Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive66

< Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive66)

User:Arcayne

  Resolved
 – Editor warned against WP:OWN and uncivil language and has apologised.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've had major problems with this editor in the past and don't normally bother to report people, but this edit is particularly troublesome, both with the content (restoring Urban Dictionary as a source for a definition of a term, etc.) and the edit comment ("undo - thanks, but your input isn't really sought here. Please stay away"). This editor first started this kind of behavior years back, and it's about time he learns that that kind of behavior is unacceptable here. DreamGuy (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the edit summary was inappropriate, and I've left the user a message. I suggest now replying to his well-posed question at the talk page. If focusing on content doesn't work, then we'll try something else. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I left the message I did because I started and populated that article, and - fully aware of how his aberrant edits would be perceived - did them anyway. It goes without saying that he didn't bother to address the article discussion on this very topic. He's been advised by many administrators to simply stay away from those articles wherein I edit. I think that also covers article I start. That he and I have had major difficulties in the past is a pretty good sign to stay the hell away. It's one of the major reasons I've avoided editing in practically every article he contributes to, knowing that others will fix whatever damage he makes to an article. DG, actively pursuing contrary edits with a combative intent is baiting, and deserves being slapped with a steel-plated trout. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It's clear that neither of you can be the good editors you are when you're around each other, so stop being around each other. Unless there is an immediate and compelling reason to step in and revert an edit, let someone else do it, no matter how bad you think the edit is or how long it takes for someone else to take notice. At the very least, any and all communication between, among and around the two of you should be completely by the book without the slightest hint of the baiting and biting that's now going on. Flowanda | Talk 09:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much what I was saying. For my part, I should have just invited him to come to article discussion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
For my part I am not doing any baiting, and never have. Just because he accuses me of that does not make it so, especially with his long history of making such false accusations. Above he calls my edit "abberant," which it most certainly was not. The edits were completely unobjectionable by any sane standard. Urban Dictionary is not and has never been a reliable source, the quote box in question contained content that was not a quote at all, and the child's name was listed as "the (name of child)" instead of jsut the name. So I'm not supposed to make such badly needed edits without checking the article history of every page I go to to see if Arcayne might have edited first? DreamGuy (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
(There are two or three ways to handle threading when the timing isn't quite linear. Naturally, the two or three ways are completely mutually incompatible.)

DreamGuy, I don't at all assume that you're baiting anyone. You seem to me to be editing in good faith. This is the kind of situation where your edit seems uncontroversial enough, but then if there turns out to be a dispute about it, it just means we have to put down the editing buttons and work it out on Talk:. At that point, if you can't convince the other guy in one or two rounds of discussion, then it's time to get more people. That's why we've got pages such as WP:3O and WP:RFC. If you're having chronic problems with the same editor, then there's this board, as well as a ton of other noticeboards, and WP:RFC/U. If some problem develops into a pattern, then we just have to document it and deal with it.

It can be frustrating, having to stop and explain the justification for an edit that seems to you to be a no-brainer, but that's part of the price of editing in a collaborative environment, where there's no real authority we can turn to. In the long run, I think it's for the best. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that, and it's not anything new either. The problem with Arcayne still exists, however, as fully demonstrated by his idea of a sensible response here. He shows no intention of ever improving, nor even any acknowledgment that he should change his behavior except in the most trivial of ways. Consider this part of the documenting, but I'm hoping at some point we'll move onto the dealing with it part. DreamGuy (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
No, you should have actually looked at the content of the edit instead of just blind reverting it with a snotty comment just because it was me. Two of the three changes were obviously just badly-needed copy editing, and the third should have been obvious to anyone who has read the WP:RS policy, but you could have just reverted that part until someone further explained it to you or gone to the reliable sources noticeboard and looked it up yourself to see that I was right. This whole "invited him to come to article discussion" has long been your strategy to attempt to block anything and everything I do, because you never do any real discussion, you just constantly contradict anything I say just because it is me and then make whatever edits you want and say "see talk" even if the talk page contradicts what you said -- and you "archive" the talk page to remove the comments disagreeing with you when you obviously do not have consensus to do what you are doing. You need to start being a good editor for a change and focus on the content of edits and Wikipedia policies instead of just waging wars of attrition to try to get what you want. DreamGuy (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


  • The solution here seems pretty clear, then. If one person knows the other person has edited (or started, especially) a given article, just don't go near that article. It sounds like a workable plan in Arcayne's view. Is that acceptable to you as well, DG? Unitanode 16:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I had no clue he had started the article (I was just following links around and saw that as a See also on a page related to A Child Called It, an article I've been involved in with for a while), but, honestly, this suggestion seems to want to rule that he does WP:OWN the article because he touched it first. While I might love to be able to say, "Hey, you can no longer edit Jack the Ripper (or whatever) as I edited that first," I can't see that being something he'd agree to. If, however, that's what people are seriously suggesting, if he agrees to never edit any article I edited before he did and vice versa (with exceptions for cases in which we just didn't know who edited first, and then following it once alerted), while that seems like an odd solution it'd be preferable to suffering his abuse. DreamGuy (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Wait, are you actually now claiming that you didn't know I started the article? Uh, right. And what I said was that if I start an article, stay away from it, because the sorts of edits (and edit summaries) you make are going to be perceived in the worst possible light - somewhat akin to your view of any input by myself in accordance with virtually all of your edits as "blind reverts". I avoid most of the articles you contribute to. If you don't want to voluntarily avoid those articles that I start or contribute to significantly (JTR and AfD being our only common ground), then I am fully prepared to engage with you in every single article that catches my fancy - many of which happen to coincide with your fancy. As I am almost certain you aren't willing to deal with that level of engagement on a daily basis, I think my solution seems prudent. Your call. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I am stating straight out I didn't know you had started or even edited that article when I made my edit there, and to think otherwise was a violation of WP:AGF, and to insist otherwise after I explained how I ended up there is a further violation. And the rest of that sounds like an outright admission of intent to harass. DreamGuy (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah... saying, "if I start an article, stay away from it", really doesn't fly, and it will turn a lot of Wikipedians against you. None of us owns any article here, and every editor is welcome to edit any article they choose. If you start an article, super. It's not yours, and you don't get to control who edits it. If you are unhappy with the edits someone is making there, you can work within the usual structures to make it better, but you do not get to tell individuals that they can't edit on your say-so. Does that make sense? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not really meaning that, as it would be OWNish. I am saying don't do stupid crap absolutely guaranteed to cause dramahz - and especially if you know for an absolute fact that it is going to do precisely that. Had DG contributed to the article discussion about the very thing he was deleting, then there would be less dramahz - note that i didn't say none, as DG would accuse me of "blind reverting" this or that, and then wackiness would ensue. However, most of that can be dealt with, as it isn't intentional baiting. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The line "stupid crap absolutely guranteed to cause dramahz" is an absurd way to describe my edits in this case. Also, expecting me to have taken such unobjectionable edits to talk before making them before I had any idea anyone would object to them is wikilawyering at its worst and, again, an WP:OWN violation. Nobody has to discuss with you any changes to an article before making them, it's only if you articulate a (hopefully reasonable) objection that talk should even come into it. The standard WP:BRD steps say go ahead and make the edits to start. This editor's expectations for others are completely unreasonable and against all accepted practice. Worse than that, he doesn't even try to adhere to those same standards in his own edits. DreamGuy (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


  • Clearly this wasn't my best -- or most well-articulated -- idea. My thinking was that both users would simply avoid articles that were either started by the other, or were already being actively edited by the other, thus minimizing the personal agitation that both apparently cause each other. Clearly -- as both are active editors -- never editing any articles that the other person has ever touched isn't really feasible. Unitanode 22:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    No, I totally know what you mean. If they can just avoid each other, that's great. If their interest areas overlap... I'm just not sure the best way to handle that, practically. I don't like the idea of saying, "You stay away from articles X, Y and Z; while you stay away from articles P, Q and R." Maybe that's what it has to come to. I've asked Arcayne to keep me posted on any further problems.

    Hey, DreamGuy, do you think you can work on the same page as Arcayne without these issues coming up? Would it help to involve more editors? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

    I can certainly work on the same page as Arcayne without running into problems -- provided he acts civilly and drops the WP:OWNership problems, including the blind reveting of my edits just because it's me (and when I say "blind revert" I mean "hasn't even looked at the content of the revert or reverts everything instead of just the small section he has a problem with", as he has on many occasions reverted simple spelling fixes, undid whole series of improvements for no reason, and even later been confused on what exactly it was he had done with his edits, trying to take credit for changes that I had made and he had reverted). He never does, though, and that's why it's never worked. Fix that problem and everything will be fine. I have no problem with working with any editor, just problems with their behavior. If the behavior improves, great, problem solved. DreamGuy (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    I understand (and appreciate) your intentions as well, Unitanode. As it is, I pretty much avoid the user whenever I can. As I noted before, my comment in the edit summary represented less a contribution from a user than it was irritation at a known contentious editor who purposely came to stir up trouble. If that seems like a breakdown in AGF, understand that this particular user keeps ending up at ArbCom for this or that vio. AGF doesn't equate to blindness.
    That said, I understand that I simply have to deal with this user until they are eventually indef blocked. My only control of this situation is how I react to their behavior until that magical day happens (party at my house). That means acting more appropriately towards them. Sorry, I let myself get baited and lost my temper. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    I really think that AGF is a red herring. Whether or not someone is acting in good faith, accusing them of not doing so leads to what you call "dramahz". If they're not acting in good faith, then they're also doing something else wrong, and that's how you nail 'em. If you take the AGF bait, and say that you've dropped it, then you've just handed them a powerful card, and weakened your own case. That's a good temptation to resist.

    If we can bring more eyes to the content dispute, then these other behaviors you describe can be addressed in that context. I think that's the best solution, because if DreamGuy really is intractable, then a few rounds of focused editing with a lot of eyes on the situation will make that clear. It may be clear to you now, from where you're standing, but from behind the desk on this board, I can't make that call.

    Does that all make sense? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    Yep it sure does. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    Arcayne has brought "a lot of eyes" to his accusations against me many, many times, and nothing ever comes of it because when there's nothing to it, just his constant assumptions of bad faith and his peculiar idea that I shouldn't be allowed to edit anything he has contributed. It's really as simple as that. For him to try to justify himself under the claim he was baited is ludicrous especially considering that that's what the people who look into his accusations say he was doing. DreamGuy (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The above comments by Arcayne only solidify the point that he's highly uncivil, operates with a constant assumption of bad faith, and is simply incapable or unwilling to act in a civil or respectful manner. After I reported a clear violation and a senseless revert he has on this very page accused me of lying, called very reasonable edits "obviously abberant" and so forth. I am acting in exactly the way I should in reporting this problem, and his response has been to escalate his violations. DreamGuy (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Frankly DreamGuy, I don't see either of you exemplifying what I'd call good editing practices. You seem more willing to talk about how much you like Arcayne than you are to engage in focused, good-faith, open, respectful discussion. Use the talk pages more, and make it clear that the moral high ground is where you live, permanently. Let other editors' behavior accuse them, instead of accusing them yourself.

    Reporting a problem is fine. Knowing how to handle one is better. Avoiding one in the first place is best. Once you're in one, do you know how to de-escalate it, or do you know how to prolong it? Think about these questions. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the original complaint here, the edit summary "undo - thanks, but your input isn't really sought here. Please stay away" is unacceptable. DreamGuy is right to raise this concern. Additionally, whatever the history between these two editors, as far as I am concerned, removing Urban Dictionary as a reliable source from this, or frankly any article (except maybe Urban Dictionary, Internet Meme or the like) is not only reasonable, but frankly self explanatory on its face and the manner in which it was restored supports some of the contentions raised above. Finally, it is obvious that editors with a past history of acrimony should exercise due caution before engaging with each other; but it is also true that when a good faith, content-related edit, perfectly reasonable under our sourcing and referencing guidelines is blindly reverted, this amounts to a civility breach and I would urge Arcayne to show greater restraint and better judgment. Eusebeus (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As I stated at least twice earlier, I understand that I had committed a breach of civility, and had apologized for it. While I could say that in over 3 years of editing, DG has never once apologized when he was wrong (blocked, reblocked, referred to AN/I, ArbCom, etc.); I admit when I am wrong, and I was here. I explained that it was due to precisely the level of dislike between DG and myself that I saw his edit - the first and only in the article (following a number of similar instances of coming to an article only to revert my edits) as a provocative gesture. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
But yet your comments here and on your talk page continue to be derogatory and inflammatory. Calling any editor a "crashing boor" is about as uncivil as it gets, and there's no justification ever for you saying the kinds of things you've said or other editors tolerating them. And the edits are not the issue here, as they aren't any other talk page where other editors clear the floor while these two editors duke it out over the inclusion of a website, or something similarly minor. Unless and until these editors can be civil toward each other no matter what, staying away from each other is just a temporary fix while they sharpen their knives at a distance. And editing and arguing on the same articles will be just an ongoing burden and imposition for other editors forced to mediate and engage in extended, often meaningless discussions while you two hurl policy rocks and snarl. I don't know what the solution is, but it needs to be clearly defined, understood and voluntarily agreed to...and followed. Flowanda | Talk 22:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but did I call DG a crashing boor in a conversation here or in another discussion page? I'm pretty sure it was a conversation between myself and another editor which is, while still open, somewhat allowed. And my assessment of the user as such is, as per the definition of the term (1, 2) is correct, describing a person who is "lacking in social graces", believing that all discussions are about them. While he does seem to add good content, I would hazard that there aren't a dozen regular editors operating within WP who feels this isn't an apt description and feel it is a good description. I am sorry you see my comments as inflammatory; I wish it weren't accurate. it isn't inflammatory; its an apt observation.
A significant part of the problem is that in order to allow the situation to change for the better, both parties have to change the way that they approach a situation. When I make a mistake, i admit it. If we are to believe DreamGuy, he hasn't made a single error in the three-plus years he's been editing - despite having dozens point out precisely that. I can get along with folk. Cooperation is a two-way street. This user has a very long way to go to garner anything approaching respect or good faith from me. Until then, I can keep my comments about they user's personality flaws to myself; I believe DG would be hard put to promise the same. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Being accurate in calling someone a boor doesn't make it tactful, or a good idea. If you withhold respectful treatment, based on who you think "deserves" it, you'll find yourself at the wrong end of a ban-hammer one day. I'm just saying, I've seen a lot of people go that way. Pride is expensive. It can cost everything. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Read the first line of WP:NPA, Arcayne. Never and nowhere on Wikipedia do you get to insult and disparage another editor. Or speak for other editors about what they think. And you definitely don't get to define who and what other editors are based on your personal version of accuracy or the truth. Despite your statements above, you don't seem the least bit willing or open to changing any of your own attitudes or behavior to address this issue. This is a discussion about your behavior Arcayne, and you seem to be on a full-court press on every involved talk page to prove it correct. Flowanda | Talk 03:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. Okay, Flowanda and GTBAcchus. Tell me how you think I should handle the situation. For my part, I agree that I don't need to make WP:SPADE arguments, because they indeed have little effect. I am open to suggestions. Really. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:35, 23 June 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.

