Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive46

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Steven Chayer article and user Cquan

Resolved

– Nothing to see here - move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My discussion with him over the article Steven Chayer has been kind and level-headed. He is condescending and rude and wants to be an Administrative Editor.

Drewhamilton (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, he has been neither condescending nor rude. He has been patient and helpful. Incidentally, it is customary to notify the person in question that he is the subject of a Wikiquette alert, as explained above under "Instructions for users posting alerts". Ilkali (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please help me with this guy. [1] He's mean and on a power trip and he knows it because I pointed out how mean-spirited and unessecary something he had on his user page was and he A) Deleted my comment in the Articles for Deletion discussion [2] over an article I wrote "Steven Chayer" B) He edited his user page to removed the stuff on his user page I had pointed out as mean and needless. Drewhamilton (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've informed the editor of the existence of this WQA. I don't see any evidence to suggest that there is a problem here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User Finisklin: linkspamming

Resolved

– User warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User Finisklin (talk · contribs · logs) has added references or external links to at least 12 different articles (see diffs, below), all to content written by one Cormac Burke. He has done so seemingly without concern for whether this person is an notable authority on the relevant subject or whether the linked resource is appropriate to the article, leading me to believe he is engaging in linkspamming. I am not certain he understands that his actions are questionable, and I have opened discussions with him on his talk page, but it feels like continuing the discussion would sap more of my energy than I'd like to sacrifice. I'm hoping someone else can back me up on this.

Diffs: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Note that these comprise all but one of his article-space edits.

Ilkali (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I issued a final warning for spamming. If he was just adding the reference to the book, this might be tricky, but since he is also adding the website, and since he is adding the references in weird random places (like in the middle of the Category tags), this is a cut-and-dry case of spamming. If he does it again, he will be blocked and his website could be blacklisted. Thanks for the heads-up! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and deletion of talk page postings

Thanks to whichever volunteers handle issues at this page, I hope you find your work rewarding.

I've been tolerating provocative rudeness by User:Ilkali at Talk:Gender of God for some time now. Mainly I've ignored it, and stuck to answering nit-picking challenges and Wikilawyering. Eventually, I worked out it was trolling of some kind and I shouldn't feed it. I gave notice of withdrawing from discussion and explained why.

Now, however, this user is actually insisting on removing a reply I have given as part of a very long standing discussion to another user, who is currently absent. I have given warnings and finally a 3RR warning. Personally, I'd rather the user just chooses to be more civil, and allow things that irk him to stand; but how can I continue interacting with another long standing editor on this page, if a third party deletes my replies? Or am I to understand I can edit talk pages as well as articles and delete comments I think are inappropriate?

It seems to me we need to be even more generous in what we allow in talk pages than we do in articles. Where would we be if people had the right to delete talk page posts they disagreed with? Does this user have the right to remove my comment here?

Sorry to trouble you, but I've spent a long time talking an important issue through with User:Andowney and we actually seem to be getting to the end of it at last. But now Ilkali has deleted my reply. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, you and perhaps User:Andyowney are misusing the talk page: [[WP:TALK}} "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." You've written " Asking questions and challenging human doctrines derived from revelation, not revelation themselves, is a great way to push oneself to depending more heavily on scripture, prayer, obedience and love. To depend on scripture is to depend on God (if we are correct to believe God is there and that he has spoken). Although I believe there is only one truth, and although I believe scripture informs us of much regarding gender, I think the processes are as important as the results. As you say, now it is "through a glass darkly" then it will be "face to face".But what do we say at Wiki? Christian view: "through a glass darkly" (Paul as understood by AH and AD)? I think here we must simply place the dark understanding of the scholars to this point, and leave the question quickly. If people want to know more, they should go to church and join the collective struggle to wrestle for as much grace of revelation as we can find as we turn to God's word together." That looks more like a sermon than using it as "a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article". If I were active on that page, I'd probably remove that myself.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You are overlooking the point. I say: But what do we say at Wiki?. You say: That looks more like a sermon. What does? The second half of the last sentence. Were you to remove on such grounds, and then repeat that after objection. I would report you for uncivil and biased editing. Thanks for taking the trouble to follow the links, and for reading the disputed comment. If the last sentence is the only objection, I will count your voice as agreeing with retaining the post. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"I've been tolerating provocative rudeness by User:Ilkali at Talk:Gender of God for some time now". Your first reply when I urged you not to use the talk page as a forum: "If you can't follow the discussion, feel free to stay out of it Ilkali". Do you consider that a civil response?

"Where would we be if people had the right to delete talk page posts they disagreed with?". Where would we be if people did not have the right to delete inappropriate talk page posts? This is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. As has been confirmed here, you were misusing the talk page. WP:TALK explicitly authorises the removal of off-topic posts.

"how can I continue interacting with another long standing editor on this page, if a third party deletes my replies?". You can take it to his talk page, as I urged you from the beginning. What exactly is your problem with this recourse? Why are you refusing to even consider it? Ilkali (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see more input, but I still think it looks like the talk page has been used as a forum, and that this applies@

"Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." (from [[WP:TALK}} Doug Weller (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User:HalfShadow

Stuck

– Hopefully, the incivility ceases. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The user left a personal attack on the talk page of another blocked user. I left a friendly note on his talk page, which was promptly deleted without explanation. I'm fully aware that the contents of talk pages can be deleted as is the wish of the user, but sensing that he might get the message if a proper warning was left, I posted a uw-npa1 warning on his page. This, too, was promptly deleted. The user then threatened to report me for harassment. Any chance of an admin dropping him a line in relation to WP:CIVILITY? Thanks. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm allowed to delete messages to my talk page. Anyone is. You're trying to earn points for something from four days ago, and I'm not prepared to waste time on the past. Go away. HalfShadow 16:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would I be trying to earn points? It doesn't bother me either way whether another user is blocked or not; you, however, took the opportunity to attack them while they were blocked, knowing they couldn't do anything about it, and you need to learn that that isn't acceptable. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Except blocked people can comment (and remove comments) on their talk pages. That's two things you gotten wrong so far; care to try for a hat trick? HalfShadow

I was referring to the fact that they cannot complain about the behaviour of other users in an appropriate forum, like this. There's another thing you've misinterpreted, the first being WP:CIVILITY. Care to go for three? --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Except at least two admins had posted there since and at least six overall and nobody's seen a problem with my comment. Just stop; you're only embarrassing yourself now. You're wasting seconds I could be using to do important things with. HalfShadow 16:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

He is entitled to remove comments from his talk page, but there are civility issues even on this very page. I think a reminder would be enough if he can take note of it, upon which, I will close this WQA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that didn't go down too well... --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Although IMO not the best course of action, he can delete anything he likes off his talk page, I suggest you wait and see if his minorly rude behaviour (excluding his talk page where he can delete what he likes) continues or stops now he's seen this thread. Restepc (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC) On seeing other comments, I agree with Ncmvocalist Restepc (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. ~~If it doesn't stop, then go to RFC. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)~~ Based on this, I suggest taking it straight to ANI if it continues. It's a despicable attitude. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with you; both of you. HalfShadow 17:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Marking as resolved because there is no instance of a personal attack at user talk:Sarah777, and a user is allowed to remove comments from his own talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 18:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The user against whom the attacks were made (Sarah777) deleted the comments, here and here. The user who made the comments (HalfShadow) still hasn't accepted that he made a personal attack, and still hasn't agreed to refrain from doing so in the future. I think this comment on my own talk page reveals his attitude to all of this. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 18:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So? A user can remove talk page comments and put any edit summary that they wish, but that doesn't make the comments that were removed personal attacks. HalfShadow hasn't accepted that it wasn't a personal attack, and as an administrator, I can't see the comment being a personal attack. A jab? Potentially. A personal attack? No. Move along. seicer | talk | contribs 23:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See how to tag threads at the top of the page - there is no acceptance by either party, and this is certainliy not resolved. Saying "And it's commentary like that which is why we no longer value your input." is clearly incivil - there's no indication that it is going to stop either. The disappointing inability or reluctance of certain admins to stop this behaviour at early stages (through whatever means, even through a polite reminder/warning) is precisely why the Committee ends up dealing with cases of incivility - sometimes where an admin could've easily have dealt with it much sooner. This is closed as stuck in the hope it does not continue, or that he doesn't continue to attempt to drive away contributors - See Civility policy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: it's not a personal attack - it's incivility. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Xasha

