Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive44

User:Travb

He seems to be a little angry today. Here he is warned by admin User:William M. Connolley [1] for an earlier incivility today. Now he reverts me with this edit summary [2] after he posted copyright violations. Should I just take this to ANI? He has a history of incivility but no blocks for a while. --DHeyward (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Travb's already made a stop at ANI. --Onorem♠Dil 02:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

DHeyward, congratulations, in the three years on wikipedia, you are the first person I told to F'off.

I guess after the recent JzG arbcom, where I kept seeing JzG to tell others to f'off and after Mongo told someone to f'off and Mongo's incivility caused him to be blocked for a couple of minutes before supporting editors unblocked him, and after you and Mongo called me a troll, said I should have been kicked off of wikipedia, and that my contributions were crap, I guess some of the incivility just rubbed off, and for that I am sorry. Passive agressive is the way to win edit wars on wikipedia. I should have simply quoted JzG and Mongo telling other users to F'off, then you would have no recourse.

This page is new. I am not sure about how it works. As I mentioned on the ANI (which I posted quickly to make sure I wasn't blocked immediately), the hypocricy and bullying get really tiring here on wikipedia. I have attempted to leave numerous times. sigh. Inclusionist (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. In this edit to an RfC, User:DHeyward has advocated blocking Travb indefinitely, saying that his contributions to any article are "essentially nil", and that Travb is a "time-waster". I think a 24 hour block for incivility against DHeyward may be warranted. silly rabbit (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The RFC you are discussing is about WMC's block of Travb for disruption. I recommended that it be extended indefinitely. I was not incivil in any way. --DHeyward (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Silly, I don't think the people who run this page have any authority to block anyone. Otherwise I would roll out DHeyward's "crap" and "troll" comments. I miss WP:PAIN Inclusionist (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Help with an Editor

I request help in working with an editor, Domer48, who is adding tags to an article when, in my opinion, they are not appropriate. The article is "A Secret History of the IRA," which is an important book written by Ed Moloney. The tags claim the article contains (1) OR or unverified claims and (2) too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry.

With respect to the former, there are two sentences that are not sourced. The first is the lead sentence which states that the book was written by Moloney. The second notes that a central theme of the book is the role of Gerry Adams in the Irish Republican Movement. The second sentence is supported by two sentences, sourced, that follow. Aside from the fact that a tag claiming there are too many quotations reflects a point of view, the reason there are so many quotations is that Domer48 and a colleague editor of his, One Night in Hackney, have repeatedly reverted any of my edits that were not sourced and/or direct quotations. Thus, this is a situation of edited if I do and edited if I don't.

His revert history comments says, "tags stay until addressed." I have addressed these issues, which were also raised by One Night in Hackney. One issue, for example, is that The Blanket is not a reliable source. Even though this attitude reflects a POV, I went ahead and added sources from reviews that appeared in The Nation and the Sunday Business Post, both very mainstream outlets. And the reviews were written by persons well-known for their knowledge of Northern Ireland.

Thanks in advance to whomever replies to this. WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• A Secret History of the IRA

I'm not sure this is a Wikiquette issue, but a content one. At first glance, the article appears deeply unenencylopedic - do we need a list of every chapter and appendix of a book? The lengthy quotes of positive reviews look to me a breach of WP:NPOV, and one source used - The Blanket - has been rightly questioned as a strongly partisan one that needs caution per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the suggestions. I plan to continue to work on the article. WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. What's wrong with listing the table of contents? It seems to me that the goal of Wikipedia is to provide neutral information for the interested reader. If there is an entry on an album by the Beatles, for example, would the article have the titles of the songs on the album. If no, then it seems fair to not have the chapter titles. If yes, then it seems the table of contents should be there.

With respect to the reviews quoted, should they be neutralized, or should reviews that are less positive be added for balance?

As for The Blanket, we disagree, but that's ok. From what I've seen, The Blanket presents information from a variety of sources. With respect to the particular review, from Liam O Ruairc, his reviews appear in more places than The Blanket.

Again, thank you for the help. WH.

With respect to the reviews quoted, should they be neutralized, or should reviews that are less positive be added for balance?

I'd say both, while trying to quote less, summarise more, and incorporate them in a general narrative.

All I can say is that chapter listings for books aren't the custom here. :Regarding sources, WP:NPOV requires all significant viewpoints, not merely positive ones. What about Niall Stanage's review, that called it "fascinating but flawed" and mentions the problem of it being "almost impossible for the reader to gauge the veracity of much of the information imparted"?[3] There are many more reviews to be found in NewsBank from mainstream UK papers.

There's also general background to the book that could be mentioned: for instance, the controversy over the book's disputed naming of the late Jean McConville as an informer. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Factfindingmission

Work in progress; comments welcome

Dear Wiki administrator,

Mr. Factfindingmission is on a mission. He has deleted a section relevant to the biographical content of the article on L. Paul Bremer without consulting with other editors who have put in their contributions. Mr. Factfindingmission proceeded with comments suggesting that other editors make editorial corrections by his instructions and not bother to make these changes himself. After at least two reverts, Mr. Factfindingmission accused one of the editors of being "not nice" and immature, which is construed as a "personal attack". The editor under attack refuses to edit this article further knowing full well Mr. Factfindingmission will start a "revert war", making the article completely useless. Can someone direct Mr. Factfindingmission to the locale where rules, policies, and ettiquette can be found as one edits in Wikipedia?

With Regards, 98.25.253.195 (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would see about filing a Third Opinion over at WP:30 to see if someone neutral could add their thoughts (I'm an American who works in the Financial District, so I am by no-means neutral, so I cannot do it). I notice that the reverting has stopped in the last few days, which is good and that you seem to be carrying on a fairly respectful conversation with one another, also. If 3O doesn't work you can always try WP:RFC and file a Request for Comment. Hope this helps! Lazulilasher (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Floyd McKissick, Jr.

Fbm3rd keeps changing his own page to remove any information he doesn't like, even though it is public information and is accurately sourced. Is there a way to keep someone from constantly deleting information? Thanks! Evets70 (talk)

As I stated, first discuss it on the talk page, if the user persists... then a request for intervention would be needed. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks CanadianLinuxUser... I appreciate the info. Evets70 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jefffire (talk · contribs)

A reasonable discussion of quality of sources turned uncivil when Jefffire began with the personal attacks by insulting my grasp of science.

• Here he says that I have a "lack of scientific literacy" and accusing me of POV pushing.
• Here after asking him nicely to refactor the previous statement, he calls me "scientifically illiterate" and tells me to stop "pretending to be scientific."
• Here I have asked him once again to refactor and instead he has chosen to go on with his insults about me pretending to be scientific, accuses me of misrepresenting myself, and says that I have "put-upon-knowledge".

Generally, I am finding this editor to be unnecessarily insulting, I would like to see him 1) stop and 2) refactor his statements. I don't need or want or demand any sort of apology. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I think we need to re-evaluate the chiropractor's motivations here. QuackGuru (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How does that have any relavance to the civity of Jefffire? 202.161.71.161 (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

None at all. Not sure why QuackGuru keeps mischaracterizing me a "chiropractor". I am not. Additionally, the link he provides - though not relevant to this posting - I am confident paints a better portrait of me than he thinks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User alert User:Zeuspitar

It appears one user aka Govinda Ramanuja dasa has misunderstanding as far as WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, and appears to be constantly attacking other editors on a basis that appears to be against WP:5P : ([4], [5], [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Everyone, if he thinks they are ISKCON... and [12] it destructive to the process, while I and others struggle to get what he actually means in order to assume WP:FAITH. Wikidās ॐ 10:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas has wasted the time of half a dozen editors by elaborate contortions of the sources he cites, and has now learned how to wikilawyer instead of getting his act together. He has so far shown no sign that his contributions contain anything worth the time he takes away from productive contributors. dab (𒁳) 11:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

insulting msg

Please see the latest edit to List of Arab Americans with the comment insulting my userid. Apparently by a sockpuppet. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I warned User:Homer saves presidents. Grsz^talk 04:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Ultramarine

I'm interested to know what other users and administrators think about the state of criticisms of capitalism. Granted it's a contentious issue, but there are many articles that stay-on-topic and balanced without getting bogged down in controversy (e.g. criticisms of socialism). There have been discussions concerning the content of the article and how editors believe that the current structuring (point-counterpoint-point-counterpoint...) makes it unreadable. Ultramarine insists that this is necessary for the article to be POV-free. His edits, however, are POV laden and not necessarily what the page is about. The problem is Ultramarine's proclivity to stalk the page, jumping in and making multiple "defender of capitalism" edits after someone adds anything new to the article [13], [14]. This behavior makes it difficult for new editors to become engaged with the article. Other editors, including User:Giovanni33 and User:BernardL, may be interested in this discussion. Any comments on this would be appreciated. Uwmad (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at just the two diffs you provided it appears Ultramarine removed cited information and added mostly non-cited information. The edits are not balance, they are counter-argument and are unsourced. This is not a content dispute, it is about behaviours (borderline incivility). Ultramarine's edits appear to violate WP:OR and come dangerously close to violating WP:OWN. I think an admin would agree. -- Low Sea (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Misleading diffs. One more than a month old! Look at the latest instead.[15] No cited information removed. Uwmad has sometimes added many unsourced claims.[16] However, both sides have added many references and arguments improving the page during the last month. Thus constructive debate. Regarding the latest content dispute, see the talk page. Ultramarine (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing "misleading" about the fact that before your edit the article contained these two citations:

<ref name ="industrialliving">{{cite web | last = Nardinelli | first = Clark

| title = Industrial Revolution and the Standard of Living

| url = http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/IndustrialRevolutionandtheStandardofLiving.html

| format = html | accessdate = 2008-04-16}} </ref>

<ref name ="conditionsworking">{{cite web | last = Engels | first = Frederick

| title = The Condition of the Working Class in England

| url = http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/index.htm

| accessdate = 2008-04-16}} </ref>

yet afterwards the only "citation" remaining was:

[http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/IndustrialRevolutionandtheStandardofLiving.html].

If these citations had simply vanished I might have considered this unintentional but because you specifically removed 1 of 2 citations and changed the format of the other it is emminently clear that this was a clear and deliberate violation of WP:VANDAL (see "Blanking").

Additionally your statement saying these diffs were "misleading" might be considered a violation of WP:CIVIL under Section 2: "Lies, such as deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page so as to mislead one or more editors". Uwmad showed remarkable restraint. In my opinion he should have reverted your edit, added an explanatory comment on the article talk page, then left a comment on your user talk page with the tag {{subst:uw-delete2}} and requested you to not remove cited material and citations without explanation on the article talk page. You -- as a more experieced editor -- in turn should have left clear explanations on the article talk page as to why you removed specific text, why you changed well formatted citations to less informative weblinks, why you changed specific text within the article, and why you added specific new text which was off-topic to the article (the topic is "Criticism of ...", not "Debate on ..." or "Pros and Cons of ...").

As for your assertion that the more recent talk page reflects a change and now shows "constructive debate" I see that less than 2 days after saying that you were clearly uncivil to Uwmad, succeeding in driving him away. Yes, he too was irritated to the point of uncivil behavior but that does not excuse you -- two wrongs do not make a right. Sheer common sense should provide that when you are already being reviewed for violations of wikiquette (this page) that you would attempt to keep the kettle on a low burner, but instead you showed contempt for the community and succeeded in costing Wikipedia a contributing editor. If you cannot exercise simple self-restraint for less than 2 days perhaps an admin should provide you with a cooling off period to think about your actions. -- Low Sea (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If an admin would agree, where should I take this to? I wholeheartedly agree with the WP:OWN comment for this case -- I'm somewhat new to editing and am grateful that Wikipedia has such a policy. Talk:Critique of capitalism will show that Ultramarine has done a good job alienating many editors. He is now the lone "protector" of the page. One editor noted: "I've noticed that every discussion that Ultramarine joins, suddently becomes a battlezone". Not a very inviting environment for people to make an encyclopedia in. The links that I added are not misleading, the first that I gave was Ultramarine's most recent edit, done almost immediately after I had added a brief history section (which was so broad I didn't think controversial). The second was his typical "editing" style -- a reaction to an edit made by someone else, greeting these edits with a hammering of 5 to 10 counteredits. Here's another example. That edit and the second edit were my first two contributions to the page. Not very inviting... Just note that I made several large contributions during March that greatly expanded several sections, adding more than 25 references. [17] I want to contribute but find it exceedingly difficult given Ultramarine's conduct. Uwmad (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If it becomes a persistent pattern of behavior (but isn't blatant vandalism or disruption), the proper approach is file a Request for comment. You could also try asking for a third opinion (where someone neutral and uninvolved pops in), or for mediation. (Although both of you would need to agree to the latter option for it to work). Hope that helps, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes that does help. What do you think of this? Just curious. Thanks again. Uwmad (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully Uwmad that is not a fair question to ask anyone in a forum like this. If people wish to volunteer their views (as I did) that is their choice, but to ask for their views when they may wish only to provide impartial advice on how WP works puts them in an uncomfortable position. -- Low Sea (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sponsership Results Cause My Retinaas to Burn!!

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

I Hate these Left Page Sponser take up my valuable reading view. It's too small a page to read easily. I hope others join me in protest@@!!@#$$!!

