaging the project. ► RATEL ◄ 01:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Just keep tossing around the insults, Ratel. It's what you do best. No evidence has been presented? How about no one has looked into it yet? How about you spun this thing by making up accusations of sockpuppetry to avoid a discussion of your behavior - something Nathan pointed out when he closed the sock investigation.
You are in repeated violation of WP:OWN on at least several articles, you routinely WP:BITE and WP:BULLY your way through discussions without ever addressing content, and you seem incapable of admitting any wrongdoing. You revert as a matter of course (and a matter of privilege), and frankly, it has to stop.
As a note, I have not admitted to being a WP:SPA - I have said that I think the classification is idiotic, and that people should be judged on the content of what they write, and not where they choose to write it. In fact, if you actually bothered to read the entry at WP:SPA, you'd see that it says exactly that. Instead, you seem to like tossing around the term without ever actually learning about it. For my part, my edits have all been proper, and I've always invited and engaged in substantive debate. That's a whole lot more than I can say about you.
Is someone going to look into Ratel's issues here, or does a different forum need to be used to do so? People like him hurt WP and I'm hoping someone cares about that. --Transity (talkcontribs) 02:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Ratel's list of my diffs above, I invite anyone to look them over. What I see there are a series of edits in which I primarily removed unsourced statements which, in some cases, had been tagged as needing sources for some time, or added appropriate caveats to unsourced claims (when possible, using sources myself). So please check the content of my edits, and don't just take Ratel's biased word for what I've been doing. I'd also invite anyone looking at my diffs to look at the corresponding talk pages, as all but the smallest changes will be discussed there. I welcome comments (on my talk page) about how I can improve on my editing. --Transity (talkcontribs) 13:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are some legitimate issues here, but frankly the use of a sock or SPA account - and Ratel, etc... are quite right about this - undermines the legitimacy of this dicussion. The accusations of stalking are also serious and would need to be addressed in conjunction with the content dispute. As it is, this WQA is stuck and the parties should consider a more formal venue. Eusebeus (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Appreciate the comment, Eusebeus. I believe a more formal venue may be the answer. The problem is that every time Ratel has a problem with someone, and that person attempts to do something about it, he finds a way to divert the problem onto others (see him blame Collect, Scramblecase, and me on this thread above). To my way of thinking, it shouldn't matter at all if someone is a SPA or even a SOCK (hear me out on this) when it comes to judging Ratel's behavior. Scramblecase is a sock? Fine, how is Ratel's behavior? Scramblecase has been cleared of being a sock? Fine, how it Ratel's behavior? The issues about others are (in some cases) important, but not relevant. Ratel has proven very adept at using these issues to divert attention from his own WP:OWN and WP:BITE behaviors.
So Scramblecase is tainted, even though he's been cleared of being a sock, and even though all new users are, by definition, SPAs. And Collect is as well. Ratel would have the world believe that I am also tainted as an Eville SPA (YMMV). So who's left to do something about his behavior if everyone who he bullies is rendered tainted and unable to do anything? That is my frustration. I would rather have each of us judged on our behavior blind of what the others have done, but I don't know how to make that happen without Ratel's diversionary cries of "SPA" and "SOCK" souring the process as it did here. If you have any guidance, please share it with me as I am becoming quite disenfranchised with WP in general based on my experiences with one problematic editor. I would love to continue editing here, but I'm spending the bulk of my time battling ownership issues and insults, and that isn't much fun at all. --Transity (talkcontribs) 13:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You're becoming "disenfranchised"? Don't you mean disenchanted? Smiley green alien doof.svg Still waiting for any proof that you have a case against me, apart from your obvious attempt to use this venue to further your content dispute with me and other editors at IC/PBS. ► RATEL ◄ 16:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
(Yes, just attack Transity's prose, rather than his points, Ratel. As a note, if we're correcting the writing rather than the content, I think your pluralization on "editors" is off, too. Oh, sorry - that addresses both writing and content. Now, more on point...)
It is, indeed, possible, Eusebeus, that this WQA is "stuck." Unfortunately, this seems to be largely due to Ratel's refusal to participate in it without bringing in numerous other (largely irrelevant) issues. I agree that the constant allegations undermine the legitimacy of the WQA; but it is those allegations, not the facts, that do so. One more time, for those unfortunately seated high up in the balcony and unable to obtain auditory aids to hear the actors on stage (in short: the cheap seats): I have been cleared with regard to the sockpuppet accusations. I am not Collect. Bringing Collect up - which was done by Ratel in the first place, perhaps with this very purpose in mind - is irrelevant. (Collect's participation in this proceeding is quite natural, assuming he is "stalking" Ratel and noted the WQA with his name in it. Note that I asked him to refrain from bringing his own experiences into this WQA for now, specifically because I agree that they undermine the proceedings.) Meanwhile, several points have been missed, here, some of which Transity has addressed.
1) I find it quite disturbing that the subject of a WQA can entitle a new section of the WQA "No substantive evidence presented here" and not be called on his presumptuousness. The purpose of the WQA should, supposedly, be to get some external perspective on the behavior of the subject of the WQA. That Ratel can offhandedly declare "nothing to see here, go about your business," seems to defy the point of having the WQA feature in the first place. However, this seems to be Ratel's modus operandi: to bluster and bully and "proclaim" his personal views as absolute fact, seemingly oblivious to the possibility that he could, in fact, ever be mistaken or incorrect, or that it may remain up to others to judge his behavior, if he is not willing to objectively do so himself.
2) Ratel claims: "no real evidence as to my awfulness has been presented." I would submit that his refusal to deal civilly with this WQA is evidence in and of itself, even were it not for his behavior in the discussion that motivated this WQA, and his persistent need to attack plaintiffs rather than defend his own actions.
3) Ratel's entire case against me - yet again brought up here, where it is off-topic - rests on his own paranoia and my proficiency with WP editing and policy protocols. Ratel, if this is your admission that you find WP's editing and policy protocols too complex to pick up easily, then I think that speaks more to your own aptitude and/or technical skill, rather than my honesty. Is that what you mean to imply? That's an ill-advised, though charmingly self-deprecating, strategy. I can say precisely the same regarding neon white's continued use of this factor as the basis of his sockpuppet investigation - that is, even if you guys find this stuff difficult, it really is remarkably easy for me. (Again, I think that says less about my "wondrous" abilities than it does about the claimant's lack thereof.) Further, the "identical" prose these users claim to see between Collect's writing and my own is not quite so identical to one who has been a professional writer and editor. I'd suggest, as merely one example, reading [[85]] and then re-reading those "identical" passages. (Once again, no offense to Collect. This is about writing style choices, and some of my previous editors - you know, those professional, offline ones - might have preferred Collect's style to mine.) As to diction: really? Wow. Some folks really aren't so skilled at critical reading, I suppose.
4) Yes, Ratel, I have "admitted" to being a WP:SPA. More accurately, I stated, verbatim:
