Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive102

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


User Uirauna

This user has been manipulating and reverting the Iran-Iraq War page both under his own name and under other sockpuppets. He has multiple aliases, as you can clearly see by the way he writes. All accounts use similar wordings and sentence structures, in that the posts are made up of similar grammatical English styles. He has also been asked several times not to throw words such as vandalism around so liberally, as he clearly doesn't understand how it applies to various scenarios. He tends to put down editors and get his own way by accusing them of vandalism etc, when he doesn't want them to write about certain topics. Most likely the topics conflict with his own agenda.

Lately, he has resorted to personal attacks against me. See his latest posting on the discussion section of the Iran-Iraq war page. Please consider this a formal complaint. This user has difficulty accepting the current agreed consensus amongst the various editors. Kind Regards (RobVanden 06:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvanden (talk • contribs)

This is probably a retaliation from my previous complaint here: [1]. The user is a proven and blocked sockpuppet (process here: [2]) who fails to be civil and respect WP rules. I stand by my actions so far, I have done no such personal attacks (actually, I believe I didn´t, I´m quite carefull not to be offensive to anyone). Rob, if you think I have sockpuppets, please open a complaint at WP:RFCU. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Will Beback and Sam Vaknin

User:Will Beback seems to be rampaging through Wikpedia wiping out all Sam Vaknin material, thus undoing hard work done by various people, and also unnecessarily trimming See Alsos.--Penbat (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you specify what exactly is wrong with this series of edits? If you specify what exactly is wrong, it'll be easier to understand what this alert is for. SilverserenC 09:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Its not the Sam Vaknin article itself which is the problem its the fact that he has annihilated pretty much all Sam Vaknin material from other articles - see Special:Contributions/Will_Beback--Penbat (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The material I removed is from self-published sources. While editors may disagree with that policy, or my interpretation of it, I don't see this as a Wikiquette issue. Maybe we should discuss this at WP:RSN?   Will Beback  talk  09:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
just because a small proportion of his work is self-published that is no excuse to anihilate him from Wikipedia. He has also been involved in countless third-party publications and his opinion is commonly sought in high profile journals and newspapers. Also quite a few of the refs used in other articles to his work are third party refs by others.--Penbat (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Its one of the drawbacks of a publication like Wikipedia, Penbat. What might be perfectly reasonable in another encyclopedia is not allowed here (in my opinion because it limits Wikipedia's lawsuit exposure). -- Avanu (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
If I've made any errors I'd be happy to fix them. Can you point to the non-SPS citations which I deleted?   Will Beback  talk  09:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, rather than discuss it further Penbat1 is just reverting my edits without explanation.   Will Beback  talk  10:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that at least some, probably all, of these sources should be removed. There's no justification, for example, in citing Vaknin's (or anyone else's) self-published material in Empire. See WP:SPS for when we're allowed to use that kind of material. I also agree that this isn't the place to discuss it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 12:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
As we all know, selfpub sources WP:SELFPUB are permitted on Wikipedia depending on how and when they are used. Therefore, a blanket deletion of a self pub source would be improper. At the same time, WBB has said he is willing to repair any mistakes, so if specific diffs could be provided then the situation could be corrected as needed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Slef-published material as acceptable and not grounds in and of itself for removal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
It's grounds for removal when it violates WP:SPS, which is policy, and all or most of these edits did violate it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Which of user willbebacks edits violated policy ? Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Not Will's; he was removing the SPS, correctly, but was reverted. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Are there any edit restrictions in this area, perhaps related to associated sectors that user willbeback is closely associated to editing in, such as Transcendental Meditation, or associated sectors or attached to the sector of LaRouche movement? - It would imo and others that user willbeback would better remove himself from the areas he is associated with and begin editing in areas he is uninvolved in long term association with. Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean, Rob. The situation is that someone has added an SPS to lots of articles unnecessarily, where there are plenty of other appropriate sources. It looks like spamming. So Will removed some of it, and was reverted. He shouldn't have been reverted, because the material violated SPS. Then for reasons I still don't understand, it was reported here. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I am looking at the bigger picture - User:Willbeback is a single purpose account editing in support of his own POV across a well known sector of articles and issues, this is exactly the reason a good faith editor has found reason to report him here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with your assessment of Will as an SPA. :) He correctly removed spam. There's no need for a discussion about it here, because the policy is clear about this kind of source, and it was added to articles the source had no remote connection to. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I know you respect him and support him and that you both edit in some associated fields such as Larouche (diff available if required} but this is worthy of a read - User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior - 'Beware of users so in love with their own virtue, that they are incapable of recognizing when it has become vice; and so in love with their own eloquence, that they can not see when it has become hypocrisy. The former are those who never admit to any wrong, but yet demand apologies from others for the lapses of judgement to which all human beings are prone; and the latter are the blindest and most intractable of POV-pushers. Skill with words correlates neither with virtue nor wisdom' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)
It's good advice, which applies to us all. I think this is best closed, because it's clearly inappropriate on this page, and the spamming (or whatever it is) does need to stop—including in the interests of the author himself, who it's worth making clear isn't responsible for it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Vaknin's material is frequently cited by academics in the field of narcissism etc. see: [3][4][5][6])[7]) I also happen to know that the following books all reference or cite Vaknin:

  • Lisa E. Scott, He's So Vain He Can't See You (2008) p. 8
  • Frank H. Columbus/Serge P. Shohow, Advances in Psychology Research, Vol 31 (2004) p. 5
  • Simon Crompton, All About Me: Loving a Narcissist (London 2007) p. 31
  • David Thomas Narcissism: Behind The Mask (2010) p. 28
  • Ronningstam, Elsa F. Identifying and Understanding the Narcissistic Personality (2005) (can't remember the page number)

Vaknin's views on narcissism are considered to be high profile enough to be featured in various articles in the quality press such as "Adrian Tempany When narcissism becomes pathological Financial Times September 4 2010" and in "Yvonne Roberts The monster in the mirror The Sunday Times September 16, 2007" where his opinions are included together with those of other luminaries. See also Megalomaniacs abound in politics/medicine/finance Business Day 2011/01/07 which refers to Vaknin as an "expert" and the first "expert" mentioned by name and the second named "expert" Dr Jose Romero-Urcelay a UK forensic psychiatrist and director of therapies at the unit for dangerous and severe personality disorders at Broadmoor Hospital agrees with him.

It defies any sort of common sense that there are many academic books that cite or reference Vaknin yet it is considered inappropriate that Wikipedia can do so. Are we also saying that the quality press such as the Sunday Times and Financial Times have got it wrong by interviewing Vaknin alongside other luminaries ? None of the above newspapers said we cant use him as he is SPS. It is hardly reasonable to find a third party citation of every paragraph that Vaknin has ever written. --Penbat (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've asked you to give examples of academics citing his research, and you've so far not done it. They sometimes mention him as an example of a sufferer, but that's not what's meant. And anyway, someone had added him to Empire and to an article about Russia. It looked like spamming, and it's not in his interests to do this, in case it looks as though he was the one who did it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Penbat has been provided opportunity to explain why Will Beback should not have removed these edits and has failed to do so. This discussion thread should be closed. TFD (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this may not be the best place to discuss this dispute, because personal attacks are not claimed. Figureofnine (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

user:Arthur Smart - bigotry & personal attacks

The editor wrote [8] that the vision statement for Wikiproject Conservatism is "bald-faced lie", and "that lie's chief perpetrator." In the edit summary he wrote "are all conservatives liars, or just the creator of this project." Accusing me of lying, and then actually calling me a liar is a clear violation of WP:NPA. The edit sum reveals a bigotry against conservatives.

Several times [9] [10] I explained to him that the vision statement was aspirational, which is typical for vision statements. Unfortunately his hatred of conservatives has blinded him to all reason resulting in this anti-conservative, bigoted and disruptive outburst. Lionel (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You know, this isn't going to get very far when the statement that he was accusing you of lying about was "WikiProject Conservatism is the recognized world wide resource for documenting the conservative movement". When he changed that to "aspires someday to be", you reverted it back to the inaccurate statement. Accusing him of bigotry here is a personal attack, so why don't you both just stop insulting the other and go back to editing articles? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. This is not an article. It is a wikiproject subpage.
  2. A vision statement by definition is "the way an organization or enterprise will look in the future." Based on the definition Arthur's edit is deficient. He is under the mistaken assumption that a vision statement must be a provable statement.
  3. But that isn't the point: Arthur called me a liar, and disparaged all conservatives.Lionel (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Sarek. The "visions statement" obviously isn't true, and this is a silly dispute which has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia.   Will Beback  talk  22:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
"Insulting each other?" I did not call him a name. I described behavior. His edit summary was a derogatory blanket generalization of an entire group of people and I wrote that it was a "bigoted...outburst." (Ital mine.) And when you make a derogatory blanket generalization, well, it's properly referred to as bigotry. There is no BOOMERANG here. Lionel (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you Will that fighting over this subpage is silly. The page in question is a step above a user page, and has no readers. Question: does it matter if a vision statement is true, and if yes, on what do you base that? Lionel (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Project pages are part of the project. Writing obviously incorrect statements is unhelpful and fighting over them is just pugnacious. If the statement is contentious then just delete it. Every Wikiproject has the same goal - improving the articles within its topic.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Samaleks

User Samaleks had been targeting me by conducting several violations of Wikiquette.

  1. Samaleks had been going against WP:AGF consistently on my edits.
  2. Samaleks had been going against the principle of Work towards agreement, by refusing to admit valid arguments presented.
  3. Samaleks had been constantly alleging meat puppetry on myself and a few other editors active on these pages, violating the principle of Argue facts, not personalities.
  4. Samaleks, on some articles, had been constantly making false claims, where the references cited doesn't support them. At the same time, he dismissed valid references on some other pages. This is in violation of the principle of Do not make misrepresentations
  5. Samaleks constantly sidesteps the arguments raised, and repeats vague claims of the reference being mentioning the fact, ignoring requests to point out the specific part of the reference that does. This is in violation of the Do not ignore questions principle.
  6. Samalake has used terms in malayalam language that are slurs, violating the principle of Be Civil

Some diffs here. Reading the Talk pages of the articles mentioned above shows a lot of examples of the consistent behaviour of this editor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thiruvananthapuram&diff=prev&oldid=416542591

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thiruvananthapuram&diff=prev&oldid=416923048

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thiruvananthapuram&diff=prev&oldid=417377555

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kochi&diff=prev&oldid=419391169

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kochi&diff=prev&oldid=419751540

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kochi&diff=prev&oldid=420249885

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:InfoPark,_Kochi&diff=prev&oldid=421665140

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aarem&diff=prev&oldid=417801508

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DileepKS69&diff=prev&oldid=420994796

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bijuts&diff=prev&oldid=421843027


Samaleks is a very senior editor, with a lot of good edits to his credit. It is really unfortunate that he is violating Wikiquettes like this. He could very well make positive contribution without resorting to these tactics, if he could forget his own biases and prejudices. I am not seeking any punitive measures by raising this alert. I only wish him to recognize his folly, and act according to Wikiquette.

DileepKS(talk) 14:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


oh dear dileep, you was a great actor on wiki!!!. everyone knows about your discussions about wikipages of Kozhikode and Thiruvananthapuram on Kochinow forums. every one viewed it before you deleted that tread fom the forum as you are a moderator there. every one knows about the wars occurred in Skyscapercity forums and the move of the foromers of kochi scc to kochinow forus. you have to move from scc because the moderators there was very strong and they BANNED all the foroumers who triggered the war. you editors also discussed about the mods very abuse fully in kochi now forums.

I don't think the above editor's allegations about you are not wrong. the discussions in kochinow was like that. from the discussions, you editors from kochinow forum has only one thing to do, Glorify Kochi and destroy other city articles and you are doing it very organized and slowly.

here is one of your statements from kochi now 

""The only way to deal with the vandals is to be cool, systematic and methodical always. Do
things slowly and steady. Right now, we have removed most of the malicious content. Doing
too much too soon will attract attention, and we will have a war at hand. Let us go easy on
the edits, and do it slow.""


You editors are vandalizing Wikipedia in the name of WIKI LAWS. if you are not so biased, why did you deleted the tread against wiki from kochinow forums after it's been mentioned in Wikipedia???. everyone knows you will reorganize and continue your discussions through more secure means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.14.52.212 (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

remember dileep: "Not to argue and win but to know and to make known" this will not suit you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.14.52.212 (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear IP Editor (I am not alleging you are Samaleks, but you seem to always support him). You are welcome to initiate a sock/meat puppetry investigation on any editor, including myself. Let me also mention that you are violating the Argue facts, not personalities principle here.
Let me repeat. I am not requesting any action on Samaleks here. I just want him to realize what he is doing, mend his ways and to follow the Wikiquette. The same applies to you, IP user under 49.xx.xx.xx, because your behaviour also is exactly the same.
DileepKS(talk) 06:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
you think i am a sock samaleks because of i supported him?? then i can mention that you and your friends are meat puppets because you supports them everywhere.
old man, if you want him to realize what he is doing, you can talk to him on the talk page instead of writing all these here. and i DONT want to initiate a sock/meat puppetry BIG ""INVESTIGATION"" for finding that you and your beloved ""FRIENDS" are meat puppets. it's clear from your forum discussions. and i send the above message is to REALIZE you that EVERYBODY knows how BIASED YOU ARE. and every one knows how you and your friends organized to edit the page Kochi. i red your forum posts and that's why i supported samaleks.

about my behavior - simple!!! it's better than you!!! i don't try to say "mine is bigger than you" to everyone like you in the forums. also, i don't want your ""principles"". 49.14.85.150 (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear IP Editor. Whether you want or not, the principles of wikiquette I quoted are binding on the users of Wikipedia. The only way to not adhere to them is to not venture into editing. The very reason I raised this investigation is to draw attention to the fact that Editor Samaleks, and IP Editors like yourself, are not abiding with them.
DileepKS(talk) 07:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

User:OhNoitsJamie

There's an ongoing debate over the inclusion of facetious synposis Baby_Got_Back in which User:OhNoitsJamie is exploiting his administrative privileges and acting in violation with Wikipedia guidelines: namely, not being nice to newcomers, refusing discussion, forcing his own opinion onto others.