-Angry Anonimous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.185.40 (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Could you please explain what on earth you are talking about, I don't follow you at all. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Not a WQA issue. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:SynergeticMaggot and his/her interpretation of WP:SPEEDYKEEP

Stuck

and now listed over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Beeblbrox (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This user did a non-admin close on a this AfD debate that had been open for less than three hours because of their somewhat unique interpretation of WP:SPEEDYKEEP. In response to my concerns, expressed on his talk page, that this may not have been an appropriate use of speedy keeping, he basically told me that, although I had nominated the article, I had somehow not expressed an opinion on the subject. A quick look at his talk page, and indeed his own remarks on my talk page, reveal that he makes a habit of this behavior. So basically, I am asking for comment on this rather unorthodox method of closing debates. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Its been a while since I was more heavily involved in AFd's, but this looks a bit irregular, bordering on bullying. One of the articles accused the nominator of not voting for deletion (despite actually nominating for deletion on the grounds of the article being an advertisement). I would prefer to have a few admins look into this, but it looks .... odd. I'm not sure if this is a wikiquette issue, but it might need some administrator intervention. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Its actually not an issue for this board. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to go to WP:RFC because this seemed a more informal place for discussion, but if you would like to move this over there, or wherever it is you do think this conversation belongs, please go right ahead and do so. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You would need a whole bunch of editors to endorse you before an RfC will take place. But this dispute as it were, hasn't even reached informal mediation yet. RfC is not the place to go. WP:ANI is the message board to go to, as LonelyBeacon suggests and if its what you wish to do. Other than that, WP:DRV is the more appropriate place to challenge a closed AfD. Cheers. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ever since when did it take a team of admins to endorse an editor for an RFC? This sounds a little like trying to dissuade action because it will take too much work .... much like gaming the system. I think that it sounds like there either needs to be a clarification as to whether or not closing can take place like this, and I would suggest that in light of the editor's smug comments, go straight to WP:ANI. LonelyBeacon (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The most official place to get help with an AfD that you believe was closed incorrectly is WP:DRV. I also believe that any admin who is so moved can revert a speedy close by a non-admin and just re-open the AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(to LonelyBeacon)When did I say a team of admins had to support an overturn? I said editors. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(to LonelyBeacon)I'm not gaming the system in fact. Just stating the obvious. An RfC has to be endorsed for it to take place and is rather a waste of time. Plus, there are steps to be taken if an actual dispute is taking place, and informal mediation would need to take place before it. This is how it works. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Afd reopened I have reversed the closure as the closure doesnt meet the criteria, also noting that a posting to the afd after the closure indicates that editors still have unresolved concerns that can be completed in the afd process. Gnangarra 13:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It actually does meet the criteria as discussed here. And comments after the fact make no difference, but note the comment was about keeping the article. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

SM, I agree that this isn't an etiquette issue; it's a judgement issue. However, your judgement was wrong here. Beeblebrox brought up a concern -- namely, that the page was advertising -- which is certainly an acceptable argument for deletion. He nominated the page for deletion. It is clear to infer that he wants the article deleted, unless he has changed his mind, which he hasn't. You should be more careful in the future: unless a nominator explicitly retracts their nomination or explicitly says they don't have an opinion on the matter, speedy keeps for unanimity are inappropriate. It may seem like you're saving time, but process is important. Mangojuice^talk 16:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I haven't reclosed the AfD per SNOW/IAR. While I appreciate you showing up on this thread, I think I've made sound judgment in closing. These are only recommended criteria and if the argument for deletion is a weak one, theres no chance it will be deleted. Its an editorial problem, not an AfD problem. NAC, allows for it, if we're quoting essays. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read that discussion and the originating comment at User_talk:SynergeticMaggot#Nonviolent_communication_AfD_closure neither discussion says that the nominator had withdrawn the nomination. The nominator isnt the one who declined the speedy delete request but the person who placed the CSD#G11 request, as such it wasnt a process listing. There is no Speedy keep criteria which can be applied to the discussion, so closing as speedy wasnt possibly. As afd is a discussion and not numbers a well argue position based on advertising and independence of sources as applies to this article may result in deletion. Given this the alternative of WP:SNOW wasnt clear as indicated by the comment after closure, this comment was part of an on going discussion about the sources and as to whether they were sufficient to address independence Gnangarra 16:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

SM, it would have been much better if you had closed this per WP:SNOW than the way you did. AfD closures (and debate closures in general) serve a purpose: they bring a debate to consensus (that is, they present a final solution that everyone can and hopefully will agree to accept, even if they did not personally favor it). Your comments, particularly [18] [19] are wikilawyering and petty dismissiveness that harms the process of bringing a debate to closure. You were clearly misrepresenting Beeblebrox's statements, which would make him feel like he hadn't been understood by the closer, which makes the whole process rather pointless. I can see why he raised an objection. Whereas, if you had simply closed per WP:SNOW, Beeblbrox could have disputed that this was against the rules, but I have a hard time seeing how he could really dispute that your conclusion was correct. What I think was really going on here is that this was a WP:SNOW closure that you justified using WP:SPEEDYKEEP because you are a non-admin. Non-admins are allowed, if cautious, to close debates; you should not use speedy keep as a crutch when it doesn't apply. Mangojuice^talk 21:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Maybe this wasn't clear enough. I was never using WP:SK as a rationale for closing. True, I didn't give a rationale, my fault entirely. The result was a speedy keep, only. Since it was closed before the 5 day period. To Mango: Nothing at AfD is ever final ;p and I can note at least 100 cases to support that (+/- 10). You're right in your assumptions, although I didn't intend to come off as Beeblebrox took it. I'll consider this thread closed... and I'm taking it off my watchlist. Any comments can be directed to my talk. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Clay Bennett/moving the Sonics

I'm having issues with Coz 11. He has called people liars, failed to assume good faith, and other issues on Talk:Clayton Bennett and Talk:Seattle SuperSonics possible relocation to Oklahoma City. I have previously called Coz 11 out for having a conflict of interest, but other editors thought that wasn't necessary. The problems seem to have continued though. It's also hard to discuss the issue with him because deletes almost all comments from his own page and has said he won't discuss this with me anymore on my talk page. Chicken Wing (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Noble Story's comments

I'll add some more detailed examples to Chicken Wing's comments:

To begin with, Coz's user page has a banner for Save Our Sonics. It is also very likely, through his information he provides, that he is an important member of that organization, so there's already a question of COI.

In addition, he has edited the articles of Clayton Bennett, Seattle SuperSonics possible relocation to Oklahoma City, and the Seattle Supersonics (before the second article was split from the Sonics page). All of edits have been designed to cast Bennett in a negative point of view. Or, to correct myself, he has edited with a non-NPOV. For example, here, here, here (an almost slanderous statement to a living person, as nothing had been proved yet), and here (removed it despite reliable citations mentioned in thetalk page against Coz's claim), all to the Bennett article. Then you have more edits to the relocation article here, here, and here (removed so-called "speculation" twice, even though it was cited with a reliable source).

However, that is not all of it. He has accused editors of "slant[ing] the article" (here and again) and added that David Stern has "zero credibility and is a documented liar". Plus, he has made several inflammatory remarks/borderline insults on Chicken Wing'stalk page.

Chicken Wing and I have warned him several times, but he has removed them every time. I don't have a problem with what he does with his own pages, but repeated warnings have not reached him at all, and I think something needs to be done. Noble Story (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We can also add these [20][21] comments. The distorted facts and incivility (in the form of baseless accusations) continue. Chicken Wing (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not true. I take every CONSTRUCTIVE comment to heart but I also understand that most of what is going on here is attacking the messenger. As other editors that have dealt with me have stated I am reasonable and willing to work with people who are willing to do the same.I plead quilty to deleting all commentary from my Talk page because I chose to no matter what the tone. What we have here is some people from Oklahoma City who have an agenda to slant all Sonics related articles their direction and do so with a heavy hand. They refuse to discuss potential changes they make the changes then try to attack the person who wants to make the articles more balanced. Chicken Wing has his nose bent out of shape and has targeted me. He has also violated many WP rules but I chose not to participate in a tit for tat war. Sorry, but thems the facts. --Coz (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This just proves my point. Look at all the things that went wrong in this one comment alone.

(1) You accuse people of "attacking the messenger" without evidence. I'm not even sure what you're the messenger for, but nontheless, that's the charge you've made.

(2) Other editors have not said that you are reasonable and willing to work with people. This thread alone shows concerns that I have and user:Noble Story has. user:Bobblehead said that "Coz could definitely do with toning his POV down quite a bit and can be frustrating at times."[22] Okiefromokla agreed that you could tone it down a bit.[23] None of these people are "out to get you." In fact, a couple of those names are much more supportive of your edits than I am. But, the failure to abide within the letter and spirit of the Wikipedia rules has to stop.

(3) You accuse people from Oklahoma City of having an agenda. First of all, I'm not from OKC. Secondly, accusing people of having an agenda without any evidence to back it up is very unconstructive. If people were editing with an agenda, they would be in violation of the NPOV rules.

(4) You accuse people of attacking you. I've seen no "attacks" against you. Again, if people have attacked you, then you should have evidence to back it up. Otherwise, you're just defaming other people's Wikipedia accounts.

(5) I haven't targeted you. I've only asked that you discontinue editing unconstructively.

(6) You accused me of violating "many WP rules". You should bring these instances to my attention, that way I can correct them. If necessary, an administrator can take action against my rule violations also. However, accusing me of rule violations without any evidence is way out of line.

It's my opinion that Coz's own edit here is evidence of his unwillingness to be more constructive when editing articles with respect to Clayton Bennett and the move of the Sonics franchise. I'm not sure his above post has even one sentence that is accurate or appropriate. Since I can't seem to get through to him on this issue, I'm asking that neutral editors please help out. I don't want to have to ask an administrator to help out. Chicken Wing (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Sesshomaru

I've been a lurker several times witnessing this person's actions, and frankly feel intimidated by him to the point where I've avoided making edits on certain things. Please see Talk:Kamehameha for his latest. --Tesscass (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide more examples? DigitalC (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

cuss words/inappropriate comment

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Simple vandalism, already corrected

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Price

I found the comment about plastic surgery on this entry. Please correct, not an appropriate comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.25.0.206 (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this has already been taken care of. But for future reference, you can revert the edit yourself, or report it at WP:AIV. This is not the correct forum to report vandalism. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta

I think someone experienced should intervene here. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please elaborate. Mangojuice^talk 15:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean the section 'Death of Aimone'; especially the following two sentences: "And here comes the defender of Karageorgjevich dinasty", "LoL, here comes the defender of the Ustaše (and other fascists, apparently)." --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch

This user began New York Pathological Society, an article I had a concern about leading to the application of the Notability template on the article. From there, a user talk conversation between the editor and I began. It's clear that there are serious issues with interpretation of policy that are subject of a RfC on the society article talk page. It's not a user RfC, so I think this is still appropriate for dealing with the issue of civility.

Citations to several diffs showing behavior of concern to me:

[24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

Here is other behavior I wasn't involved in that is of concern:

[31] [32]

Erechtheus (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Erechtheus has described my extensively documented and cited criticisms of his behavior and integrity, which have dealt with a number of specific actions he has performed and specific statements he has made, as character assassination. Consequently I would like to have a more concrete explanation of what issues are being brought into this dispute resolution process. If Erechtheus feels the request is appropriate for this venue, and if he feels it is an honest request with the intention of demonstrating the nature of this disagreement to third parties, I would ask that he qualitatively identify or otherwise state in his own words each of the assertions I have made which he believes exceed the bounds of a civil discourse. I would not intend for this list to be binding or complete, but rather that Erechtheus should feel free to add specific allegations against me at any time. I don't intend to be describing any limits to my response - I reserve the right to make any statements on this matter which I see fit and I will definitely bring up my own independent points of discussion - but I will advise Erechtheus that were he to furnish such a list two major subjects in my response would be: To demonstrate in each case that the assertion was not made baselessly, but was supported by evidence citing his other actions and statements (which would not absolve me of incivility, but which is an important aspect of proper talk page etiquette per WP:TALK) To compare the gravity of each assertion to preceding behavior and statements of Erechtheus to examine whether my statements, civil or otherwise, were within boundaries that Erechtheus had himself set in the conversation (this may simply demonstrate that we have both behaved uncivilly but it is relevant to the nature of this conflict, as Erechtheus appears to consider himself unduly and unequally harmed by our exchange - though I would not presume to speak for him on that point.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No. What you suggest is contrary to the explicit instructions for use of this process. This is the last time I intend to respond to you here. Erechtheus (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the instructions explicitly request a description of the situation. I have placed my description below and I really think that as the initiator of this you should add your own. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The 2 of you (or even just the original author) could have added quite a bit of content to the article in the past day (its first day?) if this argument wasn't going on. You know... enough to satisfy notability guidelines. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's very true. However, the origin of this dispute was that I pointed out to Erechtheus that the information in the article more than established WP:N by indicating the presence of a large number of secondary sources and asked him if, in light of that, he was labeling the article as deletable and repeatedly mentioning WP:N to press me to fulfill some non-notability-related preferences he has for the article. (I have since discovered that the behavior I describe is covered by WP:GAME.) In the course of the discussion he made several requests for the article to be reformatted stylistically and made comments upon its writing style. I recommended that other templates might express his aesthetic preferences but he persisted in inserting a notice that the article was a candidate for deletion due to non-notability of its subject. In the mean time he took actions involving another article I had written that I believe may have been part of a further attempt to pressure me into rewriting the New York Pathological Society article to his taste. I did not contribute further content to the article during this dispute because I believe that a Wikipedia user should not use policy or any other means to pressure another user into writing content. This section of Wikiquette alerts currently contains little more than a collection of links selected by a single party in the dispute provided without context or comparison to that party's actions and statements. I have included this synopsis because the instructions at the top of this page ask for a description of the dispute. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also note that the dispute over the the article itself appears to have been resolved by user CobaltBlueTony introducing a template that does not threaten deletion or assert non-notability of the subject. I appreciate this and I look forward to being able to offer that template as a compromise in the future. However, I genuinely believe that, whatever his attitude now, Erechtheus has been engaging in WP:GAME; as I mentioned, asserting deletability of the article is not the only way he was trying to pressure me. He also took a number of steps that I think objectively show bad faith and malice, such as attempting to edit my part of the conversation on the article talk page. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe so strongly that what Erechtheus has done here is wrong and against the spirit of the Wikipedia project that I have added a new section to the WP:Assume good faith guideline, WP:DGF or "Demonstrate good faith". So of course, that section of the guideline should not be taken into account in evaluating this dispute. A notice that I am the author of that section should also be carried forward to any further steps in the dispute resolution process. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 10:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:71.89.59.150

Resolved

 – Settled via an article split and suggesting IP moderate his tone. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

About 2 weeks ago, I took on improving the article unconventional warfare under the Military History Project. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Some bold rewrites, as well as a need for help making several articles consistent and minimally overlapping -- possibly spawning specialized articles for some background, where I had asked for guidance to deal with the problem of apparently overlapping articles. Do note that I have written extensively in a deliberately globalised article, insurgency.

Tonight, this anonymous user has started complaining that I was horribly altering a "stable" article, which was start-class in MILHIST. I believe I have substantially improved it, taking it from 5K or so characters to 26K with original drawings and continuing to add.

No one objected to this refocusing in the relevant project, and I only started working on unconventional warfare as it had only a cursory coverage of either worldwide or US concepts and needed better coverage. I am fully aware of WP:OWN, and suggest that doesn't apply here, given I asked for input on the article page and at the project page before making any substantive changes.

I've tried to discuss this with the anon user, who keeps insisting that the unconventional warfare article must be global, does not discuss insurgency, seems unwilling to bring the discussion to the MILHIST discussion page, and then reverted the article, explaining where (paraphrasing) my additions about the U.S. Army go in his idea of the article. I can't find any evidence that unconventional warfare was ever a comprehensive global article. Please look at insurgency to see that I understand the difference between something that is intended to be global, and something that is a particular national doctrine for its own approach to that global concept.

While I reverted to put my disagreement on record, I don't want to get into a revert war. I have tried to act in good faith, explained to the anon user why I made changes, and that they had been proposed both on the article talk page and on the MILHIST talk page. The only response was on MILHIST, with a recommendation (coincidentally from a New Zealander) to refocus the unconventional warfare article. That the anon has no edit history, that MILHIST raised no objection to trying to improve the article out of start class, and that the article was small going back at least a year suggests something strange is happening.

At this point, he reverted the article, and then pasted my earlier work into it as a subsection of his preferred article, referring it to my notes on U.S. Army use of the term. Those seem to have been pasted verbatim, which doesn't work well because they were written to be a major article rewrite and not a subsection; I hope it's not a violation of WP:OWN to suggest my contributions are being used out of context and thus not meeting my own editorial standards.