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

– Being dealt with at WP:ANI

This user, recently warned and then blocked for making offensive remarks against me, has resumed his attacks. Here, here, here, here, here and here he goads and prods me, insinuating dark motives on my part. Let me elaborate: I noted at Template:Romanian historical regions that certain regions were part of Romania in 1941-44, which in fact they were. Now, how exactly the template should be constructed is open to interpretation. What is, however, completely unacceptable is that Xasha, despite his recent block and warning, and despite my pointing out to him repeatedly that he is violating AGF, CIV and NPA, accuses me of "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa" - the Nazi German invasion of the USSR, in which Romania's fascist wartime regime also took part. Obviously these are very serious, but also entirely baseless charges. I have asked Xasha to withdraw the charge, to comment on content rather than on the editor, to stop attempting to smear my good name, but all to no avail. It is not up to him to air his "impression" and "supposition" that I am "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa", but if I can't convince him of that through discussion, then it only remains to me to seek a more formal means of clearing my name. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, just note that your implications that I accused you of fascism or rehabilitation (?) are just the result of your gross failure to assume good faith. As for historical revisionism, your comment about Moldova's statality leaves no other interpretations.Xasha (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't obscure the issue, don't "interpret" my edits in sinister ways, and things will be fine. Again: unacceptable to say that I am "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa", a charge that very clearly implies I am trying to put fascism and Ion Antonescu in a favourable light. Or, if it doesn't imply that (which I'm sure it does), then the best solution is always silence - not coming up with your own "impressions" and "suppositions" regarding my motives. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was mistaken. It's not you who is trying to do it, it's the version of that template you created who does it. When a version edited by you is seriously flawed and biased, is my right to bring it to the community's attention.Xasha (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You show you're racist. That's all that counts here. ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

When will be Xasha blocked? ClaudiuLine (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

When Wikipedia will become 100% User:Bonaparte socks proof.Xasha (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You will be blocked soon because of your racist comments and personal attacks. ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not touching this one with a ten-foot pole -- but for whoever does, this arbitration case is relevant. Basically, Xasha is one of a number of editors who is on a very short leash on any articles relating to Eastern Europe... --Jaysweet (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation: do read the links provided by Biruitorul.Xasha (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xasha&diff=215635466&oldid=215284111 --ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Since this has already been escalated to WP:ANI and involves past arbitration rulings, there's nothing that can be done about it here. Please don't forum shop. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:PlaneShift (video game)

Hello, on the talk page of the PlaneShift (video game) article, a URL keeps getting reinserted that I have an issue with. I very rarely edit people's comments, but my problem with the URL is that it has a link to a 6.4MB binary that is being presented as allowing users to cheat in the game. Nobody will download it because it's a binary, and in my opinion, we do not need to have such URLs in the talk namespace that have the potential to hurt people's systems. Obviously, WP:EL#AVOID would disallow it in the article namespace for the same reason. Up to now, I've been taking the liberty of removing the URL to this download page as to what WP:TALK and WP:EL#AVOID allow me to do, and I've also seeked out a second opinion on Wikipedia's offtopic IRC channel from some editors that are more established than I am before continuing to do so, yet the URL keeps getting reinserted and I fail to see why it should ever be in the talk namespace. I don't know what else I can do on the talk page without promoting incivility there; thus I now seek a third opinion to be posted on the talk page. Tuxide (talk) of WikiProject Retailing 12:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note on this. I'm the one who put the link up there. This isn't just a 'link to a 6.4mb binary'. The link contains the full source code of what makes this binary, and comes to show a problem with the Planeshift game. As far as I'm aware of, the binary published on that site is as safe as the binaries published on the Planeshift site (and linked on wikipedia too).Sixie (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sixie -- why is it important to you that the link appear on the Talk page? It is difficult to point to a specific policy prohibiting it (linking to a binary download is probably a good point; if the game were not GPL I would have intellectual property and copyright concerns but it looks like that probably doesn't apply here), but I just don't see a value, and I see a potential risk.

I would err on the side of removing it. Your point is made, Sixie -- the source code is out there. But Wikipedia doesn't need to link to it. The source code has no value as a reliable source because it requires interpretation, and that would be original research. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The link is on the discussion page because it was removed from the article page. From what I understand, The owner of that page was in the planeshift development team for about a year, and left about a month ago - The SVN logs of the planeshift project show that he wrote a good amount of code during the time he was here, and apparently was trusted by the planeshift team up until the day he left - I'd consider him more than reliable. The same issue 'Kemedes' outlines in the example is well known and was noted many times in the past years on different sources. 'Kemedes' shows a simple way to exploit it. I can provide links to different sources that confirm that problem and outline even more ways to exploit it. I wrote a section explaining issues regarding players cheating and abusing the planeshift engine (which was repeatedly deleted by the developers of that game). It would appear that a big 'cheat' in that game is found every month or so, and isn't that rare. The link provides a really simple example (The diff between the 'patched' file and the origian one is just 4-5 lines of code) and a source code to demonstrate it. I assume that the binaries are on the site to provide easy means of testing and verifying the issue (which is also an important aspect of information on wikipedia - Anyone can verify the problem). My problem with it is simple - The binaries on that page are as safe as the binaries on the planeshift site - which is also linked on wikipedia. I don't see a reason why the links to the planeshift site should remain in the article if you do decide to take down the links to the 'cheat' code. In conclusion, Not only I want that information to remain available and open to the public, I'd like to see (a version of it) appearing on the article page itself.Sixie (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In regards to Kemedes, you say I'd consider him reliable. I mean something very precise when I say the word reliable source in regards to Wikipedia. Please see WP:RS. I think I am a very reliable person, and my wife tends to agree, but I do not qualify as a reliable source in the context of Wikipedia. heh...

This is a tough one, because while I would normally say "Please find major 3rd party coverage of the bugs," there really isn't even major 3rd party coverage of PlaneShift. The notability of the article itself seems a little questionable, now that I think about it... --Jaysweet (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand the issue with reliability - I'd just point that you'll have a really hard time finding a reliable source, as required by definition. The planeshift game itself isn't too notable. There aren't any new big articles regarding it - Most of the materials I find are dated back from 2005. If you'll look at the discussion page about the deletion of the article, You'd see that it's still there because of a Spanish and an Italian articles dated way back. Kemedes is as reliable as you'll get when it comes to planeshift.Sixie (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just got done looking through the old AfD discussion (because I was considering AfDing the article myself, ha ha ha) and yeah, that's a really tough one. I'd like to hear from other editors, because it's not clear to me what the right answer is here. I don't want to give the impression of white-washing, but at the same time I am concerned about using Kemedes' website as the sole source for a criticism. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and before you say "There are other sources besides Kemedes", I'd feel even more uncomfortable using forum posts as a source... You probably know this already, but just in case. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's barely possible to find reliable reviews of the game, Finding criticism (or anything else beyond a simple review) is pretty much impossible unless forum posts or pages similar to Kemedes's page are acceptable.Sixie (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thought I would mention that this is also—in my opinion—a very grave issue to even be discussing in the first place. I've seen people argue over something as grave as what kind of NPOV template should be featured on the top of Wal-Mart, to the point where both editors got blocked for violating WP:3RR over a blasted NPOV template. This is over whether a URL should appear in the talk namespace. I know I've already sided in this dispute, and I know I'm the one who brought this to WP:WQA...but maybe it's just me, I really don't get why people even bother continuing to discuss this kind of stuff. Tuxide (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Sixie has explained him/herself in that regard: He/she is concerned about whitewashing, as there is apparently a valid crticism or this game, but no source to back it up.