His position regarding the synopsis itself is (in my opinion) probably correct. What I can't stomach is his high horse attitude. This is NOT how Wikipedia should be functioning. This man is an administrator, his actions should be exemplary to other contributors. Instead he behaves like he forgot about his responsibilities and only enjoys his power.

"I agree. There's nothing more for me to add to this conversation, and as I said before, anyone re-adding this or similar synopses will be warned once and blocked. Editors who've already been blocked for it once will be blocked for a longer period. That's all, folks."

This is not how an administrator should act at all. The correct way to resolve this would be to listen to any arguments others might have, and warn them not to change the article unless there's a consensus to do it. Not this "I said no, end of story".

Guess what happened when I wrote him about that? He deleted that message commenting "not useful". Another example of high horse attitude.

Moreover, it turns out he deleted the history revisions containing the synopsis in question, without obtaining any consensus whatsoever with people on the talk page. This is clearly not an action required for keeping wikipedia clean, but just a display of his "power" against those who oppose him.

I'm not sure if this warrants a de-admin request as it is, but I at least hope that the community urges user:OhNoitsJamie to reflect on his actions and choose a more tolerable attitude in the future. I hope he remembers that he's not the one deciding anything. He's just a public servant. -- 91.79.20.246 (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I made a Wikiquette complaint about him a week or so ago, and concur - I had the same impression. I've had his talk page on watch since then and it's difficult to see him as a calming influence. I suspect being an admin can be quite a hassle and will get to some people eventually. I don't know much about him till recently, but maybe he's got to that point. DeCausa (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Jamie has been dealing with this crap for awhile now, and I don't begrudge him a bit of frustration. This all stems from a dumb internet meme that breaks down dumb pops songs into excruciating, over-analyzed detail that came to AN/I's attention last fall. If people are still trying to jam this junk into articles, they're gonna get what they deserve, IMO. Tarc (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't know anything about the article in question - I was just noticing from my interaction with him and the stuff on his talk page over the last week or two that he doesn't seem to behave in a way that other admins generally do. DeCausa (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
If this administrator is threatening to use his tools in a content dispute, that's serious and should be reported to the Administrators Noticeboard. Figureofnine (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
That is not a correct assessment of the situation. The admin in question is not a vested contributor in the article, he was merely there to remove vandalism and sanction the vandals. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Tarc. When an admin has been monitoring a known problem on a specific article in their capacity as an admin, then it is within their remit to use their tools on said article should the issues recur. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Then there is no issue here. Figureofnine (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
See this thread and the original ANI posting. There's been a recent rallying by predominiately SPA's to attempt to bring the silly synopsis back, resulting in protection of the article. Yes, I do find the whole thing very tiresome. A few revisions were deleted per as being "purely disruptive," an interpretation I stand by. I should note that following the protection, a contributor completed a well-done expansion of the article that conforms with policy guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Being tired is no justification for being a bad admin. As long as someone's willing to hold a proper discussion, the discussion should be held. If you feel you cannot stay neutral and support it, it's a clear sign you should call another administrator and abstain from participating yourself. Not that you should declare your opinion final and threaten to ban people who stubbornly disagree with you. -- 91.79.23.181 (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Except it still was a content dispute, because there were people that believed this content satisfied all the rules of wikipedia and were ready to support their claims in discussion. They just got slapped in their face by this admin. "I said no, so no". -- 91.79.23.181 (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure being an administrator is a difficult job. It is not something most people could do well. It is my experience and belief that User:Ohnoitsjamie is, at present, ill suited to the task of Wikipedia administrator. I was one of the editors who argued in favor of the inclusion of the synopsis at Talk:Baby Got Back. My initial editorial action on this article was to revert his deletion and to call for discussion on the talk page prior to deletion of a section. No substantive discussion had previously been held. For this action (one reversion and a call for discussion) I was summarily issued a final warning and threat to block. This editor has consistently violated the assumption of good faith policy and uses intimidation as his primary argumentative tool. I would suggest he be removed immediately as an administrator. Furthermore, there is a small group of about 3 editors who troll articles looking for hip-hop translations/interpretations and vigorously delete them. They have invented their own new Wikipedia policy which is referred to as the "Verbose meme". Yes, perhaps the synopsis on this page should have been removed or modified and that argument was over months ago when I got no support from any other editors. But, to emaciate the history of the article simply as a way to support your jihad against hip-hop lyric translation is over the top. This, i consider vandalism. His reason for the history deletions is that the revisions were "purely disruptive". That means this editor is stating that my revision re-instating the synopsis (which he has deleted) was purely disruptive. I must take exception. I argued, I think, quite correctly that the synopsis was not original research. The only legitimate argument for its deletion was the claim that it is original research. It is not. It is simply a translation from hip-hop slang to English. To claim that my edit was purely disruptive is false and provides additional evidence of this editor's utter disregard for the assumption of good faith. Please read the discussion at Talk:Baby_Got_Back#Synopsis and Talk:Baby_Got_Back#Content_of_Synopsis to see the tenor and nature of this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorfree (talk • contribs) 05:52, 6 April 2011
This is not a forum for requesting disciplinary action against an administrator. I think this topic should be closed. Figureofnine (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Jamie's reaction to the protracted silliness on this article is understandable, and certainly not grounds to make sweeping claims like "ill suited to the task of Wikipedia administrator". DeCausa's complaint last week was valid, if minor (IMHO). This one isn't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It is not my intention to request disciplinary action or argue the merits of editorial actions. I simply put forth my experiences with this editor in support of the claim he is acting in violation of Wikipedia guidelines with respect to his interaction with other editors. User:Ohnoitsjamie issued a final warning and threat to block with no initial warning after I had made a single revert with comment calling for discussion. He refused to listen to discussion, called me disruptive for calling for discussion ("I'm not going to engage in a debate with someone pretending to not be in on the joke; it's a waste of time"), accused me of wikilawyering when I quoted Wikipedia policy in support of my contention the edit was not original research, deleted 20 revisions of an article's history without discussion and claims consensus was reached to do so, and has consistently shown little regard for the assumption of good faith when addressing other editors in discussion. Maybe I just walked into a fire fight and this editor had had enough so I was treated like the other potentially disruptive editors he had been dealing with. I do not know. However, disagreement is not disruptive and it seems if one disagrees with User:Ohnoitsjamie they are likely to be considered disruptive and blocked. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Rikster2 -- Inappropriate behavior and personal attacks

User was extremely rude and condescending during AfD. User threatened to nominate for deletion other articles I had worked on if I didn't leave the discussion. His exact words were: "Stand down, buddy." I then said that I didn't find the threat and order constructive, trying to return the conversation back to the discussion at hand. User replied by again telling me to "stand down," and nominating one of the before mentioned articles for deletion (result: no consensus). User later made several other inappropriate comments during the discussion: 1) "I am done with what is a pretty clear case of failed notability and interested in hearing other opinions. You have made your "case." If you'd like to continue to do so, knock yourself out." User continued to participate in the discussion after this statement. 2) "Shut up." 3) "Blueman, nice presumptive close." Blueman33 (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The User tried to intimidate me from sharing my opinion, made a threat, followed through with the threat, and made multiple rude comments. Blueman33 (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
None of this was my intent from the discussion referenced. "Stand down" only meant that I knew from past experience that the AfD would be supported (and it was). statement 1) was after blueman33 essentially tried to dominate the discussion to get his article through. The full quote for 2) was "Now how about you and I both shut up - both of our opinions are abundantly clear" - meant that both he and I had given our opinion and that others should be allowed to express their opinions. 3) I don't know what to say, it was a presumptive close ("it" being his statement: "I think we're reaching the logical conclusion of this discussion") - as was his characterizing the article as "Easy keep" when it clearly wasn't. I didn't see that as particularly insulting. "Leslie McDonald" was nominated for deletion because it was similar to other artilces that had been discussed. Bottom line - I didn't do anything wrong. I would recommend that anyone considering this complaint read the whole AfD for Watts - starting with the notification I put on the user's talk page about applying the AfD to Watts (found here). I was very polite. If you read the Watts AfD discussion, you will see that user Blueman33 often took a mocking tone to those who opposed his POV. I find it kind of amusing that he is now trying to cry foul. He dishes as much or more as he takes. Rikster2 (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
1) I was not trying to dominate any conversation, including the one in question. This is, again, a false accusation. I, like several other users (including the user in question), did post multiple statements in that discussion (link above). I wouldn't even be surprised if a few others posted more than I did. "Stand down, buddy," during an AfD is rude and inappropriate period, and has no place in Wikipedia. Exact quote: "OK, I'll be happy to put Knox, McDonald, Strickland and Bullock up for AfD too. None of those guys meet the criteria either. The criteria for college athletes is pretty strict and it's linked above. Stand down, buddy." The user clearly threatened me, and when I did not obey the order, he/she followed through with the threat (nominated Leslie McDonald for deletion; result=no consensus). We should be encouraging discussion, not stifling it when we don't agree. 2) Just because one includes others or oneself in a "shut up," doesn't make it any less insulting. In each of the above two cases, I made it clear that I did not think the user's behavior was appropriate, and instead of apologizing, the user attempted to justify his or her actions. 3) If I did post anything inappropriate, I invite anyone to please show as much. -Blueman33 (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Great, we have a different interpretation of events. I will let whomever monitors and decides on these things read the AfD in question and make their own determination. If I get a ban or a suspension out of it, so be it (though I seriously doubt that will happen). As I said, I didn't do anything wrong and you have misinterpreted my comments. You are also making a bigger deal out of this than it deserves and have made no attempt to solve it with me before initiating this. You also didn't notify me that you'd even started this entry about me, which would have been proper form. Rikster2 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks to me like you've both locked horns and that the best thing to do would be to disengage. Rikster, calling someone "buddy" in that context is condescending, please don't be so confrontational. Blueman, it's not worth getting so riled with one nominator when it was consensus as judged by the closing admin that led to deletion of the article, not simply the nomination. I'd suggest that you both let others comment here instead of continuing to argue. Fences&Windows 22:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Fences. I'm not complaining about the AfD or the result (obviously I disagree with it, but that's not my complaint). My complaint is Rikster2's behavior in the AfD. A simple apology could have cleared the whole thing up. I gave Rickster multiple opportunities to apologize, but as you can see, he/she still doesn't think he/she did anything wrong. That's the problem. -Blueman33 (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Promethean

Resolved
 – No reply from Ebe for 5 days. Apology issued via Email, Page deleted and user warned by Fences and windows.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Promethean has been reviewing me at my editor review and he was uncivil. I was not minding it just to the user did more still on my editor review. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 16:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Four possibilities:
  1. It might be useful to listen to what he says, and you can overlook how he says it: this does not appear to be the case, since you've come here.
  2. It might be useful to listen to what he says, but you don't want to because of how he says it: then delete his comments (it's your editor review), ignore him, at the risk of missing out on some useful info.
  3. He isn't saying anything useful, but you can overlook how he says it: this does not appear to be the case, but if it were, the solution is, again, to ignore him.
  4. He isn't saying anything useful, and you don't want to hear it because of how he says it: then delete his comments (it's your editor review), ignore him, and you aren't even risking missing out on some useful info.
I've found that Options #3 and #4 are most common with Promethean, but note that in all four cases, the solution isn't to come here. The solution is to stop talking to him, delete his comments if you wish, and if he doesn't take the hint and keeps pestering you after you stop talking to him, then come here and ask someone to get him to stop. Saying things in a stupid way, so that the person you're talking to is not inclined to listen, is his weakness, not yours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Done possibility 3 4.
Done ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 17:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
What I said Stands: However blunt my review was, it was true and accurate to the picture I and several others have accertained of this user. His inability to take in the review on its merits and admit he wants to 'get up there' way to fast is disappointing but will only hurt his prospects of doing just that. Regarding the removal, What I said doesn't need to be on the page because it's something that is blatantly clear and will come up in any RFA. I myself have watchlisted future RFA's from this user and will air my concerns there as it seems that the Editor Review process isnt made for bad things to be said about a person, however true they are. As for ACC right whoring, the tool admins are also well aware of your history and I doubt they will be changing thier position any time soon though I have no say in this. Though I find it funny that no reference to the removed review, however blunt it was, was made on the page (IE "Review by Promethean removed" with a link to the diff) and some will view this as a perversion of the Wikipedia namespace (you don't own Wikipedia namespace pages) and the Editor Review process. I have put the review on the talk page per convention such as those at RFA. So yes, the outcomes are perfect and everything is as it should be.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd also like to say that whilst my Review was 100x more blunt than BelovedFreak's, we both mentioned the 'desperate to get power' image that people have of Ebe, so to say its completly unuseful when two people have said it and Ebe has ignored it is a failure to take critism on his part. Ebe needs to understand Im not gaining anything here and this whole process isnt doing me any harm, however, if he doesnt think to himself "Geez two people are saying this now I wonder why they think of me this way" then that is his loss, not mine.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The editor review process asks for constructive criticism, but doesn't give a carte blanche to be rude to someone, whatever their faults. Given that Ebe was following Floquenbeam's advice in deleting your comment, it seems unfair to harangue him about it on his talk page [11] - an editor review isn't really the equivalent of an RFA. I can see that you hoped your review would help Ebe improve, but now you've made your point, I can't see the harm in letting the post disappear.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
As far as Harangue'ing Ebe about the removal, which is a bit of a stretch, I was more annoyed at the fact he opened a Wikiquette Alert (which is a discussion), notified me about it and then posted on my page that the "discussion is over" an hour later after he saw Floquenbeam's contribution before I could even get my 2 cents in or address his concerns which I agree to some extent are valid. You can add to his editor review that he needs to understand how Wikiquette Alerts works in future. Also note that posting messages on specific people's talk pages with the heading "Come and Help" smacks of Canvassing and makes this sound like a gang up session of friends. With all this being said I have happily disengaged from the editor review itself, but will maintain that the removed review should remain on the talkpage for the record.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Promethean's misbehavior on other topics is also under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Promethean_attacking_science_fiction_conventions_en_masse. Raul654 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Note - Promethean tried to close this thread and I have reverted him. Users are not permitted to close reports of their own misbehavior. I would hope this would be common sense, yet Promethean is obviously lacking in this regard. Raul654 (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"You are complaining about an editor who responded to and possibly closed your previous alert. (Talk with them to get their reasoning on why your alert was closed.)" - It seems I am well within my right to close the discussion. Wikiquette alerts is not a "report" as much as it is a communial discussion between the two parties concerned that either one can close (to my understanding?). Please cease and desist Raul as your involvement here is clearly motivated out of spite of our previous encounter 3 years ago. The ANI thread is closed and this one will most likely follow suit now that Ebe has disengaged and Fence's and Windows has acted on the request. There is nothing further to come on this thread. In any case I have alerted F & W's to your revert of the closure and I am sure he will change it if he feels that I am closing it out of ill intent or to pervert process.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This is closed, right? Raul, WQA is not a place to reopen old wounds. Fences&Windows 23:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Orangemarlin