Help! Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning to the IP editor about the cut and paste moves, since that's quite frowned upon. (Although which article was it that he took material from, and where did it end up?) With regard to the unconventional warfare article: I'm not entirely sure I understand the relation between guerilla warfare and unconventional. Currently, the lead sentence of the guerilla article suggests that it's a subset of unconventional warfare. Is that correct? If it is, then I can understand why the IP would want to have some sort of global definition in this article. Perhaps the solution would be to have a small global lead, with the bulk being the american defn. (Assuming that Guerilla warfare is a subset of UW). If you intend for the article to be soley about american practice, perhaps a move to a more clear name would be in order. Thoughts? (Am I completely misunderstanding anything?) Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Unless you reverted something, what is out there now is a cut and paste of a few lead paragraphs of the really minimal article that had been there, with my work, which makes some completely different assumptions about basic definitions, pasted as a subsection.

As has been discussed in the Military History project, insurgency is the broadest term, on which I have written extensively, and very much with a global viewpoint in mind. Insurgency is properly the global and more general term, and it's not as if I deleted material from unconventional warfare that isn't covered, and sourced, at much greater length in insurgency. Guerilla warfare is one way of waging "offensive" insurgency, but there are other ways to do it, such as a coup. Counterinsurgency is the broad, globally oriented term for measures taken to stop or mitigate insurgency.

The U.S. has specific doctrines on how to use its forces to conduct insurgency and counterinsurgency. These US-specific terms, in professional military literature, are usually called unconventional warfare (or more often UW]] and foreign internal defense (FID). Again, I've written on most of these topics, with separate articles for the U.S. and worldwide views. It happens that the FID article does go into some British and French history, but there also has been considerable cooperation and thought among these countries. If, for example, I were writing about an insurgency using Maoist concepts, I'd call it "protracted war" since that's the term Mao used. The term in Greek Cyprus was guerilla warfare, as defined by George Grivas. Che Guevara called his practice "guerilla warfare", and so faorth.

Although it sounds awkward to my ear, I'm willing to compromise with something like "U.S. Unconventional Warfare Doctrine", "U.S. Foreign Internal Defense Doctrine," etc. I wrote an article on Special Reconnaissance, which is another special operations doctrine, but with multinational definitions. "Unconventional warfare" is an awkward term, since, outside a specific U.S. usage, it is ambiguous since there is no unambiguous definition of "conventional warfare". Most often, conventional warfare refers to fighting by regular militaries, without nuclear/WMD and without guerilla operations. In U.S. doctrine, UW is interpreted to be guerilla operations, subject to quite a number of detailed definitions that avoid the "nuclear vs. conventional" problem.

The problem with this IP editor is that he only wants to address making this article global, has never responded to any of my questions about seeing if insurgency covers what he wants, and, regardless of what he may say about large numbers of editors and a stable article, the reality is that there was a small article before I started. Perhaps I'm a bit irritable here in looking at the Start-Class article and found very little substance or sourcing; this is a field in which I've worked for over 40 years. Scary, isn't it? :-)

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

One other thing -- since he's been coming in under different IP addresses, where did you leave the note? Might I ask that go on the Talk: unconventional warfare since that's the only place I know he will see it? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I left it on the talk page of the IP address that was the header for this section. I've also placed it on the talk page of the article in question. With regard to ways to go forward: it sounds like the UW term is, as you said, awkward. Maybe a solution would be to have a stubby disambiguation page, with links to possible / related articles. (Then this page could go something like "Unconventional Warfare (U.S. Doctrine)"). That said though, I'm not sure what the manual of style would say about that. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ru.wiki : Back in the USSR???

Resolved

 – This isn't even an en.wiki issue, much less one for WQA --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Interaction of various sections can help to improve quality of wiki; projects in various languages may help each other. I think, right now, the Russian section of Wikipedia needs such a help.

If you know at least few Russain words, you may look, for example, at

• http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Политический_заключённый (political prisoner)
• http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вертухай (jailer )

These articles are under deletion procedure. You may check the history of the talk pages - faults of these articles were not discussed there.

Soon, there will be neither political prisoners, nor jailers in Russian-speaking countries. Perhaps, this cannot happen at en.wiki; but it may worth to look, what is happening at other sections, and try to understand the fenomenon.

Just a look and a commnent from a side could be very suitable. dima (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but not a Wikiquette issue. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

While indeed Wikimedia projects can help each other out, what the Russian Wikipedia does is not the business of the English Wikipedia. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and disruption of AFDs from an anon-ip editor

User:216.49.77.67 is disrupting an ongoing AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Ann McBride) with personal attacks. This editor has also vandalized AFDs on a similar subject: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big O and Dukes. I'm all for everyone commenting in AFDs but they need to stick the subject of the AFD and keep the personal attacks out of it and would appreciate some admin assistance.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I will leave a note on the IP Talk Page. I can hope that it will moderate the editors comments. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User 71.146.83.206

Stale

This user has deleted the same single sentence in the Healdsburg, California article three times. The first time, he did it with the comment, "not sure who added this, but this is completely untRue". I reverted it, figuring that it was random vandalism. The second time, he did it with the comment, "dearest DoriSmith this material is false if you believe otherwise you best be prepa". After this, I (1) added a detailed breakdown of the single sentence(!) on the article's talk page, explaining the facts behind every clause, (2) put a brief comment on his talk page asking for discussion to move to the article talk page, and (3) reverted his second deletion. He then deleted the sentence for the third time, with the comment, "this claim is not sourced and you are abusing your privilege of Popups - stop." He left no messages for me on my talk page, his talk page, or the article's talk page.

That line in the article, btw, was originally added in 2005 [33], and has been in there ever since with only minor modifications.

At no point has he ever explained why he thinks it's untrue, false, or not sourced, or even to what part he objects. I don't want to get into a silly reversion war, but I'm having trouble starting a discussion here. Dori (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that the other user is being particularly rude, although it would be helpful of them to engage in discussion on the talk page. The simplest thing would be to source the sentence, if it's unsourced other editors can remove it at any time for that reason. Restepc (talk) 06:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I did source it on the talk page—clause by clause. It seems a little extreme to add that much detail to a single sentence in the article, especially when he'll just delete it again and won't discuss the deletion, or even say what he thinks is incorrect. He won't talk to me, so I'd like to stop the reversion dance and somehow find out what's going on.

As to rudeness (which I hadn't mentioned, but now that you have...), I'm not sure how else to take "dearest" and "you best be prepa"; not to mention his claim that I'm my "abusing" my "privilege of Popups - stop." To the best of my knowledge, popups don't require any privileges. Dori (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The comments you quote are not very respectful, but I find the sentence you want a little confusing. Is it uncommon for a town to be centred on a 19th century plaza if it wasn't founded under Mexican rule? How does the "though" clause modify the rest of the sentence? Also, you say that you sources the claim on the talk page. Disputed content should be sourced on the page itself (I note that the sentence now has two references, but I haven't checked them), and while you did break it down on the talk page, this breakdown only cited one source, which being a "letter to the editor" would probably not count as reliable. Bovlb (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I also find the sentence to be, well, not as clear as it could be (it was added by someone else long before I started editing WP), which is why I was trying to find out which of the clauses he objected to. After his reverts (two of which were within 30 minutes of mine), I didn't want to try to put anything back in without some discussion, and I couldn't get him to cooperate.

I brought it here, and then gave him and this process some time. After three days when he hadn't responded here or on the talk pages, I put the sentence back in with some sources. It's been a week since then and he still hasn't reappeared, so I'm assuming that he's lost interest and gone off to wherever people like that go to when they're not here wasting everyone's time.

Because it appears to be the case, I've closed this out as stale. Dori (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User 71.146.83.206

Stale

This user has deleted the same single sentence in the Healdsburg, California article three times. The first time, he did it with the comment, "not sure who added this, but this is completely untRue". I reverted it, figuring that it was random vandalism. The second time, he did it with the comment, "dearest DoriSmith this material is false if you believe otherwise you best be prepa". After this, I (1) added a detailed breakdown of the single sentence(!) on the article's talk page, explaining the facts behind every clause, (2) put a brief comment on his talk page asking for discussion to move to the article talk page, and (3) reverted his second deletion. He then deleted the sentence for the third time, with the comment, "this claim is not sourced and you are abusing your privilege of Popups - stop." He left no messages for me on my talk page, his talk page, or the article's talk page.

That line in the article, btw, was originally added in 2005 [34], and has been in there ever since with only minor modifications.

At no point has he ever explained why he thinks it's untrue, false, or not sourced, or even to what part he objects. I don't want to get into a silly reversion war, but I'm having trouble starting a discussion here. Dori (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that the other user is being particularly rude, although it would be helpful of them to engage in discussion on the talk page. The simplest thing would be to source the sentence, if it's unsourced other editors can remove it at any time for that reason. Restepc (talk) 06:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I did source it on the talk page—clause by clause. It seems a little extreme to add that much detail to a single sentence in the article, especially when he'll just delete it again and won't discuss the deletion, or even say what he thinks is incorrect. He won't talk to me, so I'd like to stop the reversion dance and somehow find out what's going on.

As to rudeness (which I hadn't mentioned, but now that you have...), I'm not sure how else to take "dearest" and "you best be prepa"; not to mention his claim that I'm my "abusing" my "privilege of Popups - stop." To the best of my knowledge, popups don't require any privileges. Dori (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The comments you quote are not very respectful, but I find the sentence you want a little confusing. Is it uncommon for a town to be centred on a 19th century plaza if it wasn't founded under Mexican rule? How does the "though" clause modify the rest of the sentence? Also, you say that you sources the claim on the talk page. Disputed content should be sourced on the page itself (I note that the sentence now has two references, but I haven't checked them), and while you did break it down on the talk page, this breakdown only cited one source, which being a "letter to the editor" would probably not count as reliable. Bovlb (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I also find the sentence to be, well, not as clear as it could be (it was added by someone else long before I started editing WP), which is why I was trying to find out which of the clauses he objected to. After his reverts (two of which were within 30 minutes of mine), I didn't want to try to put anything back in without some discussion, and I couldn't get him to cooperate.

I brought it here, and then gave him and this process some time. After three days when he hadn't responded here or on the talk pages, I put the sentence back in with some sources. It's been a week since then and he still hasn't reappeared, so I'm assuming that he's lost interest and gone off to wherever people like that go to when they're not here wasting everyone's time.

Because it appears to be the case, I've closed this out as stale. Dori (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User Hibernian

User Hibernian : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hibernian

..is using the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Technocracy_movement Talk: as a kind of personal attack blog. Example. Skip quote: "I am not involved in TechInc or NET.". Wow! somebody actually got Skip to admit that he was kicked out of Technocracy Inc.! It took him about 2 years to admit it and come to the realisation, but better late than never I guess! What you didn't mention of-course, is that you were very embittered by that dismissal and have since attacked the organization in any way you can (including on Wiki) and even tried to setup a rival group. You've recently also attempted to insert the name of your "group" into Wiki articles. Hmmm no, no conflicts of interests there, I think Skips just a honest contributor with no hidden agenda at all (And if you can't guess, yes I’m being Sarcastic). --Hibernian

This is uncivil and demeaning and also not true. Could something be done? Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• You need dispute resolution, you're not going to recruit people to your cause here. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Another example of this editor being insulting and demeaning from today. It seems this person just is itching to pick a fight all the time. An example of a typical statement by Hibernian today on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Technocracy_movement Talk:Technocracy movement.

Quote... Uh hm, right, well I'm really not even going to bother refuting the baloney that you continue to spew, but like I've said before, Your opinions of this or any other Tech Inc. publications don't matter to anybody but yourself, they don't matter to me and they certainly don't matter to Wikipedia. The fact still remains that that electronic version is the only one that has so far been made available by Tech Inc. on the internet, it's as simply as that, no other version is necessary or acceptable. That's the version we can use, End of Story. --Hibernian (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC) ...end quote

I wish someone would talk to this person about his highly subjective and angry demeanor. He is impossible to reason with. He is a kind of bully with his Pov. angry and accusing. He is also talking about a link above that is blacklisted as spam on wiki. skip sievert (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:T-rex deleting comments from Talk:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

User:T-rex has deleted my comments from Talk:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines here (although he partially restored that edit), here, here, and here. He did not provide an appropriate edit rationale explaining why he was removing my comments. When I placed a request on his talk page to stop doing this, he responded only by removing that with an edit summary "like this?" Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This user has once again removed my comments from the talk page, after I placed a notice about this report on that page. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

rude comment by someone falsely accusing me of spamming

I uploaded one photograph which is a sign associated with a well-known company which is related to both the city of Antigo, Wisconsin and fishing tackle. I then linked that photo within two articles that contain data related to the text on the sign.

Upon returning to Wikipedia, I noticed that I had a message awaiting me. Upon navigating to it I was shown the comments pasted at the bottom of this message.

I feel this person is rude for accusing me of spamming or promoting a business. I had no such thought in my mind.

A simple mention that my content was not acceptable, and hopefully an explanation why it was not, would suffice.

I hope other editors of Wikipedia content are not as rude as the asshole "Geronimo20." Not only is the person rude, they do not accept personal email so that I could discuss the matter with them directly. It would be most beneficial if content editors could be contacted if they initiate an action that directly affects another registered Wikipedia user who has submitted content.

As the situation stands, I uploaded a photograph and attempted to associate it with two existing articles. Asshole "Geronimo20" took offense at it for some unknown reason and I still do not know why he/she accuses me of spamming.

I would appreciate it if someone with a more congenial manner than "Geronimo20" informed me what was wrong with my attempts to add to the Wikipedia database. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoodoo (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

“ Stop spamming Wikipedia with promotion images as you did with Antigo, Wisconsin and Fishing in Ohio. Wikipedia is not an advertising channel for the business you are trying to promote. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC) ”

Okay, there are several things wrong with this complaint. I'll address them in order:

First off, this is not really a Wikiquette issue. The warning you received was blunt, at worst, but falls in line with the accepted warnings that users can receive for contributing unacceptable content to the Wiki. Given that the image and information that you posted was in relation to a commercial company and was provided without context to otherwise well-developed articles, I can see how Geronimo would see your contribution as spam. Whether that was your intention or not, that's what it looked like, and had I been the first one to see that appear in the article, I likely would have given you the same sort of warning. (I would have used a standard user warning template, which is worded less bluntly, but otherwise very similar to what Geronimo said.) Please see WP:SPAM and WP:NOT for more information. (On this note, the worst I could say about Geronimo's warning was that it might touch on WP:BITE, but it does not appear to be uncivil or in assumption of bad faith.)

Second, you seem to be assuming that Geronimo was acting in bad faith when he reverted your edits and left you the warning. By saying that he's taken offense to your contributions, you are making a likely incorrect assumption about his intentions. It is standard practice here on Wikipedia to quickly revert edits that are seen as disruptive. Now, we're not perfect and we sometimes make mistakes, but the general rule of thumb is: If you are bold and add something, and someone else reverts it, the next thing to do is to take it to the Talk page and work toward building a consensus of having your content included. It may be that you come to a better understanding about why your content isn't appropriate for that particular article, but may be appropriate elsewhere.

Finally, calling Geronimo an "asshole" is certainly not going to help you. That is a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL and constitutes a direct personal attack against him. It is the sort of thing that will get you reported here on the Wikiquette Alerts board, and if it continues, it can be escalated to Administrators' Noticeboard. If you are upset at Geronimo for leaving you that warning, you should first cool off, then try talking to him directly on his User Talk page to express your feelings in a constructive way. Boards such as this one should only be used if you are unable to work things out directly with the person you're having a conflict with.