User:Qaziphone

Qaziphone has been posting abusive comments on the Britannia article talk page. This started with subtle trolling and condescending comments questioning the motives of other editors before progressing quickly to abuse and insults. When other editors left messages on his talk page suggesting he abide by WP:NPA he responded with even more abuse. User may be new (?) and unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies or aware of how easy it is for experienced editors to spot trolling on well-debated topics, but I don't think that's an excuse for this kind of language. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

He's been warned. However, quacks like a duck. Look when account began (halfway through a 1-month ban). Note the bolding of text on talkpages. Note when he returns. Note articles chosen. Report SSI possibility to WP:ANI. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
No doubt about it. I've made it pretty clear to him that he is in danger of being blocked. I have no idea who he is, but his edits make it clear he isn't new. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I doubt 'newness' matters. --neon white talk 19:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OK with Wikipedia policies?

  Resolved
 – Original block was based on available information. Future blocks will be made based on actual activity...slowly moving towards WP:DEADHORSE
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

An admin decided I was someone else, a banned user who lives in Australia. The admin blocked me accordingly to his (erred) intuition without a proper IP check. I couldn’t edit Wikipedia for a few days.

It’s a pity that the Wikipedia community does not allow users to prove their innocence, as you can see in this checkuser request about me: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thantalteresco/Archive (in this request there’s a link to my IP in Spain: miles away from Australia!).

My concern is that the blocking admin has threatened to block me again—that is: blocking a user who is not the banned Australian!—if I dare to edit articles of my interest, as you can see in the amin’s talk page:

If you are willing to unblock this account then thats your choice, when this editor turns up again in articles on my watchlist I will apply the duck test and re-block because I have no doubt its the Premier.[1]

I would like to know if the above threat is OK with Wikipedia policies.

Thantalteresco (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not super cool, but see WP:DUCK. If you do engage in disruptive editing, he's welcome to block you. Fred Talk 15:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see my recent post in my talk page responding to that. Also, please point to a single edit of mine which has been disruptive or which violates WP policies. Thank you. Thantalteresco (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
If you're not editing disruptively, then there is no reason to block your account, no matter what nation you're posting from. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot GTBacchus for saying that. It's the first time I get a truly amicable communication since I was (unfairly) blocked. Yes: I have never disrupted any page. The blocking admin, BTW, blocked me and after doing it he NPOV-tagged a section of an article about infanticide in Australia: the subject of discussion. But no: I never behaved disruptively.
On the other hand, I don't know if this is the right board to complain about an admin's abuse of power over me? Is there a board to complain about admins' misconduct? Thantalteresco (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Well... there's the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, and the related Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'm not sure I recommend posting there - some go to get a small burn on their finger treated, and come away with the entire arm charred to a crisp, if you know what I mean. Who's the admin in question? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
That's why I'm asking advice here first. User:Gnangarra is the one who (1) blocked me without good reason and (2) threatened to re-block if I edit articles of my ineterest.[2] Thantalteresco (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I shall try to help with context. He was blocked for allegedly being a sock of a banned editor, User:Premier, who had expended a great deal of effort under a variety of nicknames (including User:Steakknife) and IPs over the years asserting that Aboriginal Australians practiced cannibalism. The editor (Premier) also relied heavily on archaic, sensationalist sources and sometimes created articles as spin-offs. Thantalteresco's edits in large part related to claims that Aboriginal Australians practiced infanticide (baby-killing) - even going so far as to create a spin-off article Australian infanticide (now deleted) - and although he was not the author of the content (it appears to have been written by User:Cesar Tort, cautioned at ArbCom in 2006 for adding critical material not supported by reliable scientific authority, and augmented by IPs known to be related to Premier), he ardently defended its inclusion and entered a seemingly endless argument to maintain the content based largely around logical fallacies and red herrings, and distorting the arguments of those who wished to have it removed. I am an admin myself, but was of the belief that Thantalteresco was significantly more literate and more controlled in behaviour than Premier had been (Premier was given to long, long polemic talk page rants, often without a signature - one can see in the history of Talk:Indigenous Australians) but I was concerned at the seeming single purpose of his edits, and told him so. He was blocked the next morning Australian time per the duck test by Gnangarra, another Australian admin who was aware of Premier's activity at the other article. I think given the similarities, it was a justified decision, although the main injustice to Thantalteresco seems to have been in the length of time it took for others to review the decision. It was subsequently found after some investigation (and unfortunately some time blocked) that this editor is based in Spain, and not Newcastle, New South Wales as was Premier. It's worth pointing out that neither I nor Gnangarra have checkuser ability and so we had no idea from which IP he was editing. Just before his block, he had mentioned to me on his talk page that although most of his edits have been on a single topic, his preferred editing topic was films, and I feel it would be a good idea for him to get experience in Wikipedia in a somewhat less contentious area such as this. Orderinchaos 19:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the summary, Orderinchaos. That's very helpful! -GTBacchus(talk) 22:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. I should be editing articles about my vocation (films), not about these subjects I have been accidentally dragged to because I read a couple of interesting books. However, I still need to know if some action needs to be taken about the blocking admin (which is something entirely unrelated to which articles will I be editing). Thantalteresco (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what action we need to take now, because there doesn't seem to be an ongoing disruption. The concern is that Gnangarra may block you for further edits on these Australian topics, right? My inclination is to suggest treating it as a content dispute, and to use the tools appropriate for that: talk page discussion, moving to WP:3O and/or WP:RFC as necessary. Staying closer to 1RR or 0RR than to 3RR is also advisable.

As I said above, if you're working on content in a way that is not disruptive, then there's no good reason to block you. If you know what it is about your edits that came across so badly to Gnangarra - perhaps there are some clues in what Orderinchaos said above - then you might be able to address the specific problem, whatever it is. I'll post a message to Gnangarra, and see if there's something we can do to reassure him that you can edit those articles without bringing up any disruption, from the past or the present. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the disruption coming from me is zilch. Why then such a stir? Because the topic of Australian infanticide is extremely controversial among some sectors of Australia; some even denying it altogether. Frankly, I'd like to get rid of this topic as soon as possible. I am only upset about the unjust block and the threat that I cannot edit those articles or I will be re-blocked. Thantalteresco (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest that you were originating any disruption. Sorry if I came across that way. I guess I use "disruption" as a blanket term to cover whatever problems arise, without regard for who or what causes them. Working on articles about controversial topics, of which this is definitely one... is difficult. I spent many months helping with Abortion, for example. <irony>That talk page is a laugh riot, I can tell you.</irony> How many articles are affected by this controversy, would you say? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, it seems that Australian infanticide which I started was speedly deleted when I was blocked. And tons of content are being removed now in Infanticide, e.g., take a look at this diff. See you tomorrow :) Thantalteresco (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll see you. I think that the material being removed is being taken out due to sourcing issues, and if those can be resolved on the talk page, then there shouldn't be any problem. I'm new to the issue, so I don't know the history... We'll see. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I am really hoping that this article and maintaining dubious claims within it is not the only reason this user has an account here and on the Spanish Wikipedia. I can see him getting blocked for just plain old disruption otherwise (and not by me either, I consider myself an involved editor, so it's not a threat). Main reason this stuff hadn't been cleaned up before is way too few eyes on this family of articles - a friend from another country who does new page patrols notified me of this issue to begin with, thinking that the article was "rather disturbing" and wanting an expert eye on it (I'm not an expert, just a science major who knows my history and has access to academic sources thru my university), and I think other editors found out about it when it hit my talk page as a fair few Australian editors read it. Orderinchaos 08:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "I can see him getting blocked for just plain old disruption"

I'm afraid this is a personal attack, since no one has shown a single diff of an actual case of distuption by me.

GTBacchus: Finally, according to policy, am I or am I not able to edit articles (I am talking about the admin's threat)? Should I go to another board?

Thantalteresco (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The duck test stands, and if you are not the originally-horrifically-disruptive editor, then you're one of thousands of people who were accidentally caught in collateral blocks in the past. The block was not unjust, it was valid based on WP:DUCK. My advice: you've been advised that aboriginal infanticide is not an area where you should even dream of editing, stay away from that area. If you do, then the duck test will continue to be applied, and you will then be considered to be someone who is "plain old disruptive", so there's no real threat there. There are a million articles - go ahead and edit the others so as not to be mistaken for someone else. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. But even Orderinchaos recognizes above that the block was unjust. And if I am another person (which obviously I am) and an injustice has been committed, the "Duck" test can be used at the discretional powers of any sysop throughout Wikipedia. remember that the Syspo who blocked my also POV-tagged a section of Australian infanticide (a section which was later removed in toto by Orderinchaos). So the problem is not solved. An injustice has been committed. I am not the Australian user who has been banned (I edit in the Spanish wiki and Spanish is my native language). Tons of content are being removed from the Infanticide article and I cannot even complain in talk page or the "duck" test will be invoked to re-block an innocent editor again. If you or anyone is willing to discuss the massive removals going on at Infanticide, well, then I will finally say good bye and go to other articles! Thantalteresco (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
(Just jumping in here) I said the decision to block was not unjust, but that it should have been reviewed more promptly. Realistically that needed someone with checkuser access, and that didn't happen. The admin involved did not contest any of the reviews, and I stayed out of it also as I saw the role of a neutral, independent review as being critical. The evidence available to the blocking admin suggested it was the correct course of action, and admins' main duty to the project is to limit or prevent disruption. The fact that the block was undone, and the reasons for that, were recorded in the block log, so anyone reading your block history would be suitably informed that you were not a sock of the person concerned. Orderinchaos 14:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The block cannot be undone. Nobody is going to apologize for what appeared to be a correct block at the time, based on the available evidence. If an admin was mistaken - well yup, they're just overworked volunteers here too. Mistakes happen. It happened. You're right, let's just get back to articles :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not awaiting apology. The point is: What about the content dispute in the Infanticide article? I mean: if another editor, let's say from Brazil or Russia, has a content dispute with the Australian editors whose POV is the negation of infanticide among Australian natives in the historical past, the Brazilian or Russian innocent editors may be blocked as well per the "duck" test. Do I make myself clear? Is the blocking admin now saying he won't block me or any other editor in content disputes? I must quote again his own words: "when this editor turns up again in articles on my watchlist I will apply the duck test and re-block because I have no doubt its the Premier."[3] But the real issue is not sockpuppeting, since it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that I am not the banned Australian. It's a mere content dispute. Just that simple. See e.g., the tip of the iceberg of this content dispute in my talk page. Thankyouverymuch :) Thantalteresco (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
You were required to advise the person against whom you were complaining when you filed this notice. That person was made aware of this, and GTBacchus has initiated further discussion. In other words, they are aware that perhaps this was not worthy of a block. Although not convinced about the "beyond reasonable doubt", I recommend this:
  • do not give anyone reason to block you, especially related to content disputes
  • if you get blocked improperly, use the unblock request process as it is noted, link to this discussion in your defence
  • if this specific admin blocks you without valid reason, follow up on the appropriate board
(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Although not convinced about the "beyond reasonable doubt..."

Why not? In my talk page I posted my Spain's IP and a link to the Spanish wiki's "contribuciones" ("my contributions") with the same user name, Thantalteresco: a wiki where I write a much better Spanish than the English I use here. Is the banned Australian capable of writing so perfect (modesty apart) Spanish as mine? Yeah: I have proved my innocence beyond reasonable doubt. So the blocking admin won't block me again if I appear in Infanticide article you say? (Sorry: didn't know I had to notify him; I thought notification was reserved only to the ANI boards.) Thantalteresco (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Any admin, including the same one, can block you for disruption, no matter where it occurs. That's why it would be better to simply not be disruptive, and then you're at no risk. What's the obsession with infanticide anyway? We often have these sorts of problems with fringe areas, where people devote their time and energy to proving a point rather than just getting into the spirit of being part of a community and assisting its development as a resource. It is one very, very, very tiny bit of Wikipedia and there are so many others to edit - as you can see from my contribs, most of mine are in geography and politics, with a few in music and a few random areas. Orderinchaos 14:18, 23 June 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.

User:MickMacNee

This has made personal attacks and comments against myself regarding a dispute over than article Quayside which is all documented on the article talk page, a valid request was made to have the page moved in which a user Drawn Some agreed with myself and made the move. MickMacNee then went onto Drawn Some talk page at User_talk:Drawn_Some#ANI_notice_re._Quayside and abused the user for doing so, MickMacNee has made a number of personal attacks and comments now against myself and has moved onto another user who agreed with my move request. Wikipedia is not the place to vent anger or should a user feel threatened or be abused by another for not having the opinion or views as another. Does Wikipedia think this type of behaviour is acceptable and tolerable and allow it to continue?

The text that MickMacNee posted is cited below.