I am leaning towards recommending that the article be trimmmed way back to omit all of the game-related info (Wikipedia is not a strategy guide or game faq) and just state that it exists, what it is, etc., i.e. information that is verifiable from the 3rd party sources. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I think I see what you mean, yet I'm still trying to decide how to treat it. The game isn't even out of alpha, yet people are playing it now. So do we treat it as something like Half-Life 2: Episode 3 which nobody has played yet (Half-Life 2 is a featured article that has been on Main Page), or something like GLTron (and I know it's not a good article either) which people are playing? I've been leaving it alone because I believe this is WikiProject material. Another thing is that most of the good secondary sources I've seen would fail WP:EL because they're not in English and I have no idea what they say. Also, it would be hard to insert criticism because nobody has written a review on the game, although I have a feeling this won't be the case in the near future which is also why I've been leaving it alone. Tuxide (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you agree, just from your own experience, that a criticism on the source code quality, and amount of critical bugs that exist and are exploitable by 'players' (and not 'testers') is a valid criticism?Sixie (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, I have been playing the game for almost six years now. As a player, I would probably say that I've seen worse; progressionmanager.cpp (which handles spells) is buggy as hell, but I can understand what the source does. As a research assistant in AI, I would probably say the quality of the code is just someone's opinion, and I would probably make the claim that I could fix this myself if I had the time I needed. I would also say they lack proper unit testing facilities, but I don't know how one would unit test in Crystal Space.

Second off, I have also been a Wikipedia editor for almost three years, and I cannot make those same claims here in the article namespace and say it passes WP:V, because it is just my opinion. I would need a reliable third party source, like a good news website or magazine. For example, I have seen several companies interested in PlaneShift's source recently, but I have yet to see a single testimony from one of them. One of those companies was IBM. Back then, they were only interested in this game and Second Life, and IBM chose to go with the latter.

I will also say that one thing I have learned from Wikipedia is how to define civility. I am saying this because it seems that many people who come from PlaneShift have absolutely no idea what civility is, and this is really pissing me off. Regards, Tuxide (talk) of WikiProject Retailing 06:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't planeshift's bugtracker be a verifiable 3rd party source?Sixie (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not even a 3rd party source to begin with. Tuxide (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, A discussion for AfD should be started again. If it's hard to find anything beyond a simple review - That's a big problem.Sixie (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's why they call it research—searching again and again for the answer you are looking for. Things can be hard, but not impossible to find, and you may have to search quite a bit to find what it is you want. As a research assistant, that's just what they pay me to do. Tuxide (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If getting facts about the subject requires a research assistant, It's probably not notable enough to be here.13:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixie (talk • contribs)

...what? Tuxide (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

jaysweet, Can you sum up your suggestion about the article? Let's close the discussion here...Sixie (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, sixie.

This is a classic problem with borderline notable subjects on Wikipedia. There are only a handful of 3rd-party publications that even mention the subject, so it is impossible to get a really objective feel for how to fairly balance the positives and negatives that are presented.

With the risk of someone pointing out to me that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I think the article already has too much primary source detail. The "Setting" section is okay, but the various subsections (particularly the one about the death zone or whatever) are a bit overly-detailed. The entire "Gameplay" section is way too detailed. From an encyclopedic standpoint, this is a MMORPG focused on roleplay, and that's about all we need to know.

If the article were trimmed down so it didn't have so much borderline-relevant primary source material, I imagine the lack of mention of the cheating exploits would not seem so glaringly absent.

To put it a different way, I don't feel comfortable adding the material that Sixie proposes because it relies too much on original interpretation of primary sources. But I feel like if I say that, we also have to admit that most of the existing article has a similar problem.

I'm not sure exactly what to do, but those are my thoughts about it. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur, I compare it to similar articles such as World of Warcraft, which is listed as a WP:GA. Its "Setting" section is much smaller. Also, it lacks some things that would make it a more intriguing article, such as development history. But I don't know any good secondary sources to cite from for such a section. I think this is a good example of where both primary and secondary sources would be appropriate to use. EDIT: I don't see how a "History and politics" section is needed that much. If that section is blown out then that leaves us with three paragraphs. Tuxide (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Thomasalazar

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

– Please report suspected sockpuppets to WP:SSP

Thomasalazar (talk · contribs) is removing tags without the tag task being completed. I asked him nicely to cite sources, and he just reverts the tags and blanks his user page to all comments by me and other users.

I tagged 2008 New Mexico Congressional Election, District 3 here.
He removed the tag here.
I re-tagged here.
I warned him here.
He deleted the warning here.
User IP4240207xx warned him here.
Thomasalazar deletes the warning here.
User:IP4240207xx tells him about tag here.
Salazar deletes warning here.
User HoundDog23 tells him about Wikiquette here.
Salazar deletes notice here here.
He removed the tag, from 2008 New Mexico Congressional Election, District 3, again today here without citing sources.

I feel that if I re-tag the article, he will just revert again. I know that he is young, maybe 18, but he is in his own world, and doesn't want to play by any rules. I am going to add the tags back, but wanted to complete this first.

~ WikiDon (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page, suggesting that he start the talk page and open a discussion. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on Talk:2008 New Mexico Congressional Election, District 3 about references and tags. ~ WikiDon (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The user is free to delete warnings if they want (see WP:DRC), but the tags in question are indisputable. It's one thing if a user removes an "npov" tag, or if they remove an "unreferenced" tag from an article with only a couple of references -- but removing an "upcoming election" tag from an upcoming election, or removing an "unreferenced" tag from an article with zero references, I would consider that pure vandalism and would treat it as such. Revert, warn, and if it goes past final warning, report to WP:AIV. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a courtesy notice on his talk page that he was being discussed here. ~ WikiDon (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

See the edit summary to this edit: "Leave It alone you don't know a damn thing about elections here", as he removed the reference tags again. IP4240207xx (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I also accuse thomasalazar (talk · contribs) or resorting to sockpuppetry to remove tags:

75.88.237.163 (talk · contribs) here here here
76.113.50.208 (talk · contribs) See: History of talk page, BLOCKED: on 16:46, 23 May 2008 by Kinu (talk · contribs) (Block: 48 hours). He gets warned by multiple users and just removes, ignores, and goes on. ~
207.155.113.123 (talk · contribs) Used sockpuppet IP to vote on article for deletion here here and here. (along with IP 76.113.50.208)

WikiDon (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional User Name: BradlyRM

BradlyRM (talk · contribs)

90 Española Valley High School

22 New Mexico Activities Association

19 Capital High School (Santa Fe, New Mexico)

8 New Mexico

4 List of banks of the United States of America

4 Martin Chavez

4 Española Valley

4 Albuquerque, New Mexico

4 Los Alamos High School

3 List of United States cities by population

3 Capital High School

If you look at the edit histories of both BradlyRM and Thomasalazar you will see 95% similarities in both pages edited and content of the edits. Both like to upload images of same high school sports and association logos. The both receive the same warnings about 1) images, 2) removing tags from articles, 3) warnings about reverting articles, and 4) etiquette.

Both handles start there pages in very similar fashion:

16:16, 22 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User:BradlyRM‎ (←Created page with 'Hello My Name is Bradly')
04:08, 2 April 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Thomasalazar‎ (←Created page with 'Hello I'am Thomas Salazar Nice to be on here at Wikipedia :])

Additionally, if you look at some of the edit time+date stamps you'll see a nice pattern:

25 & 26 April 2008

BradlyRM starts at 03:55 on the 25th and edits through until he gets warned by PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs) several times around 01:01 to 01:24, deletes warnings and retires at 01:45 of 26th

Thomasalazar starts at 18:13 on the 26th and stop at 19:26; and retires when he is warned by Discospinster‎ (talk · contribs)

28 April 2008

Thomasalazar starts at 00:33; removed a Wikiquette alert from discospinster (talk · contribs) and stops

BradlyRM starts at 02:03 and ends at 02:06

Thomasalazar starts at 02:16 and ends at 02:19

Neither accounts edits until - May 2

2 May 2008

BradlyRM starts at 00:30 and ends at 03:25

Thomasalazar starts at 03:36; Makes this interesting remark against discospinster (talk · contribs) and stops at 05:30

ETC, ETc, Etc, etc,.....

BradlyRM never edits again after this point on May 2.