I hope this helps. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, for reference, here is the most appropriate standard warning that you would have received if it came from me:

“ Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles, as you did to Antigo, Wisconsin. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. ”

looks like time to change our standard messages then. All that can really be said is that oner editor thought it seemed to be promotional material, and we should not be making pronouncements to contributors of that judgmental sort. Yes we have to delete the articles, and we have to say why, but we should not be using terms like that except after several continued insertions of the sort. That's one of the reasons i usually write my own messages. of course, that means I cant use an automatic program for them and I have to think about what I'm saying. DGG (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure how else to phrase the message. Putting the logo and brand name of a commercial company in an article about a city, particularly in its infobox, is going to look like spam, no matter how politely you put it. The standard message exists because we get a LOT of spam, as you can imagine. So when something is added that fits the pattern, we deal with it in the standard manner. Nothing personal, mind you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Conflict about national football team articles

Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) has created a conflict by adding a OR tag to the notable/famous player sections of dozens of national football team articles despite the protests of many editors and the urging that they bring the issue to WT:FOOTY. Because these sections have been in the articles for years uncontested, my position is that they should be removed pending the development of a criteria for inclusion in these sections. The main problem is that Fasach Nua has accused me of trolling his user page, when all I am seeking is an acknowledgement that some form of arbitration has to take place in order to prevent an edit war over dozens of articles. Unfortunately, in the mean time Fasach Nua has removed all of my relevant comments from his user page, making arbitration that much more difficult. He repeatedly removes even my attempts at a peace offer without reading them or acknowledging the process. It is hard for WP to be a collaborative project without the acknowledgement of the proper process when there are disputes. As he will no longer listen to or even acknowledge my comments on the issue, I'm hoping that a third party could intervene. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:SitnikovI

This user and an unregistered IP (98.216.128.107) has left a string of messages on my talk in response to my reversion of his spamvertising edits to MIT ([35], [36], [37]) and later tried to blank them using an unregistered account . Talk edits to User:Madcoverboy include calling me a moron, refusing to engage in a dialogue by blanking comments, etc.: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] Looking at Sitnikov's talk page, he has engaged in a series of actions that have been warned against in connection with spamvertising. As always I try to WP:AGF, but it seems the user is trying really hard to get blocked. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing pattern of personal attack, ad hominem attack and "outing"

The user, TheOzz, has been confronted about this several times and although he seems genuinely interested in being a constructive participant in editing the article in question, he also seems to be completely blind to his pattern of incivility. I thought it would help to receive an outside comment. I am particularly concerned about things he's offering as background information about real people that may do professional harm to them, and about his ongoing "outing" of an early editor of the article.

Talk:Babywise

Here are some examples of diffs where TheOzz has insisted on supplying the personal name of an early editor and where he has offered background information about a critic of Babywise--in a manner that implies the person is a criminal, and about another critic--in a manner that implies he is not professionally credentialed.

[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]

When confronted, he escalates by sharing emails and more details.

[48]

Could someone please look this over and give some recommendations? Taketime (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I left TheOzz a warning to inform him/her that this isn't acceptable behavior. If you think that personal information needs to be permanently removed, please head over to oversight. If this persists, a quick and neutral summary (with diffs) on the admin's incident board would probably be called for. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that help. Taketime (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to go and look at the changes made and give an opinion about whether it's sufficient? TheOzz took your advice insofar as removing the personal name of the wikipedia editor he had "outed", but it seems as though he may not grasp the extent to which he is engaging in ad hominem argument, personal attack, dragging in off-wiki interactions (the emails he shared), and so on. Here's the diff: [49] Thanks again, Taketime (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you guys are working rather constructively now, which is great. If the ad hominem attacks restart, let me know (maybe on my talk) and I'll try and get involved. But for now, I'd rather not disrupt progress by trying to force someone to take back comments. (I didn't seen anything so bad that it needed to be immediately removed, but if I missed something, let me know). --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD for The Appointed Time

I'm probably a bit close to some of these issues to form a neutral view, so I though I'd mention it here. In general I've noticed that comments by Qworty in AfD debates can be uncivil, especially in regards to self-published authors. This seems to have come to a bit of a head at this AfD, but there are other examples floating around. While Qworty does good work, I'm concerned that some remarks unfairly characterize other editors, and may warrant a suggestion to tone comments down a tad from someone who can take a more neutral perspective. - Bilby (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Diamond Joe Quimby

This is an odd case. His user page is a slew of random userboxes and his "pet subject" seems to be Espanola, New Mexico. Not such a bad thing, but his most recent edits have caused me concern. He will not interact with other users, insists on blanking his talk page and is edit warring to some extent with his most recent article on James H. Rodriguez Elementary; he keeps removing the cleanup notices. It's totally unsourced and bordering on nonsense with the allegations of the place being haunted. Could someone please have a word with him? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like these guys. ... discospinster _talk 20:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Cowicide's incivility

I don't exactly know what to do here, but I am requesting a third party to review what is happening. I shall give a quick overview:

I removed a large section of OR from an article, he put it back. We had a small edit war until I proposed a small solution: that we insert the material into the body text of the article. This was about an hour after I blanked it for the last time. We made up, etc. Awhile later he posts what I see as a basic attack, telling me and other users that I'm a liar. I assume he didn't bother to check the history of the article, and assumed I blanked the section after I spoke with him. I noted this to him, and he didn't seem to care. It just downgrades from there with him, but I continued to stay civil.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 20:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Details needed, please. Which article, to start? Diffs would be useful too. - Denimadept (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Thomasalazar

Thomasalazar (talk · contribs) has been adding unsourced statistics and NPOV language to the article Española Valley High School (and is close to a 3RR violation at the moment). It has been explained to him why these edits are inappropriate; however, he removes warnings and discussions from his talk page (see here, here, and here), and makes uncivil comments on my talk page (see here and here).

Any advice would be helpful. ... discospinster _talk 19:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Left a message with the user. Some of the comments were patently uncivil, and a good bit of the material being inserted was somewhat unencyclopedic. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe he has reappeared under another account (EVHS (NNYDL) (talk · contribs)), adding the same statistics and leaving similar messages on my talk page. ... discospinster _talk 02:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of users with an interest in that school who don't like you. Have you thought of a checkuser request? Although I suppose since no one's evading blocks or being a giant vandal, such a request might be premature. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I figure as long as there is attention paid to the situation, it will remain under control. I hope so, anyway. ... discospinster _talk 14:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:discospinster

This person is editing articles and putting tags while not even being an administrator. This user has used personal attacks towards Wikipedia New Mexican Members he has only edited their articles and my own and say I don't communicate with other users enough that's fine. Maybe I do not beleive in talking to other users as much as he does. This user has made accusations I have a slew of random userboxes well that is why I don't use or create my own. He has called my common editing of information of Espanola, NM a (PET PROJECT) he has not thought maybe I have an intrest in this neighboring town. I happen to be an alumni of James H. Rodriguez Elementary and I have seen erie things go on inside the school. The reason I delete my cleanup notices is they pile up and start taking over the page and it looks hideous. I'll will leave this at this discospinster has the odacity of saying I have a slew of random user boxes while he has many as well while is it not allowed a Wikipedia User may have as much userboxes as they please. Please talk to him someone. If not I will have to request a removal of discospinster. Thank You. Diamond Joe Quimby (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:discospinster has been "editing articles"?! gasp Can't have that being done by just anyone, can we? Oh wait...

It's perfectly realistic for someone to say, "wow, that's a whole lot of usernames suddenly feeling an urge to add information about New Mexico schools; is it really coincidental?" It's also realistic for someone to say, "don't delete the cleanup notices on your user page" when you haven't done any of the requested cleanup.

Now, as to your request to User:Thomasalazar that he nominate you to be a bureaucrat specifically so that you can get User:discospinster kicked off WP... About all that can be said politely is that you might have better luck if you correctly link to the request for bureaucratship info and read how nominations work, as it appears your previous attempt has already been reverted (and not by User:discospinster or myself, btw). Dori (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Diamond Joe Quimby is mistaken — I have never had any communication with this user at all. ... discospinster _talk 14:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User Wakandas black panther

Stale

 – The user making the complaint hasn't been active in over a week

This user is continues to harass me on my talk page with spurious warnings and threats of having my editing ability blocked. I believe this is due to his disagreement over this page's existence (he nominated the article for deletion but it was decided the page was worth keeping, much to his disgust). I have no desire to continue this bickering and have asked the user to cease posting on my talk page, he has responded with more baseless warnings and has recently declared that I am on my 'final' warning.

He is only trying to goad me into abusing him so he has an excuse to get my editing rights removed. In my opinion this is a blatant attempt at interpreting wikipedia's guidelines in such as way as to be disruptive while still being able to claim that he is 'only following the rules'. I am sick of being a target for his frustrations. Ars666 (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ars666 is entitled to his opinion regarding the aformentioned AfD discussion (which was closed as Keep anyway, I don't know what he is bitching about) but what is not okay was that during the discussion he characterized other editors as inherently unsuitable to offer their opinion, and ironically, his very premise for this assertion was also completely wrong. This is also a single-purpose account, and I suspect there may be some meatpuppettry going on here as well.

The issue at hand is that Wakandas black panther put a templatized warning about civility and good faith on Ars666's talk page, after Ars666 had responded very rudely to my attempts to reach an understanding with him. Apparently, Ars666 feels that this template was "poor etiquette."

A check of Ars666's contribs will show that he has had only one token mainspace contribution. The remaining contribs are all related to protestations against the (failed) AfD of Spots (cannabis). Frankly, I think it is clear that Ars666 does not contribute positively to the project and has no intention to do so in the future. And last time I checked, templatized warnings were the recommended way to deal with editors who have no intention of productive contribution. Therefore, Wakandas black panther's actions were 100% appropriate, and there is no need to continue this discussion. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mathieugp (talk)

The post [50] by Mathieugp (talk) at Talk:Anti-Quebec_sentiment#Conspiracy_theory violates Wikiquette guidelines. Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. The discussion on Talk:Anti-Quebec_sentiment#Conspiracy_theory is about the problematic tone of the article, not a political/historical discussion of subject itself. Although Mathieugp (talk) makes some legitimate commentary that the name of the article may need to be changed and that the scope of the article needs to be narrowed, the bulk of the post advocates the POV of the article's topic: that there is widespread prejudice against Quebecers and French Canadians in Canada among English-speakers. He provides a long quote from the 1800's to back up this polemic claim. He sources this claim with a link to his personal web page that promotes Quebec independence see link.

Passionate advocacy on behalf of a political POV on Talk pages violates Wikiquette Soapboxing guidelines. So does self-promotion by providing links to a personal web page that also promote these views. The length and inappropriateness of the subject makes the legitimate dialog in the section difficult to follow.

I ask that Mathieugp(talk) correct this breach of wikiquette by removing the portions of his post that advocate his political opinion, the supporting quote, and the link to his personal web page. Talk pages are not the place to make political and historical points and promote personal projects. --soulscanner (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked their talk page, you haven't even left them a message. The best thing I'd advise you to do is first post them a message with your concerns, and discuss it on their talk page. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 08:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate this commentary. I posted a message about a minute after I posted here. This breech of wikiquette has been going on for a longtime on related subjects, and it's been discussed ad nauseum at various discussion pages to no avail. If you would like examples, I can provide them, but I don't like rehashing and documenting old disputes (that would be another breech of wikiquette); I'd much rather get an outside third opinion on this instance. If these are indeed breeches of wikiquette, they should be documented; if they're not, I'll leave it alone and just ignore them. --soulscanner (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wikiquette alert by Soulscanner (talk) (above) violates common sense which ought to be against some Wikiquette (what an awful word by the way). He describes "widespread prejudice against Quebecers and French Canadians in Canada among English-speakers" as "the POV of article". He says that I "source[d] this claim with a link to his personal web page that promotes Quebec independence". Finally, he proposes censorship of my comment based on his opinion that it is a "political and historical" point and that it "promote personal projects".

First, that there is "widespread prejudice against Quebecers and French Canadians in Canada among English-speakers" is not "the POV of the article". That is what he inferred from reading the article, and most likely what made him not like it and post his comment that it "sounds like a conspiracy theory". The original article was a description of a phenomenon called Quebec bashing of which numerous journalists, including English-speaking ones sympathetic to Quebecers, have complained of. Numerous books have been written on the subject, the latest one being Quebec bashing : morceaux d'anthologie. Du Lac Meech à la délirante Jan Wong just this year. There was considerable opposition to the very existence of the article on such a controversial topic. While some of it was legitimate, the article indeed needing to be neutralized, most efforts came from people who simply did not like that such a thing could exist and be real, as real as any other social phenomenon. The links to the press articles in reference were removed as they were hosted on a site which republished them and it was unclear whether that site violated Canadian copyright rules or not. At some point, the article was renamed to what it is now. Already at that point I had signaled that as a consequence, the article needed to be completely reorganized as the content was not about "Anti-Quebec sentiment" in general, but about Quebec bashing. The reorganization of the contents never occurred. The principal contributor to the article (User:Liberlogos) has stopped taking care of the article, disgusted by the struggle he had to engage in to keep the article from being vandalized daily (I got this from word of mouth, as I know the person behind the user name).

Second, I did not source what Soulscanner said I sourced. I sourced a quote from an article of the London and Westminster Review written by British philosopher John Stuart Mill in which he commented the affairs of the Canadas in 1838, just after the beginning of the civil war and before Lord Durham landed at Quebec. I confess guilty of sharing most of the political POV that Mill had on Quebec, the other colonies, Ireland and England. But I was not trying to advocate "The Ballot, Justice to Ireland, Justice to Canada" here. The reason I posted this was simply to illustrate how far back we can go when trying to reference observations made by various people, some of them quite notable and credible like Mill, on the misrepresentation and calumnies against popular politicians from Quebec.

Third, the link indeed points to a copy of Mill's article that I personally wikified on a personal site of mine where I often publish English translations of French texts related to the history and politics of Quebec. The site indeed promotes the independence of Quebec, democracy, equality among nations, linguistic human rights and other related subjects. I could have given this link instead, but I chose to link the version of the article with the pretty images and wiki links. If really it directly violates some rule or even some official suggestion, I do not mind substituting one for the other. We can even remove it completely.

As for the proposal to censor my comment, which includes a quote from Mill pertaining to the subject, supporting the point I am trying to make, I find it is rather shameful. I understand that Soulscanner might not be a great fan of Mill, but still, what he wrote on Quebec in 1838 is deeply related to the [original] subject of the article, that is delusional calumnies written on Quebecers who denounce the injustice of the British North American rule over Quebec now or denounced the injustice of British rule over all colonies in the 19th century.