Hanky Panky? Whatever, I personally cannot stand users like you, who ignore others, do not understand the difference between being bold and being a dick, and then flounce off in a huff whenever they are challenged on their actions. You ignored the previous discussionx, you ignored the move request, you chose your own version with zero research and simply moved it, then you left it to others to create a dab page or otherwise fix it, and you couldn't even do the basics right and fix all the resultant redirects from your action. MickMacNee (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Plus more on the article talk page at Quayside. //Melonite (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You just had a good chunk of this discussion at WP:ANI. You already know that the move was wrong as per recent AfD. There is absolutely no violation of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL in the quoted text. You personally caused significant grief to the article in question, and far too much discussion at WP:ANI. As advised, you need to learn how to read policy, and operate within the guidelines, AND work cooperatively. Your actions would have explained incivility, but not excused it. As there is no incivility, please read all of the advice above, and live by it in your future editing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
This is forum-shopping. Mick can be a little bit...blunt, but forum-shopping is much worse, in my book. Is an official warning warranted here for Melonite? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not quite forum-shopping as Mick's comment was post-most of the ANI discussion. It does fall under both the "none of your business" and "you should have known better" policies. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • So it is perfectly OK to insult and bully another user because they've not agreed with you? If that be the case and the Wikipedia Foundation condones this sort of behaviour it is beyond belief. It was my view that Administrators was ment to be neutral and look at a point from outside the box, clearly this is not the case. And If I can remind you it is not your book that we are discussing it is Wikipedia's rules and politeness. Melonite 23:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
At what point was ANYONE insulted? Bullied? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
At the point MickMacNee calls another user a dick for not agreeing with xe but instead agreeing with myself. Plus at the point MickMacNee uses words such as what xe has posted on my talk page

Then it was pretty fucking stupid of you to waste my time and yours by trying to give it. MickMacNee (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bullying is the act of intentionally causing harm to others, through verbal harassment, physical assault, or other more subtle methods of coercion such as manipulation. Bullying can be defined in many different ways.

And I perceive his actions as bullying and harassment. Melonite 23:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Correction - MickMacNee's talk page directing the foul language towards myself. Melonite 23:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
"...do not understand the difference between being bold and being a dick..." Nobody was called a dick. Stop trying to turn words into something they are not. Can you please post a direct WP:DIFF of that quote from your talkpage? I am unable to see it anywhere on your talkpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • What is your optimal outcome here, Melonite? Your complaint was rejected at ANI, and Bwilkins has told you that he sees no personal attacks here, which I agree with wholly. In an ideal world, what are you hoping to accomplish with this report? Unitanode 00:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Unitanode What is my optimal outcome? - For Wikipedia to protect its users from having to endure this form of abuse and harassment from others just because some disagreed with them, and the action did not suite what one party wanted. - Although Unitanode you appear biased towards me as you are involved in the witch hunt currently against me stating I have a number of sockpuppets. Therefore should you be involved in a dispute I have towards a user who you have previously defended. Melonite 00:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I have found the quote above on Mick's talkpage. Now, let's see here for a moment:
  • you completely misread his post on someone else's page
  • you accused him of calling someone a dick, when he quite clearly did not
  • you accused him of attacking someone, when he was giving blunt advice
  • he "respectfully declined" to take advice from you, and you provided a snotty retort
  • his retort "that was pretty fucking stupid of you" was perhaps the only uncivil portion after 2 days of goading
  • you then accused him of harassing you as you continued to goad him on his talkpage.
Disengage from the user now, and permanently. Although incivility cannot be excused it can be explained, and it has been clearly explained. Your own actions, however, have been the genesis of this entire chain of events. As you have been advised above, please read Wikipedia's key policies clearly. If you have questions, ask. You were provided advice as to how to deal with the Quayside article in ANI: that is how you proceed in the future. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wow. Thank to BW Wilkins for the heads up. MickMacNee (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  • 2 days of goading? - Please check the logs, it is more like a few hours. And who was goading who. I was unfamiliar with the request to move and maybe I did do something wrong, but has no one on WP done something wrong in the past, and in doing so is the user then subject to ridicule. Such as MickMacNee stating "Melonite has finally found out how to do ....." Well of course I had to find out on my own at some point. It was more MickMacNee was goading me, he clearly was upset by the fact, just by the fact he went running for an administrator on more than occassion, plus the tone of his messages on the article talk page.
  • I did not completely misread his post on someone elses talk page. - I read it and interpreted as such, MickMacNee stated to another user that xe was not been bold, but instead a dick, in so stating the different. Maybe we don't share a common language, but US English is not that much different to British English.
  • Is giving blunt advice been civil WP:CIV? - MickMacNee states I personally cannot stand users like you Is that not a personal attack WP:NPA.
  • Snooty retort? - I think it was a polite answer to MickMacNee. It is clear he does not accept contributions from others who aren't in his clique.
  • I continued to goad him? I don't wish to insult your intelligence but do you actually understand the meaning of the word goad as you continue to use it submitting that I goaded him for 2 days, and thus giving him a reason to attack. When in fact it was as previously mentioned hours not even days the debate concerning Quayside took place, MickMacNee made it personal, it was extremely clear on his messages left on the talk page, and in running and shouting to get an administrator on board. I think he felt humiliated to an extent. If any goading took place it was by MickMacNee, in that he thought it was laughable (towards me) that I should of requested the article to be moved. But when a third party user (who If i am correct was added to my investigation as a sockpuppet which is laughable.) moved the page MickMacNee felt humiliation.
  • I have disengaged from the user now, but unfortunately, I can't agree to permanently as I am doing as another Administrator told me to do, was to create a Quayside page myself, and once it can upstand an AfD I will once again request move on the Quayside article and place the disambiguous page that was stated by an Administrator I do. Which of course again will cause problem, as MickMacNee doesn't like anyone to challenge him.
  • I agree with you in that incivility can not be accepted, but I disagree that you say it can be explained. Unfortunately not, everyone is responsible for the own actions, you are not in a position to answer or explain for another person. Unless you have some unique skill I'm unaware of?

I am satisfied with this now regardless another administrator warned MickMacNee on his talk page, an administrator who stood up, and didn't enter into the politics of trying to defend each other. As it is quite clear, those who spend a number of hours daily on WP seem to get "to know" the administrators and form little groups of who to run to when something needs resolving, the administrators on WP are no more independent or neutral than Pinochet, and talk about me having sock/meat puppets? Isn't it true that all administrators work together and generally will not go against another even if it was wrong? Isn't that meat puppetry? I leave the final thought of that with you. I bid you adjö. Melonite 11:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, once again, its the cabal, Seriously, dude, did you forget that editing in Wikipedia is supposed to be enjoyable? If someone's harshing your buzz, go somewhere else. Do I need to remind you that you aren't getting paid for this, and arguing with someone who clearly doesn't wish to interact with you is, to be blunt, an idiotic waste of your time. Mick can be as cuddly as a poxy badger sometimes, but he has shown remarkable restraint here, and his cork finally popping is (while regrettable) completely understandable. You have not distinguished yourself here at all, and you're going to be working to rebuild it for some time. I'd advise you - an a non-admin who's had your type of problems before - to take a break, find some non-controversial article to edit and calm down. Return to the basics, and remember that you are supposed to be having fun interacting with others. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This will be my last reply to an editor who just doesn't get it.

  • 2 days of goading: this includes the fiasco in WP:ANI, and I believe at WP:AFD as well
  • as already noted (in Canadian English [which = UK English]) "don't know the difference between being bold and being a dick is not the same as calling someone a dick. Besides, it has been determined that referring someone to WP:DICK is not uncivil.
  • "I personally cannot stand users like you" is not personal attack. I personally cannot stand users who wear white pants after Labour Day, is that a personal attack? It's a statement of personal opinion, that actually does not give the actual reason why I may not like a specific editor, only generalized
  • it was indeed me who gave you proper advice on how to build the article and appropriate redirect, and thankfully I'm not part of any cliques :-)

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Melonite, the fact that you think I am part of a clique, or have a group of friendly admins on my side, merely shows you do not know what you are talking about. I went to the administrators noticeboard because you had messed up, requiring an admin to fix it. You won't find a single person to ever agree with you that that was wrong. And you simply have no concept of what a personal attack actually is, because with this new tirade, you have thrown another five at me. I will indeed be waiting for your article, but not for the many bizarre reasons you allege I have, but simply because I have seen your previous attempts, and none of them were valid articles or db pages. You clearly have major issues with understanding other people, for example, what I thought was laughable was that you seem to think an editor can have a conflict of interest over a geographic article. I still doubt you even understand what that policy is for. It's as simple as that. I'm just sorry if you don't get it. If you want your hollow victory for getting me warned on my own page, have it, it is no skin off my nose. I am hardly 'humiliated'. MickMacNee (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Interestedinfairness

Can something be done about comments such as these [4]? --Athenean (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I added an admonishment to avoid usage of insults like that to the editor's talk page. In the future Athenean, please tell an editor where you will be discussing their behavior, as there are several forums that you potentially could have complained to. (this is the most appropriate forum, but people often and incorrectly report even more mild behavior to ANI, AN, AIV, etc.) Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 00:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to your question Athenian; "what can be done about comments such as these"; in keeping with the rules of Wikipedia (as other editors have notified me in the past), I think you will find that your reference to me as a person who pushes "Albanian national POV", may be considered even more of a personal attack. In fact, it is much worse than the question I posed you and which you found offensive.

Why? because at least I had a reason, I mean, you were being very difficult, and you never provide any sources for your "feelings" about the particular topic. I, on the other hand, did not show any signs of pushing an Albanian POV, as all the sources I provided where foreign.

Good day, and hopefully you will realize that you instigated this "dispute" on the Illyrian talk page by being continuously difficult and never providing any sources for over a month. You then proceeded to make it worse by launching a very personal attack on me when I have never exhibited such "POV" pushing. Thanks, and good day, Interestedinfairness (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Athenian: your first step when faced with incivility is to discuss it directly with that user - I see no attempt at such discussion on their talkpage, only a "I'm reporting you" message. You should clearly note your own actions that may have been the genesis of this complaint. I will be going back through them myself, and will warn accordingly as needed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
After a day's investigation, I have not seen any specific action on the Illyrian talkpage that was able to be considered a violation of WP:NPA against IIF. An edit was specifically noted as being related to a POV, but in the context of the entire message, it cannot be extended to calling someone a "POV-pusher", but I can understand why on a quick reading it might seem so. That never excuses retaliatory insults of violations of WP:CIVIL. I do repeat my comment above that issues should be dealt with one-on-one first. Otherwise, I see nothing that a good's night's sleep and a cup of WP:TEA can't help. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:KillerChihuahua

  Resolved
 – Filing party not active. seicer | talk | contribs 19:17, 25 June 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.

I'm soliciting third party opinions on my dispute with this administrator. I've already attempted to informally negotiate directly with them with no success so I'm now requesting outside opinions/assistance.

We've interacted today on WP:ANI on a couple of threads. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Death_of_Baby_P and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Misuse_of_admin_powers. I've been called 'clueless', 'obtuse', the administrator used the edit summary "Exxolon, you don't have a clue what I was talking about. Hush before you make yourself look any more clueless." (see [5]) when I (correctly in my opinion) pointed out he was making a comment about and referring to a situation which was irrelevant to the thread in question - I found that extremely condescending and rude and also referred to me as a "rules-wanker". An administrator should know better and set a better example. I did attempt to resolve this one on one only to met with more sarcasm/condescension viz "Civility varies from culture to culture and individual to individual. I don't recall calling you an asswipe, or a shitbag, or anything offensive. Perhaps you wish for me to always check with you before I say anything to ensure it does not offend your specific ruleset on what is allowable? Or did you have something else in mind?" (see [6]) - hardly conducive to resolving this.

All editors/administrators invited to comment. I'm very willing to hear any constructive criticism about my actions/edits/text during the interactions as well of course. Exxolon (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Note as it's nearly midnight here I may or may not respond quickly to questions/points raised. Exxolon (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Please see User talk:KillerChihuahua#Formal_attempt_to_negotiate. Ask questions here; thank you. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • From what i understand, this appears to be an avoidable minor squabble where either editor could have refused to be baited in to an incivil exchange. However I am concerned by the subsequent 'combatant' attitude displayed by KillerChihuahua's when asked to not to resort to personal attacks. There is no pride lost in apologising if something you have written has offended another editor. Ultimately, this can be avoided by following the simply rule of commenting on content, not on the contributor. --neon white talk 00:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • This could have been avoided had Exxolon's first communique to me not been to tell me, in effect, to shut up. I am not concerned with the words so much as the message; I am not appreciative of anyone telling me I cannot speak my mind on ANI. It could further have been avoided had he not pursued it with relentless self-righteousness: note the original ANI thread where I state "I am done" and he continues to hound me; followed by the poorly named "Formal attempt to negotiate" - I suggest you read that carefully, as it appears not to be a good faith attempt at discussion as the minute I start asking questions he ran here. No real attempt was made to engege me in good faith there. Further, it is clear he views this as personal and combat, evidence being his choice of phrasing on this section[7] which is entirely inappropriate. Did you miss all this, because your concern seems to be that *I* am "too combative - really, after trying to disengage with this editor, being followed to my talk page, having attempted to dialogue but having that dismissed with a high-handed "it's obvious that my good faith attempt to resolve this with you is not going to succeed. You believe " - he even presumes to inform me of my beliefs! I suggest you examine this more carefully, Neon. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The reason that an alert was started was because the editor asked politely for you to stop using personal attacks and you refused to even acknowledge them which is concerning as is the lack of good faith assumed during the whole exchange. At no point did Exxolon tell you to 'shut up', "That's not relevant to this discussion" were the words used which is an opinion any editor is free to voice. Any 'message' read into that was likely the result of not assuming good faith. Don't make the mistake of attributing tone of voice to text on a screen. It's impossible and will often lead to incorrect assumptions. Your response, while not incivil in my opinion, was not particularly helpful. Explaining why it was relevent would have been far more helpful. You then accused the editor of being "being deliberately obtuse" which is incivil and a lack of good faith. You need to stop the accusations of bad faith here. I don't believe there is any justification for them. As i stated before this good have easily been avoided with a simple apology. --neon white talk 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I refused? No indeed, I did not. I asked questions, which Exxelon responded to by - not answering, not engaging in discussion, no, but rather by running here. I had not disengaged. You are in error. I made personal attacks? Again, you are in error. I have made no personal attacks. You misunderstood my post about shutting up completely, in spite of my clarification that I was not speaking of the precise words; you indeed seem quite partisan in this. Your "warning" of Seicer shows an abysmal misunderstanding of the civility policy and the proper application thereof. I have nothing further to say to you at this time; you are not attempting to address this issue and/or resolve it amicably. You seem to be a self-appointed member of the "civility police" which is quite unnecessary and even harmful to Wikipedia overall. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
An opinion which has only gained the editor a warning for disgraceful incivility. --neon white talk 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, please block me for that rhetorical nonsense. I hope you were seriously not offended by my usage of "crybaby" and "incompetent," much less "obtuse" and "clueless." If you seriously had issues with that, what else can I say other than please move on and get a life. As it stands, "incivility" violations are loosely applied based on the administrators' mood and desire, and it would be fastly unblocked because apparently the thought of intended sarcasm in reply to the BS that was posted went over your head. Perhaps you should be sticking to reverting vandals, not long-established editors and administrators.
So what is with this duplicate thread? Haven't you already exhausted your options at ANI and his talk page? Do you need more soapboxes? seicer | talk | contribs 13:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The point of WQA is not to get other editors to brow-beat people into saying "I'm sorry." The point of this forum is to ask third parties to unofficially review actions and offer opinions to settle disputes before they become worthy of WP:ANI. As the two editors have disengaged from one another, nothing more seems to be needed here. KillerChihuahua is not persisting with the comments that Exxolon originally found insulting and Exxolon has not responded to this thread since his first posting. Is anything else needed here? I have to say that calling someone "obtuse" could be considered insulting, but rather than taking a confrontational tone Exxolon should have asked KC to explain what he meant. This is hardly deserving of an ongoing thread IMHO. I suggest this thread be closed and marked as resolved unless Exxolon thinks some other outcome is likely to come from keepign this open. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Exxolon has now left a health notice[9] on his/her talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:08, 25 June 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.