Ratel, you have created the WP:SPA you so thoroughly despise. I would very much like for this to be over...
However, my single WP experience as a user ... has now left quite a bad taste in my mouth...
In short: I'm not "interested" in being a SPA. You have derailed the only opportunity I have yet taken to make a contribution - note that my "single purpose," as I've stated it, is not related to the IC article, nor, unfortunately, any article, but rather to make sure that somebody, somewhere, anywhere on the site addresses your behavior directly without being distracted by your irrelevant accusations, abusive behavior, offhand dismissal, and all of the other charming traits that mark your interaction on WP thus far. Note that I, for one, have continually stated that this is not about punishment - simply acknowledgment and amends. However, once again: if you, and other users, refuse to acknowledge your misbehavior on this site, then I will have no choice left but to file an RfC and discuss these events with an admin. This is not a threat; this is a problem. I want more choices than that, man!
5) Further, with regard to the WP:SPA label in general: I, like Transity, find it preposterous. Once upon a time, Ratel, you were a WP:SPA with a focus on artists from the continent of Africa. Then, because no bully tried to push you around, you got to make other contributions to the site. The same can be said of every user on WP (substituting "artists from the continent of Africa" with their own first contributions, of course). This is, of course, directly related to the next point...
6) I did not start my account with the intent of attacking you, Ratel. You certainly perceived it that way, thanks to your generally belligerent attitude toward other users, or, more specifically, those who disagree with you (on seemingly any subject, encyclopedia content or not). I joined a discussion where I saw two users with a difference of opinion, unable to come to consensus, and unlikely - as you yourself pointed out - to find any other users happening upon the discussion to help out. Moreover, I saw one user exhibiting unreasonably venomous, abusive, and dismissive behavior toward the other. By coincidence, I agreed with the victim of the abuse rather than the perpetrator, with regard to the content. Having already seen your behavior, and your use of WP:SPA as a tool to dismiss another user's opinion, I made sure you understood that I would not accept that as a reasonable or valid response, should you hurl it at me.
You, of course, went ahead and did it anyway. And here we all are: in a WQA that only exists because you were incapable of focusing on the topic and avoiding personal attacks and baseless accusations (or, if capable, apparently unwilling).
7) You once again stand triumphantly (and mistakenly - which is a perfectly valid discussion to conduct, politely, on the IC Talk page, both from your side of things and Transity's) on WP:OR and WP:SYN policies, and accuse yet another user of being a WP:SPA. You have yet to address, for even a moment, the allegations against you. You are, in fact, a WP:BITE-ing WP:BULLY with WP:OWNership tendencies, who cannot seem to grasp the purpose of WP:BURO in order to see your way through to consensus, or even peaceful disagreement. The fact that I can so readily and easily link to all of these, Ratel, has just as much to do with your own frequent tossing about of policy as it has to do with my ability to simply do research before I type. You've made me the policy-wielding WP user I am today. You should be proud I've taken your lessons to heart! Of course, I haven't bothered to absorb your lessons in how to mistreat other users. I'm not a fan of those lessons.
8) Once upon a time, way back up near the beginning of this WQA, Bwilkins said:
...the first one who does attempt to resolve it (and sticks to it) will have my admiration.
How many times have I offered an olive branch, Ratel? Anyone? How many times have I attempted to lighten up these proceedings? Not because of Bwilkins's admonishment, but rather, because it is precisely what I am looking for - resolution, accord, and the opportunity to make my contributions without dealing with angry insults and dismissals from a user who, frankly, doesn't play well with others. I've asked you to simply respond, Ratel; politely, fairly, without abuse or dismissal. You have been unable or unwilling to do this. (True, my olive branch has frequently been in the form of a hat, but I discovered you had a taste for hats, and felt it only polite to cater to that preference.) Every moment of ire that I have exhibited - all of them quite minor, compared to yours, Ratel - has come as a direct response to your baseless accusations and insults, and your refusal to attempt to resolve this situation amicably. Meanwhile, I've made attempt after attempt to come to a point of understanding, clarifying my position, asking for clarification of yours (or, again, any acknowledgment of yours). I've even attempted to resume a polite discussion on the IC Talk page, clearly validating one of the points you made while still disagreeing with your conclusion; and, of course, was slapped with an irrelevant SPA tag by your apparent compatriot, Colonel Warden, despite David Wilson's pointed remark to leave off the irrelevant accusations in that discussion. What, does it pain you guys that you can't make an argument solid enough that you don't need to add a baseless, pointless attack to it? This is absurd.
9) Like Transity, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the WP community is not at all what it appeared from the outside, during my years of reading the site for my own edification, and to discover avenues of research in my writing and other projects. It seems - seems, mind you - to largely consist of possessive, obsessive users with anger issues, and lackadaisical, unhelpful users who willfully avoid calling the first kind on their behavior. Again, this is what I've gleaned from my WP user experience - not through my own actions, but through the observation of the actions of others. Perhaps, had I made my first contribution on another discussion or article, and dealt with users other than Ratel, I may have had a very different experience. As it is, I do not find WP to be a very welcoming community. Worse, it appalls me that, should any users exist who find this idea of an unwelcoming community to be problematic, not one of them has stepped forward to make me feel welcome. The best I've gotten is User:Nathan's statement that suggested, correctly, that the sockpuppetry investigation of my account was pointless, baseless, and being used only as a weapon.
Ratel, if you haven't noticed: I'm bulletproof. No, that's not a boast; I'm saying that the bullying and intimidation will not sway me, nor deter me. That's simply not how you're going to deal with someone like me, who obviously values justice, fairness, and diplomatic behavior far above "might makes right" (or, at the very least, claims to - even if I were lying or deluded, I'd have to keep up appearances on that score, right?). The only way to "slay this beast," Ratel, is to lay down your anger and your weapons...and discuss. Peaceably. Politely. Even if it's a strain. Because that's my kryptonite, man. Cooperative, fair behavior. The harder you jab, the further this will go - as far as it has to, in fact. An attempt to actually be civil and stay on topic will work wonders. Scramblecase (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
' The conclusion of the investigation ... is that I am not Collect [...] I have been cleared with regard to the sockpuppet accusations.' - Scramblecase
The clerk who closed the case said nothing of the sort. He clearly stated that he closed the case because no significant evidence was presented.[86] He added on his user talk page that the 'rationale for filing the case ... as I noted on the case page ... was insufficient to justify checkuser action.'[87]
There was no investigation - the case was declined. As to whether Scramblecase is Collect, the clerk made no conclusion one way or the other. WP:AGF requires that we assume Scramblecase is not a Collect sock until/unless there is a finding to the contrary. Writegeist (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
There most certainly was an investigation. And more. And snce you and your friends accused me in the past of being a sock for Kelly, Ferrylodge, Fcreid, THF and a few more, one might think that you would accept that I have no sockpuppets at all. At what point will you let such ppoor accusations go? Collect (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Similar experience