And I am sorry if my post is long. All my posts tend to be like that! ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User:87.194.247.89

Hi there, hopefully this is the right place for this, user 87.194.247.89, keeps making edits to articles including the University of Manchester Students' Union which I'm working on, to push his pov on the way we twinned with the university of An-najah. I now notice he's edited the page for An-Najah National University in a similar way. I've left a message on his talk page and stuff on the article's discussion board but I'm not really sure what to do next. Billsmith453 (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Naruto134

Work in progress; comments welcome

I am reporting User:Naruto134 for his discription of his edit on Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon it is edit done on 01:58, 2 May 2008 it says "Fixes, and dude, do something about your horrible spelling. What are you, a preschooler?" the history page is here. Click Here Save The HumansTalk :) 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

While this is hardly the nicest thing to say, and it could have been said more civil, I think the best thing to do would be to go to the user's page and ask them about this. Generally, except in an extreme situation, a wikiquette alert should likely be filed after talking to the editor (either on their page, your page, or the article talk page). In addition, you should also contact this editor and let them offer an explanation. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes i have asked now. But he hasnt repled so i just had remended him that he hasnt answered yet. Save The HumansTalk :) 18:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I will put a gentle reminder on his Talk Page about this. Hopefully it is just an error that (s)he is embarrassed about, and it will not happen again. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, upon really exploring this editor's Talk Page, he has been warned several times before about this, and has deleted these warnings. This needs to be bumped up a level. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have opened a report at WP:ANI. I will also report this to Naruto134. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User 12.111.29.12

Resolved

This anonymous user who signs his posts "Bert" keeps placing uncivil reamrks on Talk: Ayn Rand. I, and others have removed the comments but he keeps putting them back and threatening other editors with banning if we delete them. You can see the edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayn_Rand&diff=prev&oldid=209782356 Ethan a dawe (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethan's not telling the whole truth. Oops. It turns out that Bert wrote the comment then Ethan and another Randist kept deleting it, while I kept undeleting it (and I think Bert's done it, too). Ethan's also not mentioning that he wrote some nasty little comments on that very same page, and that some of them were deleted by third parties. Or even that he's been summarily removing Edward's comments. What else hasn't Ethan been telling you? Things to think about, before you allow him to manipulate you. 00:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk)

SIGH Edward's last comments were left, as they didn't include his usual insults. Edward is also a blocked user avoiding the block (spinoza1111) Anyways, the edit histories tell the truth. Read them don't take my word for it. Ethan a dawe (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethan: Per Talk page policy, you should not remove comments that have been left on a talk page, even if they are uncivil. If they are just blatant nonsense or vandalism, that's a different story, but it appeared in this case that "Bert" had a point to make, and that should be kept in the talk discussion, if for no other reason than for historical purposes. If it is an uncivil comment, it can be dealt with through this and other channels. But unless it's just flat-out vandalism, please leave it there. Ignore it or respond to it as you wish, but keep in mind WP's policies: WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:POINT and WP:NPA.

If you feel that the comment needs to have action taken against it, you can report it to WP:ANI. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kiefer, I understand. I removed the comments of Edward Nilges based on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=207243151 As for Bert's uncivil remark, another editor undid them, he put them back, and then I removed it again. Based on your comments here and reading the policies I won't do that again. I've stopped editing those pages as I was tired of fighting with the abbusive anons. Hopefully someone can do something about them, but, if not, I expect that time will see them leaving. Ethan a dawe (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably for the best. If you see clear abuse, feel free to reopen this report, or take it to WP:ANI as appropriate. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:JAF1970

Resolved

 – User has been indefinitely blocked for a wide range of issues.

This user has shown uncivility concerning Spore (video game) and it's talk page (as well as the mediation case on the article). Here's some evidence of his behavior:

1. [51]: He yells at people during the case. He was notified here about it: [52]. It's the second time he's been reminded about it (I'm not sure of the first time).

Maybe you should see what they're doing before it. Even the moderator started to notice that while I make concessions, the others remain obstinate.

1. [53]: this was days later, and he once again did caps lock/bold yelling. The discussion wasn't a forum post, but he claimed it was. It should be noted: the Spore talk page has talk header, plus a notice saying to keep a cool head during discussions. I don't see his post as a minor slip up at all.
2. [54]: here he removes a image overuse tag. It should've been discussed on talk before the tag was removed.

And maybe you should read what I wrote - it should be discussed in the talk page before it's placed. I've had to deal with Talk page rules before in the same manner. I don't believe others should be exempt.

1. [55]: I had re-added the tag, then he reverts it and assumes I don't think the article is important.

That's all the evidence I have so far. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also adding this, this, and probably the worst one, this. I'm the mediator in this Spore mediation. Thanks Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I've been the target of it too. Besides what other people have gathered, you can find plenty of instances of it on the spore talk page. (Dismissing the opinions of others with words like "absurd" or "oops. want to try again?", sarcastic laughter, and lots of YELLING. These are more just icing on the cake compared to the bigger civility problems.) His/her comments don't personally bother me. But I can't turn a blind eye to the destructive impact it's had on community discussions. When it doesn't frustrate people into just giving up and leaving, it derails discussions so it's impossible to find the main point. He/she shows no willingness to compromise, except to unilaterally say what a new compromise should be. But most of all, it's the "yelling", belligerence, and insults that really have no place in wikipedia.
I might add that I stumbled into this situation because other editors were having trouble reaching a compromise on the spore article. I tried to mediate the differences of opinion. The others engaged in constructive disagreement. JAF1970 was destructive and seemed to enjoy creating conflict even though we actually agreed on several points. That is what ultimately led to formal mediation. I would trust Steve Crossin for a neutral opinion about how that went. The mediation has been going on for more than a month. Randomran (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And I haven't been a target? Hm. Well, maybe I'm not passive-aggressive enough to get away with it, but I'm more direct and forthright, which is what you're supposed to be when you've worked in a magazine with other people in front of you. The stuff I've seen people here do would have gotten them fired. JAF1970 (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

MedCab is not formal mediation ;). Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 00:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Either way. Other editors such as myself were brought in to find a compromise. That broke down, and Steve Crossin was brought in. Randomran (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been the target of people ignoring what I say, or agreeing then ignoring what I say, or people - who have been banned from Wikipedia later - spamming my talk page with unrelated stuff. I've been dealing with extremely rude people as well. I only give what I get, so perhaps you should be asking why I react this way. JAF1970 (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What's worse is that I go out of my way to get the most correct information possible - and when I get irrefutable evidence - directly from Patrick Buechner and by extension Will Wright himself - I get people basically saying that Buechner and Wright don't know what kind of game they're actually making - from people who've never even touched the game. Add to that the sort of piling on and the noxious atmosphere I get at times, and you might understand why I get snappish, especially in light of the fact I've been dealing with this industry in one form or another for 30 years - and professionally in the last 15+. JAF1970 (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that you are trying to use this source, ((gamestooge)/2008/04/29/feature-what-is-spore/ -- removed by User:KieferSkunk 03:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC) due to WP spam filter restrictions), appears to be a self published source, to nullify all other sources, the numerous amount that has been provided. Your proposal gives the idea that you are reluctant to compromise. That is the issue here. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have also received and witnessed a number of uncivil comments from JAF1970, including many instances of dimsissive laughter, eye-rolling (yes, he actually typed "rolling eyes"), yelling, insults, straw man arguments, drawing absurd metaphorical comparisons like these: [56][57][58][59][60]... I can provide additional diffs if needed. He even accused two editors of sockpuppetry at one point. He seems to think that his experience in his profession makes his views on the proper content of the Spore article hold more weight than those of other editors, even within this discussion! [61] JAF1970 may bring my own comments to the table — I admit at one point I did lose my cool briefly, following a particularly heated argument — however, whereas I took a step back upon being warned that I was out of line, and have since kept considerably more distance than I really wanted to on the issues in order to avoid additional altercations, JAF unapologetically continues to step on everyone's toes. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 14:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As regards this particular situation, I certainly see quite a bit of ownership behavior going on, as well as a fair amount of assuming bad faith (some on both sides of the dispute) and a high tendency for JAF to personally attack other people when they disagree with his viewpoint. I hate to say it, but this dispute is hardly different from the dispute I had with him last year over Pac-Man Championship Edition. (That dispute was what introduced me to WQA in the first place.)

I don't doubt JAF's ability to write good articles and find good sources, but I am disappointed by his tendency to assert ownership over them, especially when his attitude and behavior have the effect of driving other editors away and discouraging constructive collaboration. I would definitely consider some of his comments in this situation as stepping way over the line when it comes to civility policies, but since I have personally had issues with this editor in the past, I'm going to have to refrain from taking any action on it. If we're unable to resolve anything here on WQA, this will probably need to be escalated, either up along WP:DR or taken to the admin noticeboard if the behavior gets any worse. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Kiefer, um, miss some personal attacks on me that preceded it, huh? Unlike others, I don't know the intricacies of applying to a kangaroo court on Wikipedia. I also don't create sock puppets. I also don't rally people to my cause and hogpile, because there's plenty of people on Wikipedia I could summon in my defense (ie: User:SeanMooney, etc). I try to follow someone's advice to me about "feeding the trolls", like User:Sillygostly - check out his behavior, and tell me what a 37 year adult should do about a 15 year old kid behaving like that? (Well, 1. in real life, I wouldn't be forced to associate with children like that, and 2. on a magazine, he would be an intern for exactly 2 hours before being escorted from the premise.) I guess part of the frustration is that I can't expect to have one editor to report to like I would in a real magazine or (though I've never worked on one) encyclopedia/dictionary - instead, I have to deal with anyone at any age who can turn on a computer and log onto the internet, which is one HUGE problem with Wikipedia. (This does give me a great idea for an article to be published - probably on a major pub, too.) JAF1970 (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I do agree that JAF has been, at times, blunt, he has put a HUGE amount of time and effort into many articles, most of which I have seen in Spore. I know, from being a long standing contributor to Wiki, that you can become attached to particular articles that you have put a lot of time and effort into, and JAF himself has recognised that he has snapped at people on more than one occasion. I think that our own personalities can become too involved with Wiki at times, and when people say things that are clearly wrong about an article that you've helped a lot with, you can snap. What I think we need to take away from this discussion is that I think that JAF feels frustrated by the comments of others, as do we all on articles we have worked hard on. As a result, he does often come across as aggressive. JAF, I have told you this before, and I stand by it, that you DO need to think REALLY carefully before replying to people, because while you may have the best intentions, your comments can seem too snappy at times. Other people, cut JAF some slack, we all know that it can be hard to see people with less knowledge than ourselves do some stupid things on articles we've been working hard on! I propose that you take a couple of weeks Wikibreak as I think that you can assume bad faith on the Spore article because you have become too attached to it. I will do my hardest to make sure that it's not destroyed! Spore hasn't been released yet, so no doubt there is far more discussion to be had! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 18:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

JAF may be blunt and upfront to other users, but he is a good editor - the Spore article has been improved immensely thanks to him. It's clear that he's passionate and well-versed about the game. SeanMooney (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Ownership - I don't think I "own" Spore (video game). I just don't want people to state speculation as fact (see: release date, Wii version etc) until it becomes fact. Furthermore, people tend to load on a lot of extraneous stuff. JAF1970 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

JAF is a good editor, but that doesn't give him the right to be agressive towards people about it (in edit summaries, and talk pages). Everyone wants good articles here, but it's not productive to yell at people so much. I agree with the ownership comments. Once someone disagrees with his view then he's uncivil about it. Others have the right to edit the article and talk page. If they made a mistake, it's best to be calm about it. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And that was the main point I was making in my comment above. As I said, I don't doubt JAF is a good editor - I've seen many instances where I think he's done an excellent job contributing to articles here on WP. But no matter how good someone is at editing, that doesn't mean they get to treat other people just any way they want. Two wrongs don't make a right, to address JAF's comment about "having to deal with people who treat him poorly".

And, as I also mentioned, I've personally been on the receiving end of JAF's fury when I made a series of edits that he took exception to. Right from the very start, he was quite uncivil toward me - I remember being accused of blatantly vandalizing the article and trying to push my own agenda, and even after I admitted I made a few mistakes in my initial edits, he continued to push my face in those mistakes to the point where, if I'd been a new editor, I would have likely been driven off Wikipedia as a whole. I did eventually get drawn into firing back with personal attacks of my own, and the whole dispute spanned something like seven or eight Talk and WP pages (including WQA and MedCab). I learned a lot of lessons from that incident. But my point? I'm just citing an example where the behavior others are describing in this WQA report has also happened to me in the past - I see this as part of a longer-standing pattern with this particular editor. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see this posted yet: [62]. JAF tells Sam to come here, because of a "troll attack" and they are in "full attack mode". Now that's very rude and not needed. Just because you don't agree with us JAF, doesn't give you the right to call us trolls. Your behavior isn't acceptable, so why should people ignore it? Being a good editor, doesn't make you immune to all other rules. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A few more examples: [63], after some image removal (due to fair use). He overreacts on the talk page, claiming that the article is "destroyed" and "looks like garbage". Then he did this post: [64], where he claims the article is "ugly" and it's "useless" to being a useful article. Another: [65], he removed the original destroyed comment, and is now saying a team Spore member hates it. That looks like a conflict of interest to me. Lastly there is: [66], JAF continues to assume the people working on the game (as well as some people that just view the article), should determine how it's setup. Images are one thing, but they can hate the article setup all they want. They don't own the article itself, nor do they determine every edit to the article. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I might be missing some context here, but those diffs do seem to point to a severe case of COI, as well as ownership issues. If a member of the Spore team is actually making comments about he "hates" the article, it would be up to that person to speak for himself - having JAF be his representative is not really good enough, I'm afraid. (Nor do I feel it's likely to make much of a difference, anyway.) I don't have anything to say about the actual content of the article, but Wikipedia is still bound by the same policies it was before, which include requiring reliable sources and giving equal and representative weight to various viewpoints.

I see that JAF hasn't replied to anything more in this WQA, and by all indications he probably doesn't intend to, since he's already stated elsewhere that this is a "kangaroo court" and that we're a bunch of trolls. It seems unlikely that you'll make much more headway here - if the conflict continues past this point, I would recommend a Request for Comment on User Conduct. Until and unless there's some positive progress in this matter, I'm afraid I can't really help you much more here - my comments are already somewhat biased from previous conflicts. (If another WQA'er wants to step in and help, please feel free.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is abslutely no need for this anymore. He has been indef blocked for Personal attacks or harassment of other users: ; disruptive editing; edit warring; breaches of copyright policy and per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&oldid=210182215#User:JAF1970 — —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Crossin (talk • contribs)

Well, I guess that takes care of that, then. I'd be interested in finding out why GameStooge.com was added to WP's spam filter, though - to my knowledge, the site is still legitimate, even if used in a conflict of interest with this specific editor. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian (again)

Resolved

 – RFC/U filed. Discussion is now occurring there. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm becoming rather displeased and dismayed with User:Yorkshirian's abuse against myself, and would like some intervention. Yorkshirian seems to hold a bizarre prejudice (even racist sentiments) against me, keep calling me a "Lancastrian", when I'm not from Lancashire and implying somehow that it nullifies me as a worthwhile editor with a voice anyway (I have warned him I take offense several times too). Some facts/incidents:

• [67] - Warned about incivility and poor conduct.