All IPs (so far)

Acticle edit counts by User name/IPs

thomasalazar (talk · contribs)

182 Española Valley High School

130 NMAA District 2-AAAA

75 Ben R. Lujan

71 New Mexico Activities Association

62 Los Alamos High School

50 Española Valley High School Boys Basketball

32 2008 New Mexico Congressional Election, District 3

31 West Mesa High School

29 McCurdy High School

28 New Mexico

24 Espanola Public Schools

23 Los Alamos National Laboratory

19 Piedra Vista High School

16 Pojoaque Valley High School

15 Española, New Mexico

75.88.237.163 (talk · contribs)

44 Española Valley High School

11 Chimayo, New Mexico

6 NMAA District 2-AAAA

4 New Mexico Activities Association

3 Richard Lucero

3 Los Alamos High School

2 Ben R. Lujan

76.113.50.208 (talk · contribs)

43 Española Valley High School

15 New Mexico

8 NMAA District 2-AAAA

7 Albuquerque, New Mexico

7 Los Alamos High School

6 Articles for deletion/Española Valley High School Boys Basketball

5 List of U.S. states by population

4 User_Talk:Martinez07

4 User_Talk:Greg Comlish

4 Bruce King

4 Artesia High School (Artesia, New Mexico)

3 User_Talk:Taostiger

3 User_Talk:76.113.50.208

3 Gary Johnson

3 Taos High School

3 Capital High School (Santa Fe, New Mexico)

3 Española, New Mexico

2 User_Talk:Kinu

2 Nevada

2 Chimayo, New Mexico

207.155.113.123 (talk · contribs)

27 Española Valley High School

6 Ben R. Lujan

3 Articles for deletion/Española Valley High School Boys Basketball

3 La Cueva High School

Not a Wikiquette Alert issue anymore

At this point, I would recommend taking it to WP:SSP to report the suspected sockpuppetry if anyone wants to force the issue. As I say, the removal of tags in this case is basically simple vandalism, and should be treated as such (an "unreferenced" tag on an article with one or two references is controversial, but on an article with zero references there is no room for debate). And as far as the sockpuppetry, we don't have the tools or authority to deal with that here. Best of luck! --Jaysweet (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jaysweet that this needs to go to WP:SSP now. I agree with what WikiDon says about Thomasalazar's behavior regarding removal of tags without fixing problems. He has repeatedly done that at Espanola Valley High School. I was not aware of these possible sockpuppets though, and as Jaysweet says, this is not the right place for that. Aleta ^Sing 14:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Master of Orion

Resolved

– Both users advised. 01:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like suggestions or assistance in dealing with posts like this - playing games and teasing do not help build a page. I am hardly an innocent here. WLU (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And I would like suggestions or assistance in dealing with WLU, who insists on re-writing Master of Orion despite by his own admission never having played the game (bottom of Talk:Master of Orion#Replaced_re-write and, as a result, having already misrepresented several aspects of the game in ways that would mislead the inexperienced and arouse the disdain of the experienced. Note that before WLU started this thread I had already pointed to Talk pages that provided models for collaboration between someone who initially knows the subject well and someone who is initially unfamiliar with the subject - one of which was a GA review that passed.

To put the situation in perspective, what do you think would happen if someone tried to edit a science article in a subject of which they knew nothing? Philcha (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Both of you please keep in mind that there's no use squabbling about which editor is more knowledgeable than which other editor on any given subject. We don't do that here, because it's not relevant. The standard by which contributions are evaluated on Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability, and there are clear criteria for what is and isn't a reliable source of information. As frustrating as it can be sometimes, what you or I or anyone else knows (or thinks he knows, or says he knows, or seems to recall hearing some time back) is not relevant. It's what we can prove that matters.

Philcha, to answer your question, nonscientists edit science-related articles every day here on Wikipedia. We don't require editors to have particular credentials in the subject of an article. The same goes for this game-related article. There is room for editors with many different levels of direct knowledge about the subject of the article they're working on. To give an obvious example, I needn't know much about plumbing to make grammatical corrections, fix links, add photos, rework article markup for better flow, and — this is the important part — add text as long as all my assertions are properly supported with adequate references. This is a self-regulating system and it largely works. I think you both know this; it's obvious you're both rather familiar with Wikipedia policies and protocols in general. You've both gone beyond acting in the best interest of the article, and are veering into territory of attacking and deriding each other per se. It looks to me as if you two have a power struggle verging on a tug-o'-war for de facto ownership of the article. Please, both of you step back from the article, have a nice cup of tea and a sit-down, spend a week (yes, a whole week) doing something other than editing Master of Orion or Talk:Master of Orion, and realise that the article will be much better if you both take a genuinely coöperative rather than a combative, competitive approach. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* I've got to eat my words on this one, after reviewing the talk page from May I believe I was actually at the root of many of Philcha's comments and have thoroughly lost any vestige of moral superiority after that review. I've apologized and asked for a chance to collaborate instead of being my usual snotty self. Thank you Scheinwerfermann, for the kick in the pants as I more than deserved it. WLU (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute veering into incivility

Resolved

– for now. Users warned and advised of acceptable forms of dispute resolution. 14:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like some advice in addressing a dispute I have been having with User:Sanitycult regarding Master Mahan. In the past few days, Sanitycult announced on the talk page that s/he would be removing some material from the article that was the subject of some dispute in April. I, thinking that this issue was positively resolved in April, made a post suggesting that it need not be deleted and gave a brief summary of what I understood to be the outcome from the April dispute. Through an IP address, Sanitycult accused me of inserting "(my) bigoted views" into every paragraph of the article and of having a "personal crusade" regarding the article and that s/he would remove the material s/he objected to. I responded to his/her points, and included a suggestion that s/he not accuse anyone of bigotry as it could be interpreted as a personal attack.

Sanitycult then responded with this post, where s/he said, among other things: "you appear to be unable to read"; "What the hell is your agenda?"; "you seem to be reading the [disputed reference] shit a little to deeply as your logic is falling apart at the seams". In my response I've tried to respond nicely, but I'm becoming a bit distressed both about Sanitycult's incivility to me and his/her unwillingness to wait for the comments of other editors on the question in dispute. Even in his/her first post announcing the changes, s/he called two religious groups that oppose one another "bible-thumping retards", which I didn't feel was particularly constructive.

Over the past 24 hours or so, Sanitycult has deleted the information three times, and I have restored it twice and asked numerous times, including on the user's talk page, if we could reach consensus via input from other editors before the changes are made. In his/her most recent edit summary, s/he has accused me of "vandalizing" the article with my "personal agenda".

Thanks in advance for any assistance/advice that can be offered. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a NPA warning for SanityCult on his/her talk page - those comments are clearly out of line with respect to Wikipedia's civility policies. In addition, you described a possible WP:3RR violation - please let us know if this reversion behavior continues, but also be aware that you should avoid getting into an edit war yourself.

I don't have time at the moment to review the whole history - I should hopefully be able to help more with that tomorrow (it's after 11pm here right now, and I'm about to go to bed). Thanks for your patience. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I did review your diffs and briefly looked over the edit history just now, and left an additional 3RR warning for SanityCult. Consider yourself warned on 3RR as well - again, please avoid edit-warring with this user. I'd advise you to seek a third opinion or file a Request for Comment if you're unable to resolve the dispute with SanityCult alone. In the meantime, please let us know if the incivility continues. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just an update: SanityCult started an RFC in the affected article (actually requested two of them on separate issues), which is exactly what I'd hoped would happen. It also appears that you two are now talking a bit more constructively instead of attacking and reverting each other, which is excellent. The WQA has been marked as Resolved for now, but as always, if incivility continues or starts up again, you're welcome to bring it up again and we'll see what we can do. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm satisfied with the way things have progressed thus far and am happy to have this classified as resolved for now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Moldopodo

Resolved

– Does not fall in the WQA stage of DR. --Onorem ♠Dil 03:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This user, recently taken before Arbitration Enforcement (see here) and consequently blocked for incivility, persists in making the same charges that brought about that block. It's this paragraph I'm referring to: "Racist comments... open ethno-racist remarks are made by User:Biruitorul". This is false, offensive, inflammatory and an attempt at character assassination. I will not stand to be called an "ethno-racist" by this user, and I have made it clear that every instance of this will be dealt with by a report to an official forum. This is just the latest. I'm not seeking for Moldopodo to be blocked or what have you - I merely want an apology and an assurance that such language will not be addressed to me in the future by him. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: Moldopodo has again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=217167694 attacked me as an "ethno-racist": "Like I said earlier, when I refer to your edits as ethno-racists it is because they are ethno-racist, and not because in fact the are 'red rose' edits". I would hope this uncompromising insistence on attacking me would cease. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And again, and again. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A question, etiquette related too. To how many boards and how many times did Biru posted complaints lately on his content opponents. I lost track but a full disclosure would come handy. --Irpen 23:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've posted to Arbitration Enforcement, I've replied at ANI, and I've posted here. This is not a question of content, but of personal attacks. I'm fine with debating content for months on end, as long as the discussion stays civil. But as stated above, "I will not stand to be called an 'ethno-racist' by this user, and I have made it clear that every instance of this will be dealt with by a report to an official forum". Biruitorul ^Talk 23:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Moreshci blocked Molopdopo 48 hours on June 2. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