Resolved
 – Warned Overseer19XX about NPA. Toddst1 (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This user find himself editing my talk page in a disruptive, and disrespectful way on a near daily basis. keeps telling me he will have me blocked/banned for this and that, and when i called creationism link "science" he proceeded to come to my talk page and post http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Overseer19XX&direction=next&oldid=421142976 clearly the user has a lack of respect for others, and is not only bias in his edits, but appears bigoted in some of the things he has posted on my talk page. we do not need users with his kind of couth. He has made it apparent that he will not stop harassing me on my talk page. I hope this resolves this dispute. Overseer19XX (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility Overseer19XX (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
What I'm seeing is some mutual animosity over a content dispute. Threatening to spam someone's talk page will probably not rank highly in the echelons of dispute resolution. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Also not the first time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive36#User:Orangemarlin
Or the second http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive36#User:Orangemarlin_.282.29
Or third http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive47#User:Orangemarlin

and again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive19#User:Filll.2C_User:Orangemarlin.2C_User:Jim62sch not sure why i am on this page, i should be requesting a outright ban based on his history of disrespect of others.Overseer19XX (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that wouldn't happen even if you asked, but okay.
I will say, Orangemarlin, your behavior is inappropriate. You're expending more effort engaging in a flame war with this editor than simply letting his proposals fail (and looking them over, they're guaranteed to).
I understand your irritation, when a user appears and begins insistently asking that pages (and policies) change to fit his world view (or that of his religion), but we all pretty much feel that way. No one is going to budge on these policies, and roasting him over them on his own talk page is just egregious.
That said, Overseer, this behavior needs to stop from both sides. Stop talking about each other- talk about the policies. --King Öomie 16:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
King....come on, this civility shit has got to stop. My behavior is totally appropriate for a one-track editor–note that every single one of his article edits have been reverted. We have shown the editor an incredible amount of tolerance...I'm sick of it. Maybe he will actually do some good for the project, but since he's on an anti-pornography roll, I'm going to doubt that. So, if you're going to lecture me....don't. Check my edits. I actually contribute here. Or don't, and just think that civility matters more than content. And that's just bullshit. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
My point is that since it's clear his edits and policy proposals are non-starters, I don't see the point in taking this mocking tone with him. It's not going to make him stop- the collective "Umm, no" from the community will do that- you've added the additional goal of making you lose.
Incidentally, yes, I'm not of the opinion that even an editor with a streak of genuinely BAD edits is fair game for sarcastic mocking. --King Öomie 18:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Let me just point out that this is not isolated behavior. Orangemarlin pulled this on me extensively when I was a new editor, and he's tried it again a couple of times recently [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. As the second diff makes explicit, he styles himself as a "NPOV-pusher", and on certain kinds of articles that means that he is blustery, aggressive and opinionated to a point just shy of pugnacious. My advice is to read wp:BAIT - not that I think OM is doing anything intentional in that regard, but if one focuses too much on dealing with his more irrational actions other editors may use him as a stalking horse - and to ask him direct questions about his opinions. OM sometimes makes good points in unclear ways that are worth digging out, while his more argumentative statements are almost impossible to justify using policy, reason, or common sense. Calmly asking him to explain himself will produce interesting insights where he has them and otherwise guide him towards productive silence. --Ludwigs2 18:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

User: 50.80.139.102

User 50.80.139.102 has personally attacked me and been uncivil. I´ve asked him to review WP policies and refrain from this behavior, and to to stop personal attacks. I placed a Welcome template to his Talk page to welcome and educate him. I would appreciate an adminstrator ask him to leave me alone. Thanks. Kilmer-san (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You already warned them; the standard procedure for IPs is generally escalating warnings. If they're here in good faith, they'll take heed of them. Swarm X 19:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Marauder40, incivility crossing the line into personal attacks

After I brought two sources from Christianity and abortion to RSN, Marauder40 has been accusing me of bias because I don't believe they are reliable.

  • In which I am allegedly anti-Catholic: [17] [18]
  • In which I am allegedly letting my "bias" get in the way of good editing: [19] [20] [21]
  • In which I am allegedly pushing a POV: [22] [23]
  • In which I am allegedly ignorant of theology: [24] (NB this is an aspersion on my intelligence, not on my disinterestedness, but in the context of these other remarks, it reads very much like "You are not Catholic and thus are not qualified to edit on this topic." I state on my user page that I am Jewish.)

Per WP:NPA, unsubstantiated accusations about user conduct constitute personal attacks. I informed the user of this, whereupon he repeated, several times, the accusation. I invite anyone to review my editing to see if the accusations are reasonable. This sort of talk is destructive to the mission of the encyclopedia. We need to evaluate content based on its merits, not on the accusations of bias thrown at editors who support or oppose the addition of the content. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the diffs speak for themselves. The things she is saying that I am saying are not contained anywhere within the statements. She is inserting her own POV into the statements. I at no time call her anti-Catholic, I haven't even viewed her user page, and it is only now that I found out that she is Jewish (although that knowledge doesn't change a thing.) The most I have done is accuse her of having a bias. Everyone that is human has a bias, it is properly managing that bias that makes someone a valuable WP editor. Many of the things she said I said are her own infernce and was never said.Marauder40 (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there a different term you would use to describe "You want to disqualify any source written by a Catholic"?
Your claim that you've done nothing but accuse me of having a bias is also obviously false, as seen from the above diffs - you've accused me several times of letting my bias get in the way of my work and of POV-pushing. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The quote you give above does not exist in any of the diffs. The entire thought is taken out of context. Let the diffs speak for themselves. How about re-reading everything and AGF instead of thinking it is combative.Marauder40 (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
"Your bias is getting in the way of your objectivity." Are you going to claim that a younger sibling wrote that when you were away from the computer? Or are you going to own up to what you yourself wrote and acknowledge that the AGF problem might be with your assessment of my editing? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I am totally disengaging from you since you seem to be letting your anger get in the way of anything productive. As I said before if you are getting upset at someone saying you have a bias, then you may be editing in the wrong arena. I will henceforth only respond to other editors on this.Marauder40 (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup...a bit heated (not surprising on the topic) but nothing more. Not really serious enough to be brought up here - I think it's more about personal pique, and R. would be better to step away from it all. I'm curious about the links for In which I am allegedly anti-Catholic. Has Roscelese but the wrong diffs in? I really can't see where that allegation is made, or anything remotely like it. DeCausa (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This is where Marauder40 claims that I want to reject every source written by a Catholic. In my opinion, that sort of bias is adequately described as anti-Catholicism, but perhaps you and M40 can imagine a way in which the desire to reject all sources by Catholics just because they are Catholic is not biased. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
"If you have to disqualify them just because they promote Catholic teaching you would have to disqualify ANYTHING said by the church or anyone that agrees with the church" is not a claim that you want to reject every source written by a Catholic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. It's rather thin-skinned to translate that into "anti-catholic". DeCausa (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't see a way in which accusing me of wanting to remove "EVERY source written by a Catholic" is not claiming that I want to remove every source written by a Catholic. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I see the problem. You're saying that the source doesn't necessarily accurately present the view of the organization it's referring to (the roman catholic church) because of its bias; Marauder thinks the source is accurate (I don't have an opinion on that), and your point is moot- thus, to justify removing that source because of its bias, you'd have to remove ALL catholic sources (again assuming this source is accurate, which would imply that all other catholic sources would agree). I'm pretty sure this is a misunderstanding. --King Öomie 06:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
If it were about "Catholic sources" I wouldn't consider that an accusation of bias, though it's still a distortion of my position. However, Maurauder says that I'd like to remove sources written by Catholics. If I'd actually suggested that sources written by Catholics were inherently unreliable, I could probably be blocked for that, and I'd deserve it - why should it be acceptable to toss out this false accusation of blockable behavior in order to discredit my noticeboard post? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Kingoomieiii, although the merits of the discussion itself shouldn't be important on this page. The problem isn't about the individual source at all. As written on the page the discussion is about the organization "Catholic Answers" as a whole and saying they aren't a RS. In her own words because they are "anti-abortion advocates". Catholic Answers is no more an anti-abortion advocate then any organization that follows the Catholic church and its teachings. To throw out a source on that basis alone would be the same as throwing out sources from every organization that follows the teachings of the church.Marauder40 (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
You are taking a bit of a logic jump there, Marauder. "Catholic Answers" is one source which says it follows the teachings of the Catholic Church. This does not mean that they are, and it also does not mean that other sources that state the same thing are following the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Whether or not something is a reliable source depends on the person or group publishing it, the specific context, and the specific way it is used. You can't simply say something like "The New York Times is ALWAYS a reliable source for every purpose" because it is not. -- Avanu (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
As I said before, discussion on the merit of the base arguement itself shouldn't really be taking place here, but on the reliable sources noticeboard or the actual article itself. If you were on those pages you would have seen where I mentioned the fact that I said that no reason has been validly given for throwing out Catholic Answers as a whole as a reliable source, that every article, book, quote, etc. needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. The other editor was claiming that everything that Catholic Answers publishes should be thrown out because in her mind they are "anti-abortion advocates." Like I said this stuff should really be discussed there. This should be reserved for any perceived wikiquette violations so that we aren't having multiple conversations.Marauder40 (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Would you like to retract your previous claim that I'd like to remove any source written by a Catholic? That would probably be the best way to resolve this, though it would also be nice if you'd retract your obviously false claims that my "bias" is causing problems with my editing. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I will not retract anything I said because the statements as I wrote them are exactly what I meant and what I feel. Your reading of other things into what I wrote besides what I actually wrote is your problem, pure and simple. Other editors do not see what you see in what I wrote.Marauder40 (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll say again, this is a misunderstanding. Marauder didn't say that you wanted to remove all sources written by catholics. It didn't happen. What was stated was that, to his understanding, your criteria for disqualifying Catholic Answers could be used to disqualify all catholic sources. It wasn't said that you WANTED to- just that you'd HAVE to if you went ahead with removing Catholic Answers based on the criteria you set.

Whether or not that's correct isn't the point. --King Öomie 02:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:PM800

This user has been edit-warring on User:Ipodnano05's userpage for several days, repeatedly removing legitimate material placed there by Ipodnano05. He has been reported many times in the recent past for uncivil behaviour. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I've tried to sort things out with this user, leaving comments on his talk page several times. But he does not answer things back and continues reverting my user page. He says that I did not help get the article White Horse (song) to GA status, when in fact my work on it is what helped it not to be demoted. In addition, he has continued with uncivilized manners on Talk:My Happy Ending. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 19:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
That whole exchange on talk:My Happy Ending was stupid and inappropriate, but I'd let it go since it's been collapsed and nothing more has happened. On another note, I've given them a final warning for the user page edit warring, if they continue report it to WP:ANEW. Swarm X 02:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:L-l-CLK-l-l

It's a little much to take for a 17 year old child who's been here barely a year to be taking the kind of tone User:L-l-CLK-l-l has at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Writer (song), accusing an experienced editor of more than six years of knowing nothing about wikipedia policy and (with no basis whatsoever) being pointy. Perhaps I'm being oversensitive, but that seems bloody rude to me. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:POINT. Is reporting me for disagreeing with his view (as well as every other editor on the deletion page has agreed with me). I did nothing wrong as you can see on the page, i explained the actual rule and because he doesnt like it he is reporting me. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
You both seem quite able to work this out between yourselves. Prodego talk 04:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh please. You explained your ridiculous crabbed misinterpretation of the policy and threw in some comments that are grossly inappropriate for a newbie. Get off your high horse, apologize for your insolent tone, and make arguments based on what the policy actually has. Geez! Clearly this is just about a disagreement on policy, which is why you are the only user who stated a contrary view who has been criticized here. *eyeroll* - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
A newbie? That's why i have 10 GA and FA's. Yes im a newbie so my logic must be flawed, i mean that's why 5 other editors (i can find dozens more if you wish) that argue with my "misinterpretation" of policy. Im done discussing this now, have a nice day. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
You've a child and you've been here scarcely more than a year; I've been here for six. I was editing articles here before you hit puberty. Don't lecture me on policy, kid.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Sounds to me like you need to take a step back. You can make your points in a more civil way. RxS (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
You're right, and in a few minutes I shall, but you've been here about as long as I have (indeed, you're an admin), so how would you feel if a child who's been here about twenty minutes showed up and starts telling you how you don't understand WP policy? "Insolent" barely covers it. And this is in the context of a 15 year old canvassing his buddies and this 17 year old getting mouthy. Unbelievable! Who the hell do they think they are? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 05:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, here's the deal. There's a long held standard here that you need to comment on the edits and not the editor. You need to work on that. Commenting on someones age, tenure etc won't get you anywhere (fast). It's rude and doesn't contribute to what's suppose to be a collaborative project. RxS (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
@Simon. First off, some diffs would help.
Secondly, what's wrong with newbies? What's wrong with 17 year olds? Maybe nearly every 17 year old newbie is a rubbish editor, grammatically illiterate and a borderline vandal. That still wouldn't mean that they all are. In the case here, we seem to have an editor of some evident competence, an edit count of 7,000 (which is more than yours!) and even if we threw AGF away and replaced it with "Respect experience", they'd still deserve a bit more credit than you're showing them. Edits, not editor is what matters here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion is just silly. I see no problem with etiquette here, other than you. What does it matter how old the user is, and how many years they've been here? LICKI was in no way being rude to you, just disagreeing on a topic at hand. Also, if you actually read the "when reporting" section here, it states:

  1. Try to phrase it in neutral and non-judgemental language. Posting in haste and anger could add fuel to the fire, rather than helping to improve matters, thus try to avoid posting while upset.
  2. Include diffs that show the problem. (A guide to creating diffs is here). Supply a simple explanation of the problem, along with the involved parties and a link to the page(s) where the problem is happening - avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page
  3. Remember the aim is to move the dispute towards resolution, and that all helpers are volunteers (therefore the amount of time it may take to receive a response will vary). If the circumstances change since your original posting then please update your alert. If you have not received help and the problem escalates, please edit your alert to inform us that you have reported it elsewhere.
  4. Do not continue your discussion in detail here. Instead, continue discussing it at its original location. As long as your alert contains a link to the relevant discussions it will be seen.