• [68] -Calling others concerns trolling, and ([69]) that they are a timewaster.
• [70] - Abusive edits saying I'm a Lancastrian.
• Promised to behave following ANI.
• Blocked for WP:3RR.
• [71] - Saying I am a bad faith editor.
• [72] - Saying I troll.
• Saying I'm a random person from Lancashire, and I stick my nose in and other changes deface articles.
• [73] - Calling legitimate content changes vandalism.
• Being incivil on talk pages and working against consensus.
• [74] - Calling me a troll and a "Lancastrian", despite me warning him here (please read the thread) that I find it abusive and I'm not from Lancashire.

Given I feel disheartened, constantly abused with no intervention, and generally made to feel unwelcome on the project by Yorkshirian, I'm more than happy to suspend my content building and elevate this to full mediation and take this as high as possible. This simply can't go on unchecked anymore. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My concern with this editor User:Yorkshirian is his crediting me on the Yorkshire talk page Talk:Yorkshire with statements that I did not make, then implying that the were POV.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I also have grave concerns over this editor and find dialogue with him incredibly adversarial and inpolite, which is a shame because he clearly has breadth of knowledge. He appears to have taken a dislike to me because I live in London. [75] There have been several attempts to persuade this editor to, well, be a bit nicer to people, (see his talk page and archive), but it just hasn't worked. Yorkshire-related articles are not easy places to make constructive contributions anymore. MRSC • Talk 12:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of the claims Jza84 makes in his attack/post in this section range from the proposterous to personal attacks made in an attempt to cover up his poor behaviour in regards to me by projecting. For example, in the very first lie/line Jza84 launches a personal attack on me and calls me a "racist" despite the fact that I am probably the same race as him and have never made a racist comment on Wikipedia. This is an unabashed smear by Jza84, a person who on their page cites complaining about races as a "personal hobby". Jza84 seems to have a problem that he is from the historic county of Lancashire, which his hometown of Shaw and Crompton falls within. This is very strange, off the wall behaviour which is certainly in no way mainstream within the United Kingdom. Jza84 expects people (in this case me) to "randomly guess" that he is ashamed of his roots and considers it a form of "abuse" or "attack". Its extremely unreasonable for him to think any normal person should be able to guess such an unorthodox, radical world view.

Despite this, Jza84 insists on editing articles which are highly controversial in relation to the counties of the United Kingdom. For example he attacked the article of cultural group Saddleworth White Rose Society, a group entirely centered around their affilation to the historic county of Yorkshire, by removing a category which shows they are based within said historic county. Jza84 followed me to that article and made an unabashed attempt to antagonise by attempting to sever their cultural links, despite his opinion not following with that of the United Kingdom government or the United Kingdom royal family which rules him (explicitly, Prince Charles, the future king).[76]

I first came across this user in January, when he was trying to propagate a historcially insignificant cotton town, which just happens to be from the county he comes from, as the "second city of the United Kingdom". This despite it never having any official status, or real, historic recognition in such an area. Nevertheless, he decided that, after this encounter he would follow me around this website and attempt to antagonise me, all the while hiding behind smarmily worded comments, which his actions did not match his comments. Early last month, Jza84, decided that he would like to play again. So he followed me to the article on Beverley and he began to troll me edits. However, he didn't stop at one article, he violated WP:POINT and went on to do the same thing on another article I was editing![77] All the while refusing to take part in any discussion on the talkpage,[78] and leaving smarmy automated messages on my talk. Hypocritically warning me of an edit war, in which he had instigated.[79] Clearly antagonistic behaviour, he seems to have a problem that I'm from Yorkshire and like to contribution to articles relation to the Holy Land. If I am improving any article on the county, Jza will not be far behind trying to wind me up.

For example today. He comes to the Yorkshire article, trolls me with an edit summary of "see talk" despite the fact that he had not even contributed anything at all to the talkpage in question and that on the talk it had been solidly presented that the information which he put back in the article was incorrect.[80] If that was enough spitting on Yorkshire related articles for a day, he then went on to commit the Saddleworth White Rose Society atrocity mentioned earlier in this post.[81] When I messaged him on his talk, requesting an explination for his antagonistic treatment of myself, he basically put across that he couldn't really be bothered to enter the discussion on the talk (and still hasn't) or read the message which I presented before his edit. He then said he was going to report me for saying he is Lancastrian?? I don't understand. This message is very long, I realise, but Jza's playing the victim and attacks on me are so full of it, I just can't accept the way he is behaving when I'm trying to edit articles about my homeland. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This summarises well the tone and approach Yorkshirian takes to discussion and it is unfortunate he has decided to refer to a long-standing, well respected, hugely constructive and trusted editor as "a troll" again here. I note the links he cites as evidence for his rebuttal do not point to specific diffs. MRSC • Talk 14:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And how do you describe Jza's attack on me, claiming I'm a "racist"? That is the definition of trolling for a reaction, as I have never made racist comments anywhere, let alone on a website. Whether Jza has snuggled up to certain people while he has been here, is not a vaild excuse or margin for the behavour of the kind catalogued above and backed up strongly by the diffs. Whether you "like" him or not is entirely irrelevent. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Q.E.D.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still hoping a third-party person can take a look at this. Clearly, there are three editors who have concerns with User:Yorkshirian and I think the diffs I've cited speak for themselves. There are several problems with Yorkshirian's reply; this pseudo "homeland"/"them-vs-us" attitude that somehow excludes my right to contribute or change a "Yorkshire" article (Anti-Lancastrian sentiments) are a disgrace (would Anti-French or Anti-Black be tollorated?).

Anyway, I'm hoping to see some third party involvement here. If not, perhaps we can take this to an early stage formal mediation. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you should be making less ad hominem attacks Jza. Yes, the evidence speaks for itself in the four lengthy paragraphs I wrote, backed up with links. However your continued whining attempting to personally attack me by painting me as a "racist" is simply pathetic and makes you look ridiculous. Counties within Britain which are bordered now are "racially" different are they? Sort it out.

You know full well why I made a comment in the edit summary of the Saddleworth White Rose Society with the word Lancastrian, after you had attentionally defased one of their categorys, only seconds after you had hit and run attacked the Yorkshire article with the "see talk"[82] nonsense where you never (and still haven't) entered talkpage discussion.[83] You understook full well what you were doing, just as you understand full well what you are doing with this ridiculous "racist" personal attack you have yet to apologise for. Antagonising in the hopes of eliciting a reaction. Well guess what Jza? if you go out of your way to antagonise me you will get a reaction. I do not care who you have a little clique with or if you hide behind smarmy wording while actually editing in an antagonistic manner. I will call you on it, a spade is a spade. And I hope a third party will review what you have been doing.

You have yet to explain any of your actions. In fact in your main post, you are so desperate to whine about me that you're referencing things from months ago in an unrelated dispute to you, which I had overwhelming consensus from no less than three admins from. You seem to be making a strawman.[84] However I'm waiting for your explination for the way you have intentionally, culturally attacked the Saddleworth White Rose Society in an extremely offensive way, against the wishes of the organisation,[85], the United Kingdom government,[86] and the future king of the United Kingdon Prince Charles of Wales.[87] Apart from it being a balant attempt to antagonise and get a rise out of any proud Yorkshire person, or specifically myself as it was my edits you followed, what is your explination for this behaviour? You may not have used forthright wording, but make no mistake, your action are ten times the "attack" that any comment that has ever come from me is. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone uninvolved with this please offer some insight or comment? MRSC • Talk 05:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm reviewing. Give me a few minutes. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after reviewing the diffs and some related history, I think it's pretty clear that Yorkshirian's behavior has been quite abrasive. I see many attempts on the part of multiple editors to deal with Yorkshirian in a very civil manner - good for you guys - and most of those appear to have been met with either uncivil responses or signs that he intended to ignore those messages. I have no comment on the actual content dispute going on here, since I have no knowledge of the matter, but I find myself in agreement with Jza and MRSC.

Yorkshirian: I would strongly advise you to go read WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:VAND and WP:CONSENSUS, and make sure you're familiar with them. Many of your comments throughout the various content discussions have either stepped over or bordered on incivility and personal attacks, and your comments appear tinged with a disdain for editors from specific regions. While you are certainly entitled to your opinions about other editors, if you wish to contribute constructively to Wikipedia content, you need to play by the rules put forth in its policies, and currently you don't appear to be. Calling others trolls, accusing them of vandalism, and generally discrediting them with statements about where they live or what not, is only going to cause rifts in your project. Additionally, it appears you've acted more than once in the absence of consensus, and multiple editors in the project have tried to direct your attention to where a consensus discussion was taking place. This gives others the impression that you're exerting ownership over the article(s) in question, whether that's what you intend to do or not.

You are not obligated to apologize to others (though if you have any intention of reconciling with people you are at conflict with, it often helps, and shows that you're willing to take responsibility for your part of a conflict). But at the very minimum, I would very much advise you to be sure you're familiar with the policies and agree to abide by them. If you believe strongly that a certain piece of content should or should not be included in an article, work toward consensus through constructive discussion - for example, pointing out that you have an authoritative book on the subject is good. Telling people that "common sense should be kicking in right about now" is inflammatory and unnecessary.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. MRSC • Talk 06:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Additional comments to Yorkshirian: I see that you've taken particular personal offense to Jza's comment in the initial WQA report that your comments bordered on (or seemed to contain) racist sentiments. In most instances, this sort of comment would itself be a violation of WP:AGF and possibly a personal attack, but given the history of the dispute between you guys, I don't think I can really fault him for thinking this. With edit summaries such as "remove some trolling of the catergory by a Lancastrian", you are specifically stating that because he's a "Lancastrian" (something he denies being, but that's beside the point), his edits are automatically "trolling". This does, in fact, impart a feeling of racial (or at least regional) superiority - again, that might not have been your intention, but that's why it's important to watch what you type here. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made several attempts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties to draw him into the conversation here. I hope we can work something out so future discussions will be on a civil and constructive basis. MRSC • Talk 07:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Here Yorkshirian ignored WP:AGF and accused me of being biased! I was the one who started a discussion on the talk page and made sure another editor made the changes to ensure that I wasnt directly involved. I found this user offensive and quite plainly...rude! --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope there will be some indication of resolve on the part of Yorkshirian to significantly improve his conduct. I have asked him to make such a commitment here on his talk page. If this is not forthcoming could I have some indication, from those who have been involved with this user, that they would support a user conduct RFC? MRSC • Talk 13:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MRSC; the diffs above are shocking...and at the moment I see no commitments for improvement on Yorkshirian's part... = ( --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I was extremely unhappy about this supposed quote here.I would never have made such a statement.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the objectionable behavior continuing after I left my replies above? If so, or if it does continue after those comments, then you certainly may request an RFC/U or whatever other form of dispute resolution you feel is necessary and appropriate. But if nothing more has happened since my replies, I'd give it some time first before going that route - give him time to read over the comments and respond if he wishes, and see if it changes anything. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Harkey is still whinging about the same older comment he/she "brought to light" in only the second post of this section. However, I think the "advise" you offered was very one sided. You pretty much admitted that Jza's claim of "racist" was a personal attack, yet you offered him no "advise" to disuade him from further extreme attacks. Also I feel you pretty much ignored all the evidence I put forward on Jza's behaviour in which I feel he has been intentionally trolling me on certain articles in regards to Yorkshire in an attempt to get a rise (backed up strongly by links). He even continues to do this evem since opening this section, here is a clear example, all the while showing up here and pretending to play the victim.

Whether or not you looked at this one sidedly because my user name is in the title of this section, I do not know. Even mildly suggesting I should apologise to somebody who has out and out attacked my name by calling me a "racist" when I'm not, is well... fairly unreasonable to say the least. I would like you to directly review Jza's behaviour which I detailed in my orginal replies in this section to give less of a one sided offering of advise, because up to now you haven't addressed any of what he has done. Thank you. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input here guys/girls. Certainly I agree that we must see what Yorkshiran has to say for himself in response before seeking a way forwards. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Break

This position and edit summaries like this are unfortunate. We need to move this on quickly so we can get back to constructive editing. MRSC • Talk 04:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunate, is even after opening this section, that your friend Jza should follow me to yet another article and wholesale remove a large chunk of work in an attempt to antagonise (again). Please explain how you feel this behaviour is acceptable. Continued and blatant attempts at antagonisation such as that documented in Jza's behvaiour is not constructive or acceptable. Also if you consider me saying in that edit summary "Jza you seem not to have learned a lesson" as something worth highlighting as "unfortunate", then you must be wrapped in cotton wool. How do you expect me to reply to his following and destruction; "Oh Jza, the way you followed me to this article and just ripped out the work I've just added is so great and nice of you". Reality check, please. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How about you describe your edit for a change, rather than attacking another editor?? Looking at your contributions, you generally only provide edit summaries when they're contentious, why can't you at least provide them for every edit you make and without making personal attacks?86.141.153.34 (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We are trying to make you realise your approch is wrong and that we have established codes of conduct that we need you to abide by. Insulting comments like "you must be wrapped in cotton wool" appear to me to be a continuation of your lack of understanding or willingness to cooperate. The conversation here is a second stage attempt (the first being conversations on your talk page) to resolve this dispute. It appears to have failed. MRSC • Talk 06:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you insist on making such a big deal of tame expression in conversation, blowing it out of proportion and deriding every single word I say as "insulting" or "unfortunate" as if somebody commited a murder is extremely unconstructive. Please stop trying to violate my freedom of expression just because you disagree with me on some of the articles which we edit. I have read and follow the rules on Wikipedia, I always cooperate in discussions on talkpage when requested, I'm cooperating in discussion here despite the "witch hunt" by you and your friend. And most importantly when it comes to editing articles, I always do so in a constructive manner, citing my sources. I apologise if the way I express myself in words is not dull and stoic enough, however as expressed to you before my comments are not intended to insult anybody personally or otherwise, even if I disagree with them. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to elevate this. Once again, Yorkshirian is using his "fake policy/consensus" tactic he's used before ([88] - WP:PLACE is firmly against his position) to edit war. This is clearly not the kind of mindset we want from you Yorkshirian, and it does little to further your repuation here. Incivility is one problem, but damaging mainspace and project space to illustrate a point is, in my eyes, a much more serious issue. Unless Yorkshirian has anything else to say, I'm inclined to go for RFC. --Jza84 |  Talk 

You seem to be WP:Wikilawyering Jza84, to push your social minority and entirely unorthodox view that the local government administration areas (such as Greater Manchester) invented in 1974, which are subject to change at any time, are actually recognised cultural areas in the sense of the "traditional counties" are.[89] You make such hit and run, unsourced reverts to the UK geography project guideline.[90] While refusing point blank to engage in talkpage discussion, this is in violation of our editing policies and completely unconstructive behaviour.[91]

The fact that you have the nerve to then come here (playing the victim) and suggest my edit to the guideline which was made with sources from United Kingdom governmental and royal figures[92] is a "damaging edit" because it does not support your social minority POV, is clearly and undoubtedly a violation of WP:NPA. You of course, have a history of personal attacks against myself, with your earlier "racism" attack. I would be interested in having an uninvolved, unbias party review the behavioural actions of this editor, including the tendancy to refuse talkpage discussion, Wikilawyer in an attempt to place the burdon of social minority view before government and monarchy stance, as well as the tendancy to engage in personal attacks. Would I need to start a new section on here?- Yorkshirian (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the stance taken by any other editor. You're failing to acknowledge or discuss that three/four/five editors have commented that your actions are problematic; none have made such statements against me. Much of your response above isn't coherant or backed up by any kind of real fact. This notion that I have "the tendancy to refuse talkpage discussion" is, fairly clearly, rather baseless, and doesn't help move the discussion along (not to mention I have a notice on my user page that I currently have a broken metacarpal imparing my typing speed). If you have concerns that I'm perhaps a) using foul language b) using inappropriate edit summaries c) misattributing policies, d) name-calling e) not using any edit summaries (I have 100% summary usage btw) e) adding unsourced material f) treat others unfairly, g) I'm a disruptive troll, then that's a matter for you to raise.