Edward321

This is fairly unimportant, but Edward321's unbelievable rudeness needs some looking into. He reverted several edits of mine, at Mary Guibert, Lost Nation, IA (both understandably), and at Tim Buckley, an edit which had a false edit summary and removed vast rewriting.

I posted a message on his talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edward321&oldid=298462785#What_is_the_problem.3F, in which I requested a reason for his reverts as well as help with citations. He removed my message without response. I then added this message, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edward321&oldid=298465589#Warning, which he also reverted.

Best, Linguistixuck (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  • It's not the nicest attitude I've ever seen, but apparently this user just does not want to talk to you, and threatening to complain to an admin is not usually the best way to illicit a response in such cases. I suggest asking for opinions on the talk pages of the articles in question, or requesting a third opinion on the content dispute. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that's noted. I've undone his edits and added sources where he complained there weren't, and the discussion of Mary Guibert which he ignored has progressed, so if he doesn't revert my contribs, I'll consider things settled. You might want to drop him a note since his talk page indicates a history of over-reverting, text removing, BS edit summaries, and then not responding to users raising the issue. Thanks!

Linguistixuck (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

were "understandable". Which means Linguistixuck's complaint rests sole on my only edit to Tim Buckley. The actual difference [12] clearly shows that my edit summary of "rv to remove random allcaps word" is not a false edit summary. Linguistixuck's version has the line "WORK with Guibert suffering from his infidelity and difficulties arising from the pressures of his music career." which I reverted to the previous version which made sense and lacked the Allcaps work.

In response, Linguistixuck has accused me of going on a "revert rampage” [13], then added an uncivil title bar [14], called my edit of Lost Nation “crap” [15], threatened me demanding an immediate response [16] [17]. Twelve minutes later, Linguistixuck accused me on the Incidents noticeboard [18] and then later reported me here. [19]. Linguistixuck appeared to have calmed down in this edit [20] and said that they “consider things settled” yet only six minutes later, he accuses me of “BS edit summaries” [21] , among other things. Edward321 (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I overreacted. Let's forget it. Do note that I removed this complaint from the incidents board because I realized that this exists and that felt overblown. Also, can I ask what made you think my post on your talk page was vandalism?Linguistixuck (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Thegreyanomaly

  Resolved
 – Both parties have agreed to avoid each other for some time to allow the situation to cool down. --Taelus (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This editor has been obsessed with me, ever since I disagreed with him here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wii games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller. In a related discussion, see:Talk:List_of_Wii_games#Merge_proposal for his comments about how the AFD closed as keep, when it actually closed as no consensus, plus about how he is argueing about how the article isn't trivial. He's now on a mission to get me in trouble by any means necessary, all because I disagreed with him at that AFD. See: User:Thegreyanomaly/RobJ1981RfC/ as one example, but it's not limited to that. He's posting the same message on just about anyone that has a different opinion than me in AFDs. Also note: [22], I tried discussing things with him but he just removed it with the summary of "ignoring until a supporter shows up, as prior mentioned an RfC will not work without a supporter", which is bad faith in my view. From that comment, it appears he just wants to have a group of people attack me besides him. He also claims I just delete things from Wikipedia, and nominate things for AFD all the time. I tried to explain that I do cleanup to articles, but he simply wouldn't understand. His reasoning seems to be that anything I remove or tag here is bad and shouldn't be done. Obviously he hasn't looked through much of my contributions if he has to make bad faith assumptions. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you be honest and tell what really happened? You redirected an article that this user worked very hard on without informing him of your intentions. [[23]] You wrongfully redirected the article without proper (hardly any) discussion. You started the discussion and redirected less than 12 hours later claiming "redirected to Wii games list per discussion at Video Game project talk page. You did not inform this editor of the discussion". I must ask why was the discussion not taken to the talk page of the article as well? When your revert failed (aka Grey noticed), you decided to afd the article. Was that per the discussion as well? How can you redirect something "per discussion" and then afd it just because redirecting it failed? Instead of simply apologizing you have been attacking him and accusing him of harassment and stalking. [[24]] You seem to think that people disagreeing with you constitutes a personal attack.
This is not the first time you have used these tactics and the last person I found that you did it to, did not appreciate it either. [[25]] The only reason you made this alert, is because this person was working on an RFC for you. This is not the way to handle an issue either. [[26]] Telling someone to settle down because they are considering and RFC on you, while accusing them of being obsessed with you, calling what they are doing nonsense and assuming bad faith. That won't resolve anything and will only make it worse. Clearly, you are the one making this personal Rob. [[27]] Grey does not mention your name or even say anything negative, yet you pop in with the same old "stop attacking me" bit and make sure it becomes a personal issue. 12.50.195.194 (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Response: First of all I never said this was a keep on the merge proposal. I said it survived an AfD. Something can survive an AfD as long as the consensus does not call for deletion (the result was no consensus for delete). I have the right to submit an RfC if I feel it fit.

Second of all, I did not want to escalate any conflict unless I had RfC supporters. Unless I am mistaken, one cannot submit an RfC without the help of other users. Other users showed some interest in backing me, so I restored RobJ's messages on my talk page. Also, a user removing content from his/her own talk page is not acting in bad faith, it is a fundamental right of a user to govern their talk page.

I have gone through a good portion of RobJ's contribution records and noticed that he nominates anything and everything for an AfD simply because he thinks WP:ITSCRUFT. If it is not that he nominates an article for deletion under that premise, he then votes for deletion under that premise. I find this to be disruptive to Wikipedia and blatant violation of WP:ITSCRUFT.

I am not saying tag maintenance is bad. I was stating that he rarely actually adds actual content to Wikipedia and continually AfDs articles and deletes content. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There is NO rules on Wikipedia saying that you must add content to contribute to the site. Attacking me based on how I edit isn't needed. Would you rather have everyone just add content and never delete articles? If that would happen, this site would have excessively long and inaccurate articles full of nonsense, vandalism and so on. If you actually look through my contributions (not just a page or two of the most recent edits), you will see I have removed vandalism many times. So just stop with the assumptions that removing content is the worst thing to do. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
My opinion here is that both of you would benefit from avoiding each other from some time. If you see each other in AfD, and other talk pages, avoid posting there, or at least do not argue with each other. I have spent time looking through the situation since it was highlighted on my talk page a while ago, and it would appear to me that you are both editors acting in good faith, both trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia, however your approaches clash. There is no right/wrong way to go about editing Wikipedia provided that policy is used, and that interpretations of what is "trivial" and what worth something has can differ. That is why we strive for consensus, to get a range of views considered. I think that both of you should avoid each other for a few days to a week in order to cool down about the situation. Then afterwards try discussing things once again via talk pages. Just because there is not agreement on AfDs and such on Wikipedia does not mean that anyone is in the right or the wrong, AfDs are a discussion of opinions to achieve concensus, not a battleground fighting for Keep or fighting for Delete. I understand this can be difficult, especially as Thegreyanomaly puts alot of work into such pages, however now that the AfD is over there is no reason to continue it with arguments. It ended in no concensus. Let the merge discussions take place, and wait for potential improvements to be made to relevant pages, and then perhaps the suitability of the page can be considered again. --Taelus (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Taelus, the only thing I would add is that there is no such thing as a "violation" of WP:ITSCRUFT because that is an essay not a policy or guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear Rob is NOT a victim. Pretty blatant personal attack. Rob is the champion of playing the victim but jabbing whenever possible.12.50.195.194 (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree to try to stay away from RobJ1981. Our editing spaces only have a very small overlap in the first place. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

RobJ1981 has agreed to avoid Thegreyanomaly for some time on my talk page, thus resolving this issue. --Taelus (talk) 07:42, 27 June 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.

RobJ is trouble

  Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – this is just a documentation of past incidents, already at ANI, no need for a thread here Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive42#User:RobJ1981.2C_continual_tenditiousness - Shocker, another RobJ wikiquette alert

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive45 - RobJ and yet ANOTHER wikiquette alert (Le Grand Roi)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RobJ1981 - RobJ blocked for harrassing half of wikipedia. Of course, he claims he did nothing wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive400#User:RobJ1981.27s_disputes_with_various_editors - RobJ at AN/I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive424#RobJ1981_requesting_unblock - RobJ acting out yet again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive277#Block_of_TJ_Spyke - Funny Rob has been warned a million times, but this guy only gets one chance according to Rob

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive214#Henchman_2000.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_and_RobJ1981.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 - Rob ignoring comments from other users trying to have a discussion as usual.

User:Robfan (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2009

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.

User:B'er Rabbit

  Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

This user is upset about an AfD he feels is incorrect (which is of course acceptable), but responds to this with personal attacks. If this was a one-off incident, I wouldn't really care, but he has done this to multiple users[28], and looking at his recent contribs, also a lot worse on completely unrelated pages"anal-retentive utter douchebags". A warning on his talk page was met with even worse PA's (IP, but looking at the contribs and language, it looks very likely that it's the same user)"You are a straight up ass hole", "you major pig-headed DOUCHE of the world". User claims to have retired. Input from uninvolved people may be helpful here. Fram (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

...already at WP:ANI for hopefully an enforced retirement, and as it requires verification that the IP editor was indeed the user. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
User was given a 2-week break in the briar patch on June 27 [29] which will hopefull chill him down sufficiently. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ChyranandChloe

ChyranandChloe has dominated Health effects of tobacco and the associated Talk page, and there are huge WP:Ownership issues which are preventing the article being edited in the usual way, and have lead to the article becoming POV. See Talk:Health effects of tobacco#Ownership and POV. Johnfos (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  • This is more of a content dispute than a civility issue. I would recommend initiating a request for comment on the articles talk page in order to involve more users and form a consensus on what form the article should take. I do see the problem you have identified though, Chloe does appear to want to retain control of the article, which is not acceptable. I'm going to leave a note on her talk page to that effect. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Johnfos's comment is a personal attack. My intentions are simple, improve the article. Do I believe the actions conducted by Johnfo improves the article? No. The statements in the discussion explains how. Do I believe my comment was well written? No, if I could take it back, I would. Does this imply that the comment is without merit? No. Now, before templating, ask how. Are you saying, Beeblebrox, that because I "want to control the article", I should be dismissed, without reasonable discussion, and without an objective assessment? I believe this article, and those who work on it, should receive and objective assessment that does not attack character first and content second. ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Please read my above remark, in which I clearly acknowledge that the core problem here is a content dispute and I suggest appropriate remedies. I don't see any blatant incivility or personal attacks or anything like that coming from either of you, but you do seem to want to keep "your" version of the article. That's all I'm trying to indicate, and I think the simplest way out is to initiate an rfc, both of you state your case, then let others chime in until a rough consensus is reached on the article's structure. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
There was no discussion over content between me and Johnfos over the issue of Sections "Prognosis" and "Cancer". The previous was ambiguously short, and quickly resolved itself. It feels like we're skipping steps. A RFC entails that we've actually made our statements about content, so far its been about character. Now, you have stated that I "want" to retain my version of the article, which is "not acceptable". First, support your claim. How does one revert, and one comment, both of which are applicable under WP:BRD, become unacceptable? I understand the dispute resolution process, Beeblebrox. Content is discussed on the article's talk page. Wikiquette is about behavior, and that is the central point I am discussing on this talk page. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not unhappy with the way the article is at present, but if someone wishes to start an RfC that's fine. I feel there is an opportunity here to discuss the ownership issue, as it does fundamentally relate to wikipedia etiquette. I would like to know why ChyranandChloe made all these "I" statements (See Talk:Health effects of tobacco#Ownership and POV) as if she owned the article:

    • "I chose the section titled "Prognosis" for a reason."
    • "I chose "Prognosis" ..."
    • "I layed out the article ..."
    • "I actually decided not to have a "Cancer" section ..."
    • "I chose to break it down ..."