True. And as I say in the first sentence of this complaint, Moldopodo "persists in making the same charges that brought about that block" - all the remarks I linked were made on June 4. I'm not suggesting anyone ought to block him again, merely that it should somehow be impressed upon him that this sort of attack is, in fact, unacceptable. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WQA is one of the earliest stages in dispute resolution - this dispute is in the later stages so does not fall under this category. He's been blocked - if he continues after it has expired, then you need to make a note again at the appropriate admin noticeboard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalk

Stuck

– 15:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is User:SportsMaster. I have a case of Wikistalk with GoHuskies9904. He has been editing article I have created almost exclusively. For a small portion of the list of articles he has done this to see the following. Homer E. Woodling [16], Robert F. Busbey [17], Weird U.S. [18], 2004 NBA All-Star Game [19], 1997 NBA All-Star Game [20], 1981 NBA All-Star Game [21], 1972 NBA All-Star Game [22], 1951 All-Star Game [23]. Please note that he did not mark any other NBA All-Star games as stubs (presumably because I didn't create them). Here are more examples. Vixen (RV), Dodge Meadowbrook, Suzuki FZ50, Waterloo Hawks, Waterloo Hawks all-time roster, Moondog (mascot), Whammer (mascot), Robert E. Hawkins, Yahoo! Sports, Yahoo! Fantasy Sports, 2007-08 Drake Bulldogs men's basketball team, Maxwell Show. It seems to me he carries a beef with me since I reverted his incorrect edit on 02:48, February 27, 2008 about the 2007-08 Drake Bulldogs men's basketball team. [24] Here is a listing of all of his edits [25] Please also take not that this has gone on for months at a time.

--SportsMaster (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the tags on the NBA All-Star games, as it appears those were clearly made in bad faith. The other stub tags I looked at seemed appropriate. H

I noticed you have not actually asked him to stop following you around. I am about to do so now. Hopefully that will resolve the issue. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Jaysweet for your help. It is greatly appreciated.--SportsMaster (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User:GoHuskies9904 is now tagging all of the All-Star game articles as stubs. I could see an argument either way, I mean, mostly they just present game lineups and not a lot of encyclopedic detail, so he has a point. I'm not going to edit war over it.

SportsMaster, here's the thing... well I am not sure if he's been following you around or not (I just asked him point blank, we'll see what he says), most or all of his edits appear to be legit. Are there any in particular you have a problem with? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a stub tag to about all of the All-Star Game pages. 2002, 2006-present seem pretty good, but everything else has been tagged regardless of whether or not SportsMaster has had his hands in them. Nothing is done in bad faith, but when a user like SportsMaster has a history of just creating articles some of them are going to get tagged for improvement or deletion. Simple as that; most of them are good actually. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

While that sounded like a good story, in truth if you look at your edits, the ONLY edits you have made have been on articles I have created. You have not edited anyone elses articles, except one in a very, very, blue moon. So if it was the case that you are trying to delete stubs, why not target others, there are PLENTY out there, other than my own articles to target exclusively as you have done. It is very annoying and very agrivating to have to log in and defend articles that I have written from deletion because you feel the need to nominate them on an almost daily basis. --SportsMaster (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No one is stalking you, you just create many articles which subjects you to more interaction. Again, Wikipedia is not just yours, I am willing to work with you if you are willing to work with me. I'm not the only user that has been concerned about how you work with others. Everytime someone gives suggestions for your pages you report them for stalking/harassing you. That is not cool! I also nominate things for discussion, I don't just delete your work. I always go by majority rules. And I'm not trying to delete your All-Star articles, I'm just tagging them for expansion in which they need. I've tagged all the ones that need work not just including yours. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You are wikistalking me, that is obvious in your contribution history. I also have never said, nor incinuated the articles were "mine", I do not appericate you falsing stating that. Every is a very strong word GoHuskies9904, I would be careful with the words you choose. Why have you not address my conerns about you nominating other articles for deletion. As of right not they have been exclusively ones I created.--SportsMaster (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If they aren't "yours" why are you so worried about allowing for group discussion on some articles I deem as shady for Wiki standards. If enough people share your opinion in the discussions then I respect that. I don't report you every time you disagree with me. And Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists is not an excuse for certain articles you may have ties to exist. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have examined GoHuskies9904's contrib history in depth, and while it is false that he only edits/critiques articles that SportsMaster is involved in, the overlap is high enough to draw a little concern. I am still nto 100% convinced, though, because most of the overlap is in regards to basketball-related articles... I mean, is it possible that both users just really like basketball? (Not like their usernames suggest that or anything ;p )

The other thing that makes this tough is that GoHuskies9904's contribs are almost all legitimate. I mean, you can't really dispute that Vixen (RV) is stub, right? And SportsMaster, another thing to understand is that having your article tagged as a stub is not a bad thing... in fact, in many ways it is a good thing, because it may attract other users to come help and improve the article.

Now, the one thing I am really concerned with about GoHuskies9904's edits is the high percentage of failed AfD nominations. Everybody gets it wrong sometimes (I'd be lying if I said I didn't) but from what I saw it looked like something like 50% of the AfDs GoHuskies9904 started result in Keep. That is potentially creating a lot of extra work for people to go in and vet these articles that really had no problem to begin with -- and, whether the overlap with SportsMaster's articles is coincidental or intentional, I hope you can understand how it would be really annoying to him!

What I would suggest, GoHuskies9904, if you are willing, is for you to refrain from directly nominating articles created by SportsMaster for AfD. (I think GoHuskies9904's other edits, including tagging SportsMaster's articles as stubs, are mostly beyond reproach, so whether GH is following SM around or not, I have trouble seeing anything actionable) If you are really certain, you can always contact a 3rd party and see if they agree.

Would this solution be amenable to both parties? --Jaysweet (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that solution works for me. Thank you once again Jaysweet. --SportsMaster (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll propose this. If I come across another article of his that I deem worthy of an AfD I will message him to see if he can't improve the article. If he does that, I won't nominate the article. However, Master has a pattern of not working well with others (i.e. reverting edits without proper reason, deleting any warnings or constructive critism on his talkpage, etc). Every time he has an issue with someone disagreeing with him he reports them to an admin or whomever. I'm not the only user he has done this too. Nothing has ever come from his reports either. All of my edits are legit. If he can work with me whenever I come across one of his hands-on article I won't be so hasty. But if he keeps reporting me or others I will just nominate cause I know I can't work with this guy. I'm just asking he learn to work with others and realize sometimes people will disagree and that wikipedia is a group effort and just because you created an article it doesn't make it yours. Thanks! --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I do work well with others. You are one of the exceptions. You seemed to take offense to me reverting your edit here [26]. Since you then preceded to disregard my comments I left on your talk page about the 2007-08 Drake Bulldogs men's basketball team article. The source you were using was a Seinfeld script, which HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DRAKE BULLDOGS BASKETBALL, which I explained in my above comment. [27] Then you couldn’t seem to comprehend the comment I left you and wanted to get into an edit war over it. You also then left me this comment, which is TOTALLY uncivilized. [28] You then wouldn’t leave the article alone until another person agreed with me. [29] Then you proceeded to wait a few months (presumably thinking I wouldn't watch the page then (which I was)) and got into another edit war over it. [30]. You were once again proved incorrect. [31] Since you do started off by disregarding my comments I left on your talk page about the 2007-08 Drake Bulldogs men's basketball team article you seemed to want to get revenge by going through my edit history, and mainly my user page, which I have subsequently blanked for the very reasons and nominating numerous articles for deletion to annoy me and waste my time. Also once again Jaysweet he makes no mention of why he almost never contributes anything on his own, GoHuskies almost only nominates articles for deletion (stuff I have worked hard on and spent a great deal of time on). Without contributing anything on his own. Which he still has yet to address. You sir are the one who does not work well with others. After the afore mentioned totally uncivilized comment, I had good reason to not want to communicate with you at all. All this is taking an extreme amount of time and energy out of my day and is EXTREMLY frustrating. This has gone on for months and MUST CEASE. --SportsMaster (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Side question: Who are User:SportsMasterESPN and User:UWMSports?