You have done none of the above. ℥nding·start 10:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Simon. this edit is utterly inappropriate. :S Attacking editors in this fashion is not on; the fact that Lakeside is young, and edits in an area you consider "worthless" doesn't make it OK to dismiss him and his views. Wikipedia is a great leveller; yes, bring your experience and knowledge to the table, but stay open minded. After all, at some point in the past your elders probably frowned on the music you liked as "worthless" :) Lakeside; in future try to be a little calmer & less confrontational in your defence of others. --Errant (chat!) 11:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume that at 50 years of age and 50,000+ edits, I'm sufficiently mature to have an opinion, and that opinion is this: using editors' ages as a baseball bat to club them with violates WP:NPA, and I will treat future statements along that line as a blockable offense. For the record, I am the sole editor that has agreed that the articles Simon has nominated for deletion should be merged into another article.—Kww(talk) 17:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Simon Dodd seems to want to be saying "this noob kid is irritating me, please join me in attacking him", whereas what I read is "I'm going well over the top and the WP:BOOMERANG is going to hit me smack in the face soon". Kww is right, if the kind of comments in this thread continue then Simon's going to get blocked. WQA is for resolving disputes and calming arguments, not furthering them. Fences&Windows 22:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree with the above, Simon's comments in this tread alone are very inappropriate. Swarm X 19:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no ettiquette violation by User:L-l-CLK-l-l. From my perspective, the AfD didn't go Simon Dodd's way at all, and L-l-CLK-l-l was the most outspoken in the AfD, so he has become a target for Dodd's wrath. If there has been any incivility committed here, it has been Dodd, by calling L-l-CLK-l-l a "17 year old child" and implying that L-l-CLK-l-l should be taking a more subservient tone because of his age. "Comment on the edit, not the editor." Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:ClaudioSantos, the Socialist Patients' Collective and Talk:SPK

I think a third opinion is necessary as I'm involved in a situation that has been degenerating into an edit war.

The user ClaudioSantos seems to be pretty much a single-purpose account on behalf of the Socialist Patients' Collective (also known as the SPK).

Just to give a little context on the SPK, it is a group which had already caused a fair amount of trouble both in the Spanish and in the English Wikipedia projects around 2004-2006 through vandalism, trolling (like in [25], in Spanish), propaganda and false claims (for example, [26], answered here - I could add more links if you want, although they're not really central to the subject I'd like to talk about). The SPK insists that any material linking it, or even some of its historical members, to the Red Army Fraction, must be removed. WP:BLP is usually cited as a reason.

As for ClaudioSantos himself, he has been using unnecessarily strong wording towards me (for instance, I can quote from this single message, [27], up to five disparaging statements: "seems not even able to make a simple sum", "unable to read and understand this", "copiers like this little Sabbut", "desired toy", "fetishism?"). He also tends to use terms such as "libel" and "defamation" (for example, [28]), which have a specific meaning and could be thought of as a legal threat, which is not allowed.

There are issues on the articles on the Socialist Patients' Collective (which, in my opinion, ClaudioSantos has pretty much changed into an advertisement) and on members of the SPK such as Sieglinde Hofmann and Brigitte Mohnhaupt, as well as cross-wiki issues which may be relevant or not here in the English language Wikipedia. All of this is a pretty long discussion. However, I will now move to a more specific subject, which is the reason I'm writing this message.

That is Talk:SPK. Here goes the story:

  • ClaudioSantos restored a text containing a legal threat that had already been erased several times in 2005 ([29], [30], [31], [32], [33]) and again by me recently [34].
  • Once I pointed out that it was in fact a legal threat and that it didn't belong in a talk page, he replaced the quote with a simple link to the specific edition of that talk page containing the legal threat, claiming that "Libelous material causes serious damage to living people. Aggresively warning on libelous material is not a threat, even per WP:No_legal_threats#What_is_not_a_legal_threat" [35].
  • Once I pointed out WP:LEGAL another time, he changed his wording into "Hostile and mendacious material against patients from SPK, causes serious damage to living people" [36].
  • After that, once I pointed out that there was nothing that could possibly be qualified as "hostile" or "mendacious" in SPK (the page associated to Talk:SPK, which is a disambiguation page), he reverted the whole discussion [37]... but moved his claims to Talk:Members of the Red Army Faction instead (see history). That talk page already contains pretty much the same kind of accusations, so basically repeating the same message one more time would seem unnecessary. Also, trying to include a legal threat by any means is something I would qualify as "trying to game the system". In fact, I would qualify his attitude throughout this story in the same way.
  • So...I revert his message, he reverts my revert and so on.

So now I decide to stop a moment, avoid getting into a full-fledged edit war and ask for a third opinion on this mess. Sabbut (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that this user has certainly crossed the boundaries of acceptable behavior. In my opinion, their overall behavior of making personal attacks, nasty assumptions of bad faith (accusing you of being paid for POV pushing), flagrantly throwing around comments that lawyers and judges are involved with the matter, re-adding a message that had been taken and removed as a legal threat several times in the past, etc., constitutes disruption. I have warned them for the behavior, and if it continues, return here and I will report it to ANI, or you can do so yourself; either option is recommended, especially given the user's history of disruption both here and at the Spanish Wikipedia. Swarm X 20:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Sabbut is not being personally attacked but certainly User:Sabbut published in wikipedia the identity of a patient against his will and with out his permission and then used his privileges to delete his contribution[38]. Here I don't want to remember who was the user who abusively published also his self-made picture of the building of Krankheit Im Recht (illness in right - pathopractic with lawyers, part of the PF/SPK(H)); but certainly User:Sabbut published a materia claiming false allegations against SPK claiming theese people were terrorists, an allegation that finally had to be hide, as it was demonstrated that terrorism is a crime (legal threat?) that did not even exist in the time of the trials against SPK, so it was certainly defamatory content that should be deleted per WP:BLP (as this policy explicity says "defamatory material", is it a legal threat? am I legal threating when I just refers in the same words of this policy? whatever). User:Sabbut published contentious material dealing with living people but without any reference and avoid this material to be deleted, even against the WP policies about living people although he was warned that it was causing serious damage to this people. What you should consider a legal threat, a harrasment and a very serious misconduct is that an user has accused current people of PF/SPK as being terrorists [39], a friend of Sabbut who Sabbut recomend to be asked about "my behaviour". Well, precisely these users together with some other users used their admin privileges to expulse me from WP.es precisely because I agressively -as recomended by WP-policies- deleted contentious material against living people (see WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. Unsourced material that for example accused people of terrorism but material that for instance finally they deleted from wikipedia.es but after they assumed bad faith and accused of sock-puppetry another user because he also noticed that I was right and also deleted the contentious unreferenced material (see [40] and until now they even desetimated the proposals of this other user to correct the wikipedia article about SPK in the es.wikipedua. Therefore, the minimal to do is to warn that a content is causing serious damage to this people and is perhaps just a bad joke to assumme that I am threating anyone. Actually the article about red army faction members has an advice warning that it is very bad referenced although it deals a lot of times on living people, even the part dealing with SPK has a lot of names without any reference and in the talk page I published[41] abundant reliable-verifiable sources (collected also with user:Jayen466) that demonstrates the current material published by user:Sabbut on SPK, is mendacious (false) and spurious (not-genuine) and as warned by that people, it is hostile because it is causing serious damage to that living people. At any rate, now I will not make any edit on those talk pages exactly as I am not doing any edition on the respective articles since weeks. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me. Swarm X 00:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
In fact, I once mentioned the name of a member of the SPK. Truth is, at least one article and talk page of the Spanish Wikipedia had been spammed many times in 2004-2005 with propaganda articles signed by the very same person, so I really don't understand how mentioning that name could possibly be harmful for that person. Anyway, once I was warned of this possible harm I edited my original message and hid the corresponding diffs.[42] If I hadn't been able to do that, I would have asked anyone else. So there's no need to assume bad faith.
As for Magister ([43]), whom I personally don't know, he did not call the SPK a bunch of terrorists. Rather, he described some of its tactics as "terrorist-like", that is, tactics that could reasonably be used by terrorists. Namely, threatening to reveal the real names of two fellow Wikipedia editors, as well as their addresses, of course without their consent, in a message published in 2005 and which has remained untouched since then.[44] I don't find anything wrong with Magister's message. Maybe a little harsh, but not nearly as harsh as the ones Claudio usually writes.
Finally, as for Claudio's "proofs" that SPK had nothing to do with the RAF, which are listed at the end of this section, they're mostly self-published works (so I would never consider those as valid references) or are in German (a language I don't understand, so I wouldn't reasonably evaluate and use those myself, although I'm of course open to reading any translation of said references). One more reference [45] says the SPK was "fairly harmless" (which does not really mean anything relevant to Wikipedia, as "fairly harmless" is not the same as "totally harmless"). Sabbut (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, now I certainly realized that Sabbut's tactic of publishing in wikipedia the first name and the last name (never published in wikipedia) of a SPK-patient, and that against the concerned patient's will, it is a tactic considered by Sabbut as a "terrorist-like tactic" and I also realized that Sabbut thinks it is a reasonable consideration. I have nothing else to comment to that. For the rest, about the sources I also will not add anything because there was said enough since months ago, even by other users than me (see for example: [46][47][48]), showing that Sabbut was unreasonably rejecting well reliable and verifiable sources in order to take into account some dubious sources claiming the demonstrated false allegations against the SPK-patients, thus in order to force that point of view hostile, mendacious and spurious against those living people. Now Sabbut is just repeating and repeating his same chatter, although he has felt free to delete my comments [49] precisely saying that I am repeating the same allegations. And the last he's done immediately after I already announced I will not do more editions in that talk page; should I assume bad faith on someone-else who could be suspecting that Sabbut is trying to instigate me?. About me, what I suspect is that I will not have to answer again to any Sabbut comment here, as I suspect he will just repeat his same repeated things. - ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Right, it wasn't necessary for Sabbut to continue this, ClaudioSantos said they will not comment on the talk page anymore and I would encourage both users to disengage from each other completely. Swarm X 02:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to point out a couple of things:
The first and last name of that member of the SPK were in fact published several times in the Spanish Wikipedia, presumably by that same person or by any other vandal wanting to impose the SPK's view on health and other subjects onto the Spanish Wikipedia. Once I realized that my own mention of that same name was unnecessary and could be harmful, I deleted it. Others cannot say the same: the threat to reveal Ascánder and Tirithel's real identities and addresses is still published on the SPK's website.
Knowing this, no, revealing a name of someone who had already revealed it himself several times in the very same medium, and then hiding that same name just in case it could be harmful, cannot reasonably be considered a terrorist-like tactic as Claudio has just suggested. In any case, an error that was reverted, and that's all there is to it. However, threatening to reveal the identity and address of two people against their will to anyone wanting to know, and doing so for six years straight, can reasonably be qualified as something criminals or terrorists would do. I think this part is pretty simple: if the members of the SPK are concerned about their threats being called "terrorist-like tactics", maybe they should consider removing those threats?
For my part, I don't think there's anything more to say (or "chatter", as Claudio just said), so I will end the discussion here. Thanks for your help. Sabbut (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Therefore I have to documment here the thing, not to repeat nothing. As far as I can read and understand, the SPK-patient never mentioned his complete name at wikipedia; anyone is allowed to confirm by him/herself, as there is the archive: [50]. As I said and he confirmed, it was user:Sabbut who published the complete patient's name in wikipedia, and Sabbut is also the one claiming that revealing that sort of data is a "terrorist-like tactic". For a change, also as far as I can read and understand, in the SPK-site there was never revealed nor even re-published the data (names, jobs, places, etc.) of those wikipedians (Ascánder, JorgeGG) mentioned by Sabbut. Moreover, actually in the SPK-site says nothing about revealing those wikipedian's data there, but it says the SPK knows this data, so it is allowed to provide those wikipedian' data to anyone interested (to anyone affected? to any one needy? to the bosses? to the authorities? who are allowed to reject an authority request on revealing private data? the wikipedians? the doctors? the patients? please don't worry, I am just wondering). But actually nobody had nor has to worry about revealing the mentioned wikipedians' data, because their data, even included the very illustrated data of the mentioned Magister ("terrorist-tactics"), is already revealed in a lot of well known very public sites all around the web, included the own wikipedia[51]. Therefore also Sabbut is allowed to provide those links full of details and even pictures, to anyone interested or needy. Well, just to finish, it seems I had to answer again here, as emerged some new details to clarify. But I hope that I have provided at least new data, so the only thing I have to repeat here would be that: these paragraphs bringed again to my mind the already mentioned fact that some years ago, one wikipedian actually published at wikipedia her/his selfmade picture[52] (spying?) of Krankheit-Im_Recht-SPK-building, trying to illustrate an hostile, mendacious and spuirious article against SPK-people. But let me introduce data non-mentioned here: later on that article was complemented by another wikipedian who published for the first time in wikipedia, the complete name[53] of a current SPK-lawyer inserted in a hostile paragraph which recently even ashamed another user[54]. Fortunatelly that hostile paragraph was corrected later on, of course not by the perpetrator. Perhaps I have revealed too much data, but now I can say, this is my last comment here in this thread. I don't mind if this discussion is closed. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out one more thing (Sorry, but I feel I have the right to defend myself from Claudio's extremely nasty accusations).