-- Johnfos (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Two parts. The first, to write a comment to be more objective, such as stating the points without acknowledging who is making those points, would have been possible. However writing in such a manner is unnatural and hard to reply to. The intent was never to create a sense of ownership. This appears to be a misunderstanding leading to the accusation. The intent was to prod Johnfos to discuss the issue while plainly making (1) what the disagreement was about and (2) who he was going to be disagreeing with. The second part, was accuracy. Alluding to the "2008-2009 Copyedit" proposal.[30] Without using "I" felt like shirking responsibility that: I was the one who laid out the article you are dissatisfied with in the past—and with that acknowledgement, that would seem offensive.

Now you have a person to disagree with and the background to why the person is disagreeing with you, discussion seems a lot more natural—unlike the previous one where you've only minced a sentence worth of words without exploring into any detail what you or I were trying to accomplish and what we could do together to improving it.[31] 23:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In terms of number of edits on the article and Talk page, you have dominated for a long time. Have you ever really considered that perhaps you've used all those "I" statements because you have a huge personal investment in this article and want to retain control over it? It remains to be seen whether you can step back a little and encourage other editors on the page instead of pushing your own agenda. I would particularly like to see User:FocalPoint being encouraged, as I feel he keeps a close watch on what is going on, and has had some good ideas in the past which haven't been taken up. And please bear in mind that if someone does a handful of edits and provides good edit summaries, there often is no need for discussion on the Talk page. It is not as if people have to OK their edits with you, is it. Johnfos (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
You are continuing the presumption that I dominate the article. I completely disagree. I have considered the use of the word "I", which was explicitly stated two comments ago "Do I believe my comment was well written? No[...]"; and from which I have further described the "misunderstanding" in my previous comment.

Now your second assertion that: I "have dominated for a long time". I have the most edits. To specify an exact date, my first edit was in August 2008,[32] but I didn't seriously work on it until December of 2008 with the "2008-2009 Copyedit" proposal.[33] A long time? No, at least not in the context that this article was created in 2006.[34] Now for the second part, do I dominate the article? No, I ask about content: this is always the first question I always ask. The answer to that question, judged objectively, is the answer I go by. Personal investment is a misunderstanding, I go by what improves the article.

So far you have answered little about content and much about foul play. Now before you continue to what amounts to whining: are you saying that because you have done none, asked none, you derserve that this comment be an apology? That is, a consensus resolve is an apology. When this is about character, the objectivism I offer in content disputes—how I gave Focalpoint and RFC to his liking,[35] and how I offered MastCell much needed work[36]—are off. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You have dominated the article and its Talk page for a long time, and you are continuing to take a domineering and aggressive attitude here and now. Instead of taking a mature "tell me more" approach to the ownership issue I am raising you have resorted to immature name calling about "personal attacks", "foul play", "whining" etc. Please try to understand and accommodate what others are saying more and this will help you grow as an editor. Johnfos (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out the civil attitude I have received from User:ChyranandChloe in the call made by the user for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I hope that this attitude will continue here.
  • More, I see that User:Johnfos has made no personal remarks here.
  • On the issue discussed here, I will not devote a lot of time searching the history of the article, I will just deposit my personal experience: With this edit I understand that ChyranandChloe proposes to me that I work on sandboxes for the article in the user's namespace (User:ChyranandChloe/Workshop 17 and User:ChyranandChloe/Workshop 15). These sandboxes maybe appropriate for ChyranandChloe preparing a text, but they are not the proper way for other users to edit the article. If someone else would edit there, it would mean that the edits would be vetted by ChyranandChloe instead of being in full view from all the people who are interested in the article. I assume good faith, but I also see that the claim for "WP:Ownership issues which are preventing the article being edited in the usual way" is reasonable. I believe that ChyranandChloe should consider User:Beeblebrox's suggestions.--FocalPoint (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3

I have been involved in discussions with User:PeeJay2K3 on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#National team yearly articles? and the user seems to be WP:HOUNDING. I have civilly given enough evidence to support my opinion on the matter and am ready to just leave it as it. My concern however is that this particular user has a vendetta to prove. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  • This is something we say again and again here. Two editors find themselves in an argument, and go around and around without stopping to seek outside input, until finally they begin resorting to insults and so forth. If a content dispute goes two or three "rounds" without anyone changing their position, it is time to seek more input as opposed to continuing with endless circular debate. In cases where only two editors are involved a third opinion can be quite helpful. In more involved disputes you can initiate a request for comment. Both of you seem to be intelligent and helpful editors who just didn't know when to step back and let it go for a minute. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
In my observation of two of the rows between the two, I would suggest that the complainant here is more in the wrong than the "defendant", both in terms of factual accuracy of the position they are arguing here, the proper use of an encyclopaedia here, and willingness to turn a discussion of facts or principles into a personal issue (first of the above), and also seems happy do undermine a proposal for a unified, encyclopaedic approach with sarcastic parody, as here. Kevin McE (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with User:Kevin McE, it is PeeJay2K3 who is in the right on this occasion. - fchd (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Balkanian`s word

Recently, User:Balkanian`s word embarked on a campaign to refer to me exclusively as "The reverter" [37] [38], which I find highly disparaging as well as an attempt to discredit me. After I reported him here, he agreed not to do it anymore [39] [40]. But now, he has started again, using this section heading to refer to me [41]. I really do not appreciate this, especially after he said he wouldn't do it anymore. --Athenean (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have asked sorry to the editor on User talk:Athenean; but he is not willing to stop reverting every page I edit. In this case I added some sources, and Athenean reverted them saying that "there is no inline"; while he could just request inlines without reverting it or put there a {{dubious}} or {{inline}} template. His attitude is quite non-wiki; trying only to remove everything which mentions "Albanian" or "Albanian".Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Logger9 dumping off-topic material in various solid-state-physics articles

While working on glass transition, I stumbled over long sections that are cleary off-topic, dealing with the physics of glasses, but having no relation to glass-liquid-transition. It quickly turned out that these sections were contributions by User:Logger9. I invited him to discuss the contents section by section, but instead he just reverts my edits.

Looking deeper into the links and into his other contributions, I found that over the past months he has been pasting entire sections of text almost indiscriminately in quite a number of different articles, with only loose connection to the subjects therof. Just one examples: a section about transparent ceramics has been inserted in the articles Nd:YAG laser, transparent alumina, and Aluminium oxynitride. In each case, the insertion featured a micrograph from a 1983 PhD thesis (obviously his own) that has only very, very remote connection to the subject.

another example: redundant and idiosyncratic material in the biography John W. Cahn.

In the sequel, I spent an entire evening cleaning up. In my opinion, this case reveals a severe problem with quality control. I think, people who saw Logger9's contribution were just so impressed by the scientific apparence (tons of references ! reading lists reaching down to Fourier's theory of heat !) that they did not feel competent and confident enough to protest that the material, in the context into which is was pasted, was bordering blatant nonsense.

Vandals have never been a serious threat to WP. But how to deal with a user who does 20% good, 80% harm ?

-- Paula Pilcher (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Forget about WT:AFD#Too complicated, please. That was meant as a more general comment on bureaucratic procedures that increase the assymetry between those who bring nonsense in and those who try to keep it out. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Please see above where it is explained, "What WQA CANNOT do: Intervene in content disputes ... Mediate longterm, ongoing conflicts between two users". Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not just between two users. It's pretty clear that before me several other editors have tried to convert Logger9 into a productive contributor, and they have all given up. And so will I, if upon this alert the community does not prove capable of dealing with this special kind of trolling. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe but something has to be done. Many other editors have had similar problems with Logger9 in the past, see two very long threads on Talk:Glass. We ended up compromising by allowing Logger9 to create the article Physics of glass. However this article is extremely technical and pushes the POV of Logger9 rejecting the views of everybody else. In general Logger9 will not accept ANY removal whatsoever of their content and will simply revert the efforts of other users who attempt to disagree with their POV (And will NOT engage in any form of discussion about it). The reason why I tolerated the creation of Physics of glass was because I simply wanted to stop the edit warring and conflict caused by the Logger9 at the Glass article, in particular to stop the inisitent copy and pasting of huge portions of the same text into numerous other articles which took us a lot of time to put right. Although evidently a lot of work has gone into Logger9's contributioins, so far none of us have been able to sufficiently understand the content to be able to comment on its factual accuracy. However the key POV that Logger9 is pushing is that glass behaves as a Solid and as a Liquid. To be honest this idea is an established fantasy, yet Logger9 is attempting to push their beliefs in Physics of glass and will not compromise. You are absolutely correct in that we do not feel competent enough to protest the material, however this just goes to show how unencyclopedic the material actually is, when editors who work in the field of glass cannot even understand it! Jdrewitt (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Same situation for Phase transformations in solids: seems to be left to him as a playground for stuff he cannot land in Phase transition. Idem kinetic theory of solids, now blocked because of copyright violation. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Glassy state was another dump ground for his blunder. Nobody else took note, let alone care of. I replaced it by a redirect to glass. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
If you look in the history of that article you will see that we have had problems with this article and its content previously. The major issue here is that Logger9 will not engage in any conversation with us about wikipedia policy and how to write an article that is accessible to all readers. In general Logger9 does act in good faith and has contributed a lot to wikipedia. They are not a malicious user and their conduct is not really the issue here, edit warring being the only real issue conduct wise. The main issue is that Logger9 simply doesn't agree with us that there is anything unencylcopedic about their contributions and it is difficult to engage in discussion with them about how to make the articles adhere with wikipedia policy. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Paula..I'm reading some of the issues, but can I please ask that you use an edit summary for every single post on Wikipedia - it helps us to understand what's happening, what's been added, or what's been subtracted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Warden says, I should transfer this discussion to RFC. RFC says, Request_comment_on_users is the appropriate section. Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_on_users says before starting the procedure two users should contact the user in question on his talk page. So I did: User_talk:Logger9#Reverts_and_deletions. Now I am waiting for a second person to admonish Logger9, and then we see whether further action is needed. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

An RfC for the specific articles involved would be more appropriate, e.g. there are issues raised at talk:Physics of glass which have still not been addressed and it would be very helpful if the issues raised could receive wider attention. Jdrewitt (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I am both completely uninvolved and ignorant of the subject matter, but I was invited to look into the matter at Glass transition, and full protected the article as a result of edit warring. Logger9 was on the verge of a 3RR violation today, and Paula Pilcher and Colonel Warden both reverted as well for a total of about 7 reverts today (June 27) alone. Very few editors are using edit summaries on that page, and when the are they tend to be unhelpful. Several of Logger9's comments on the talk page are incivil, and in general I see little effort to discuss changes and gain consensus. Unfortunately, the most recent version, which is the one I protected (per policy) is Logger9's preferred version. Nevertheless, hopefully the protection will force all those involved to make an effort to discuss the changes they'd like to see to the article. I've given them 7 days to try. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The facts of the matter may be seen at edit history of Glass transition. Logger9 reverted 3 times but Paula Pilcher reverted 5 times. Paula Pilcher thus broke 3RR after being warned specifically about this. The article has been protected upon the version that she was warring for, not Logger9's version as Exploding Boy states. So far as civility is concerned - our main purpose here - Paula Pilcher seems quite uncivil, being overly given to ad hominem attacks. Logger9's may seem uncommunicative but perhaps someone should tell him of these proceedings. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
You're right. I protected immediately after I saw your most recent revert, Colonel Warden, but it seems Paula managed to slip in another revert as I was protecting the page. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
And having reviewed her contributions, I have temporarily blocked Paula for edit warring, although she has indicated she is planning to take a break for a few days anyway. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
You wrote: "Unfortunately, the most recent version, which is the one I protected (per policy) is Logger9's preferred version."
Nothing could be further from the truth. All of my original work has been removed. So be it! -- logger9 (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
If you read a little further down you'd have seen that I began protecting the article while your preferred version was live, but it was reverted one more time before I was done. However, protection isn't about whose version is preserved; it's about preventing an ongoing edit war and giving everyone a chance to discuss and build consensus about the article. As to your "original work," if you are referring to original research, that's not what we do at Wikipedia. In any case, every version is stored in the article history and can be easily retrieved. So please: go to the Talk:Glass transition page and explain to your fellow editors exactly what changes you would like to see on that article, build consensus, and work together instead of edit warring. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It's NOT original research (though I figured that you would come up with that). As I stated clearly, it is my original work on the article. And you have crushed it in its entirety. If you want to replace it, then do so. If not, then don't. I am here to place the work in front of you (which by the way has taken a lifetime to assemble). If you choose not to use it, that is your issue.
The new editor in question is completely irrational about it. Of course you have kept her version. She muscles herself in, and has you all on some kind of crazy witchhunt. She is sequentially attacking every single thing I have ever done for Wikipedia. I have worked VERY hard for this organization. And this is the result ?
No thank you. There is no point in me spending days on end in some emotionally overheated unending discussion. I told folks in the beginning: If you don't like my work I'm outtahere. I was asked specifically to stay and produce. And that is exactly what I have done. Now if you want to let some crazy lady waltz in and waste it all step by step, feel free. As far as my "fellow editors" go, it is quite clear what she thinks of it. She has performed unwarranted and unjustified blanket deletions of every single byte of it repeatedly. While I have accepted ALL of hers. And you openly accuse me of being just as bad as her ? I don't see any comparison at all, in terms of our repeated reverts. I am merely trying to keep an animal level contributor from voraciously eliminating every single thing that I contributed to that article. She curses me openly and calls me names. And I have absolutely NO idea why. There seems to be some sort of inappropriate (and highly unprofessional) personal vendatta here. And she(?) clearly has a massive agenda.
Do what you want with it. My work is yours if you want it, and you (and she) have currently chosen not to use it -- thus rewarding her handsomely for her final unwarranted revert. It's quite a game you have going there.
The work is all I can offer. The work is WHAT I DO.
What she does is.....well....you know......-- logger9 (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The best place to handle something like this, in my experience, is a WikiProject such as WikiProject Physics, because there you get a pool of experts in the topic area. If multiple editors come to an agreement that the contributions of an individual editor are disruptive, they can combine to revert edits that don't "play ball" without themselves reverting more than once per day. In situations like that, admins will almost always side with the group rather than the "rogue" editor. One-vs-one edit-warring is always a losing proposition for both sides, regardless of who is right. (Disclaimer: I am not an admin, and this approach is not officially sanctioned, but in my experience it is the only approach that really works.) Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think so too. That is why I have expressed my concerns there (WP:Glass) over all three articles she is attempting to waste. We have already agreed to do some rebuilding of what she has managed to lay complete waste to. But regarding this particular issue, I think that they are all having too much fun watching what happens here before they put anything on record. No one is saying ANYTHING about this one. They are just watching my trying to stay afloat by my own individual effort, time and energy.... -- logger9 (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you provide links to these discussions? On Wikiproject:Glass I see one comment posted by you and answered by no one. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
That is what I said. -- logger9 (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Nobody has crushed anything, Logger9. The article was protected per the protection policy: without my making a determination as to whose version might be "right." The point of protection, as has been explained to you numerous times, is simply to put a stop to edit warring. The protection I have placed on the article is temporary, as was also explained, and has eliminated nothing, as all previous versions can be accessed via the page history.
As I have also explained to you, Wikipedia is a collaborative, consensus-built, discussion-driven project where, irritating as it may be, things will not always go our way. If you don't want to work in such an environment, or if you prefer not to have your writing ruthlessly edited, then write a book or create your own website about the things you care about.
To be frank, you're not helping your case. I'm making no judgment on the article content, but while Paula's reverting was problematic enough to earn her a block, your own behaviour is also problematic. Since the article was protected I've seen no effort on your behalf to discuss the problems you see with Glass transition. On a project like Wikipedia you cannot simply make it known that you see no point in engaging in discussion and threaten to leave if people don't like your work. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