As far as GoHuskies9904's perceived lack of positive contribs, well, I wish there were more work improving articles and less deletion nominations, but some of the cleanup work that has been done as a result is worthwhile.

GH, I would reiterate my proposal to you to just refrain from nominating SM's articles for AfD directly. On at least two occasions, the result of the AfD was Keep anyway. If you are really 100% certain, you can always contact a third party and ask them to nominate the article for AfD. I think this would make all of the involved parties happy, with only a very minimal impact on your ability to contribute to the encyclopedia. You can still nominate anybody else's article, and you can still suggest improvements to SM's articles. Any chance you would reconsider that proposal? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

SportsMasterESPN is SportsMaster's old username. He had to change it because an admin had a problem with it as an advertisement for ESPN. UWMSports is another user who has had issues with SportsMaster's work. One of the other users Master constantly reports.

And I would like to help improve some of these articles if my edits weren't reversed. Master does not work well with people! The only way my edits can stand or be considered is bringing in a third party. Again, I will refrain from nominating articles for deletion if Master agrees to work with me if I happen to come across one of his pages down the road. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, stop changing the topic, it is not about UWMSports, secondly I had good reason to report him, and everything I did was valid. So find another reason. I am also sick and tired of you saying I do not work well with others. The afore mention Drake example is evidence you do not. So stop your complaining. --SportsMaster (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

SM, I asked about UWMSports because I noticed very similar conflicts involving that user. I'm just trying to understand the backstory here.

I guess I have to dig into this "The Drake is great" mess now. Man, can't that Seinfeld episode remain a happy memory for me? heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong on that, should have gone with a 3rd party, but initially UWMSports thought it should be there too. I just thought SportsMaster was being a pain there, but when UWM said it shouldn't stay there I backed off. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

SM -- Aside from the Woodling/Busbey AfDs, what other articles have you created that you feel GH has nominated for AfD in bad faith? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Waterloo Hawks all-time roster. I finally just gave up and merged it, even though all other NBA teams have an all-time roster page. It also is one thing if he nomtinated other pages for deletion, but he dosn't, only mine. Ones that were listed on my userpage.Some articles might have been stubs that he nominated, but the fact is that information was going to be added, and he was the only person who had a big enough problem with it to nominate it for deletion. --SportsMaster (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated articles that aren't "yours". Eskimo kissing, Arden Valley Road, etc. I find it funny how you say you never called these articles yours but you do every time you report someone. Go look at User talk:GoHuskies9904. Even UWM says you don't work well with people. I'm sorry for any comments you've deemed rude, but you do frustrate the heck out of me by not working with others. I will refrain from those comments in the future, but you need to work with people!!! --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also note this [32] --SportsMaster (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

SportsMaster: Speaking from a strictly WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF point of view, I find the disparity in attitudes quite disturbing here. Regardless of the overlap in edit histories, this conversation clearly shows GoHuskies trying to make peace and explain his actions in a calm and concise manner, and Jaysweet has mentioned that GH's edits appear largely legitimate - I assume he means in keeping with WP's content policies. As such, I think that your response to the situation very much assumes bad faith on GH's part - you're basically saying that GH's only purpose on Wikipedia as a whole is to harass you by tagging articles that you've created - something he denies and which anyone can verify by looking at GH's contribution history. This puts you in a shaky position - this WQA and the way you're handling it makes you come across as asserting ownership of article content, being a tendentious editor, and/or disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. You do not appear to be willing to consider that GH's actions may be good-faith attempts to cut down on clutter and unencyclopedic content, nor do you appear willing to work cooperatively on improving the content. Yes, it is quite possible that he acted too swiftly and knee-jerked on the tagging, but that does not mean he is automatically Wikistalking you.

I would suggest stepping back, cooling off, and trying to see this situation from someone else's point of view. In my opinion, you're getting too worked up over this issue, and it's only going to cause more friction between yourself and other editors, potentially leading to further disruptions and blocks. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kiefer. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please make not as to why he didn't want to agree to the idea Jaysweet came up with. As GoHuskies wanted to nominate more articles for deletion. Interestingly enough ones that were on my userpage and ones that I had a great deal of time in creating. Please tell me how these are not bad faith noms? [33] [34] [35] Furthermore, he did NOT nominate any of the other hundreds of high school athletic conferences in the catagory of the articles he nomintated for deletion. --SportsMaster (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

See entire AfD... Link to ALL Ohio High School athletic conferences provided! --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To anyone who reads this, please keep in mind that Huskies did that after I wrote the message above and he undoubtably read it and then changed the nom to save himself from looking guilty.--SportsMaster (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No it is not, look at the edit times. And I really believe that high school conferences aren't notable for wikipedia.--GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It is, you posted ficticious time stamps. Luckily for you, I was nice enough to fix them. I figured you would do something like that, just didn't figure you would actually be foolish enough to post the lie on here. [36]

Keep in mind I posted my comment at 19:58. He made his nominations and changes, and then lied about the timestamps afterword. --SportsMaster (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Master, believe what you wish, but I'm telling you the truth. Furthermore, what are you clinging to? Ohio High School Athletic Conferences, list of conferences and schools already exist. The fact there are individual pages for each conference that say the same thing doesn't make sense. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious it was a blatent falsifying of timestamps. I let the evidence speak for itself. --SportsMaster (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

First, as to the matter of the falsified time stamps... The edit where GoHuskies suggested deleting all of the articles in the category occurred at 20:00 and the timestamp is accurate. SportsMaster's complaint here was posted at 19:58, so it did occur before GH's nomination of all the articles, but only just barely. It is impossible to tell whether this was made in good faith or not, so I will not comment on that.

2 minutes... I was in the process of adding other pages when SportsMaster quickly reported me. If anyone is stalking its him. Everytime I make an edit he isn't far behind. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

GH did have one edit with incorrect timestamps, however, the false timestamp used was 20:02 (it should have been 20:09) which is after SM's complaint, so there is no nefarious reason for GH to have changed the timestamp in this matter. A much simpler (and more likely) explanation, especially when one looks at the diff, is that GH was editing/copy-and-pasting a previous edit, since the formatting of the new edit was largely the same, and happened to also copy-and-paste the timestamp rather than replacing it with tildes. I don't see any attempt to deceive here.

Copy and pasting. Text is the same. I'm not vandalizing or anything of that kind. I nominate articles I don't feel are worthy of existing. But I always respect the final result. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the merit of these AfDs, I would point out that there is precdent. See the deletion log here, where in 2006 this article was deleted because (surprise!) "high school sports conferences are not notable".

So, that's the good news for GoHuskies: I see no attempt to deceive, and the nominations are reasonable.

Now, the bad news for GoHuskies: I am increasingly concerned that there is a pattern here, based on your contribs. Even if 100% of your edits are constructive, if 75% of them are in relation to deleting articles created by SportsMaster, that's going to create conflict regardless of your intentions. I would urge you once again to back off from nominating articles created by SportsMaster, as I think it would be in everyone's best interests. In this case, as you pointed out, there are dozens of articles not created by SportsMaster that have the same notability problems. I would urge you in the future to begin by nominating those articles, and then if a consensus develops, perhaps other editors will volunteer to go through and tag all of the other non-notable high school sports conferences.