I had similar exchanges with Ratel over a discussion of notability at Talk:Jim Puplava over which he received a reminder about dealing with other editors.[88] His edit summary says a lot about his opinion of other editors, but unless Ratel learns to respect the edits and efforts of other editors, he's going to find himself spending all his time defending his behavior (and reverting his talk page discussions) rather than the actual edits and content. Flowanda | Talk 19:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(While I appreciate the potential validity of your point, Collect, it might be best if you excused yourself from this WQA for the moment. The rancor between you and Ratel and, apparently, other users is an unnecessary and unhelpful distraction from the WQA itself. Do what you will, but that's my opinion.)
Excellent point, Writegeist, and my apologies for not recognizing that detail of the system. One would suppose, of course, if I'd been through one of those investigations before (as have other users - like, for instance, Collect), I may, indeed, have not chosen to use it as the crux of what I clearly felt was a valid argument. (Keep in mind, please, that it was but one argument of many. And the conclusion still holds, only based on Writegeist's point, rather than mine.)
So the conclusion of the investigation, more accurately, is that there is no longer any need, per WP:AGF, to consider the allegation with regard to this WQA or Ratel's behavior. I'd be happy to reinstate the investigation myself (or start a new one) in order to instigate a Checkuser procedure, and my offer of a live, offline, three-way conference call between an admin, me, and anyone who I am alleged to be a sockpuppet of still stands. I'm not sure how I can make that point any more clear or accessible.
Now, would anybody like to contribute anything on topic? With the (again, apparently sorely necessary) reminder that the topic is Ratel's behavior, both in the initial IC discussion and in this WQA? Or will we continue to get drive-by quoting of policy, procedure, and fine print, and a total abdication of the responsibility of this community to commune? No offense, Writegeist, but this is becoming quite frustrating. Scramblecase (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
My apologies - apparently, just before I hit "Save page," Eusebeus decided to mark this WQA as "Stuck." (I'm not sure why that results in my comment still being posted, albeit in another section.) I believe this is premature, as it's hard to be "stuck" when the subject of the WQA has yet to respond to a single allegation against him. I'd call that "stalled," "diverted," or "blown up," depending on what Ratel's motivating factor is. I just don't see a clever icon for any of those.
As Flowanda has indicated, Ratel's behavior is not isolated to his interactions with Collect, with Transity, or with me. Now that somebody has deigned to actually make an on-topic remark (thank you Flowanda - not for your opinion coinciding with mine, but for commenting on the topic itself), would anybody else care to weigh in? I'd hate to give undue weight to the "Ratel needs to learn to respect the edits and efforts of other editors" opinion. Scramblecase (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