Claudio says: "Moreover, actually in the SPK-site says nothing about revealing those wikipedian's data there, but it says the SPK knows this data, so it is allowed to provide those wikipedian' data to anyone interested"

It's quite nice to know that it's acceptable and justifiable to threat to reveal Wikipedians' true identities to anyone who asks for such information ("anyone" means "anyone" - not only "the authority" or whatsoever), but if it's the name of a vandal from the SPK (who already revealed it himself -OK, only partly- in Wikipedia [55] and fully in the same website [56] where he boasts about his acts of vandalism in Wikipedia [57]) which is at stake, then not only is it not acceptable to reveal it (something I can understand, which is why I reverted and hid my edit just a little later), but it's also not acceptable to revert and hide it (What should I have done, then - crucify myself?) Revealing Ingeborg Muhler's name is also wrong according to him, so maybe the name should be deleted once and for all, I suppose.

On the other hand, suggesting people are spying and adding yet again the words "hostile", "spurious" and "mendacious", as well as "perpetrator" (referring to a Wikipedia editor), is one more major breach of wikiquette. One more. Sabbut (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Last comment

Last comment ...

  • Note - ClaudioSantos, you've indicated in nine different edit summaries that you had made your "last/last comment here/last comment in this thread". I'm kind of not believing that the one above is truly your last comment either, you know? Last comment means no further comments after you make your last one. Either make your last comment and mean it, or don't continue to say it's your last comment when it clearly isn't. It appears to some as disingenuous. Doc talk 19:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
sorry, I meant: when I had finished that comment then it would be my last one in this thread. Before anyone answer it I've been adding some links, wording, etc. to that comment, and sometimes the changes do not appear because I've had to delete the entire comment and rewrote it with the changes. It was because of thecnical matters, as I have to edit from a sort of mobile. But it was essentially one and only one comment: the one which would be the last in this thread. Sorry if it was some confusing to read "last comment" too many times. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Now, wasn't that easier and more appropriate than deleting what I wrote twice? Sheesh... Doc talk 20:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I wanted not to add more noise to the topic. So I wrong assumed your permission to delete it as I was answering your request on your talk page and it was off-topic. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring for relevance: ... Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion. ...

WP:TPO#Others.27_comments

User:Off2riorob

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

Off2riorob has entered a dispute at Talk:Antisemitism. While it is not entirely clear to me how his comments are relevant to the article, or the exact points he is trying to make, he has clearly attacked User:Steven J. Anderson, saying to him "I realize I am not a single purpose Jewish issue account as you are"[58] When I asked him to remove his personal comment about Steven, per WP:NPA, Off2riorob claimed not to know what the personal attack was, then repeated it, and stated he would "not delete it, a simple look at his edit history supports the comment".[59] When I told him to remove it from both comments, per policy, and comment on content, not on the contributor, he replied "I will not delete it it, it is clearly correct and indisputable."[60] I don't seem to be able to explain to Rob that both WP:NPA and WP:TALK#Yes state that he should comment on content, not on the contributor, and that article Talk: pages are not the place for Rob to provide his negative assessments of other editors, even if he believes they are accurate. Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User Stephen Anderson is a single issue Jewish account, that is a simple fact relevant to mention in that discussion, I am not asserting this as a negative issue, just as a clear fact. we are not required to be blind, expressing simple edit history facts is not a personal attack. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Even if that were true, why would it be relevant? The nutshell of the No personal attacks policy is "comment on content, not on the contributor". Abide by policy. Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I see the problem -- the comments preceding such as Also, your personal opinions about what is or isn't antisemitism aren't relevant, nor are your comments about Israel being "known for its oppression of another country". Please review were a slippery slope per se. Mr. Anderson's comment Dead wrong and badly reasoned. in response to a statement that criticism of Israel != anti-semitism is pretty much inviting a dispute. Frankly, Off2 should not have used the accusation of SPA, but it is entirely clear that the fault of the discussion does not lie only on his posts. As for level of incivility -- I have found much worse prevalent in WP by other editors. Trout everyone and be done. Collect (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban on political articles. I try to stay away from Off2riorob, but here he is on my watchlist yet again. His hostility and unpleasant tone have been commented on countless times here, at ANI, and elsewhere. His blocks are in double figures. He deliberately creates drama and seeks out the most political and sensitive articles to do so in. His little group of friends attempt to explain away his ongoing violations of WP:BATTLE and constant WP:BAIT. Reading his latest defiant bluster in the thread in question makes me feel sick... how many good editors has this agitator discouraged, one has to wonder. I ask the Wikipedia community yet again... when do we say "enough is enough" and take a no nonsense approach here? Again, I suggest at the very least a topic ban on any political article, period. In my view, Off2riorob has clearly shown over the years he just does not work well with others, and shows no interest in learning this vital Wikipedia skill. Jusdafax 21:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I won't reply to this bigoted attack from a user that has for the last eighteen months repeatedly attacked me in similar ways after losing a content dispute apart from to laugh out loud at his biased opinionated claims. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose anything more than trouts Clear enough? And no way is a "topic ban" remotely near a rational result. Collect (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Who has asked for a topic ban? I'm not asking for sanctions, I'm asking that Rob be told to stop using article Talk: pages to comment about other editors, something he has just said he "retains the right" to do. The nutshell of the No personal attacks policy is "comment on content, not on the contributor". This is supposed to be the board that enforces that policy. Why is it so difficult for the regulars here to say "Yes, Rob, you must abide by this policy"? Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment In looking over the comments on that "Antisemitism" article, it appears that there are a lot of editors that are personally involved, and many editors who seem to be 'set off' by that. I agree 100% with Jayjg in that we should be debating content not people, and for that, Rob needs to simply try harder. As far as what Jayjg labels a personal attack, I think it is a bit much. I despise the term "single purpose editor" but if that is the substance of the 'attack', it is pretty feeble. In looking at the editors going round and round on the "Antisemitism" article, I see a lot of circular reasoning from both sides, and a clear unwillingness to step back, take a breath, and try and treat one another with respectfulness. It is a very contentious atmosphere, and that atmosphere is not simply Rob's fault alone. If anyone is going to get "topic banned", let it be all of them, or it simply isn't fair. What you really need in an article such as this one is editors who can look at things a little more dispassionately. Looking at Jayjg's comments also, they are not without their own faults. My suggestion, either let it drop, or drop the hammer on the whole lot of them. -- Avanu (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Who has asked for a topic ban? I'm not asking for sanctions, I'm asking that Rob be told to stop using article Talk: pages to comment about other editors, something he has just said he "retains the right" to do.[61] The nutshell of the No personal attacks policy is "comment on content, not on the contributor". The "No personal attacks policy". That means that commenting on editors, not article content, is an attack, it's not "a bit much" to describe it as an attack, and it's not me that's doing so, it's the policy. This is supposed to be the board that enforces that policy. Why is it so difficult for the regulars here to say "Yes, Rob, you must abide by this policy"? Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • - I would like to see attacking opinionated comments such as the one from User:Jusdafax reverting back on the user and blocking the attacking user. Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose any sanction on Off2riorob. He was a little uncivil to point out that User:Steven J. Anderson is a single purpose account; however, this does indeed seem to be pretty much the case. Per Collect, trouts all round, and there is some pretty unproductive stuff from all parties at that talk page. But this comment does not merit sanctions, in my opinion. --John (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Oppose what? I'm not asking for sanctions, I'm asking that Rob be told to stop using article Talk: pages to comment about other editors, something he has just said he "retains the right" to do.[62] The nutshell of the No personal attacks policy is "comment on content, not on the contributor". This is supposed to be the board that enforces that policy. Whether or not the comments are "pretty much the case" is irrelevant to the policy. Why is it so difficult for the regulars here to say "Yes, Rob, you must abide by this policy"? Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
John—Single-purpose account has a definition. You don't establish that someone is a Single-purpose account by pointing to their User contributions as you do above. You say, "He was a little uncivil to point out that User:Steven J. Anderson is a single purpose account; however, this does indeed seem to be pretty much the case.' That, in fact, warrants a retraction. Bus stop (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe its silly of me to ask, but how *else* would one establish single-purpose editing except to look at editing history? -- Avanu (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, because it's not a proper topic for an article Talk: page, per WP:NPA and WP:TALK#Yes. If you want to make that claim, do it at a User RFC, or at AN/I. Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat this yet again, because it (astonishingly) needs repeating. This is the second time I've come to this board in recent months, asking for a simple statement from the regulars that they actually support the WP:NPA policy. Instead, I've seen endless comments such as "well, is it true, though?" or "well, the atmosphere was heated" or a dozen other irrelevancies. Let's be clear here: The nutshell of the No personal attacks policy is "comment on content, not on the contributor". This is supposed to be the board that enforces that policy. Why is it so difficult for the regulars here to say "You must abide by this policy"? It someone wants to comment about another editor, there are places for that: their user talk page, a User RFC, or even AN/I. The one place one cannot do so is an article Talk: page. Why? Because, regardless of the merits of the statements themselves, both the Talk page guidelines and No personal attacks policy plainly say "comment on content, not on the contributor". Now, please start showing that the commentators at this board actually support the policies and guidelines it was created to support. Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a great answer for you. Because sometimes the best solution is to let things go. Sometimes the solution is to get an apology and move on. If you're wanting Rob's head on a platter for a minor offense, this might not be your day. But if you want a reasonable solution where the whole community can get back to working on articles, then work toward that goal. The attitude you're displaying is why I suggested that the whole lot of you get the same punishment, because if you can't learn to work together, maybe equal punishment is the only thing that will. But honestly, it would be better if it were just dropped and moved on from. I agree that Rob was somewhat focused on a person rather than their edits, but SPA is really a combination of the both and while I dislike that term immensely (see my old comments at Wikipedia_talk:Single-purpose_account ), its not *that* big of a deal. -- Avanu (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
"Sometimes the solution is to get an apology and move on." Right. So where's the apology? On the contrary, Rob insists he "retains the right" to make such comments. And it doesn't matter what he called him; both the Talk page guidelines and No personal attacks policy plainly say "comment on content, not on the contributor". Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This was not, in my opinion, a personal attack. See WP:NPA#WHATIS. Rob was making a point concerning another user's potential conflict of interest, and that is not considered a personal attack. A quick look at the user's contributions shows that Rob may be right. Whether this is optimal editing behavior is an open question (I saw lots of poor behavior in that discussion), but there is nothing here that warrants sanctions, as this was not a personal attack. Sorry I can't be more help. --John (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    • John, if it's not a personal attach, then why does the "nutshell" of the No personal attacks policy say "comment on content, not on the contributor"? It's irrelevant whether the personal attack is true; if I were to—on an article Talk: page—call another editor a "stupid nose-picking mouth-breathing POV-pushing religious bigot", would whether or not it was a personal attack depend on whether or not it was true? And please don't bring up WP:COI, since having an interest in Jewish topics, or even editing solely on those topics, is not in any way a WP:COI - review the policy carefully to understand why. If you're going to comment here, you really need to do it in reference to the actual relevant policies. Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Calling someone a SPA is uncool but in the grand scheme of things it's probably best handled by letting it go. Swarm X 02:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Swarm—it is more than "uncool. You say, "Calling someone a SPA is uncool..."
Just because the concept of Single-purpose account exists doesn't mean you have to call someone that. You are not justified in doing so just because the problematic editing known as Single-purpose editing exists. Policy can be abused. Policy very often is abused. The abuse of policy is problematic. Just because someone can point to policy does not make their edits or their behavior alright. Bus stop (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Refer to the comment directly above mine. Regards, Swarm X 02:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Refer to the Talk page guidelines and No personal attacks policy, which both plainly say "comment on content, not on the contributor". Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to know how Off2riorob defines "single purpose account". He's called me that recently on this page.[63] If he's using the term loosely then it becomes an inappropriate personal attack rather than an accurate description.   Will Beback  talk  02:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
There certainly can be an account that is counterproductive as regards Wikipedia's purposes. But following one's interests is not that at all. Furthermore—like all policy—it can be abused. For instance when two editors recurrently clash over the same disagreement in different incarnations, it can be handy to label the other account a single-purpose account. What this fails to recognize consider is the possibility that your own account may be the single-purpose account. Like all policy, it has to be used with caution. Bus stop (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
If he uses the phrase "loosely" or "accurately" or in any other way on an article Talk: page it is an inappropriate attack, because he should only "comment on content, not on the contributor". Jayjg (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
This is very troublesome. Attacking one person like that can be chalked up to a heated dispute, but if there's a pattern such incivility, it should be looked in to at least. He's been around for 2+ years and should know better to throw that around so easily and should know that an admin who's been here 5+ years is pretty much the opposite of an SPA. Gamaliel (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • rob has been on my case as well, and often has used inappropriate language, being harsh rather than helpful. it is not easy when he is "editing" - very hard to keep a talk thread moving in a direction of consensus. Soosim (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Response from Steven J. Anderson I have just returned from my Sunday evening activities to find a notice on this talk page regarding this thread. Wow, just wow. Let me begin by pointing out that calling me an SPA is, well, dead wrong and badly reasoned. This is trivially simple to verify by looking at the first page of my editing history. Here is a sample of some of the last 50 pages I have edited: La Bambas, Ken Burns effect, Ken Burns, God's Little Acre (film), Rodney King, Sara Jane Moore, Chaplain Corps (United States Army), Paul Magriel, Ted Nugent, Talk:Keith Olbermann, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, and Health effects of chocolate. Anyone who looks further into my edit history will find a similar lack of pattern in my edits. It's true that I have a number of articles related to Jews, Judaism and antisemitism on my watchlist, but there's nothing about that that remotely conflicts with any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Nor is there any reason why I should hesitate to join a discussion on any of the related talk pages. I have an interest (the feeling of a person whose attention, concern, or curiosity is particularly engaged by something: She has a great interest in the poetry of Donne.) in these subjects; however, I have no interest (the state of being affected by something in respect to advantage or detriment: We need an arbiter who is without interest in the outcome.) in them. No evidence has been adduced to the contrary and none ever will or could be. Regarding my pointing out Rob's glaring error in his characterization of antisemitism, so far as I am aware, there is nothing, either in Wikipedia's civility policy or in ordinary notions of civility that says "You must never tell anyone that he's wrong about anything." That would clearly be a foolish policy if it existed and would make editing here and interacting with other human beings impossible. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If Rob just made an apology and stopped naming people SPA, I would call that enough. Is that enough for everyone else? -- Avanu (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I see a number of editors stepping up to point out an ongoing pattern of hostile conduct that calls for community action. Off2riorob's too-easily hurled label of 'SPA' seems designed to bait others and create a chilling effect... I see a bully who has gotten away with too much for way too long. Jusdafax 05:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Can't say that I'm terribly interested in an apology. I am however interested in having the denizens of this noticeboard realize that his characterization of me as an SPA is arrant bullshit. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
And I see a bit of overzealousness in wanting retribution. Funny thing is, I dislike the term "SPA", but more than that, I dislike people who can't simply move on. If this tongue lashing hasn't corrected Rob's behavior, then we can address that in the future, but for the time being, it seems more like some editors just want blood, rather than having things go back on track. -- Avanu (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I think everyone realizes that Steven shouldn't be called names (nor should anyone else), and sadly that point is being overshadowed by the attitudes of not letting it drop. We get it, we agree with you, and we don't think it was right, but what more do you want? -- Avanu (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure that is not your intent, but your comments may be perceived as blaming the victims in this matter. If a user is to seek redress, why should he or she not post here? If there is a pattern of incivility, why should he or she not speak out about it here? Gamaliel (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not blaming the 'victims'. I'm asking for adults to behave like such. Beyond being labeled "SPA", what is the wrong that was done? And beyond this, what is a proper remedy beyond it simply being approached more carefully in the future? I guess I don't see what those who were labeled are after. Its not nice, and I would ask Rob to drop such labels in the future, but what else is there to have? It just seems a bit beyond asking for rights to be wronged, and into the territory of revenge. -- Avanu (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Why the scare quotes? If there is a pattern of incivility, it should be dealt with not for revenge or to right wrongs, but to prevent such incivility in the future. I don't think that is particularly unreasonable. Gamaliel (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The word "victim" above is a characterization, not an undisputed fact. I put it in single quotes because it is a characterization. I agree with pursuing reasonable solutions, but from reviewing the attitudes on the Talk page on Antisemitism (which is why this was brought here), and seeing the reactions on this page, I am not convinced that Rob is the only party that needs some corrective action taken. My preference is that the lot of you make civil amends and move on, but if that can't happen, then I would say the lot of you need to be smacked in some way. -- Avanu (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I based my comment on the isolated discussion at Talk:Antisemitism. If this is part of a larger pattern it is certainly concerning. Are there other diffs of Rob throwing the term around that we should be aware of? --John (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
See a few threads up: this board is for dispute resolution, not calling for sanctions for a pattern of incivility for "bullies" Yes, "scare quotes". AN/I beckons over yonder. "Out of the door, line on the left, one cross each. Next?" Doc talk 06:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I came across this recent edit by Off2riorob, [64], in which he expresses a strong negative views on the topic of SPAs. We need to remember that WP:BITE is also an important essay, and the complement of WP:SPA.
I'd still like to know why Off2riorob called me a single purpose editor. Making unsupported accusations is also uncivil. But I guess I'm not going to get an answer.   Will Beback  talk  07:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
You deserve an answer for that. Rob? Doc talk 07:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I already answered that, its well known on and off wikipedia that will is strongly focused on LA Rouche topics. Off2riorob (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
That's an absurd claim which is not based on facts. Fewer than 5% of my article edits have been to LaRouche-related topics. Does a "strong focus" of five percent of edits to a topic qualify an editor as "single purpose account"? If so, I bet everyone here qualifies as an SPA, Off2riorob included. That kind of loose accusation, not based on actual evidence, is unhelpful and uncivil. Please do not use the "SPA" charge that way again.   Will Beback  talk  09:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Question about different WQA being considered at the same time as this one.
without wanting to be accused of 'canvassing' again, i'll try this approach: doc and gamaliel - a question, please. g - yhou stated above "If there is a pattern of incivility, it should be dealt with not for revenge or to right wrongs, but to prevent such incivility in the future. I don't think that is particularly unreasonable." and d - you said "You deserve an answer for that." -- i would like to know why these two comments don't apply to the section above (scroll up a little bit) about my complaint about malik's uncivility. (and g - i also take offense at being called 'snark'. it isn't. wasn't. will never be. not fair. i am just a simple straightforward friendly person. no snark.). Soosim (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
You called for a block. You titled that thread as such. This is for dispute resolution: a meeting of the minds where a block is not necessary because an understanding has been achieved. Blocks are not punitive, but only for prevention of continued disruption. I've been called many things, but pursuing a block for them isn't fruitful. Doc talk 07:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
ok, now i understand. then, fine. no block for malik. just an understanding that his use of vulgar language is uncivil and should not happen again. thank you doc for clarifying. (though i have been editing for more than 4 years, only in the last few months have these types of issues presented themselves). Soosim (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I suppose it is worth pointing out that the subject of this thread made as his last statement a call for me to be blocked, which I find consistent with what I see as his ongoing bullying. Doc does have a point; if there is a pattern of abuse by Off2riorob in his multiple abuses of the SPA tag, the proper venue for that is ANI. I think we are going nowhere with this thread, as the subject is hardly indicating contrition or willingness to discuss, and I think the thread should be closed as yet another example of what I see as the subject's notable ability to create needless Wiki-drama. Jusdafax 08:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • What do you want me to say -hes not a single purpose account??? Yea ok then, hes not a single purpose account - there you go. Its a lie though - its not a personal attack to mention the fact, in fact - in some ways it is necessary, the user can deny it themselves - user Jayjg bringing this here about someone else is just a deflection of the fact that he didn't like it that an independent was commenting against his position that anyone that criticizes Israel is an antisemitite. Off2riorob (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Well let's see, Rob... you were brought here by someone else, and a number of people pointed out they have serious issues with you, but this is really about me (even though I think this thread should be closed), and I should be blocked, but you are not a bully, and now you will issue what most would see as a non-apology apology. Do I have it straight now? Jusdafax 08:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Your inability to get over your having lost a content discussion and your repeated attacks on me at every opportunity is incredulous. Off2riorob (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    • - All editors that focus on a single topic should do themselves and the project a favor and diversify. this is especially true of experienced contributors, if a simple glance at your edit history reveals a single issue account then asserting no one is allowed to mention that simple fact is just beyond reality.Off2riorob (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Jayjg, it appears I may need to put this more bluntly because you are not heeding the diplomatic feedback. Last month in a WQA you filed, several editors expressed a view which was not in complete agreement with yours, but you chose to repeatedly make demands in response without heeding what you were being told. This month, you are doing the same type of badgering in response to nearly every user whom disagreed with you in this WQA, particularly when they suggested letting it go. (Additionally, even at the talk page itself, and here, you've tried shouting by increasing the font size, bold font, etc. and it's utterly unhelpful, and maybe you need to do more reading on those policies and guidelines to see why it's deemed problematic). In essence, an user of your tenure need not be reminded so frequently that this is dispute resolution - we don't merely look at policies to resolve disputes; we expect users to let things go when enough people tell them to or finding ways to resolve or avoid unnecessary escalation. It is you who comes here seeking feedback about your complaint, but if you are unable to accept the feedback you are given (particularly because it disagrees with your own view), then like what I told an user who reported you in 2009 "WQA is not able to do anything further. You are of course welcome to escalate to the next step in dispute resolution, but it is likely that you will be given the same feedback. Unless you make greater attempts to recognise the issues with your approach and voluntarily remedy them, this is not likely to have a positive outcome, so it is best that you do so." With the possible exception of last year, on average, you have been an involved party subject to some remedy in one arbitration each year ([65] [66] [67] [68] [69]). I hope that your apparent difficulty in interacting with users who disagree with you (about the merits of your complaints and the best way to resolve the disputes) will not necessitate another statistic in the near future. This is a poor display from an administrator who has been here for 5 years and an even poorer example to be setting to an editor who has been here for 2 years.
  • Jusdafax, I suggest you consider how useful your input has been here. You seem to have hijacked the discussion and confused enough editors into thinking this is a topic ban discussion; it isn't and it never will happen at this venue. If you cannot rest without a topic ban, go to ANI or AN or ArbCom, though really, I don't think you are in the best position to be deciding when the appropriate time is, if any.
  • Off2riorob, per Bus stop (at 03:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)), you need to be careful in how you use the term SPA and take care not to conflate your personal views with what the project considers acceptable in relation to SPAs.
  • Off2riorob and Steven J Anderson should also see what Collect said.
  • Trouts all around and per Swarm, let it go. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • OK - what I will accept to move forward with is that I won't refer to anyone as a single purpose account again - in deference to - (focus on content not contributors) and if anyone has been slighted by previous references as such from me then ...I am sorry. I won't repeat it. Off2riorob (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that's a good conclusion.   Will Beback  talk  10:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Seconded, thank you for the reasonable resolution of this. Swarm X 11:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Ncmvocalist, I don't agree with your summing up, and you don't have any special authority here, but Off2riorob has apologized, and agreed not to use the term again "in deference to - (focus on content not contributors)". The latter is all I was asking for, so I'm satisfied with that. Jayjg (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Jayjg, when people come here, the expectation is that they will be receptive to the feedback they receive - especially if they have been here for long enough yet have concerns expressed about their approach. When an involved editor who asked for feedback (1) refuses to heed that feedback (as you have done repeatedly) and (2) assumes that he/she has special authority to dictate how others should respond to their so called attempts at resolving a dispute, chances are they have lost perspective. The consistent pattern in each one of those arbitrations and in your style of interacting in these types of discussions, was something I am hoping will change. Still, as Off2riorib has taken steps to deescalate, and you've agreed to leave it at that, I'm marking this particular WQA as resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Off2riorob says, "Yea, bus stop...are you interested in anything apart from jews?" (This is from only days ago.) I think that is tantamount to calling someone a single-purpose account. The same chilling effect occurs as mentioned by Jusdafax.
As a contentious editor such a comment causes me to ponder the propriety of my edits to an article or to a discussion space. Pondering the propriety of my edits can be a good thing. But the misapplication of policy happens to be, in my opinion, a big problem at Wikipedia.
All policies have to be applied appropriately. Policy should not be used to punish our fellow editors or to inhibit their ongoing participation in the project. Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What is actually offensive/uncivil here?