That all said Yorkshirian, are you satisfied that we won't find a resolution here? Perhaps you can raise your concerns at an elevated dispute stage? To be clear, I'm still displeased with your actions; infact, I'm even more displeased now (given you've warred your grievances elsewhere now, and failed to acknowledge you generating problems) than I was when I first posted this report. You've done little to explain your actions as good spirited and good faith, and thus I standby everything I've raised. I suspect others do too. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, can something done about this editor? I am becoming extremely frustrated by having to pussyfoot around his sensitivities or be lambasted by verbal abuse. This is no less than bullying to support his sad POV edits.Consensus is being overridden. If my language here is less than moderate it is an expression of my extreme concern at the damage being done to Wikipedia by this opinionated editor, whom I have tried to engage in constructive discussion on several occasions. Can I now expect a volly of insulting retorts?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fact that I have not spoke to you once since this section was began, I'm curious as to what you are going on about now? If you could specify with links, that would be of great help. Thank you. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent)

May I here implore you, in the words of St Benedict "tempered in all things, so that the strong may have something to strive for and the weak nothing to run from". Several editors have been making contributions which have been nullified by your actions so others (including me) have been notable by their absence.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This second stage of dispute resolution has become unproductive. Yorkshirian has not taken the issues raised here about his conduct on board and clearly does not accept his behaviour as problematic. Proceed to RFC. MRSC • Talk 11:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, if you, or your best friend Jza actually engaged in discussion of the points I brought up here then it would be more constructive, however it would seem your playing a bureaucrat game. Could I ask you why you pined and insisted to the extend of bothering me on my talk to reply here. When, after I very kindly obliged to your request and replied here, you and your best friend Jza just ignored everything I said anyway and refused to reply/address any of the statements I made here? If you're unwilling to engage me, then it seems like a waste of time. I'm not interested in playing little games, I'm here to edit articles. If you simply refuse to enage here, then I don't see why I should enter any of your further games. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's regrettable. I must say however that I object to you saying me and MRSC are "best friends"; it's a rather immature statement to make, and again, does little to further your reputation as a well spirited user who can collaborate with others. Please don't make such statements again as I find it offensive. I think we've exhausted this now. What do you propose Yorkshirian? Do you think that we have no point to make and our concerns are baseless? Have you no apology, gesture or committment to make? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree to proceed to RFC, more in sadness---.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Filed here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian MRSC • Talk 15:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I've marked this WQA as "Stuck" then. Sorry we couldn't do more.

Yorkshirian: My advice to you was "one-sided" because I happen to find myself in agreement with the other editors' assessments of your behavior. I don't see that they did anything wrong in terms of being civil or acting in good faith, and I gave specific comment on the "racist" comment that you took so much exception to, mentioning that in this particular case, I saw it as an observation of your behavior, not an unfounded attack. You seem to not be willing to consider responsibility for your own incivility. It's a two-way road - you can't demand that other editors stop being "uncivil" when you continue to be uncivil toward them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

MRSC

Resolved

 – Tentative - discussion now taking place at RFC/U. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite several warnings,[93][94][95] MRSC has attempted to bully me around Wikipedia and has violated Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, Wikipedia:Harassment, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, amongs others only this morning, in his all consuming crusade against me, an obsesive crusade in which he is attempting to drag me away from peacefully editing articles.

• Examples of violation of WP:EDIT WAR can be found on Saddleworth White Rose Society, where he also violated WP:VER by removing material[96], which is sourced[97][98] without discussing his controversial change on the talkpage first.
• Examples of violation of WP:POINT, WP:NPA and WP:TALK can be found here[99] on the talk page of the article Yorkshire, where violating the "comment on the content, not the editor" philosophy of WP:NPA. He disrupted Wikipedia in order to make a point, violating the purpose of WP:TALK which is to discuss the article and its content.
• Examples of continuous violations of WP:HARASS can be found in the fact that he, along with Jza keeps antagonising me in regards to my RFC both on my talk[100][101] and in MRSC's case the harassment and disruption has spread to talk pages of articles.[102][103] This despite the fact that MRSC has been made fully aware of the fact that I have 30 days to completely compile my countering evidence for the RFC (which he began only last night), which understandably takes some time and thus why the "Closing RFCs" timeline policy is in lane.[104] And the fact that this morning, I have discussed it with administrator KieferSkunk[105].

The way MRSC and friend address me on my talk page, is in a "can do no wrong" condoscending, and "holier than thou" manner, which is in itself offensive and a cause for friction. MRSC's almost trance like obsession with me, unwillingness to let old disagreements go, is exemplified in him following me around from article to article only this morning, when I was add information to them. It is an uncomfortable feeling, to the point of weirding me out that, every edit and move I make on Wikipedia is being watched over my shoulder by MRSC and friend, ready to jump on me at any moment in an act of harassment and Wikilawyering in an attempt to get legislation against me for the simple reason that the two disagree on some elements of content disputes. Concerning the most recent behaviour, and given he is ignoring talk page comments about it, what can I do? - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason editors are encouraging Yorkshirian to respond at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian is because since the RFC was filed his conduct has continued to cause increasing concern and disruption to the project. The claims against me on this page and the serious allegations against User:Jza84 here and here are an escalation of the problems we and other users have politely alerted him to on his talk page. MRSC • Talk 09:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just the same, Yorkshirian does have a right to request that you stop talking to him on his talk page. Notifying him of processes and such is still fine, but continuing discussion on his talk page is not likely to be productive at this point. He has requested that you all leave him alone. As far as his talk page is concerned, I think you should abide by that. If disruption continues, you've already come here, requested an RFC, and opened an incident report at ANI, so escalate as appropriate if he continues to disrupt and refuses to respond to the RFC. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Yorkshirian does have a right to request that you stop talking to him on his talk page" - does he? Even at the expense of him calling users trolls, vandals, bad faith editors, wikilawers, harrassers, bores and other unsavoury things explicity prohibited by WP:CIVIL? I've been smeared three times by Yorkshirian; what exactly does he have to do before somebody is bold and steps in? Myself and MRSC have done everything the process asks of us, and (though we've challenged him) given Yorkshirian a level of dignity that he's yet to show others. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that he wants you to stop talking to him on his talk page. That's fine - no matter how uncivil someone is, they do still have that right. That doesn't mean you have to stop pursuing other forms of dispute resolution and/or admin intervention. All I'm saying is that since he's asked you to stop interacting with him on his user-talk page, you should do so and continue with your other forms of WP:DR.

Don't worry, I'll prod the folks at ANI for another eye on the situation, or ask them for a more appropriate forum since WP:DR doesn't appear to be working. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I accept we have little option but wait for the RFC to end. It is unfortunate that there appears to be retaliation since it has been filed in the form of some very serious allegations. Using talk pages to engage with Yorkshirian has failed to produce an amicable outcome, so it is right that we cease informing him of transgressions of the style we have already informed him of our concern about. That said, there should be somewhere we can go to report worsening conduct problems (such as the disruption involving the bogus "vote rigging" claims) and I'm concerned that ANI did not provide us with a route to dealing with these issues. MRSC • Talk 08:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to mark both of these WQAs as resolved for now, since we now finally have some sort of mediation discussion going on in the RFC/U. This should help us keep from forking the threads too much. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Rosalind Picard

I'd like some independent eyes from this noticeboard directed to this page, particularly with reference to this and this response. Perhaps this exchange is relevant too. I stand ready to alter my own behaviour as advised. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if I think there are some clear problems, I'd prefer if you could be a bit more specific. Could you name which editors are actively involved in the dispute (other than you, Raul654 and Filll) whose conduct you'd like looked at by 'independent eyes'? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Several people are involved in the dispute; I wouldn't want to single out anyone. I was hoping for a review of my behaviour and that of those people specifically invoking WP:CIVIL in particular. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it's a long discussion so I can only go through little by little.

• Baegis was blocked previously, is subject to an ArbCom sanction, and was warned again 5 days before he made the attack (on May 5) that would constitute another instance of unseemly conduct.
• Filll was previously blocked and then unblocked half hour later because of insufficient warning for personal attacks. He also engaged in unseemly conduct (incivility,assumptions of bad faith,wikilawyering,assumptions of ownership) several times [emphasis added] on the same day (5 May). They got worse the next day (6 May), to the point of personal attacks, although he modified some of it on request. The incivility continued.
• Raul654 made unwarranted personal attacks on 6 May. He also threatened to block an editor that he was clearly involved in a dispute with. Further no apology, or at the very least he could've retracted the entire statement - he didn't. If this, is among other instances of poor judgement, then AN/I will not be sufficient to deal with this problem.
• Relato refero made comments later (still on 6 May though) that are inflammatory to the dispute. They might not be as bad or unacceptable as those by the above editors, but making those sort of remarks (however tempting) is not constructive, and are not looked upon favorably. I'm making a more direct sort of alert to you because you opened this.

Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:BalkanFever

In South Slavs section this user has started off with instant blind reverts with swear words [[106]] to my attempts to enrich the article. BalkanFever often defends this article from being increased and any new reliable sources from being reflected, as the article at the moment does not even make the distinction between Slavs and South Slavs and this to BalkanFever seems to be his aim for some unknown reason. This is very odd behaviour, and I suspect foul play here, can somebody assist? Noonien Soong (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Noonien Soong has been blocked for sockpuppetry. BalkanFever 13:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas

Unfortunately, a problem has arisen with User:Viriditas that appears somewhat insoluble to me. We have both edited the same article Children of Men off and on for over a year, and every time I make an alteration to the article, he reverts it, refusing to discuss a compromise or seek a valid consensus. Instead I receive increasingly uncivil remarks and personal attacks.

The specific content prompting this complaint about Viriditas' behavior regards the primary sourcing practice of observable phenomena (ie, the laughter of children during the closing credits) to use the film as the primary source. Initially the matter was in regards to using the {{cite video}} template to provide a time-stamp for where the laughing occurred * (I disagreed, considering the matter within the same purview that we consider plot summaries as well as being redundant and unclear; the section where the info was used is called “Closing Credits” and the laughter occurred throughout that part of the film. As observable phenomena which was also noted by closed-captioning does not need citation, I removed the template) - Viriditas saw that as an act of [[WP::NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground|war]].

His discussion behavior is unnecessarily dismissive, impolite and littered with personal attacks and incivility. I have been accused by him of trolling, ([107]), wiki-lawyering, cherry-picking information and/or gaming the system, ([108], [109]) and repeated again ([110], [111], [112]), pov-pushing (at least every other post of his makes the same accusation presuming without current evidence that I am trying to edit in a "pet theory" interpreting the laughter), and sock-puppetry, though only by hinting at such ([113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121]) which presumably release him from the responsibility of actually proving such through SSP or RfCU.

This behavior extends outside the article and beyond singling out only myself for abuse; any folk that disagree or comment on his behavior are dismissively characterized by Viriditas as trolls, harrassers or (quite often) wiki-stalkers, and removed their comments from his user-talk space, almost invariably accompanied by an entirely inappropriate or misleading edit summary ([122], [123], [124], [125]). These are just the instances of other established editors being dismissed in just the last few weeks.

While we have always taken a more liberal approach towards refactoring one's own usertalk space, he also removes dissenting comments from article discussion ([126], [127], [128]), which in itself is a Civility violation. More often, he simply dismisses their posts with an uncivil comment that evolves into greater incivility through sequential, small edits or labeling them negatively ([129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139]). Many of the editors treated in this fashion withdraw from the article and discussion, thereby leaving Viriditas to edit relatively unopposed.

As I have been the frequent recipient of this unfriendly behavior in the past, I took specific pains to avoid reciprocating this incivility and personal attacks when they re-occurred in Children of Men (article and discussion) as well as elsewhere

Unable to provide equitable counter-arguments to my policy/guideline supporting explanation of my edits and dissent ([140]), Viriditas first added cn tags to the info ([141]), and then stated that he was going to remove the instance of the laughter before removing the citable information completely. ([142], [143]), and began edit-warring ([144]) his version into the article, always quite careful to go up to, but never across the 3RR threshold.

This was accompanied by his increasingly confrontational approach to the discussion process in not only article discussion, but forum-shopped it to two separate noticeboards (NOR and [[RS) and the Wikifilms Project as well. To whit:

1. He has repeatedly referred to archived posts I made while still a new editor, presumably to imply that I am adding an OR interpretation to the article that I simply have not in over a year. This is presumably to poison the well as to my contribution value.

1. He has also repeatedly referenced various anon accounts that do offer interpretations of the sounds,* a veiled reference that I am socking via these anon accounts. These accusations are made without substantiation from either SSP or RfCU. My requests that he provides evidence of either complaint or checkuser have been pointedly ignored and even repeated afterwards in several venues *. If the well weren’t poisoned enough already, adding repeated accusations of sock-puppetry jolly well makes it nigh radioactive.

1. Viriditas’ demeanor in discussion has been marred by personal attacks and significant incivility in both the article, ensuing discussion and other venues. I could list at least a dozen diffs that indicate where it is stated that I have never read a policy, am ridiculous and apparently have the IQ of a over-ripened eggplant (though not specifically that particular vegetable).

1. When it was pointed out in ‘’both’’ noticeboards (by at least five different editors) that the laughter ‘’could’’ be added and sourced to the film, Viriditas refused to accept a compromise that would end the stalemate, demanding that music played during the closing credits should be added as well to the section (instead of the section entitled “Music”, where it would be more accessible to the reader). This refusal of his came with the speculative (OR) assessment * that “removing the music adds interpretive value to the children’s laughter” *. I noted that this assessment was as speculative as the archive interpretations he kept referencing himself.

1. After edit-warring his 3RR (1, 2, 3) for at least the fourth day in a row, and after his last revert, requested page protection less than 10 minutes later.

As I noted before, many other editors have encountered this same abrasive behavior, and it extends back beyond the 1 1/2 years I have been a user here. While Viriditas does make valid contributions to some articles, his demeanor ‘’always’’ turns ugly at any sign of dissent, and those who do not back down are then subjected to his vitriolic attacks. This doesn’t foster the best examples of politeness, professionalism and the assumption of good faith that helps Wikipedia work effectively. Viriditas knows this, as he admits he is being uncivil ([[145]]). However, this admission is followed by even more personal attacks and incivility, which suggests that he is either unaware of the behavior, or cannot prevent himself from engaging in it.