(out) [89] sockpuupet accusation by Ratel - no basis found. 23 Feb 2009. [90] another unfounded sockpuppet investigation 9 Dec 2008. [91] 3RR by Ratel, his solutiong for everything is [92] "block indef." So little time, so many formal complaints against others. Collect (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

  • It seems that very few people are willing to make any comments on Ratel's behavior, which is disappointing and leaves me with a very unfortunate impression of the WP community's interest in civil discourse, or its interest in preventing users from disrupting that civility. It also seems that whosoever may make any statement that puts Ratel in a negative light is not only attacked by Ratel, but seems to be "suspect" by a number of other users, as if Ratel's word carries more weight than any other's - which, of course, runs contrary to the spirit of WP itself. Given the apparently ineffective nature of WP's self-policing procedures thus far, as I mentioned, I'll be looking into pursuing this issue to the next level, in an RfC regarding Ratel's behavior. And while it apparently comes as a shock to some users, I'll be doing my research first. I'd like to reiterate the reference to numerous opportunities I offered Ratel to either defend or amend his actions; all of which were ignored in favor of launching baseless attacks. If any other users are interested in keeping this site civil and free of disruptive and unfair practices such as those Ratel perpetuates, feel free to contact me on my Talk page, as I've read that I will need other users to cooperate in the initiation of the RfC. This is not my formal notice of RfC to either Ratel or the community at large; it is merely an endnote to this ultimately fruitless WQA, in order to explain my conclusions, and is therefore relevant to this conversation. Scramblecase (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Tactless statements by User talk:70.137.153.83

This IP address is involved in a dispute regarding the article Migraine Associated Vertigo. I am specifically concerned about these statements in which my "level of understanding" and "attention span" are stated (by the IP) to be less than on par. As such I am looking for some outside help to mediate this and avoid further personal attacks. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 06:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

He has been provided a 3rd level warning, which is not his first warning in the last couple of days. As an IP account, there's little than can be done because his IP is likely changeable. That said, he admits to being a longstanding editor - as such, it's possible that he is evading detection/possibly even evading a block by not logging in. As such, you might be better served in filing an WP:SSP investigation, clearly showing the diff where he admits to being a longterm editor, and clearly showing that he is using not being logged in in order to insult/disrupt. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion seems to have continued on my talkpage instead of here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Re BWilkins: Fyi, I have not received related warnings in the past few days. What are you talking? My edits have been constructive. However I have allowed myself to repeatedly insist that the article receives broader sourcing, not to a commercial website, but preferably to peer reviewed neutral articles to be found by pubmed. The Concepts of WP:MEDMOS guidelines to reliable sourcing seem to be really hard to convey. So I allowed myself to remark that the guidelines are junior college reading level, and that the editor may have difficulties with that also from the attention span. That was not nice. But please take the time to read the whole preceding unnerving dialogue, then you may have some understanding. You really have to see it in perspective, then you understand. My edits are constructive, see further up on the talk page the thanks for my help and support for a new editor. My concerns have meanwhile been run through dispute resolution, and have been confirmed. I want these warnings removed from my page. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior by user:DePiep

user:DePiep did not like a message I left on his talk page and filed a complaint on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Mashkin threat on my Talkpage. He did not like the fact that the administrators did not find any merit in his complaint and he took wrote the following on my talk page [93] where the uncivil part is the edit summary "eat it yourself".

I am not adding a comment on his/her talk page, since as you can see the previous civil comment I left was answered so aggressively. Mashkin (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have advised the user, but as noted in a thread just above, you are required to advise the other user. I have also left additional discussion on DePiep's talkpage. I'm not sure that "eat it yourself" is uncivil - unless you told them to eat something inappropriate first? What is uncivil is the actions related to non-communication and abuse of your talkpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Peer-LAN

Has been engaging in blatant incivility on top of what appears to canvassing to save an article FreeOrion (also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeOrion (3rd nomination):

"destroying all my work for no reason", this is absurd!, "leave this page alone", "I didn't expected the Spanish Inquisition!" "What's with all the Kubuki?", Uncivil response to Quantpole, Another uncivil response to Thumperward

On-wiki canvassing:

[94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102]

Can someone please help this user out before any further preventative action has to be taken? MuZemike 13:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to assist in the same vein as you have ... we'll see if a totally-uninvolved comment helps or not. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Persistent comments re editors rather than content

Stuck: Disagreement on whether this is a WQA problem or not. Suggest filing party file a request for clarification at WP:RFARB. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Tremello22 has been asked by multiple editors to "comment on content, not the contributor" (to quote WP:NPA). However, (s)he continues to make statements about other editors as part of discussions on article talk pages. These include vague insinuations of bias, and outright accusations of hypocrisy and bad faith. At the time of writing, the most recent example (the first of those listed below) was issued less than an hour after Tremello22 was reminded (by myself) to comment on content rather than contributors, and was in fact a response to that reminder.