I was surprised to learn that "SPA" is a personal attack -- though I get it now. What I find more problematic about this editor's comments referred to above is the tone of those comments in relation to Jews. "Are you interested in anything apart from Jews" is a very strange question to ask someone; why would being interested only in Jews be a problem?? This can't seriously be intended as an accusation of being an "SPA" -- there are many thousands of topics under the heading of "Jews". The question I have is: why does this editor continue to get into dust-ups on talk pages of articles related to Jewish topics and make a fuss about the interests and viewpoints of the other editors involved on those pages? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get Off2riorob blocked or anything else. I know that I am a conscientious editor. What I dislike is the misuse of policy. Policy exists for a purpose. All policies were written for good reasons. I can't think of any Wikipedia policy offhand that I disagree with. But I think that Wikipedia is beset by those who know policy very well and misapply it. Misapplication of basic policy can keep material out of articles and can intimidate editors into silence. Look how many times I was threatened with Tendentious editing in this thread. The thread was "hatted" twice: here, and here. Anyone expressing even partial support for what I was saying was spoken to in a dismissive tone:

Spoken to Wikidemon:

Wikidemon - please read the citations previous to commenting, vague comments are worse than constructive, thanks

Spoken to Soosim:

Your threats to edit other articles are laughable - go on then - do your worst - Perhaps you don't get it as regards to en wikipedia - someone is a notable singer, their religion is irrelevant to that and is not a part of their notability , it might be what your interested in but that is irrelevant to this wikipedia, jonny is a notable singer, not a notable Jew that is a singer.

Spoken to Soosim:

Yes your threats, laughable threats - not because they are funny at all.

Spoken to Soosim:

so what - go and delete whatever you want - do it now, yawn, your squealing is nothing but empty worthless threats.

In the above instances we see a very difficult atmosphere for discussion. Below note that I am threatened with "topic ban". Some of these comments are by other editors besides Off2riorob:

You need to stop this is a repeat issue with you adding "Nikki/Jonny/Harry - who is a Jew" as if it is a primary notability. George who is Christian ... its your primary interest but not readers or wikipedias.

…I can only assume that you consider imposing your own neuroses on Wikipedia as more important than the stated aims of the project. On this basis, I would support a call for you to be topic banned from any BLPs of persons of Jewish descent, ethnicity or faith.

Support - topic ban for user bus stop from any BLPs of persons of Jewish descent, ethnicity or faith. its a repeat issue.

Support - I've brought this up on AN/I before and failed to establish as topic ban; however, Bus Stop's behavior appears to have gotten even more obsessive since then and I still support a topic ban.