Since repeated requests and attempts at DR ([146], [147], [148]) from me are always mischaracterized or simply removed without comment ([149], [150]). I would further note that attempts at mediation (the most recent attempt by MPerel, a friend of Viriditas) have all failed because Viriditas has shown a marked unwillingness to participate in any discussion where he must admit he is acting incorrectly.

---

Therefore, I am submitting this wikiquette alert in the DR process to share my concerns with the community, as this appears to be the last step prior to taking action that would have lasting (if not permanent consequences) for Viriditas.

I would ask that an intervention be initiated, to help counsel Viriditas on dealing politely with those whom he disagrees with. As the only other recourse is to simply report him to AN/I, for which he would almost certainly be blocked —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs)

I’m disappointed that your first edit back after being blocked is to continue the war with Viriditas. I don’t believe it is in your best interest to draw attention to your behavior in this, as you are not innocent and it is unlikely you’ll get the response you are hoping for. My suggestion is that you move on from this dual between you two that has been the source of much wearisome verbosity, and at the least, try to avoid each other. The matter over which you both are battling is not worth all this. --MPerel 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry you are disappointed, but the matter that ended up with both of us blocked doesn't mitigate Viriditas' claim of innocence here. As you are clearly his friend, it is expected that you would defend him, but I don't recall you piping up to tell him to knock his edit-warring off whilst it was going on. I don't recall you even noting how his behavior was at all objectionable, and you're his friend. You could have nipped this in the bud, and told him to fix, curb or otherwise cease his behavior, but you were oddly silent throughout it. While it boiled over in my dealings with him. The very fact that he has been this way with others, and yet somehow could not stop himself from violating all of the incontrovertible claims I've noted above while you stood silently by rather voids your rather inappropriate claim of 'disappointment'. Before you pipe up to defend your post, maybe you could point out where you pointed out your disappointment to Viriditas about his behavior. I am guilty of not tolerating his behavior, and edit-warred with him; I take the hit on that. I was not guilty of anything else, 3RR, NPA or civility violations - I was only guilty of not putting up with his OWNish nonsense. Perhaps you missed that in your hurry to express your disappointment.

I am not sure what sort of response you think I am expecting; Viriditas tends to archive or blank (with a variably unpleasant remark) any note of his unacceptable behavior. This could easily lead others to feel that no one takes exception to his behavior. This fairly proves that such is not the case, and I can back up my claims with recent citations.

I am not interested in battling with Viriditas; he clearly doesn't believe he is capable of mistakes and it is equally clear that he cannot accept criticism even from those people who he doesn't feel at odds with. He simply isn't worth my time; having been blocked twice for having to deal with him/her pretty much sums up my feeling towards dealing with them. I will not seek Viriditas out, but I will not back down in any situation involving that editor, especially when they pull the crap they have. As his/her friend, you might counsel them to avoid me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dearest Arcayne, you say you will "not back down in any situation involving that editor". This is the intransigence that has you two at loggerheads and is blinding you from seeing what’s really important. My simple advice (to both of you), let it go, be willing to be big enough to back down even if you think you are right, for the sake of higher priorities. If you empower someone to push your buttons, you make yourself weak and lose all objectivity, which is why you only see the villain in each other. I’m not an admin, btw, precisely because I don’t wish to be a policeman. I’d rather appeal to you as a fellow human being and peer, and as such, I encourage you to shake it off and move on. Cheers, --MPerel 17:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that this advice is tendered only towards myself, MPerel, and not towards your friend - or did I perhaps miss a post on his user talk page? I think you are personally a nice person, but you aren't being exactly neutral here. I appreciate your input, and am not empowering anyone, except maybe for myself. When I say I will not be bullied by Viriditas, I mean precisely that, and naught else. My information above is objective; the diffs essentially speak for themselves. If I used old posts of yours aggressively and called you a sock-puppet, you'd have me in front of AN/I so fast, my grandchildren would have whiplash. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to write me off as the friend of your enemy to discard my advice, it is entirely up to you to take it or leave it as you see fit : ) I’m not sure any of my "friends" would find me an advantage in Wikipedia disputes, since I hold my friends to much higher standards than mere Wikipedia policies. In fact, in the case of Viriditas, as far as Wikipedia goes, though I find him more in the right and the greater victim of injustice in this conflict with you, I have refrained from jumping in to defend his cause (thus my public “silence”). This is because, from my perspective, the personal conflict between you two is of more concern to me than the state of the article you are battling over. People are intrinsically more valuable than this project, and so I refuse to join in battles over silly things, or encourage such behavior in my friends, even if they are technically in the right. And they hear as much from me behind the scenes. And actually no, your grandchildren are safe from whiplash, if you made wild accusations against me (as you’ve kinda done actually, but no worries, I let it pass), it would not be my way to run to AN/I, as I’m not one who feels compelled to correct people’s misperceptions about me; I let people believe whatever they like. A final thought… You might consider the possibility that in the higher realms you and Viriditas are good friends and together planned to irritate each other in this lifetime in order to help each other become better people. --MPerel 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An interesting theory. If true, I must remember to kick the crap out of my higher self when I get there. Viriditas is not my "enemy," but I have little assumption of his good faith. He needs to bank that up quite a bit of that to warrant any consideration from me. This isn't even a matter of 'once burned, twice shy'; I've been burned by him to do anything but expect the worst in any given conversation. I appreciate you taking hte time to contribute your comments, but I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with your assessment of his "victimhood" in this matter. The diffs noted above prove them to be overlooking rather considerable failings. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Last I heard of this Arcayne Children of Men problem was at Wikipedia:RSN#Closing credits on Children of Men, and according to posts there, you had also brought it up elsewhere (NOR is mentioned). Consensus was clearly against you (Arcayne); I find it hard to understand why you are still on about this, unless the goal is to simply overwhelm with verbosity. It seems very straightforward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Sandy - maybe you actually missed the actual wikiquette alert, posted above? The consensus from the different talk pages was something rather off-point from this particular page. The point had very little to do with seeking consensus (btw, Viriditas did not find a consensus to remove the sound of the children's laughter; when he didn't, he simply threw in some wrenches about the music, and then games the system to get the article locked). I realize that with a fairly long and invlved issue, its kinda hard to keep the eye on the ball, but I thought the wikiquette alert was pretty clear. Take a moment to actually read it, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas: arbitrary break 1

Btw, Viriditas was a member of the complaining party in a recent Rfc (against Ed Fitzgerald), and was among a few editors specifically asked to refrain from disruptive and unseemly conduct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, Ncmvocalist, all I see there is your own "outside view" endorsed by no one else that you posted after you were called out for your own inappropriate behavior at the RFC. --MPerel 06:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

MPerel, could you please confine your comments to those regarding the Wikiquette alert? It seems that Ncm was confirming a problem that I've pointed out. You may counter that by noting the inaccuracy of the editor's statements. Let's avoid motivations, since none of us are mind readers. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The editor's statements are inaccurate, yes, as Ncmvocalist's "confirmation" was, as I pointed out, nothing of the sort, since he is only referring to his own comment that no one else endorsed, in a post he made at an RFC where Ncmvocalist was actually the one called out for being disruptive. --MPerel 07:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you get your facts straight because there is no inaccuracy. My conduct was not considered questionable by the admin who warned him for his disruptive and unseemly conduct at the Rfc (the personal attacks particularly). I also noted such misconduct in my findings (with evidence), as well as a clear warning that failure to refrain from such conduct may result in intervention by an administrator, or the Arbcom. My note at the Rfc was confined to the conduct in relation to that dispute. Although I have not gone through this alert in detail (except to note a few examples of incivility), if the editor is engaging in such misconduct elsewhere that has led here (eg; incivility, edit-warring), and the behavior continues, then there is no choice but to exhaust the final steps of the DR process. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, need I remind you of WP:CIV? You appear to have a habit of accusing people of civility violations right after making rude comments to them. In the future, please be mindful of your words. Instead of suggesting that MPerel get her facts straight, you could at least show your fellow editors some respect. This is exactly the kind of behaviour you engaged in on the RFC talk page when you tried to ridicule me by insulting my knowledge of RFC evidence. Hopefully, you'll take this warning to heart and stop it. And for the record, contrary to what you claim, at no time did any administrator specifically ask me to "refrain from disruptive and unseemly conduct". User:Toddst1 contacted me to say "Please do not make personal attacks as you did here", and I replied to him on his talk page, thanking him for his polite warning. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To Viriditas (subject of this alert): Unlike you, I am not in violation of any policy or guideline here (or at the Rfc), but if you feel otherwise, you are welcome to ask an uninvolved admin for their advice on the matter (as well as on what constitutes disruptive/unseemly conduct). And for the record, labelling something I've said as inaccurate, when it isn't, is not only incivil and disrespectful, but is a demonstration that a) she did not fully familiarize herself with what actually happened, or; b) she deliberately misrepresented my statement to further her friend’s position - (one of the many problems of being ‘involved’ but in any case) I did not consider it the latter as it would be assuming bad faith on Mperel.

To Arcayne: you may find a mere Wikiquette alert is not effective for this editor, because clearly a warning (however polite) by an admin was not enough to stop him. But seeing you’re here, see how it goes. If he persists in engaging in disruptive or unseemly conduct of any sort (including edit-warring, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, misrepresentation, disruptive point-making or the like), I suggest you take it straight to AN/I. If this again has no effect, then there is only one option left. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Ncmvocalist. It's good to have confirmation outside of Diffs that Viriditas isn't all that polite. This Wikiquette alert is in fact an attempt to use DR correctly. Personal contact at his page has been ineffective. Contact in article discussion has ended up in both of us being blocked not once but twice. This was the logical next step. When (and not if, unfortunately) his behavior recurs, this step will have been documented. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, the irony of you posting a wikiquette alert against another editor I’m sure does not go unnoticed by the many editors with whom you’ve had conflicts. Viriditas has shown remarkable patience with you which I have not seen returned by you, and I’ve tried to nicely advise you that continuing your vendetta against him is unproductive for all involved, particularly in light of your own poor behavior, not only with him, but with many other editors. I prefer to spend my limited time at Wikipedia on more positive aspects, like working on articles, but if you’re going to continue disrupting the project by harassing a very productive editor (in the top 100) with 60,000 edits, who has created hundreds of articles, brought many to FA and GA status, along with producing countless DYKs, then perhaps my time will be better spent preventing this persistent disruption by documenting your problematic behavior in order to bring it in check. The preferable route of course is that you simply stop this pursuit and consider the negative effects of your behavior, how you are creating a tedious, wearisome environment for many other volunteers who invest time on this project. Please think about what I am saying. --MPerel 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have thought about it, MPerel. I would submit that his "remarkable" patience is matched and even surpassed by my own patience at his antics. That I hadn't called for his immediate blocking back when his tendentious behavior started says that I was patient beyond reason with him. I appreciate your friendship with him, and I know you think that his 40k edits makes him the best thing since sliced bread, but I have a few edits myself. That I don't have as much free time as Viriditas has to feed the wiki is clear. That you seem all too willing to ignore his crappy behavior and discount my pointing it out is cause for concern. You've made your point: you think Viriditas can do no wrong. Got it. I utterly, utterly disagree. His good edits do not excuse his abrasive, wiki-lawyering, demeanor. While I know you like to only focus on the positive aspects, it doesn't mean we can ignore (or excuse) the negative aspects. Please think about what I am saying, MPerel, before responding again. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To MPerel: please do not attempt to intimidate other editors by threatening to retaliate. This is not the place (if any) to make such remarks. You're of course welcome to take any route you wish; whether they will have any merit is yet to be seen - you may want to think twice before prusuing any such route. And, I would like to remind you (or in case you didn't know, inform you), that immunity is not provided to any editor who violates basic policy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To Ncmvocalist: please stop your bad faith assumptions, which are incorrect, as there was no such threat of retaliation. And please stop jumping into these pages creating more heat than light. --MPerel 19:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To MPerel: please take your own advice and stop making frivolous accusations of bad faith against others. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate what I said earlier: the WQA page does not exist only to endorse people's comments - however, it does not exist to make threats of any sort, let alone this (If you don't stop pursuing the DR process against him, then I will consider pursuing it against you for your problematic behavior (even though I would not if you drop it)). That is retaliatory - plain and simple. The DR process does not exist for such a purpose. Therefore, you have been warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne's WQA complaint is part of a longstanding dual between him and Viriditas and only furthers the bad blood between them. I doubt you have looked into the history or you would not be making these idle threats and so called warnings against me. My own part has been to try to help resolve the conflict through informal means, apparently to no avail. Other editors have withheld calling Arcayne to account for his behavior, because most productive editors would rather focus on actual encyclopedia work rather than waste volunteer time in dispute resolution, which rarely has a positive end. In fact a very one-sided misrepresentation has been allowed to thus far stand unchallenged, only because responding to it would only drag things out into an unproductive battle and most editors who have the project's interest at heart would rather invest energy elsewhere. If you read what I said carefully, the gist of my statement was to question whether Arcayne really wants to pursue a formal route, as it will only waste all of our time from more productive work, and Arcayne will not find himself at any advantage or achieve any positive outcome if the time is taken to adequately answer his accusations as it will draw attention to his own behavior. I don't see how you can read retaliatory threats into what I said. You are unfortunately forming opinions based on very little knowledge of the situation. --MPerel 20:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, MPerel. While there is a long-standing contentiousness between myself and Viriditas (not a duel), the complaint addressed his behavior not only with me but with others. I am unsure why you continue to ignore that; you seem quite intent on pointing out only my past troubles (of which I am aware). I am aware that I am no angel and instead of engaging with Viriditas, should have immediately ignored his trollish behavior and simply reported him to AN/I. As well, I have had past difficulties with other editors. How does any of that invalidate the complain presented above? I have pointed out that Viriditas has failed every attempt at dispute resolution thus far - even those initiated by yourself. He has been staggeringly rude to more editors besides myself, and the only editors with whom he doesn't share this dismissive attitude are those who choose to agree with him.

The best defense is not a good offense, MPerel. Rather than highlight my difficulties with other editors, perhaps focus your comments on the content of this complaint on its merits or flaws. If you find you are unable to do so because of your pre-existing friendship with Viriditas, I would alternately ask that you please avoid attacking the person bringing the complaint. My past does not invalidate the complaint. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm ... when you bring a dispute you're party to, your role in it is usually examined. Have you considered, after so many years of this, that others might see it differently than you do, and it might be more productive to edit another area for a while? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I understand that my role in the matter is actually examined, but - apart from edit-warring (which is bad enough) - I have not made any personal attacks or violated any civility rules. MPerel was pointedly ignoring the initial complaint to say that Viriditas should be lauded for his behavior, and not counseled to improve upon it. Precisely what do you see different, Sandy? What in my wikiquette alert do you see that is inaccurate?

And I do edit elsewhere productively. And not once have I edit-warred an article before trying to lock it in place in an article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To MPerel: again, when another editor has engaged in misconduct, it does not invalidate the complaint. WQA is an early step of the DR process - if the subject of the alert stops engaging in misconduct hereafter, then that's as far as it will go. It really is that simple. What you said (about a dual) can only be taken into consideration if the misconduct did not continue, but Arcayne begun making meritless claims in other steps of DR - (so far not the case/this has not happened). Clear? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)