  • "So forgive me if I don't believe you when you say you aren't a circumcision advocate because your actions speak otherwise."[103]
  • "I can only assume that you, as someone who is a circumcision advocate..."[104]
  • "I realise you and Jake both share a pro-circumcision point of view..."[105]
  • "Instead of being helpful, Jake is being deliberately difficult trying to stop this information being put in."[106]
  • "You are being totally hypocritical."[107]" (when another editor raised this point on his/her talk page, Tremello22 responded, "If I think he is being hypocritical, I will say so."[108])

Jakew (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to see any violation of WP:CIVIL here ...? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Indirect vios; repeatedly referring to him as "circumcision advocate", "pro-cicumcision pov", etc. Those would warrant the subject being advised/warned. I also sense some assuming of bad faith. That said, I have not yet looked into the context of this which might justify otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)slightly modified
Yes. Incidentally, I wouldn't characterise these as examples of major incivility. In fact, they are relatively minor. I'm raising an alert because they are fairly regular (the above examples are just a selection from the past two months), and because Tremello22 persists in spite of being asked to stop. Jakew (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Content is not divorced form the contributor; an apologist for any position makes their perspective relevant. I don't see any WQA violation here, and I remind all editors that making unsubstantiated incivility accusations can itself be construed as uncivil. I'll amend my comment as necessary should further diffs show a breach of WP:NPA. Eusebeus (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I fear you're incorrectly assuming that the labels are accurate. Suffice it to say that they are not. This thread is about Tremello22's behaviour, not my viewpoints, but for what it is worth my actual viewpoint on circumcision is explained on my user page. I think this illustrates one of the reasons why labelling other editors is damaging: third parties may assume that the labels were accurate. I will notify Coppertwig, who was also labelled by Tremello22 in one of the above diffs, in case (s)he wants to add anything. Jakew (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
In all my time at WQA, I've generally discouraged the use of labels to this effect because it can indeed have a damaging effect on the sense of mutual respect and camraderie that is expected at Wikipedia. Tremello22 has referred to Jakew as a "circumcision advocate"; Jakew's user page suggests a view that is neither pro or anti, and Jakew has presumably made statements to that effect. So now the burden should shift to Tremello22 to provide evidence as to why he felt it justified to refer to another user as a circumcision advocate; what "actions" did he feel "spoke otherwise"? If he could not provide any reasonable evidence, then strong assumptions of bad faith are a problem that come in line with civility issues. If he could provide such evidence, then this would be dismissed per Eusebeus. I consider that only the first 3 4 diffs count; I presume the rest are tied in with content and can be ignored. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)slightly modified
Regarding the last two diffs, Ncmvocalist, I don't mind if they are disregarded, but I just want to briefly explain why I included them. It's possible that the "hypocritical" remark had something to do with content, but if so I must admit that I'm mystified as to what (I don't think it's obvious from the context). I would generally avoid accusing another editor of hypocrisy, for reasons of civility; I might instead express concern about the subject (eg., "I'm concerned that we apply consistent reasoning between this situation and situation X, as I think they're similar due to reason Y"). Regarding "being deliberately difficult", I regard this as an outright accusation of bad faith (and, apparently, an assertion of the ability to read other editors' minds). There are times, I must admit, when I suspect that another editor is being "difficult" on purpose, but I don't say anything, partly because I can't prove my suspicion, partly because I consider it more civil to at least pretend to assume good faith, and partly because saying something would only aggravate the situation. Jakew (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I have reviewed the talk page (quite interesting, who knew?) and what I see is a spirited content dispute and not a breach of civility. While it is correct that editors need to comment on the content, not the contributor, in the face of persistent reverts it is reasonable to adduce suggestions of a POV; those can be contested. That is fine in order to resolve differences and find common ground. In this instance, the article editors seem to be working through their issues in a detailed and civil way. It is very important for editors to recall that making an accusation of incivility is serious. WQA is not here to redress content disputes by other means which is what this seems to be. I have marked this accordingly as nwqa and archived the discussion. Eusebeus (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I've unarchived this (temporarily). It appears I've been contacted on my talk page regarding this closure, and was asked to review it, though I'd already begun reviewing earlier. I'm not convinced that our attempt (if any) was sufficient in making this better for the involved parties. I want to fix some of my own comments and add a couple more, and I don't see any harm in holding off a close for a few more days to enable this. I also want to leave a greater opportunity for the involved editors to provide input per the request at my talk page. Will reconsider archiving after 72 hours. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry: how is it not uncivil to continue to call someone a "circumcision advocate" after they've said they aren't and don't want to be called that? Tremello's remarks are repetitive and are commenting on the editor's motivation rather about behaviour. They're the type of comment likely to be annoying to the person being commented on. What may seem like relatively mild comments can get very annoying with repetition and in combination with content disputes and occasional editwarring. They violate the proposed remedies C1, C4, C5, C6 and C7 that a number of editors of the Circumcision page had agreed to here; note that Blackworm also endorsed the same proposed remedies further down the page. I encourage all editors not to apply labels to other editors, and not to claim they have certain motivations they themselves deny having. If there are problems with an editor's behaviour, please bring it up on the editor's user talk page and other appropriate dispute resolution fora (such as here!) rather than repeating it over and over again on an article talk page. Coppertwig (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You have a very idiosyncratic view of what constitutes incivility, and one that I hope is not generally shared in this project. Stating a belief that another editor is a "circumcision advocate" is simply that, a statement of belief, not something that could be considered insulting. It would on the other hand quite probably be considered uncivil if that were phrased as a "fucking circumcision advocate". See the difference? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree. These remarks are a) about an editor rather than content, b) unnecessary, c) likely to be unwelcome, and d) known to be likely unwelcome. Consider this: if an editor said that he was a man on his talk page, and another editor accidentally described him as a woman, there's no inherent civility problem. But if the first editor corrected the second editor and asked him/her not to do that, it would be incivil for the second editor to repeatedly describe him as a woman. Repeatedly making personal remarks about someone that are known to be unwelcome is the essence of incivilty, and once it is known that they are unwelcome and inaccurate they become nothing more than name-calling. Decorating the remarks with expletives is best avoided, but in relative terms it doesn't make all that much difference. Jakew (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Being wrong and/or refusing to believe the statement of another editor is not uncivil. It is simply being wrong and/or refusing to believe another editor. It's high time these kinds of absurd interpretations of civility are reined in. If someone has advocated circumcision, or has been considered to have done so, then it is not uncivil to refer to that person as a "circumcision advocate", it is a summary of the facts. Personal remark =/= incivility. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This of course depends on use: "your edits to this article don't count because you're a circumcision advocate" would be an attempt to bully someone from editing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The incivility in your example does not centre on the deployment of the phrase "circumcision advocate", but on the statement "your edits don't count". It is the latter which is uncivil, not the former, hence my conviction that this thread is yet another vexatious complaint encouraged by those with a far too wide-ranging definition of "incivility". --Malleus Fatuorum 16:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Based on the diffs provided above, there's no bullying going on. Malleus Fatuorum is absolutely right. If there's no objection, I'll restore my archive of this discussion as not a civility issue. Eusebeus (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm sensing a legitimate disagreement here on whether this is the right sort of decorum to be using or not. I don't believe this is a vexatious complaint; it's made in good faith, and seems to be in line with the sort of thing you'd expect ArbCom to encourage. I would suggest that the user who filed this complaint file a request for clarification at WP:RFARB, given that ArbCom usually will end up looking at these sorts of gray areas of vios or non-vios, depending on how you look at it. Filing a clarification would involve citing any case that cites the principle "Decorum" or "Conduct of Wikipedia editors" or the like. I would not suggest seeking sanctions, or a case, but just a genuine request for clarification on how these particular examples would be treated by others, and they would've been considered by ArbCom. I intend on closing this particular WQA within the next 24 hours (or earlier) when I've finished revising my previous comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Unexplained reverts; perhaps some hounding and advertising