Even though your edits are constructive, they are having the effect of stirring the pot in regards to this conflict, and I worry about your intentions. I'm not exactly sure what to do. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jay, Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists... Master cannot use that as an excuse. That has been thrown at me over issues over articles I created. Furthermore, none of these articles are his. They belong to every single user on Wikipedia. I am not deleting pages he contributed too, I am merely nominating a few that I don't think should exist. I have been in discussions on Wikipedia for quite sometime, and those who create tons of articles for the sake of padding their stats get their work more attention and more criticism. Leaving ugly stubs with no use and moving on to the next article is unencyclopedic. This has nothing to do with Master. I am a resident of that area as well and I don't think articles pertaining to that info should exist. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed they were mine once again. Secondly since I did create them, those pages ARE on my watchlist, so I am NOT stalking you, stimply keeping an eye on my watchlist. I also could care less about edits stats, thats trivial to me, which is also evident since I have never once posted on my user page my edit count or anything in relation to it.--SportsMaster (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not blatant. All those pages are lists that are stubs that are already listed on the main Ohio page. No need for duplicate information. Let the voters decide and stop reporting people everytime you disagree with some one. I'm not deleting your work or anyother's work. I am leaving it up to 3rd and 4th parties to decide what to do with pages I think need to be deleted. That is all. Go vote, give your reason why they should stay and stop harassing me. If you keep reporting me, I will report you and I'm not the only user who has had issues with you. No one else has had them with me! So please, lets be civil. Did you read Kiefer's post? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It was blatant. You are the person who is nominating the articles causing a severe waste of my time. I am not harassing anyone. You can stop making yourself look like the victim here and now. YOU are the person who would not agree to Jaysweets idea of you ceasing to nominate articles I created for deletion. You chose not to agree to that, even though it was suitable for me. Once again you try to make it look like I am the one who is not civil here, but saying lets be civil. I am the person who has offered to talk to you online via AIM, and IRC, both of which you are declined by not responding to. I am not acting uncivil in the least bit, if anything lieing is very uncivil, which you have already done today on this page. --SportsMaster (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

GH -- in regards to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, you misinterpret me. I am saying that, in the interests of creating peace, when you see a SportsMaster-created article that you feel is AfD-worthy and you see other articles that are in the same category and are AfD-worthy, I think everyone would be less pissed off if you nominate the other crap first. I am not saying the other articles justify the existence of SportsMaster's articles, far from it. I'm just saying that if you refocus your editorial ambitions a little bit, we might be able to close this Wikiquette alert without at all harming the project. Also, I'm not saying you have to do this or anything (not that I have the authority anyway), I'm just suggesting that it might be a way to get all this wikidrama to go away. And SportsMaster's articles won't get a free pass, don't worry about that.

SM -- It was not blatant. If GH was doing anything blatant, he'd be warned and/or sanctioned by now. I wish he would agree to the compromise I suggested, but there is no Wikipedia policy forcing him to do so, and making these wild accusations is not at all helping the issue. Both editors to respond to this Wikiquette alert (myself and KieferSkunk) have been concerned about how you are approaching this situation.

If the AfDs are really in bad faith, don't sweat it -- the nomination will result in "Keep," and if (hypothetically) this keeps happening, i.e. GH nominating an article you wrote and the discussion resulting in Keep, then that could lead to warnings and sanctions. If you are right and GH is really acting in bad faith and AfDing when he shouldn't, then time is on your side and you should be pleased. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Marking this as stuck for now - if there is some level of acceptance by both parties, please replace with a resolved tag. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Noteworthy that the consensus was to keep the two articles, Woodling and Busbey respectively.--SportsMaster (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

buddhism issue

Resolved

– for now. Users advised of other forms of dispute resolution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

a number of editors ( 4 or 5, I think, including myself ) have been making changes on the Buddhism page. one editor, who edits under both LuisGomez111 and Pasta4470, has been both consistently rude and disruptive. point by point:

he refuses to use the talk page (despite repeated requests) before making large changes that disrupt the discussed work the other editors have made
when he does use the talk page, he presents his work as unambiguously correct, and insults editors who disagree or revert his changes
he is consistently rude, and makes frequent threats of the "I'll report you to the administrators" or "I'm going to make this change even if you don't agree, so you'd better agree" variety

see Talk:Buddhism#Intro_Revertsthis talk page post, and this, and this latest one, as well as others on the page...

I'm trying to reason with him, but I don't seem to be getting through. can someone assist? --Ludwigs2 (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User:LuisGomez111 response

There are two editors on this article whose behavior I find disruptive: User:Ludwigs2 and User:Peter jackson. (I have a sneaking suspicion that Ludwigs2 is a sock puppet for Peter jackson.) Here are my complaints:

They attempt to control the article's content through reverts and large deletions. They challenge the most basic and widely accepted information on Buddhism. They seem much more interested in nitpicking and writing lengthy, critical comments on the talk page than in contributing to the article in a meaningful way. Please do something about this. LuisGomez111 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Luis, if you think I'm a sock puppet, then please report me to the admins. I will happily do whatever is necessary to assure you (and them) that I am just me.

I'll also add that I rewrote the entire intro, and have been making consistent changes to the page, so you can hardly say that I am 'nitpicking' and not making contributions to the page.

I don't want to get in an argument about who is doing more deleting or who is trying to control the page (because that would be pointless accusation-slinging). I simply want the page to have some stability, and a peaceful, communicative environment where we can continue to improve it. what do we need to do to achieve that? --Ludwigs2 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Peter jackson response to response

The suggestion that Ludwigs is a sockpuppet of mine seems quite far-fetched. If Luis would bother to read the talk page he'd see that Ludwigs & I have been arguing with each other quite extensively.

Examination of the history will show that I've done very little reverting & deletion in the current dispute.

Yes, I "challenge the most basic and widely accepted information on Buddhism", because the reliable sources I cite show it's wrong or questionable. Everyone who's been working on WP for any length of time should have noticed that "widely accepted information" is often wrong. Peter jackson (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. Can you guys maybe file a Request for Comment or something to try and get a consensus on this? There is no need to be incivil; just talk it out until there is a consensus. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jaysweet - Article RFC or mediation is probably a better way to go for this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Luis now says he's no longer interested in editing the article. Does that count as "resolved"? Peter jackson (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems in "translation"

Resolved

– For now. The issue has died down, so the user bringing the alert has decided to let this one go

I'm having difficulty discussing content issues with Nishidani, who is too interested in picking my grammar apart than the issues of concern. I recently requested him to stop and even suggested an alternative outlet but he noted his refusal. I would appreciate some external notice/comments to this issue since I am incapable of persuading him myself that his activity in this area is uncivil and offensive.
The thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nishidani#English_woes
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC) clarify 12:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that Jaakobou has not yet had the courtesy to notify Nishidani of this complaint. NSH001 (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did, but in the absence of any evidence, it would be closed without any issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

NSH001,

For starters, you could have had the courtesy to note me on my talk page that you believe I should note Nishidani.

Secondly, It's not a complaint - it's a request that my English wouldn't get picked on. I'm not issuing any official complaint, this is not an official forum and I've made my request to Nishidani directly. Since he refused, I've asked for someone to look into my request.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, you said above "his activity in this area is uncivil and offensive". That is a complaint in any language. I didn't notify you on your talk page, since you are already aware of this thread, having initiated it. FWIW, I don't think you have any grounds for your claim, rather Nishidani has gone out of his way to be helpful to you, and you should accept his efforts in the spirit they are intended. I notice you are now editing productively on Haim Farhi with Nishidani, which is good to see. Regarding my (implied) advice that it is good practice to notify any party of any complaint you make about him or her, I suggest you ask your mentors. I am sure they will give you the same advice.