(ec)I have placed a notice on the Wikiproject:Physics talk page, as well as on the RFC articles talk page and on the Wikiproject:Science talk page. In regards to the above post, if multiple editors come to an agreement that is called consensus; that is what we do here, and what Logger9 needs to do on the article in question. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the statement about your "original work," I suggest you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I own nothing here, and I make no claim to. As I said, the work is all yours to do with as you see fit. I mean, it's not like I can take it back, right ? Use it if you choose to. I sincerely hope that you choose to use it for educational purpose :-) And if not, no hard feelings. I have a very full life in the academic arena. I am just trying to help here. -- logger9 (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
She is not collaborating. She is blanket editing. And you are supporting it wholeheartedly. -- 17:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logger9 (talk • contribs)
How? By blocking her? Exploding Boy (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
By putting us in the same boat with regard to level of offense. I have accepted her work. I have collaborated. She has openly refused to accept mine. And yet her version stands. -- logger9 (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
So now she does not have to justify her work. Everything is just blanketly accepted. And yet I do ? -- logger9 (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not here to make a determination about which of you is right, only to prevent the edit war that had taken over that article. What I am telling you is that you can end this edit war and prevent future ones by establishing a consensus about the article's content and presentation on its talk page. Nothing is just accepted: consensus is always required. Whatever consensus is reached may not satisfy you completely; you may feel it's unjust or unnecessary to discuss these issues; but that's how it goes. That a version of the article you dislike happened to be the one that was protected is only coincidence. I urge you to move on. Take your concerns about the article content to its talk page. Build consensus. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I hear you -- but my defense of that work is already there ........Massively. -- logger9 (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Good. If there is clear consensus, then that should be clear on the article's talk page. Is it? If it's not clear, then it's time to make it clear. Go to the talk page, start a new section about the relevant issue(s), and begin the conversation. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
And so I did. -- logger9 (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reacted to an invitation by User:Exploding Boy at Talk:Glass to help mediating this conflict. Upon reading this discussion, I understand the conflict has spread over several pages, but I shall start with Glass transition indicated as the hottest spot. Let me introduce myself first.

  • As a trained materials scientist I have worked in several areas, including a few years in a glass research lab. While observing their activities, I was not involved in that research and have never had personal interest in that topic.
  • On wikipedia, I have had experience with scientific disputes and their resolution.
  • To the best of my knowledge, I have not collaborated with any editor involved here.
  • I have not read any of the articles being discussed (except maybe for quick technical cleanup of transparent alumina).
  • I am not an administrator and would like to ask User:Exploding Boy to help when administrative advice or action is needed.
  • From what I have read about this dispute, I see excessive amount of personal attacks and reverting actions. First thing I propose is to stop that, by all parties and all means, and focus on content discussion at talk pages first. Would anyone who opposes that (e.g. "I'm fed up with talks and will fight anyone" or "Who is this guy to teach me what to do") please speak up. On my side, I pledge to be as objective as I can, trying to improve the content of the discussed pages. Best regards. Materialscientist (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Sikh-history

Civility issues due to the Sunny Leone article. Tabercil, an administrator, had originally removed an assertion that violated WP:BLP.[42] Mr. Sikh-history responded with a revert and a warning of ownership against Tabercil.[43] I revert back and warn Sikh history twice about assuming good faith.[44] He sends me two ownership warnings.[45] What to do... what to do? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no real civility issues - what the three of you have is a content dispute, and at least 2 of you are handling it poorly. Open an WP:RFC for the article in order to get a 3rd opinion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Halfacanyon accusing me of POV-pushing, lying, etc...

User:Halfacanyon has been assuming bad faith right from the beginning. He is taking my edits very personally and in spite of my long responses to his accusations he continues to be hostile. talk page. dispute at Israeli settlements. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

First, you have not advised the other user of this WQA filing for their response... please do ASAP. Second, this appears to be both a content dispute AND WP:RS dispute that has led to wholesale tit-for-tat "you're a liar, no you're a liar" dispute. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
This rather unwise tit-for-tat posting at ANI should be glanced at. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure people were aware of Half's accusations before it got out of hand. Half was extremely hostile from the very beginning and as I explained in the ANI, he claimed ALL my edits violated wiki policy. He said I deleted references, removed cited material and then when I explained why that wasn't the case he accused me of POV-pushing, trolling, and demanding I "take a break" because I am incapable of editing fairly. I disagree with the tit-for-tat scenario, though I do see your point. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Greek love

Some quiet words from third parties on user talk pages is possibly required, here. For more information, see what I wrote at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Greek love. Uncle G (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • If it's already at AN/I, then there's not really much we can do. Wikiquette alerts is an informal mediation process, but its already up for the admins to take a look at, there's no need for two separate discussions. Fingerz 14:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • What you can do is have those quiet words. Uncle G (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Victory93

I don't normally do this, rather I try to focus on editing and ignore the bullshit but this user just struck a nerve.

User has an extensive history of warnings and notices on his talk page dating back to 2007 which he promptly removes without reply and no consideration of his actions showing he has not learned anything. So much so that he decided to have a banner at the top of his talk page stating anything he finds "annoying" will be removed. I understand that it's not against policy to blank his talkpage but this user is causing a clear disruption to the project, and still is violating WP:CIVIL. He's already been given a long and civil welcome and plenty of help by a thoughtful user looking to mentor him, which of course he deleted [46]. Given his immature age I can understand him being cut some slack for his actions but this has gone on too long. If he doesn't learn anything and just blanks warnings then goes on his merry way repeating his mistakes then what good is he to the project. I don't have a recommendation on what action to take here, I just thought it prudent that there be some kind of log of his disruption outside of his own talk page. Most of the disruption was done in 2007 but now it seems this user has returned and clearly hasn't learned a thing judging by his recent edits.

Just a few examples of disruption:

Previous Wikiquette alert: [47]

Previous blocks for 3RR violation: [48]

Violating WP:OR and WP:V [49] [50] [51]

Clear trolling: (most recent) [52] [53] [54]

Edit warring: [55]

Ownership of articles: [56] [57]

Incivility: [58]

Removing speedy deletion tags: [59]

Reckless editing/Removal of references: [60] [61] [62]

Personal attacks against users: [63] [64]

Vandalism: [65] [66]

Stubborn refusal to work with other editors: [67] [68]

Blanking talkpage full of nothing but a whole slew of warnings: [69] [70]

All this plus dozens of uploads of non-free media. -- Ϫ 10:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so the "most recent" diff's that you provide are from March. As you probably already know, removal of warnings is tacit acceptance of that warning. I'm not sure what you're looking for from WQA? If you think this is long-term activity, it needs WP:RFC/U. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually most recent was just a couple days ago. I'm not really looking for anything except to have his behaviour noted by the community as it stands now. In case the disruption continues, a decision can be made for further action. -- Ϫ 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Tfz (Purple Arrow / Purple), User:HighKing and User:Dunlavin Green

I'm reporting personal attacks against me and lack of etiquette from the above-mentioned users with regard to their comments on [Talk:Military history of Britain|this talk page]]. This is somewhat surprising considering Tfz's stated opinion of "trolling", "respect" and "posturing" (see his talk page).

Diffs:

I have no idea how many more personal attacks against me might have come into being in Wikipedia over the last few months, but I would like to see them, and inability to assume good faith, eradicated.

A note to HighKing: I couldn't possibly be anti-Irish, as I am Irish myself. Just because you may be prejudiced, there is no reason to tar everyone else with your own brush. You clearly know nothing of my "motives". --Setanta 16:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Until I see both an apology and a full retraction of "Just because you may be prejudiced", I won't even start looking any further. Supposed incivility should not be reported with incivility of its own. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Snowded

This user has been of concern on both Wikipedia's article for Anglophobia and the article's talk page. In enforcing his own personal opinions, he has violated Wikipedia's WP:NPA policy as well as Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. He has taken it upon himself to try and make the Anglophobia article his own personal soapbox for relations between England and Wales, and has frequently clashed with the main editor of the Anglophobia article, BillMasen.

Both I and BillMasen have attempted to placate Snowded, but to no avail, and his attitude has irritated me to the point where I now feel that action must be taken to put him back in line. Crablogger (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Put him back in line"? You're looking for punishment? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
personal attack diffs please? we can't do anything about content disputes, if this rooted in a dispute about neutrality try a rfc or third comment and then mediation if necessary. --neon white talk 14:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:NRen2k5 is a bully

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
 – Escalated beyond scope of WQA resulting in block of OP

NRen2k5 continues to bully other editors, verbally, until he gets his way or they give up. He tells others to stop when clearly he isn't capable of such self-control. Just look at his history of contributions to controversial articles (e.g. PETA, Homeopathy, 9/11 Truth movement and Sea Shepherd) and administrative pages (EAR, WQA, ANI). He will continue to push his POV, first in civil terms -- but then, as others invariably disagree with him, he gets caustic, defensive and petulant.

I originally opened an WP:EAR about his revert warring on Sea Shepherds article infobox. Then when he didnt get the answers he wanted from admins & other editors, he escalated the dispute to WP:WQA and WP:ANI. I was willing to let it go but i see that he does this to other editors on the other pages i linked. He even has the gall to post template warnings on user pages - like at SlimVirgin and mine. Fhue (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought he'd have got much change out of Slim VirginElen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Footnote: Fhue (talk · contribs) is presently indef'ed for a series of abuses that started with editing an ANI archive and escalated from there. Looie496 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, he was blocked 31 hours for the edit warring, and indef blocked for a username policy violation. Either way, the situation he complained about here has escalated beyond the scope of WQA so I will close this discussion. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:57, 2 July 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.

The Sceptical Chymist

I'm under the impression that User:The Sceptical Chymist has been previously reported here (or perhaps to ANI) for uncivil and unwelcoming comments much like these recent ones:

These particular comments are in the context of the content dispute at Benzodiazepine, but discouraging participation by other editors and insulting editors does not really help us resolve the dispute. I'm not convinced that the behavior is pervasive enough to justify an RfC/User, but I would be happy to hear other opinions on the matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that WhatamIdoing cannot claim moral high ground here. Her participation in the dispute at benzodiazepine has not been productive. She limited herself mostly to criticizing other editors. In response to my suggestion to help with content [71] she refused to help and refused to even appear fair.[72] In the same comment she described me, without any provocation, as playing "a childish "even-Steven" games, chided me for not "doing a stellar job of working on content" (remember, while refusing to help) and for behaving "worse when you don't feel like a "parent" or "teacher" is looking over your shoulders to make sure that you're doing your work". The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, when one uses the handy-dandy search box at the top of either WP:WQA or WP:ANI, one can find out that they were never brought here to WQA, and were the actual filer of an incident at ANI. Please have a look at the results of that ANI, and both parties should continue having learned. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of template?