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

I edited the article on Steinway & Sons lately to remove what seemed like a great deal of advertising, but I've encountered a few problems with User:Fanoftheworld. As far as I can tell he added a great deal of the possibly NPOV material, and changes have been met with unexplained reverts (see for instance here, which was a revert done manually; here, where putting a mission statement back in was used to undo a series of further edits, most of which were fairly trivial; 1, 2, 3, 4). I've posted on the talk page to explain my changes, most haven't received answers. Posts on the user's talk page received no response. The user also began to post on other piano manufacturer pages (especially ones I'd contributed to), mostly to add scores of refimprove, fact, etc., tags, with no attempt at finding any of the information; and in some cases adding nosources tags to sourced sections. See 1, 2, 3, etc. Not sure how to proceed. Alexrexpvt (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest requesting the involvement of impartial editors to discuss the edits and the article. The editor is using the talk page to discuss edits so continue there. If a consensus is achieved and the editor reverts against the consensus then it probably needs admin attention. --neon white talk 20:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try that. Thank you. Alexrexpvt (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Wikihounding and Uncivil behavior from DreamGuy

Resolved: Filing party blocked for sockpuppetry. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2009 (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.

User:DreamGuy has been wikihounding my edits by taking my deprods to AfD. Now I understand and accept that that nominating an article for AfD is the right of any editor, but he is doing so only to article that I have deproded, and to articles that he had previously no activity in here, here, here, and here. This editor has also made uncivil comments against me that demonstrate that he is assuming bad faith against me (see here where he falsely states that I have "a long history of aggressively reverting redirects and other actions" to justify the fact that he has taken my deprod to AfD. Wordssuch (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wordssuch, let me start by saying that accusations of Wikihounding are very serious, so they should not be used casually. As such, I'm going to start off by WP:AGF and assume that DreamGuy is monitoring all articles that get PROD'd. He does, indeed, take a number of articles to AfD: From DreamGuy's contribs:
  • 16:35, 19 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Churnalism ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Churnalism. (TW)
  • 16:18, 19 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Rudolf, Count of Rhaetia ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudolf, Count of Rhaetia. (TW))
I could list more, but I wanted to show that you were not involved with one of those two, and there are a whole bunch of others as well.
On the diff of "incivility"...I can find no violation of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL there, could you please expand.
Finally, when you have any issue with another editor, you must try and resolve it directly with them first on their talkpage. Whenever you file a WQA complaint, you must also advise them so that they have a chance to respond. I will be notifying DreamGuy of this on your behalf. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Fact correction - I did deprod Rudolf, Count of Rhaetia, which was then AfD by DreamGuy. The "Churnalism" article is the only other article that DreamGuy brought to AfD. There are not "a whole bunch of others".
To expand on WP:Uncivil, DreamGuy publicly made false claims against me (as stated in my intro), and makes an assumption of bad faith against me in attempting to justify why he brought Rudolf, Count of Rhaetia to AfD, rather than just redirect. Wordssuch (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, Wordssuch, you must try to resolve your issues with the editor directly prior to pursuing the next steps in dispute resolution. Same goes with notifying the subject of a WQA complaint; if you're reluctant to notify them yourselves, you're expected to at least state so in the complaint here so that someone else can notify on your behalf. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, I did notify him on his talk page at 05:46, 20 April 2009 (see last entry on [109]. Curiously, this edit shows on his talk page, but does not show up the edit history. Is it possible that DreamGuy can edit the edit history? Wordssuch (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
That would be because you left a message on his USER page, and not his TALK page. Someone else politely moved the entry from the userpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This is kind of a ridiculous accusation coming from someone who was repeatedly warned about harassing me. In fact the the account seems to have been largely created to do just that, based upon his limited edits and how the early ones all targeted articles I created for Speedy deletion for no good reason, all of which were denied, and the ones that went to AFD were denied also. This user was also one of several accounts discussed on WP:ANI being either sockpuppet accounts or otherwise acting very bizarrely. His current talk page has multiple incidents of other editors concerned about his behavior deprodding articles for no good reason and hi user page is tagged for sockpuppet investigations by another editor (though, with his history of blanking the talk page, those may disappear soon too). For him to be complaining about anyone else is pretty rich. At any rate, with his history of bad edits, taking things to AFD to get more input would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do, unless he's afraid of what others might decide.DreamGuy (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Fact correction - Only two of my early edits tagged articles for speedy delete (not "all" as stated by DreamGuy above), and both were tagged in good faith for what I thought to be good reasons. Fisrt, Metod Trobec, was a one sentence, unreferenced article [110]; and Laura Bell, a one paragraph, one sourced article about a subject notable for one-event [111]. Wordssuch (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Some were speedy, some were prods, some were AFDs... you varied your harassment, but it was clear you were targeting articles I created, as others pointed out to you, and which you removed from your talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The above comments from DreamGuy sums up my complaint against him for uncivil behavior (assumption of bad faith), and give his motives for wikihounding my edits now. His accusations against my account were discussed and found to be baseless [112]. I have intentionally stayed clear of DreamGuy, and I have had nothing to do with any of DreamGuy's edits for well over a month. Yet he is wikistalking me, and here he is bringing up the old baseless allegation to justify his actions of today. DreamGuy should not be blaming others to justify his own actions. Wordssuch (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