It is a very difficult atmosphere to operate in when comments are unceasingly intimidating, negative, disrespectful, and dismissive. I am a conscientious editor. I treat other editors with respect. I expect, and hope, to be treated likewise. I am posting this with the hope for improvement in situations similar to the one referenced, in the future. Bus stop (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"Some of these comments are by other editors besides Off2riorob". That's right: one of them was mine. Does it not occur to you that if multiple editors are saying the same thing, the problem might be with you, not us? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—you posted the first comment to me when I initiated that thread. You said the following, in part: "…is this just another example of Bus Stop's obsessive ethno-tagging project." I have never spoken to you in such an offhand manner. Bus stop (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Why not quote what I wrote in full? "Can anyone explain why her apparently being of Jewish descent is of any significance to her notability, or indeed of any significance to the article at all? Or is this just another example of Bus Stop's obsessive ethno-tagging project. (BTW, has anyone ever seen him demonstrating this obsession with other ethnicities?)". As always, you have refused to give any justification whatsoever for your self-appointed task to mark anyone you possibly can as being 'Jewish', other than the usual 'I've got a source' arguments. This is an obsession, and it is contrary to the aims of the Wikipedia project. This is not an ethnic database, and your attempts to treat it as such cause a great deal of annoyance to others more interested in producing and maintaining a less obsessive project. So yes, people are rude to you. But this is a result of your actions, and your total unwillingness to engage in a dialogue as to why you need to mark people as Jewish at every opportunity. Until you acknowledge the need to justify your labels, you will continue to attract hostile comments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—we should try to adhere to what sources say. You say, "This is not an ethnic database…" Do you find even one source using the term "ethnic" in relation to the individual being discussed in this thread? If so, please point that out to me. The sources in fact only say that the individual is Jewish, never mentioning the word "ethnic", "ethnicity", or any related term. That is an embellishment that you are adding, gratuitously. But the subject of this thread, I think, is discourteous comments. That is why I edited down your total comment. I don't mind that you have restored the full context of your comment. I still don't think the context justifies the offhand reference within it. Wikiquette refers to etiquette, meaning we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable. Bus stop (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I second what Andy said. As displayed above, Bus Stop doesn't seem to get that sources are a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for ethnic or religious sourcing. The sources have to be neutral and reliable, and the topic must be given due weight in the article. I've still not heard from Bus Stop what significance the subject's ethnicity or religion (we don't know which or even if yet because of the lack of any form of self-identification) has on their notability. The fact that these considerations are all taken into account via consensus in a WP:BLP has been repeatedly explained to (and ignored by) Bus Stop throughout the threads he points to. Yworo (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Bus Stop, since the topic of this thread is 'discourteous comments', here's some more: I am heartily sick of your facile nit-picking, endless blather about 'sources' and utter refusal to justify your obsessive behaviour. I consider you little more than a troll, and as such a thorough liability to Wikipedia.I'd be happy never to have to see another 'contribution' from you, and I suspect that I'm far from alone in this. So stick that where the sun don't shine.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—if I can guess at what you are referring to when you say, "facile nit-picking", I think that is actually adherence to sources. But in order to stay on that which is the topic of this page—it should be obvious that a hostile environment is not conducive to evenhanded dialogue. I don't like operating in the environment that I found at the following thread: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Nikki Yanofsky and I don't think you or anyone else would. Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Yworo—you say, "The sources have to be neutral…"
But you have been suggesting that there is a distinction between "Jewish" sources and "non-Jewish" sources. In fact our policy makes no distinction between "Jewish" sources and "non-Jewish" sources.
On the Talk page of the Yanofsky article, you say, "If you can find a non-Jewish (i.e. unbiased) source that supports the fact that she identifies as Jewish, that I will accept."
And on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, in reference to the Yanofsky article, you say, "Now, if you had some non-Jewish sources that state that she is Jewish…"
Wikipedia makes an important distinction between reliable and unreliable sources. But our policy makes no distinction between "Jewish" and "non-Jewish" sources.
You have been suggesting that "Jewish" sources cannot serve to establish that the subject of a biography is Jewish, but there is no basis for that in policy.
But for the purposes of this page I think we are talking about conduct. When you interrupt what should be an on-topic dialogue to recommend that I be "topic-banned" that is problematic. That presents a diversion and makes it difficult for me to say what I may wish to say. Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there is a basis, and that is that Jewish publications are not mainstream, they are special-interest. They frequently call people Jewish based solely on their parentage, which is a different standard than Wikipedia uses. Wikipedia's standard for inclusion of either religion or ethnicity in WP:BLP is significance to notability and/or self-identification. Whether or not a source is reliable for a given fact is established by consensus, and the consensus is that Jewish publications don't do the necessary fact-checking or typically distinguish ethnicity from active religious practice, which is something that Wikipedia needs to distinguish, especially in the case of living persons. Until you can establish significance to notability, or provide a source for self-identification, or provide a mainstream source, the consensus was and remains that the fact is neither adequately sourced nor significant. Yworo (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Yworo—these two sources establish that the individual is Jewish:
Source one. (The Jewish Tribune)
Source two. (Canadian Jewish News)
They establish that the individual is Jewish for Wikipedia WP:BLP purposes. There was never any attempted edit claiming some degree of piousness—the edit in question simply called for stating that the individual was Jewish.
But try to stay on topic.
I don't appreciate the editorial environment you create with a remark such as: "I thinks this is indeed simply more of Bus Stop's obsessive ethno-tagging project, and no, I've never seem him demonstrating this obsession with other ethnicities."
Nor do I appreciate this sort of reception at a thread that I am participating in: "Support - I've brought this up on AN/I before and failed to establish as topic ban; however, Bus Stop's behavior appears to have gotten even more obsessive since then and I still support a topic ban."
There are two separate topics above. One belongs on this Wikiquette alerts page and the other does not. Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Then quit forum shopping for support. Yworo (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Yworo—I am not "forum shopping for support." I am displeased by what some of you apparently find acceptable in terms of open dialogue where there are differences of opinion. At such times logic and respect should be present in everybody's way of speaking. All you have to do is read through this thread: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Nikki Yanofsky to see what I had to endure. It is unpleasant, therefore let us all try to do better next time. Bus stop (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I hardly think this thread is "resolved" as a number of disturbing points have been raised by Bus stop and Nomoskedasticity regarding Off2riorob's highly questionable statement "Are you interested in anything apart from jews?" ... which by the way, in Off2riorob's original leaves off the correct capital J. Deliberate? Whatever the case, his comment appears to me to be another example of an attempt at a chilling effect and strikes me as a vicious attack that crosses the line into moral turpitude. I have not read the thread in question because, well, as I said earlier, I mostly try to stay away from Off2riorob's posts. All I know of this matter is what I read here, and it is more than enough. I ask again... why is this editor allowed to use these dark tactics in editing Wikipedia? Jusdafax 07:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

block malik shabazz

  • {{|malik shabazz}}
  • {{New Israel Fund}}

Malik often reverts what i do, follows me around and continues to revert. i don't have a problem with honest editing, but as of late, he has taken it personally and has now taken to calling me vulgar names. see [70] as his latest example. there really is no place for his type of language and his use of language in pages i edit. hope someone can help (since he has a few 'friends' who seem to back him up, i feel that the 'neutrals' just aren't out there. it is clear to me that he has gone beyond 'civility', used 'personal attacks' and more. thanks. (and sorry if i filled out the form incorrectly - in over 4 years of wiki editing, i have never had to do this.) Soosim (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

i realized i didn't give his link: [71] and i just found this too: [72] and in fact, a quick look at this search is quite revealing: [73] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soosim (talk • contribs) 04:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the background of any of this, but I looked at your example of his "vulgar" namecalling, and it happened immediately after you taunted him in response to his noting a copyright violation you committed. If you want to demand civility, you should practice it yourself. Gamaliel (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
taunted? what did i say? i asked him twice about my rewrites. not sure how you see that as 'taunting'. if it was, i am sorry. that is one of my calling cards. Soosim (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
and i want to add an example of past rude behavior from malik, where i specifically asked him not to continue in these personal attacks [74] - thanks. Soosim (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. Collect (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thanks collect. seems like people have lots to say about me, and very little about malik, except for excusing his behavior. oh well, i guess that is just the way it is. i'll deal with it. Soosim (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Another shining example of running from the I-P topic area looking to get one's wiki-opponents in trouble. Yes, using taunting/mocking edit summaries such as "re-edited again for my friend malik - hope you like it. thanks!" is probably not going to foster a very collegial editing atmosphere. When you personalize an editing conflict, no one wins. Tarc (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
tarc - i said what i said in all sincerity. he had addressed me personally, so i answered him personally. if i am not supposed to do that, then i will be less friendly and more serious, businesslike. no problem. Soosim (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Soosim, this thread isn't really helping. It says at top of the page that Wikiquette alerts are supposed to be used to resolve disputes, and that they shouldn't be used to request punishment on other editors. I know you're a reasonable guy capable of negotiation, and I hope you and Malik Shabazz can settle this in a more peaceful way than requesting blocks for the other guy. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It would seem to me that User:Malik Shabazz owes User:Soosim an apology for saying in an edit summary:
"..,please stop being a jackass, Soosim…"
At WP:ES I find: "Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, which makes collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack."
While it may be true that there may be extenuating circumstances, I think the above would tend to apply. Bus stop (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Only if that apology is coupled with an apology from Soosim for taunting MS in the first place and for being so contemptuous of us here that he thought we'd believe his "friendly" edit summary wasn't pure snark. Gamaliel (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"block Malik Shabazz" is the title of this thread? Bullet point #3 at the top of this page: Avoid filing a report if: You want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures to be imposed/enforced. Wrong venue? Or wrong section title? Doc talk 03:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

gamaliel - i have apologized to him and in public as well. he continues to do and say what he does. but if you really think that this was taunting....i will say it again. that was not my intention. he wrote to me personally, i wrote him back personally, in a very friendly tone. i said that i tried again and again to edit it to his personal satisfaction. so, i am sorry if anything i said or did was misinterpreted. and his calling me a vulgar name is never acceptable. please block him (again) for that behavior. Soosim (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Odds of him getting blocked for what you ask: 1000:1. Odds of him getting blocked on this board: 1,000,000 to one. This board is not for requesting blocks. WP:AN/I is thataway ----> Good luck over there ;> Doc talk 04:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
doc - i love long odds. (soosim means horses, and well, horses means playing the odds....) - anyway, i went to the page you suggested wp:an/i and it says "To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts." - which is why i went here. and so, i do that, and mostly what i get are excuses why malik can be vulgar, why malik this and why malik that. ok, i am not dense. i do understand that 'they' won't say anything bad about malik. so be it. Soosim (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The point isn't what one user gets to do and another doesn't, the point is that there's a group of civil behaviors that are expected of everyone. Singling a violation of one of those behaviors out and ignoring violations of different behaviors would be unfair. Gamaliel (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that administrators should be calling other editors names. Bus stop (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The point is, calling others out for bad words when you Sooism was a bit of a dick himself in this matter kinda undercuts the complaint. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Tarc—you say, "The point is, calling others out for bad words when you were a bit of a dick yourself in this matter kinda undercuts the complaint."
I think the point is that Sooism has registered what seems to be a legitimate complaint. The response to such a complaint should not be to dismiss it but rather to acknowledge it. Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Question about different WQA being considered at the same time as this one.
Bus stop, I noticed your post because it was above the report started about me, just below. The AN/I thread that occasioned it, User Rklawton "A dirty, rotten, low-life, disruptive, trick", is directly relevant to what you just said, and your comments there would be welcome, as would those of any other editor. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:CANVASS is applicable here. Collect (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
No more than here. But don't let's argue here, please.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you miss the distinction between a required notification and CANVASS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)'
Agreed, they shouldn't. But there is a context and we shouldn't ignore it. If there is deliberate provocation, sometimes these things happen. But MS should have attempted to be more diplomatic even with such provocation. Likewise, Tarc should have been more diplomatic and instead said something like "Sooism violated an important Wikipedia standard of behavior". Gamaliel (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
tarc - did you really call me that? that is even more vulgar than malik. i see that complaining about personal attacks, name calling and behavior is hopeless here. oh well. i had expected more from other editors. live and learn. Soosim (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Tarc, that was not cool. Please redact that comment.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Sooism's comment elsewhere on this page "just an understanding that his use of vulgar language is uncivil and should not happen again". I agree. We've been focusing on the context of the comment and Sooism's behavior - his demand for a block and his provocative edit summaries - which gave the impression that he was gaming the system. But we should also explicitly state that namecalling isn't acceptable even if it occasionally happens from the best of us in the face of provocation. Gamaliel (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree and I'm going to repeat what I said earlier: I've had some business with Soosim before and it's been all good so far, so I'm confident that Soosim isn't acting in bad faith. True, a block request here isn't exactly appropriate, but everyone makes mistakes. I hope that Soosim and Malik can resume peaceful improvement of the encyclopedia, without blocks but, if necessary, with mutual apologies. Zakhalesh (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • comment - does anyone care about malik and tarc's use of vulgar language? that was the question and the issue. i have seen lots of comments but very few deal with this. and certainly this can not be acceptable? anyone care to summarize this so we can move forward? Soosim (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Raptor Red

Please block him. An indef would be fine. No time for this crap.

Thanks. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Another personal attack on another user and 4RR. Please indef block. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

5RR. Was warned 3RR's ago. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And another personal attack.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alerts is an informal arbitration process, bans are not issued here. If you believe the actions deserve a ban, you need to report them at WP:ANI Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Correct. Wikiquette is a starting point for advice and feedback on civility issues. It seems your case has gone beyond the limits of this forum. Best to take it to the next level.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Excessive trivia at List of Shake It Up episodes

As is often the case with episode lists, most of the episodes listed here are followed by unsourced trivial notes that would be better suited for a site like TV.com. Given that, I removed all the trivia [75] [76], but IPs restored the information. I then removed the trivia a second time (followed by a broader explanation on the talk page), but then IPs restored the information again. I didn't remove the trivia a third time because I didn't want to violate WP:3RR. Since there is no trivia noticeboard, does anyone have any solutions? (It isn't vandalism, so WP:RPP is out of the question.) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 03:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this is just the case of an unregistered user who doesn't know any better. I can put a template on their talk page for you. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Kizayaro Incivility on Talk:Aline Griffith, Countess of Romanones

[Edited for easier reading and relisted] Kizayaro has reverted edits about questions concerning the truthfullness of Romanones' memoirs without providing explanations in edit summary, until I created a section on the Talk page, in which he responded back, aamong other things “please see the National Archives…before you revert back.” (S)he also said “I will stay close to this to support a national hero who was recruited and trained by the OSS, and sent into the field.”

I found the direction to “see the National Archives” but not cite a particular document to be uncivil. It would be as if someone said “A book in the Library of Congress says I am right, so there.” Furthermore, I found the comment about staying close “to support a national hero” to be problematic for several reasons.

1. It is an implicit threat to edit war should I change anything.
2. It presupposes that Romanones is a hero, so leaves no room for openmindedness about discussion about their truthfulness.
3. Stating his reason for monitoring and editing this page as to ”support a national hero” is an open admission of POV-pushing.

I shared these concerns on the talk page, and now Kizayaro has come back with several scurrilous accusations.