  Resolved
 – Barely a wikiquette issue; misunderstanding resolved and filer cautioned against misuse of WQA
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A user placed this on my talk page. Since I do not believe I have misused any template recently regarding said user, I posted to the user and asked him what he was referring to. He wiped my post without answering. Obviously, I do not want to be abusing templates, so if somebody could explain to me, what the user might have meant, and if it had any merits, please do so. Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Presumably Yopie's message was in response to this message you sent them ("Abuse of edit summary field"), stating that their edit summary was wrong, in that their edit "did not involve correcting typos at all". I imagine that they replied with a message about template abuse because your message looked like a template (it followed a very common form of wording used by the messages at WP:WARN), because it was incorrect (it did involve correcting a typo), and perhaps because they felt it was overly aggressive or accusatory - if one assumes good faith, one would not view the omission of part of one's edit as abuse of the edit summary field, but as an oversight.
Third parties reading this should know that I have previously interacted with Law Lord, initially in an administrative capacity in response to his harassment, baiting and hounding of another editor. I hope that, if Law Lord doesn't accept the above explanation for whatever reason, an uninvolved editor can provide some further input to encourage de-escalation of the above situation. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes SheffieldSteel, you are right. This was my response to LawLord, because his writing was like template. About article Marquess and this diff [73] - I simply assumed that it was typo in both lines (missing "n" and line "Norwegian: (not awarded to any Danish families". If LawLord feel that it was insulting, I must say sorry for it.--Yopie 20:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I have asked Yopie to explain his use of the template - as should be a requirement at any time - I would like to "hear it" from Yopie's mouth. His failure to reply was needlessly inflammatory. Law Lord should know that any editor may recieve a template warning - "Don't Template the Regulars" is an essay - I prefer "Do Template the Regulars". Removing his template from your talkpage as "harassment" was not likely wise, as it escalates a situation needlessly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
SheffieldSteel: I do not believe that I have ever committed any "harassment, baiting and hounding of another editor" but since you are obviously biased towards me, perhaps the wiser choice for you would have been to stay out of this alert altogether? Do you think it is generally a good idea to drag old accusations out of the bag? You could have written: "I have had disagreements with this user before", but instead you chose to voice accusations with which you know I disagree. I could do the same to you, but I am not going to. --Law Lord (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Bwilkins: I agree with all that you have written. I should not have called it "harassment", even though that is what it felt like. Thank you for explaining your view. --Law Lord (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I now see that their edit did in fact involve correcting a typo (corrcting "i" to "in"), which I simply had not seen when I wrote on their talk page. An oversight on my part. However, I think when looking at the edit, everybody can agree, that the substantial amount of characters being changed in the edit is not the typo-correction. --Law Lord (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That is where WP:AGF comes in. It's easy to imagine Yopie correcting the typo, writing the edit summary, previewing the edit, changing the other text, previewing, and saving. The good faith explanation makes more sense, I think, than the alternate interpretation, i.e. that this was a deliberate attempt to disguise an edit that would otherwise be reverted. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

One could also view the text that was removed as a typo since it was simply repeating a line about use of the title in Denmark. Simply leaving the edit summary as "typos" is entirely reasonable. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, and would not have posted to his talk page if I had in fact been aware of the typo-correction. That being said, I am still not convinced that I have at all abused any template, which I was being acused of. Truth be told, I have not used any template at all in this matter. --Law Lord (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Removing a line, which has important information about the use of the title in a specific county, can never be called "typos" under any circumstances. --Law Lord (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Not even sure why this was posted here in the first place. If you were making a complaint about Yopie related to etiquette, then I don't see an etiquette breach - Yopie was perfectly entitled to delete the warning - anybody can delete anything from their own talk page. But leaving that aside, it's now obvious that Lord Law has realized he made a mistake. I recommend this be closed. --HighKing (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I largely agree with the above take. Yopie did indeed misuse the template warning and should be reminded both that it is important to document such warnings carefully and to remain sensitive to the fact that many editors dislike being templated. (There's a reason DTTR exists; I personally agree with it). However, that is, at best, a minor breach of wikiquette, more or less matched by the needlessly combative tone taken in the initial comment posted to his talk page. (Although Law lord is right that the edit summary should have indicated content removal and had every right to point that out since accurate edit summaries are very important.) However, bringing this to WQA represents a needless inflammation of what is an aggressively trivial matter; editors are free to remove content as they please on their talk page. No further comment or action is required Eusebeus (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I oppose close. This was posted, because I would like to know, where (if at all), I have abused a template. That is what Yopie accused me of and has since refused to explain. --Law Lord (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The above post was delayed for a couple of minutes due to edit conflict. --Law Lord (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Your message very closely resembled a template warning - as such, Yopie can be forgiven for believing it to be a template. He has yet to explain why he did not respond to your question, which I still believe is only fair. As noted above, this is a very minor breach, so let's not get all wikilawyering - there's no need for the oppose above, and there's no need to close this until we get a response from Yopie. Let's EVERYONE just leave it until we get a short explaination from Yopie. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe Yopie need comment here at all and frankly Law Lord is becoming dangerously vexatious with this passive-aggressive whining as it has been clearly explained to him why the user in question mistook his talk page comment for a templated post. no, Law lord, you did not misuse templates; Yopie was in error, but his error was a good faith mistake. Now stop misusing the WQA page, which is a rather more serious offence. I recommend this be closed forthwith. Eusebeus (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


I have now read Yopie's post and am happy to let this close now. In the future I will be more aware of WP:AGF. On a side note, I think it is quite dreadful that ill-mannered and rude people are allowed to post insults like "passive-aggressive whining" against fellow editors. WP:CIVIL ought to forbid that kind of behaviour. The lower classes of the common herd ought to have no place here, and if they were forbidden, no user would make such statements. --Law Lord (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have recommended that Law Lord remove his poorly thought-out attack above. If not, well...you know. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:43, 3 July 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.

User:Ottava Rima

  •   Resolved
     – Ottava Rima and I amicably agree that the whole matter stemmed from a misunderstanding and we can work together peacefully for the next time. :)Caspian blue 14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Hunting of the Snark[[74]]
User talk:Ottava Rima#Civility

I'd like to raise Ottava Rima's incivility and threats based on bad faith here in hoping that the user can have an object evaluation on his inappropriate conduct toward me. The user is known for incivility and the fact that he has been even blocked from Wikipedia Review for his trolling and harassment against editors there. The user has accused me of destroying his FP format and being disruptive because I tried to help him on formatting. That is absurd. I've participated in reviewing images on FPC pages, and I've never seen Ottava Rima active there.

Today, I saw a group of images of The Hunting of the Snark is nominated as a Featured Picture Set, and it had received no review yet. I thought the images take too much space compared to other nominations, so that is why nobody seemed to comment on the images themselves. I suggested him to rearrange it for viewers[75], and one admin agreed with my suggestion.[76] He said if I can rearrange it, do it[77], so I did with time.[78] I even created a new sandbox just for the occasion.[79] Obviously, he did not like my formatting, and kept insisting that my computer is error[80] because he suspected my computer may make the image arrangement look irregular.[81] I said it is not because I bought my computer just a week ago[82], and suggested him to check his own.[83] then he increased his rudeness and attacked me of being disruptive and destroying the format and his nom.[84] Instead of becoming uncivil, he could've just said "I'll revert your edit because that is not what I intended". Then, I would be okay with it since he seems to be too stressed by seemingly his first FP nomination and the fact that none has commented for his nomination.

However, he denounced my intention and action "disruptive" over and over and threaten me to report me if I would not remove our discussion to elsewhere.[85] and said "untruth" that with my computer, the 5 images are shown in horizontal lines.[86][87] I visited his talk page for resolving the issue, and reminded him to be civil, but no fruit. What I can not bear with his serial and false accusations[88] is that he does not assume good faith on my trial to help him. I've got a FP and have participated in reviewing images on here and Commons, so I really do not understand his hostility and accusations. I movdd our discussion to its talk page per his request[89], but he continued his incivility and harassment (he said he will seek for me to be blocked if I do not remove my discussion, and his such threats fit for him behavior), so I ask your opinion on this. Thanks.--Caspian blue 02:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The above user is declaring things as incivil or personal attacks which are clearly not. The above user is also causing problems and has only caused disruption. The above is just more bullying and will only be stopped by Caspian being blocked. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, Ottava Rima's another harassment and threats. If you do not retract the absurd personal attacks, well, your bullying and harassing behavior should earn "block".--Caspian blue 03:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Per NPA, your false accusation of me making a personal attack is a personal attack and a violation of NPA. This is the third time tonight you have violated policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The basic cause of this disagreement seems to be the fact that Ottava doesn't really understand what the word "row" means, and confuses it with "column". These sorts of misunderstandings can be very annoying, but taking them to the level of a WQA is also annoying. Instead of pursuing this, both editors should now go away and come back tomorrow, after having a chance to calm down. Looie496 (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Not even close, Looie. The basic problem was that it was formatted fine and fit in WP:FPC and his formatting caused a massive disruption. He then caused disturbance because he chose to rather bicker about something that had nothing to do with reviewing pictures and then started attacking me on multiple pages to further the disruption. And calm down? I am completely calm, so your comments are absurd. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
A good faith edit should never be described as a "massive disruption." I agree with Looie, this shouldn't have made it to WQA. Soxwon (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Disruption is a result. It has nothing to do with intentions. You can accidentally delete the main page and it will still be a massive disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You're being disruptive, so you can not accept good faith helping of mine and I think the format looks more tidy than yours that unnecessarily takes too much space.--Caspian blue 03:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with the absurd allegation of "disruption" against me. I've helped out formatting nominations with multiple images on FPC and they appreciated my help unlike Ottava Rima's bad faith. You said I can rearrange them, and the poem is "non-sense poem", so I did it just for you. I clearly did under your permission. However, since Ottava Rima has threaten me to be blocked repeatedly for his unreasonable disliking of my formatting, I have no hope that he behaves "civil" to me. For DR, I've brought the problem of Ottava Rima to the right place. If I demand a block for his threats and harassment, well I'd have gone to AN/I instead of reporting here. Ottava Rima's bad faith accusation is already pointed out by others here.---Caspian blue 03:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It is 100% obvious to anyone who looks at WP:FPC while Caspian blue's three column edit was in place that the page was disrupted because of the formatting. And you can be called disruptive without AGF at all, as disruption is a result of action and has nothing to do with intent. Just like NPA and CIVIL, you have misstated AGF. These are serious problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
      • That is your "wishful thinking". You're indeed continuing to violate NPA and CIVIL and AGF. Your first contribution to FPC is just like this, I believe you would repeat this seriously rude behavior to reveiweers.--Caspian blue 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Enough, could you both please just take a few hours to do just cool down? This is really much ado about nothing. Soxwon (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Ottava Rima's threats are not worthy to report?--Caspian blue 03:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
            • I'm thinking of selling tickets to watch this little row. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
              • C'mon bugs...As for Blue, why should you care if his threats are unjustified? I don't really see anything worth taking offense over from either of you until the discussion had degenerated to the point that it was nothing but slinging accusations back and forth. Soxwon (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Bugs, you love me so much, but didn't I say what allergy I have? :) At Soxwon, if he clearly had said "he dislikes my format", then I'd be more than fine, but he insisted on my computer wrong, so my viewership and edits being "disruptive". I'd recommend you to be familiar with FPC more because providing "better presentation" is also a responsibility of nominators. However, since Ottava Rima stared the disruptive behavior and continued so, the report is warranted. Also on DYK areas, I've seen the "same behavior" of Ottava, so I would more give a credit to others' assessment on Ottava Rima.--04:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • This row seems to be about the layout of the illustrations. Under OR's arrangement, I'm seeing 2 per row, and they fit my screen, which is 1024 x 768. Under CB's arrangement, I have to scroll to the right. That would indicate that OR's arrangement is better. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
                    • Caspian was trying to make the vertical size of the nom smaller, so it didn't take up so much space on the WP:FPC page. He was aiming to make a positive impact, but it didn't work out because you then have to scroll horizontally. It's really not a big deal. wadester16 04:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea this does come down to a misunderstanding (row ≠ column), and is quite petty. Not really a problem if you both can agree to just walk away from it, which is what I would suggest (for the betterment of the project?  ). One user tried to "fix" a problem, and it didn't really work out well. Good faith says thanks but no thanks. Oh well, shit happens. I still think a good compromise would be to use <gallery>...</gallery>; it would keep the size of the nom reasonable and easy to follow. Now I would suggest everyone goes along and does something productive. Buenos noches. wadester16 04:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The gallery approach would seem to be better, seeing as how this involves 10 large illustrations. If they want to show them larger, though, OR's approach is better. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes but all FPCs must be reviewed at full resolution. It really doesn't matter what size the images are on the nom page; you have to click it to review it. wadester16 05:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • At wadester, thank you for the input and thoughtful meditation. I assumed Ottava Rima would not prefer using <gallery> over his own format and image reducing, so I tried to let the image size as it is and to make a flow by using a table and complex hidden tags. The literary work is non-sense poem, so I thought "strict numbering of the images" is not really demanded. My computer screens are at default fixed in 1280 x 800 pixel, and I asked him a screen size, but I rather got uncivil responses in return. If Ottava's computer is fixed in smaller size, his viewing would be different than mine. Anyway, I rather would like to choose "disengagement" since our mentality is so different.--Caspian blue 04:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Right: misunderstanding. Now, everybody... walk away slowly and no one gets hurt! :-) wadester16 05:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Just update before archiving. The FPC set becomes FP. Ottava Rima and I amicably agree that the whole matter is just a misunderstanding and we can work together without it for the next time. :) [90]--Caspian blue 14:21, 7 July 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.