If the above comments from DreamGuy sum up your complaint about him for uncivil behavior, then I must say that there does not seem to be much basis to the complaint. Chillum 13:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
And the sockpuppet accusation was not found to be "baseless," as he claims above, it was found to be moot as the Wordssuch account was no longer being used at the time. It obviously is being used again. And note that I was not the one who filed that report. DreamGuy (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only was the accusation of socking not baseless, but just today it was proven via checkuser. This guy had been using a whole series of socks, including all the ones I identified on the ANI page, and most of them were being used to target articles I had edited for deletion or to revert edits I made on various articles for harassment purposes. The checkuser found more socks than had been reported as suspect, but they all match exactly who I mentioned in the ANI thread as acting suspicious. Azviz (talk · contribs) == Untick (talk · contribs) == Esasus (talk · contribs) == Wordssuch (talk · contribs) == Unionsoap (talk · contribs). Now we just have to b on th lookout for whatever new ones this person makes, since he probably won't just accept being blocked if past ations are any indication. DreamGuy (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2009 (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.

Uncivil behavior by User:DreamGuy (again)

Resolved: Filing party blocked as sockpuppet. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2009 (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.

DreamGuy is continuing to follow my edits, and has now called me a liar - which is a clear and blockable violation of WP:Civil. I have been been trying to avoid User:DreamGuy, but in this instance he has followed me into an AfD (the only one he took part in that day) to argue for the deletion of an article that I created. I challenge his misleading deletion argument logic, and disclose to the closing admin that DreamGuy has been wiki-stalking me. In response DreamGuy calls me a liar and falsely states that I have been blocked for harassing him, even though I have not harrased him and I have never been blocked. DreamGuy calls me a liar here. Esasus (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick check of your block log shows that you were blocked for 24 hours on April 9, 2009, by User:KillerChihuahua, for "Personal attacks or harassment". While the block log does not specify whether this was in respect to DG, at a minimum it is not correct that you have never been blocked. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This block was indeed, for harassing me... for continuing to post to my talk page insisting that I was a liar when what I said was accurate. See User talk:DreamGuy#An editor attempting to stack votes for the incident in question. The posts most directly related to his block were removed by an overseeing admin. DreamGuy (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I was just about to correct my error when you posted here. Yes I was blocked for 24 hours, and it did involve DreamGuy. I was defending myself too aggressively when he called me a liar on his talk page here. As a result I have vowed to stay clear of DreamGuy because he baits me. Yet here he is again, following me into an AfD where he is the only editor who votes for delete, and then calls me a liar when he is challenged. Esasus (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Tricky. If you want to complain about being called a liar, try to be make your posts more faithful to the truth - then you won't have to correct yourself later. Also, if you want to complain about incivility, don't do so in such a way that it draws attention to your own accusation of wikistalking - which, since it wasn't backed up by diffs, looks a lot like a personal attack on your part. I don't know what to advise here. Maybe you should quit while you're ahead, and withdraw this complaint. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I acknowledge SheffieldSteel's very valid critique of my complaint. DreamGuy's negative record is long and exstensive. DreamGuy baits me and others. On April 9th I foolishly fell into the trap of responding to one of his baits, and I was blocked for it. Since then I have stayed away from him, but he has not stayed away from me. I hope my complaint will be judged on the recent uncivil behavior of DreamGuy, and not on other unrelevant factors. His confrontational style of editing and commenting results in unpleasant editing experiences for myself and other editors. Esasus (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a question, are Wordssuch and Esasus the same user? Soxwon (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
No. they are different users. Esasus (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Both users were part of the ANI report mentioned in the Wordssuch section above. DreamGuy (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I will heed the good advise of other editors and I withdraw this complaint. In addition, I vow to stay away from DreamGuy as he is poison to my soul. Any other well intentioned advice on how I might best deal with User:DreamGuy when he follows or baits me is welcomed. Esasus (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The way to deal with bait is quite simple, although not always easy: don't take it. Dlabtot (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Remember, after repeatedly chumming to get its attention, the shark from Jaws ate the boat. The ocean always wins against the one dropping bait. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