1. He has accused me of “creating” this controversy (questions about Romanones’ OSS) career) when I merely edited based on sources I had found. Basically, he’s accusing me of POV-pushing and original research, even though I have included two sources, including an LA Times story that references a third source, all questioning the veracity of Romanones’ memoirs.
2. He has falsly accused me of Page Ownership by claiming I "instruct[ed] the Wikipedia community not to revert back, as if I am the sole manage of the site," when what I actually said was "please see [source] before reverting" - a request, not an instruction, to read something, and in no way did my statement tell people they could or should not revert, only asked them to take into consideration a source before they made the decision whether or not to revert.
3. He accused me of not wanting to investigate the National Archives (as if that is my responsibility to look through the whole of their documents to find a source he makes vague reference to) and also not wanting “to even check the actual contents of McIntosh's book.” The last statement is an outright lie. I found the page in question on the Google Books version of the McIntosh book, and made explicit reference to what I found there in a Talk page post, making it clear I had actually read the page, before Kizayaro made his accusation.
4. Finally, he said to me “You already have quite a reputation on this site and I really don't know who you think you are to tell me that I'm ‘incivil and unconstructive’." I consider this to be slander. I am an occasional editor, too infrequent to have created a reputation of any kind, good or bad, on Wikipedia. I have never had any blocks taken out against me, nor have I even been officially warned. Kizayaro is making that aspersion upon my reputation without any evidence at all, or at the most digging for dirt on me to find the kind of disagreements we have all had here to “create” a reputation for me so that he can try to create the impression that I should be considered a problematic editor to anyone reading the Griffith Talk page discussion. (also note that Kizayaro's user contributions only go back to February 17 of this year, and only relate to the Aline Griffith article, which show that he would have had no foreknowledge of my alleged "reputation", and also tend to support the concerns I have about his lack of neutral point of view on this subject).

Per policy, I have informed Kizayaro that I have initiated this Wikiquette Alert. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeated uncivil postings in AfD discussion

Resolved
 – User:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry warned for edit warring. No relevant personal attacks/uncivil conduct were shown.

Hi, I am requesting some sort of admin. intervention on the above identified AfD discussion page that is likely to turn hostile if things continue in the same vein.

There have been at least 4 violations of WP:CIVIL guidance so far. The first instance was this one: [77] but I'm not reporting this person because I believe my reponse to it sufficiently handled it. It is now water under the bridge, but it did set the tone for later participants that disagree with my position of keeping the article.

The next one was by Digirami here: [78]. I considered his comments to be essentially ad hominem (since he mentions me by name in order to criticize my posting style rather than addressing my arguments) and so I removed them as per WP:RPA guidance here: [79]. I did consider just removing the last offending part but felt that that might be considered to be tampering with his words, which might only escalate matters, so I removed the whole post expecting him to simply repost his vote in a more civil manner (i.e., without the ad hominem insult). This is a bit of a lose-lose situation for me because now others interpreted my full removal of the post (to avoid the accusation of tampering with it) as an attempt to simply delete his vote instead, which is silly because he could simply repost it.

Thus the following sequence of edits and reverts followed (probably best just to read the edit summary comments in the edit history for this sequence): [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], .... [86], [87]

I really don't think changing, "You are an idiot" to "You are an idiot" effects any sort of useful removal of incivility from a public page, which is no doubt why WP:RPA states remove rather than strikethrough the offending text. I have stopped adding to this silly edit/revert cycle but am not happy where things currently sit. The other user involved here appears to be trying to simply game the system rather than reach any kind of harmonious outcome.

Finally we come to this sequence of comment - response - comment - response with the second user: [88], [89], [90], [91].

The actual posted comments explain the difference of opinion here, but I feel none of this is pertinent to the AfD discussion which should only be about why the article should or should not be retained. I have posted the following comment to this user's Talk page suggesting all these comments would best be removed as they are irrelevant to the AfD discussion but the other user is being equally belligerent as the first one: User_talk:Jmorrison230582#Bad_faith_comments.

Lack of any response from this user on this front has finally led me here. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 02:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what I have done that comes under what a personal attack is. I commented on MLITH's content. MLITH created a "subpage" in the mainspace and then made a deliberate effort to keep it out of other areas of the mainspace. When it became clear that it would have to be posted within mainspace categories, MLITH then started posting lengthy rationales about how or why it should be kept as a mainspace article, contradicting the original intention. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
In fact looking at that discussion, it appears that MLITH is starting from a position of assuming bad faith in other users.
Whatever could MLITH mean by delete voters "having an agenda"? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I too find it hard to see how my actions are considered a "personal attack". I addressed the AFD by stating that is goes against WP:NOTNEWS. I then suggested to MLITH that he should keep his arguments more concise in the future because other editors/readers may be turned off by overly lengthy arguments (such as this). The suggestion in no part qualifies as ad hominem since it has nothing to do with the actual merits of his arguments, but more on presentation. It's a proven fact that arguments are more effective when they are simple and to the point as compared to lengthy, wordy arguments. In hindsight, it probably wasn't the correct place to suggest it (which is why it was struck through since it didn't merit a full removal). But, how can a comment meant to help him in future arguments here or elsewhere be considered uncivil and/or a personal attack? It simply isn't. (I may also add that I am not the first person to suggest this to MLITH. Another person suggested the same, but didn't do it in the discussion of an AFD. I do not see that editor brought up for "uncivil" behavior.) Digirami (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Outside View Considering the comments and diffs posted here, I don't think any admin action is neccessary. The two editors being complained about here do not seem to have acted against the letter or spirit of the guidelines on civility.
  • In the first instance, User:Digirami has commented on the length of User:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry's rationales and comments in addition to rather than instead of his deletion rationale. This is not an ad hom argument because the concerns are seperate (In the same way that 'Delete because I don't like Bob' is an ad hom argument but 'Delete because of lack of notability, also I don't like you Bob' is not). In any case this is a legitimate comment and perhaps, helpful advice, added in good faith and not a personal attack.
  • In the second instance, User:Jmorrison230582 seems to have been commenting on irregularities in the construction of the article. Because User:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry was responsible for these irregularities, it makes sense that (s)he were 'called out' and I see no evidence that this was in bad faith. Perhaps the Afd is not the correct forum for this, but ultimately that's not too important.
  • I think in this case User:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry's conduct needs to be addressed. Firstly I feel that you may need to look over the policy on personal attacks and civil conduct policies again. Simply mentioning another editor does not make for a personal attack, neither does an ad hominem argument. A personal attack tends to be an unneccessary, overly confrontational or vulgar and usually meritless attack on a person's character or off-wiki conduct whilst generally what you are characterising as personal attacks here are legitimate and potentially helpful comments on your relevant on-wiki behaivour.
  • Secondly I do not think you should be taking it upon yourself to moderate this Afd. Voluntary redaction of comments can be a good way to solves disputes or misunderstandings amicably, this can be done either through removal or strikethrough. There are benefits to each - strikethrough gives the sense of a public apology and shows the discussion that moves on, whilst removal ensures that nobody is swayed by the withdrawn arguments - ultimately however the choice is to be made by the person who is voluntarily retracting their comments. Comments should not be actively removed by an involved editor without a very good reason, this is for obvious COI reasons, but also because it creates a more contentious atmosphere and creates more of a problem, without the obvious benefits a public apology/withdrawal gives.
  • I also note that in one situation which you have helpfully provided the diffs to, you have engaged in edit warring with User:Digirami over, essentially, whether his/her comment should be striken or removed. I think in this situation it was not appropriate to revert his/her restoration of his/her own comments as they were not vulgar/offensive/libellous etc. You both prima facie breached the 3 revert rule, however User:Digirami has the quite substantial mitigating factor that (s)he was readding their own comments, and attempting to retract them. I therefore think its appropriate to warn you for violations of the rule and to ask you to refrain from removing any more content from this Afd.
  • In a nutshell I feel it's appropriate to warn User:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry for violations of the WP:3RR rule and ask him/her to step back somewhat from this Afd, at least to the extent of removing comments etc. I do not feel any admin action is appropriate. If any uninvolved editors think this is the wrong conclusion, feel free to reopen.

Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Andreasedge

User:Andreasedge posted a question on the Beatles talk page here, and when I pointed out that the statement in question was false, and another editor agreed, User:Andreasedge altered the original question and told me to "shut the 'eff up." Piriczki (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Very nice. I always enjoy seeing a new contender for Lamest Edit War Ever. Is it "the Beatles" or "The Beatles"? Think very carefully: the fate of the universe depends on answering correctly. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the comment and warned the user. This is probably the end of it unless the original editor escalates. Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I would note the comment I made upon User:Gamaliel's talkpage regarding the history between certain editors and Andreasegde, while of course considering the inappropriate use of language around sensitive ears. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, personal attacks and ignorance of consensus

I would like to report disruptive editing of "Silent Hill (video game)," personal attacks and ignorance of consensus by the user Yomiel. This article is a good article, which is an extra reason for it to comply with Wikipedia's rules. The user has still not restored the correct edits, neither he/she recalled the personal attacks, despite multiple notifications of him/her by both me and another user over a period of some weeks (this is the number of notifications done by me: 8 notifications of the disruptive editing, 7 notifications of the personal attacks and 3 notifications of his ignorance of consensus). The disruptive editing involved repeated addition of original research, which is also trivia (according to the guidelines of WikiProject video games, the plot section should not include trivia), in the plot section. The personal attacks involved repeated labeling of me as a liar, vandal and attacker, without any proof, thus, these labels are unfounded. The ignorance of consensus involved deletion of the restored correct edits and addition of his/her original research-trivia, despite 2 other users previously agreeing with me that original research is present in this user's edits (one of them agreed in the article's talk page and the other in this user's talk page) and none agreeing with his/her edits. The proof for all these is in this user's talk page and in the article's talk page. Some of the proof in his/her talk page has been deleted, so it can be viewed by clicking the page's previous version. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This is getting on my nerves. First, for someone who keeps talking about rules, don't the rules listed at the top of the page say you shouldn't post about this kind of thing here? I'm responding only to clear my own name. A while ago, I made a few small edits to the article for the game Silent Hill. Golden reverted my edits and accused me of vandalism, because these edits didn't have references. I don't believe every single statement needs to have a reference. As it is, it's impossible to edit most articles here-that page included-because there are so many long references that it's impossible to tell the difference between them and the article itself. What really ticked me off, though, was that Golden has repeatedly ADMITTED that she knows the information I added is accurate. Deleting accurate information solely because it is not sourced is what I consider vandalism. There are a lot of people who try and twist the rules to give them free reign to do whatever they want. She also tried to flaunt that fact that she has been a member here longer, as if that automatically meant I had to do whatever she wanted. When I refused to let her have her way, she continued to harass me, then opened up a request for comment on the game's talk page. Contrary to what she would have you believe, there was never any agreement for my edits to be removed. In fact, pretty much no one commented at all, until recently. She has repeatedly "notified" me on my talk page, and I've repeatedly asked her to stop. Just because she doesn't like an edit, that does not give her the right to act like a moderator and repeatedly give me warnings and threaten me. And I called her a liar because just as she is doing now, she has lied on numerous pages about what has been going on between us. Various other people have pointed out how ridiculous all this is over such minor edits, and I agree, but she won't leave me alone.Yomiel (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I never used the word "vandalism" nor I harassed. This can be verified by checking out the discussions at Yomiel's talk page and at the game's talk page. The issue is not Yomiel not doing what I say, but Yomiel not following the rules. As anyone can see in my previous post here at Wikiquette alerts, I also didn't say that there was agreement for Yomiel's edits to be removed, I said that there was agreement that Yomiel's edits contain original research. Me flaunting the fact that I've been a user for longer is an unfounded claim based on personal conclusions and there is no evidence to prove it, not that there is any for the other claims by Yomiel here. The restoration of the correct edits was done after these 2 people said that original research is included, not before, so my act of restoration was based on consensus. As for the "threats," they would be considered threats if I had threatened that a block or something else bad would be applied, while I only warned of "notification of an administrator," which can, too, be verified by checking out the discussions. If the administrator will just warn or block is up to his/her judgement. May I hear the names of the numerous pages I've lied in? It can be confirmed who is lying and twisting by just checking out the discussions. It's outrageous that personal attacks continue even here, in public, and even after the report here, and it's not the first time personal attacking is done in public, the other time being at the game's talk page. The fact that various people have pointed out that the matter is minor or ridiculous, doesn't mean it's acceptable to add original research and/or trivia. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And here we go again. Yes, you have harassed me. Non-stop. The rules do not require every single part of every single article to have a source. And if they do, then that is insane. You reverted edits that you knew contained factual information, using the rules to support your vandalism. Even reading your posts is irritating. You need to stop harassing me. Now.Yomiel (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

accused of edit warring at Sham peer review by User:Rpeh

I am accused of causing an edit war. I am conforming to the status quo by using a source Association of American Physicians and Surgeons which is used in 16 other Wiki articles (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=JPandS&fulltext=Search). I have already stated the obvious several times that a ruling at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is required to overturn the status quo. ‎One paragraph i used doesnt even have any relevancy to the disputed source.--Penbat (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to duck when the BOOMERANG comes back. You edit warred and ignored discussion on the talk page. End of argument. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
i contributed quite a lot on the talk page until the arguments against inclusion started going round in circles and nobody seems willing to challenge the status quo by making a case at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.--Penbat (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
You were already answered on that point. WP:RS contains the following: "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals". JPandS is not peer reviewed and so is not considered reliable. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Penbat, I think that the best solution to this would be for you to post on RSN yourself. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The onus is not on me to do anything. I am just complying with the status quo. The source is considered OK for 16 other articles. Those who want the status quo changed need to post on RSN and argue for the source to be blacklisted. --Penbat (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to repeat the point again until you understand it. "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals". JPandS is not peer reviewed and so is not considered reliable. This means that JPandS might well be used on other articles, but it is not valid where you were adding it! rpeh •T•C•E• 16:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no specific onus on anybody to bring issues to RSN, it's not a psuedo-legal process, but rather an informal way of bringing the discussion to a wider forum in order to obtain a better idea of the WP:CONSENSUS on the matter. RSN rarely operates in terms of 'rulings' 'blacklists' and (by extension) whitelists but instead operates on an ad hoc basis which is heavily dependant on context. You may also wish to note that the 'status quo' is very rarely relevant in content disputes and the WP:BURDEN is almost always on the person who wishes to add the content and that your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is a non-starter on wikipedia. If you would like to include this information and source, since consensus is against you at the talk page, RSN is the way to go. Regards Bob House 884 (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive102&oldid=1142546483"