Personal remarks

David Levy has been disputing a requested page move with M, and has begun escalating by making personal remarks to and about M on article talk pages. Both M and I have asked David Levy to stop doing this. David Levy's reply to me is that these personal remarks are not attacks and thus are appropriate.[91] See User talk:David_Levy#peer-to-peer and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Determining primary topic and Talk:Peer-to-peer#Requested move. Would a 4th party step in here? --Una Smith (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a staunch proponent of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, and I unreservedly dispute the apparent assertion that any and all criticism of someone's actions constitutes a personal attack.
When someone repeatedly ignores or fails to comprehend another user's statements, it is entirely appropriate to bring this to his/her attention (in the hope that the situation can then be rectified). The alternative is to allow the confusion to persist.
I noted that something had been repeatedly explained not to belittle M, but in the hope that he/she would take better care in reading the discussions. —David Levy 21:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Can't see any incivility, rudeness or ad hominem attacks here. This is basically a content dispute (albeit what to call the content, rather than what to put in it). If you really cannot reach a consensus on the talk page, I suggest you open a request for comment--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Really? My mistake then. As a bystander, I thought David Levy's remark to M, as has been explained to you over and over again[92], was quite rude. --Una Smith (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
There's not a person who has not had to say "as explained over and over again". I-don't-get-it-ism runs rampant in content disputes. There's no humanly possible way that one can call that incivility. If they had said "look you moron, I have told you again and again", that's quite different. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
What you have here is a dialog of the deaf. User:David Levy thinks you don't understand what he is saying. I suspect you do understand, but don't agree with it, and he is hearing this as you not understanding. I suggest everyone takes a day off, then tries a different approach or way of saying things.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Who is "you"? David Levy's "you" is M, who has not appeared here. Of course it is humanly possible to call as has been explained to you over and over again incivility. I call it incivility. Bwilkins appears to define incivility very narrowly as use of derogatory epithets; my definition is broader. --Una Smith (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
No one is claiming that incivility is limited to name-calling, but it certainly doesn't encompass the mere act of noting that something has repeatedly been explained to someone. This was constructive criticism of M's actions, not an attack on his/her character. —David Levy 22:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Those belong on my talk page, and are entirely inappropriate in a content dispute. From my perspective, you are being equally frustrating - you do not maintain a consistent position, and switch it or add to it when I bring up objections. But I avoid bringing this up, since it leads to needless bickering. Just bite the bullet and slog through the discussion without mentioning the other party.    M   05:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
1. I post messages wherever they're most relevant. A personal attack is a personal attack no matter where it's written, and I do not engage in personal attacks.
2. I don't know why you believe that I "do not maintain a consistent position," but I would like to know. Perhaps if you were to raise these concerns and allow me to address them (instead of adhering to a nonexistent rule against "mentioning the other party"), you would better understand my arguments. —David Levy 05:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, the interaction in question is between M and me (not Una and me). Also note that M asked "Or does my claim that a significant number of readers are looking for file sharing have merit?" after I posted the following:
So I'd say that it's reasonable to state that M has not understood what I've been saying. —David Levy 22:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Una Smith, please consider reading Wikipedia's guidelines on civility. They do have quite a narrow compass, and this is not included in it. In fact, I'd say that everyone in your particular dispute has behaved remarkably well so far (you should see some of 'em!!). I do seriously suggest a short break, then everyone come back and explain what you desire as an outcome (ie how will this improve the project) rather than what you want as an action. If you can all agree on an outcome, the appropriate course of action may become clearer (or it'll give you another circle to go round in, but it does work sometimes.....)Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if it's any help, I thought p2p and filesharing were the same thing... You can mark me down as one of the ignorati :)Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I would be in support of David Levy in this argument. From all experiences I have had with User:M it always appears that M simply ignores other users' arguments or twists them and enters circular discussions that lead nowhere. It is a total waste of time to engage in discussions with M. If David Levy intended to point this out, it can hardly be considered a personal attack but a characterization of the discussion at hand and an explanation of the lack of logic in many of M's arguments. Kbrose (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a personal attack. I seriously doubt that posting here will have any effect, though. The longer a discussion continues without resolution, the less patient participants become, the more likely they are to resort to communicating their frustrations through exasperated sighing. A bigger problem, for me, has been Kbrose, who's been trolling and escalating nearly every discussion at file sharing and peer-to-peer that I've been involved in - yet another example can be found directly above (is it a personal attack? an impartial evaluation? who knows!). His general strategy is to pick out concerns and "wholeheartedly agree" with them, and then vanish from the discussion. Unfortunately, simply putting up with this (somewhat commendable) trolling is easier than going through a dispute resolution process. Anyway - yes, I would like to have zero comments made about other editors. I thank Una Smith for watching out for this sort of thing, and taking a much firmer stance than I would have the patience for.    M   05:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

1. No, it isn't a personal attack. I haven't made any comments about you as a person (apart from expressing my belief that you're a good-faith contributor). I merely constructively criticised a fault in your communication skills to bring to your attention a need for improvement.
2. Do you realize that you just accused another editor of "trolling," immediately followed by the statement that you "would like to have zero comments made about other editors"?
Note that I'm not taking anyone's side in that dispute, as I have absolutely no knowledge of its background. —David Levy 05:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
1) As a guideline, you should simply avoid talking about other editors in content disputes. Simply leave your 'constructive criticism' on their talk page. I don't want to argue the nuances of implicature here. 2) Yes, but this page is here for discussing the actions of other editors, whereas talk:peer-to-peer is for discussing the content or editing of peer-to-peer. (Incidentally, this is why I didn't appreciate you spilling this p2p dispute into my question at WT:D, when I was very careful to avoid mentioning it.)    M   05:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
1. No, neither Wikipedia nor I operate under such a guideline. "Talking about other editors" is not the same as personally attacking them.
2. What page one posts on has absolutely no bearing on whether something is a personal attack. A message can be on-topic or off-topic depending on the venue, but it's either a personal attack everywhere or a personal attack nowhere. Noting that something has repeatedly been explained to someone is not a personal attack. (And for the record, it was an on-topic reply to your message.)
3. As I've already noted (and please don't take offense to that), another editor (neither you nor I) introduced the "peer-to-peer" context to that discussion, and I responded by attempting to counter potentially incorrect inferences. —David Levy 05:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You're incorrect, diverting a content discussion to a discussion of editor behavior is against the NPA policy - see the last point at Wikipedia:Talk#Good_practices, and the last sentence of Wikipedia:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F this section. Incidentally, someone should give Kbrose a stern warning, as per point 4 of that section.    M   07:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.
    I was focusing on the topic at hand by noting that a relevant point had been explained to you. I did not comment on your personality.
  • When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.
    That sentence pertains to the previous one, which refers to "insulting or disparaging an editor." At no point was I "in doubt" regarding my comment's non-insulting, non-disparaging nature. Thus far, you haven't even explained how it was a personal attack, other than the fact that I mentioned you. —David Levy 07:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Your semantic analysis is incorrect, but it's a good try... perhaps you should give implicature another look - it's hard for some people to grasp, but if you read it slowly and carefully, what everybody has been telling you might seem a bit more clear. I hope you likewise have no reason to doubt the non-insulting, non-disparaging nature of the prior sentence ;) If I didn't manage to make the problem clear, I do hope that the comments here at least lead you to believe that people are hypersensitive, which should result in the requisite doubt.    M   09:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
M: numerous neutral third party editors here in WP:WQA have mentioned again and again that we do not believe that the comments by David Levy constitute either incivility or a personal attack. Did I just attack you? No. I summarized a day's worth of discussion in a way that is hopefully clear for you. There will be no warnings for David Levy on this specific matter. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Two (numerous?) uninvolved editors have stated this, and one of them has re-stated this, once (mentioned again and again?). So you are inaccurate, though of course this isn't a personal attack, since you do not actually mention me. I'm not pursuing a warning (except perhaps for Kbrose, though I've given him one myself), though Una Smith might still be.    M   22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Frei Hans

  Unresolved
 – RFC filed Papa November (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(This has been restored from archive due to ongoing problems) Verbal chat 10:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed conduct
Evidence of warnings issued to user
Background
  • Frei Hans created the (now deleted) Telepathy and War article.
  • Verbal nominated the article for deletion.
  • The AfD discussion is archived here.
  • I nominated a copyright violating image uploaded by Frei Hans for deletion here.
  • Verbal, myself and other editors removed several sections of text from the article during the deletion discussion, which we believed to be obvious original research, synthesised opinion or wholly irrelevant to the article. We stated this repeatedly in edit summaries and throughout the deletion debate.
  • Frei Hans has requested deletion review of the image here.
Possible resolution

I would ask that Frei Hans does the following:

  1. Accept the definition of vandalism given at WP:VAND, and understand that content disputes and bold edits are explicitly not considered vandalism.
  2. Agree not to accuse other editors of vandalism unless their conduct is explicitly defined as such at WP:VAND
  3. Agree to follow the proper dispute resolution process if he disagrees with another editor
  4. Agree to assume good faith from other editors
  5. Agree to only make accusations of sockpuppetry at an appropriate venue, such as WP:SSP

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Papa November (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Papa N's summary and analysis. My advice has fallen on stony ground. Verbal chat 15:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
This user has today extended his attacks onto the Editing requests board and the AIV board, where he claims that I and PN are sockpuppets, abuse IP addresses and are vandals. He has engaged in prolonged attacks and forum shopping, ignoring advice and dispute resolution procedures. Verbal chat 19:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was the admin that declined his AIV reports [93] against Verbal and an IP editor. I did it primarily on procedural grounds - AIV is not the venue for discussing a content dispute from more than a week ago. But in the process of investigating the complaint, I really couldn't find a great deal of basis for it, and I considered the possibility that it might have just been vexatious forum-shopping. He has not taken it further at this time, and I'm happy to let it drop - but I'd agree that he needs to stop the poorly-evidenced accusations. ~ mazca talk 15:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Update

This user has extended their campaign of incivility and groundless accusations and attacks to DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_July_4#Telepathy_and_war. Can someone please intervene as he considers everyone so far involved to be a vandal; see this response to a final warning (many more than 4 have been issued by various people) secure diff on his talk page. If this continues he will probably end up indef blocked. Verbal chat 10:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, this was archived as it's beyond the scope of WQA, and will likely/unfortunately require an WP:RFC/U for community discussion. I have left one (hopefully final) post on the user's talkpage, but there is not much else we can do. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, as you hadn't commented here and I didn't see your post (and it wasn't tagged) I thought it had just fallen off the radar. That's a shame. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
...and he acts contrary to WP:DICK in his reply to me. Not much else I can do Verbal - do an RFC, link to my attempts to assist if you must. This is not an editor whose actions are conducive to collaborative editing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I fully appreciate your attempts. Despite claims I don't stalk this user, so I missed you advice. Sorry for restoring it. Best, Verbal chat 17:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing

I am closing this thread in favour of an RFC on the user's conduct. Papa November (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Users Verbal and Papa November

Users have been deleting well referenced, informative and neutrally presented content.

Users Verbal and Papa November began to campaign for the deletion of a page I recently created. They worked in tandem, one seemed to have more administerial capability then the other. They removed large blocks of well referenced content and citation to reputable sources, then claimed that the article was unreferenced and that the entire article should be deleted. They removed at least 17 references to reputable sources before trying to claim that the article was unreferenced "fringe material". They have begun to follow me to other pages I edit and attempt the same thing. They try various ways to remove content, including reversions to versions where they have deleted referenced content and redirections to articles that contain different content.

The first article (that I am aware of) that they campaigned for the deletion of was later deleted by another administrator who was found in an arbitration case to be a disruptive sock puppeteer. The users try to claim that the content they are removing or trying to remove is not written neutrally, but both show bias in their choice of content for removal. The users have shown bad faith, posted provocative messages on my user page and now seem to follow me from article to article. They keep suggesting I take any complaint I have with this to various Wikipedia forum pages. I did seek editorial assistance but then the user Verbal began to complain I was "forum-shopping" - although he seems to have spent more time posting aggressive messages then in creating content himself.

I would like these two editors, and any associated accounts of theirs that they might be using, to stop following me around and to stop posting aggressive and threatening messages on my user page and to stop deleting content until they can show they are operating without bias and in good faith. Frei Hans (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Update

The user Papa November chose to rename and merge my alert with his own, which he reposted after it had already been archived. I stress that this is a separate alert and that his was archived and over. I find their actions tedious and immature. Frei Hans (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of etiquette violations..... Frei Hans has decided that he doesn't like the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ASIO File (which he created), so he has decided to simply ignore it and restore the article over the redirect. Papa November, as it happens, started the AFD, but I just as well could have, since I was the one who put the redirect there in the first place, which Frei Hans reverted. Frankly I think this has gone beyond the etiquette stage, and that this could move on to AN/I, since FH is simply willfully disregarding WP process. THis is not about etiquette, but about edit-warring. Mangoe (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The article could not be deleted. Papa November tried to "disappear it" by nominating it for deletion, but failed. The next best he could try was redirection of the article to another article with different content. Other users wanted to keep the article but Papa November over rid them in redirecting the article and then moving to stop other users from editing the article after he redirected it. I am not "edit warring", Papa November and Verbal have taken it on themselves to provoke "edit warring". I find their edits show bias and Verbal's comments in particular show childish incivility. Frei Hans (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Can something be done about Frei Hans? His tendentiousness and his abuse of the dispute resolution process through multiple, frivolous filings need to be brought to an end. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Pardon? Other users urged me seek editorial assistance and this page. Papa November was particularly insistent in trying to goad me into visiting this page. Frei Hans (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec)It's about edit-warring, ownership of articles[94], ignoring any practices and policies with which he disagrees, accusing editors with whom he disagrees of vandalism (Verbal, Papa November) and sockpuppetry (me) and the whole thing adds up to a lot of disruption.  pablohablo. 14:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
One moment, I never accused you of sock puppetry. Your comment implies you are admitting it though. Frei Hans (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment This is pretty clear cut. User:Frei Hans, either you stop this vexatious, querulous and obnoxious pattern of engagement immediately, or else I - or any reasonable editor - will head over to AN/I and request you be blocked. Eusebeus (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is clear cut. Verbal and Papa November's "gang" go around trying to delete content just because it doesn't conform to their respective editorial biases. They seem to have gotten away with bullying others and now think they can get away with it with me. If I could, I would take out a restraining order on them both. Frei Hans (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Eusebeus. As an editor uninvolved in this dispute, I move to close this thread as beyond the scope of WQA and as a complaint that makes many accusations without any diffs as evidence. Suggest bringing to ANI if Frei Hans does not drop the WP:STICK. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
How is that a page like WP:STICK can exist, but the reputably referenced article's Papa November and Verbal have been trying to delete are apparently "fringe" material in their opinion. Frei Hans (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Get this guy out of here to stop the disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Branglifer ... I'm not sure that the tone of the above was really correct for WQA ... our intent is to facilitate communication. Your statement could have been taken as "get this guy out of [Wikipedia]" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Fixed for this context. It's a bit premature to be talking about actually banning the guy, but who knows what the future holds? -- Brangifer (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, socking, block reset

Considering the following, maybe I'm too slow:

-- Brangifer (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As of last check, there's no proof yet that he was socking himself. Besides, what does that have to do with this WQA filing? Yes, he's blocked for disruption, so we close the WQA and stop piling on. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

An RFC on the conduct of User:Frei Hans has been filed. Please comment at the subpage. Papa November (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Papa November, all you ever seem to do is delete content, file complaints, and try to draw others into these time wasting processes instead of creating content. I do not like the way you go about things, and feel you are constantly goading me and stalking every edit I make. Please stop. Frei Hans (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I recommend that you stop Frei. I provided a friendly bit of advice to avoid problems, and you steamrolled them. Then you filed a tit-for-tat WQA filing, which never ever goes well. If you look around, and 5 people are saying "whoa", it's a good idea to whoa. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this fall under "longterm, ongoing conflicts between two users" which is beyond the scope of WQA and needs to go to mediation unless the editors can agree to avoid each other or resolve content disputes in a civilized manner. --neon white talk 22:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It's already gone elsewhere, but it's a long way from being a dispute between two users.  pablohablo. 22:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive66&oldid=1143025820"