See section above where User:Wordssuch made the same complaints. This user has been permanently blocked as part of a drawer of socks. There was no baiting or harassment of him by me, just an accurate description of highly aggressive and highly suspicious behavior that has since been proven and taken care of... until he probably makes more socks. And Dlabtot and Arcayne both should probably spend more time making sure their own behavior follows policy than jumping on board any baseless complaint against me that comes along.... If I bothered to report wikihounding they'd be at the top (well, since the five user accounts all got blocked as socks anyway). DreamGuy (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Update – Esasus has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of Azviz (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz/Archive. MuZemike 16:31, 26 April 2009 (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.

Problems on Runescape wikia

I may be in the wrong place for this but i could not find a single other plave i could go!

User Stinkowing is constantly harrassing me! He has taken attempts to have be banned and is being very rude on my user talk page. I asked an admin for help, and was ordered to stop deleteing stuff from the talk page or i would be banned. i deleted it because i found extreamly rude! the whole site seems very unfair to me! I would very much like some help with this! is there anything you can do? Aaroncampf (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

Runescape Wiki is entirely outside the scope of Wikipedia. You might try either the {{helpme}} template on your talk page at Runescape Wiki or a comment at RS:Administrator requests or Forum:Yew Grove. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

DougWeller & Policy on Deleting other Peoples Posts in Discussion Talk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere: this is at WP:ANI now

I'm having problems with DougWeller, preventing me from having civil discussions in articles about hate, Holocaust denial, extremism etc...

I know Holocaust Denial is a very sensitive, political and emotional subject, and I can understand this given I have lost several relatives in the Holocaust.

The issue at hand is this, I'm trying to post a very valid, specific, relevant and valuable link in the Leuchter Report to the actual research document Leuchter Report on the Internet. DougWeller, keeps deleting my addition of this reference in the article, saying you are not allowed to link to hate sites, Holocaust Denial sites and so forth, but I cant find anywhere in wikipedia where it says you can not reference link to specific Hate material in an article about that very hate material.

So I am trying to discuss this issue in the discussion area of Leuchter Report and DougWeller keeps deleting my posts, editing them and so forth, so other people can't review the links to see if they are relevant to the article Leuchter Report, he keeps deleting the actual external links to the research document produced by Fred Leuchter.

Now let me start by saying I hate Nazis, so I can understand this uncivil behavior, i make no personal attacks against DougWeller, my criticism is towards his behavior in preventing a neutral discussion on these very valid, specific, pertinent, valuable reference links to the Leuchter Report.

Is there an admins out there, who can put our shared hatred of Nazis aside, and look at this from a neutral stand point, and tell me what must be done to get policies and procedures out there to prevent people from deleting valid posts in the dicussion area? he keeps saying you are not allowed to link to hate sites on Wikipedia, or Wikipedia is not a directory of hate sites. He keeps throwing the Hitler and Hate card at me, all I am trying to do is put a specific, valid reference in the article.

What is the policy on other users deleting, editing or modifying other peoples discussion posts?

What is the policy on linking to hate sites, when the article is about that very specific hate material?

What constitutes not being a directory of links? How many links makes an article a directory? I see some articles with dozens of external links in them? What is the specific rules on this?

Again, I make no personal attacks against DougWeller, im criticizing his behavior. I know deep down DougWeller is a nice guy with a good heart, so Im asking for help in good faith.

Markacohen (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This makes the 4th forum where the issue of the links has been raised by this editor (recently blocked for edit warring and calling other editors neo-Nazis). Yes, I have objected to unnecessary links to hate sites (but Markacohen neglects to mention that I'm only one of four editors who have reverted his links), and an alternative link to the Leuchter report has been there since the 23rd, despite what is said above. And yes, I've edited the links he has been putting on talk pages so the raw url doesn't show, see [113] and note his continuing personal attacks on other editors. This issue has just been raised on the RSN board [114] and repeated here: [115] Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
A discussion has been raised about this editor at ANI (not by me) - see [116]. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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

TruthIIPower

Stuck: Taken to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Could someone with far more patience than I have a polite word with TruthIIPower over things like this?--Tznkai (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I desperately need someone to tell me why I should be nicer to POV-pushers who edit war. Please. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You should probably avoid such comments and accusations. Accusations of improper behaviour without evidence is considered a personal attack. Stick to the discussion other than that small point i see no real issue here. --neon white talk 09:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think its a big deal per say, I just think TruthIIPower never got the crash course in wikipedia discourse... or perhaps he go the wrong one.--Tznkai (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, it is a she that we are dealing with. - Schrandit (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
GTBacchus is currently in dialogue with TruthIIPower (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite glad I avoided this one. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

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