--NSH001 (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

NSH001,

It honestly sounds as though you believe you are being extra courteous by suggesting to others that I'm not. I do believe it would have been the courteous move to note me on my page that you believe I should notify him about this thread rather than notify to others that you believe I'm discourteous.
Anyways, it's not a complaint. It's a request, made on a non official forum, that someone will help mediate my request of Nishidani that I preffer it if my English wouldn't get picked on. It's got nothing with my ability to work with him when he doesn't pick on my English and nothing to do with your battleground history with me either and I request, if you have nothing productive to contribute here, that you find another endeavor.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide links (diffs) to his "activity in this area". Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist,

I am not interested in opening an official complaint with multiple diffs. Also, in the fairly recent past Nishidani has also imposed a self-block on himself for incivility towards me so I believe he's "paid his dues" sort of speak.[37] The English issue still applies, though, but I'm not interested in opening it up beyond my request that he avoid taking my English apart while in content disputes. I wouldn't mind it if you review the conversation on the provided "#English_woes" thread and let me know if my request seems out of place.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a place for third party input. In this case, Nishidani does not feel the need to comply with your request - to stop picking on your grammar on an article talk page and confine it to the actual issues. Right? (Say yes or no) I'm not sure why you've brought it here - the only way a third party can properly assess whether a request is reasonable or not is with the evidence (diffs) - i.e. several examples of Nishidani (on an article talk page) picking on your grammar rather than sticking to the issues. The link you've given is just your declined request on his talk page - you need to show evidence of where Nishidani specifically targets your grammar rather than the issue on an article (on articles talk pages), to go any further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to echo Ncmvocalist's request. I spent about two minutes skimming through Nishidani's contribs, and while I found lots of edits regarding your request that he lay off the grammar, I couldn't find a single diff where he criticized your grammar. It is important that we see the diffs, because otherwise we don't know the context. To take an extreme hypothetical, if you said, "Me thinky article not no good," and Nishidani asked that you communicate more clearly, I would not see a problem with that :D On the other hand, if you were in the middle of a heated debate over content and you happen to say "me" where strict grammar mandates the usage of "I", and Nishidani pointed that out, that could be seen as an intentional attempt to discredit your argument for reasons having nothing to do with its merit, and I would feel very differently about that.

So that's why we need diffs, otherwise I have no idea what to even think or what kind of compromise to suggest. Diffs do not make this an "official report" or something where people are going to get in trouble (sanctions are rarely handed down from Wikiquette alerts, partly because a lot of the folks here, myself included, lack the authority to do so). But without the diffs, it is impossible for a third party to know whether your request is reasonable or not.

If you feel it's been resolved, that's cool, just let us know. But if you want a third party opinion, your going to have to show us an example of the behavior about which you want our opinion. Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The recent incident wasn't a huge event though there were worse events in the past. Anyways, I've decided that since it's been a couple days and the issue has subsided to let this one go and hope the issue won't repeat.

Thanks for looking into it though, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Stalking and Harassment

Stuck

– Despite promises from both users to back away, LBear08 continues to edit the talk page archive. Will treat such edits as vandalism from now on.

What can I do to get user Mdsummermsw to stop following me around and trying to falsely attach me to other accounts, IPs, etc (see their talk page and the Michelle Rodriguez Discussion Archive page)? It's getting really old that this person reverts practically every edit I do, constantly makes accusations, and when I try to resolve the issue peacefully on their talk page, disemvowel my words, leaving only their own (again, see their talk page). They're behavior of psychotic research trying to prove some point that I am various others is disturbing and disruptive and I'm tired of it. At this point it's stalking, harassment, and slander. I just want to edit articles accurately, I don't want to be stalked and harassed 24/7 by someone who lives on Wikipedia every second of every day and makes it their goal to declare withchunts for no other reason than ego boosting or lack of anything better to do. I tell them to stop stalking and they respond by MORE stalking. It's insane, pathetic, and highly disruptive. Hope you can help. Thanks. LBear08 (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not yet looked into the allegations of harassment and false sockpuppetry accusations, but the disemvoweling is wholly inappropriate, such as in this edit. It is not acceptable to refactor other people's talk page comments, even on one's own user talk page (you may delete comments on your own talk page, but not edit them). I have warned the user about that.

Regarding the other allegations, do you have any diffs you could provide? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

LBear08 -- do you deny that you and User:L8ear08 are the same person? The allegations of sockpuppetry do indeed seem to be accurate, unless you believe you are using multiple accounts in a way that is within policy. Mdsummermsw has done nothing wrong by pointing out that these two accounts are almost certainly operated by the same person. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, it looks like Mdsummermsw's disemvoweling was in retaliation for the same repeated behavior on the part of LBear08. That does not make it okay, of course, but the deeper I dig, the more obvious it is that LBear08 is the problem here. The only thing Mdsummermsw did wrong was a single retaliatory disemvoweling edit, which she has since reverted. Mdsummermsw is pretty much in the clear here.

Now the question is, why is LBear08/L8ear08 engaging in sockpuppetry and filing bad faith Wikiquette alerts? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, Yes! While L8ear08 seems similar to my name obviously and all of that, *I* personally have never signed in as that to the best of my recollection. Even if say I'd accidentally created two similar accounts and somehow don't remeber it, the problem is that the L8ear08 account makes edits to pages like "list of famous bisexuals" and Bjork, two topics of which I have no knowledge nor interest and especially would not be editing. So how can that be me? I don't know what's going on with the L8ear08 account (glitch? copycat?), but I am LBear08 not L8ear08. If I'd forgotten to sign in then one of those IPs could be mine, but the rest can't all be mine for goodness sakes and I'm tired of being hunted and having someone on my back (who is not an admin) 24/7. I just want to contribute to a few pages in peace as best I can. I just want this person to DROP IT and move on. Look back at how long ago that sock crap was posted and look at today's date and this user is STILL going on about it. At what point does it become deemable as harassment?

Second, no. My disemvowelmeant was in retaliation to THEIR constant doing so over the last several days (see their talk page and notice how they've been at it for awhile whereas my disemvowelment I JUST did today to prove the point of how obnoxious it is. That user is only in the clear when they stop harassing me. At what point will they stop with the accusations and stalking? LBear08 (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to add, all of this began b/c of a previous disagreement we'd had. Awhile later I decided I wanted to go back to that discussion page and remove my own comments as I had no desire for petty argument to remain up like that. I never should have sunk to their bickering level. So I removed my own comments. This user then decides it's their right and priveledge to dictate what I can and can't remove that I myself contributed (to a talk page mind you, NOT the article which I know cannot be edited like that). I simply was trying to demonstrate maturity and obtain peace and the user wanted all disagreements to remain, all of their baseless accusations to remain, etc. for no valid reason. I've attempted peaceful resolution and suggested he/she delete their accusations and I my retaliated comments. However, they refuse...and for no reason whatsoever. I simply want resolution and then to be left alone by this user. LBear08 (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of "who started it" with the disemvoweling, it will no longer be tolerated, and that goes for both users. I hope that much is clear.

I find it extremely hard to believe that User:LBear08 edited Michelle Rodriguez for the months of March and May, and that User:L8ear08 edited the same article for the month of April, and that this is all just a coincidence. But in any case, the other account does not appear to have been used to evade a block or to cause disruption, so let's just put that issue aside for now.

I did a cursory glance at each of your contrib histories, and I do not see any evidence of stalking or harassment. Regarding your complaint about deleting the comments from Talk:Michelle Rodriguez, Mdsummermsw is technically correct on this one. It is okay to archive old conversations on talk pages, but except for abusive or off-topic comments, it is generally frowned upon to remove discussions altogether. Those conversations stand as a record of the discussion and can be helpful for other users who are contributing to the article, so that they know what has already been discussed, etc.

That said, if Mdsummermsw agreed to let you remove the comments in question from Talk:Michelle Rodriguez, would you consider the matter resolved? While deleting conversations from talk pages is generally frowned upon, it is not unheard of, and if that will solve this problem I think that would be acceptable (if Mdsummermsw agrees, of course). --Jaysweet (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course. No more disemvoweling from me, I find it obnoxious as heck so I'd never want to do it again anyway. As for the user issue, you can believe whatever you'd like, but I am telling you that I am NOT and never have been user L8ear08. I have no idea what that user is about or doing (copycatting for kicks?) but it has nothing to do with me. Now as for the discussion pages, I would love that to be the resolution...for us to remove our interactions (or at least my own), but up until now Mdsummermsw has been completely uncooperative on that front and continues on about it hence my feeling of being stalked and harassed. If they would agree, that would be great. LBear08 (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Again, I see no evidence of stalking or harassment, and from a strict policy standpoint, Mdsummermsw is correct about not removing the discussion from the talk page. However, if it will make all the involved parties happy, I see no problem with making an exception to the standard policy and removing the conversation in question from Talk:Michelle Rodriguez. I have contacted Mdsummermsw and we will see if she is amenable to this solution. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm considering it. While considering it, I have again reverted LBear08's edits to the archive. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic. Well? LBear08 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

At this point any further delay is intentional. I thought perhaps you simply hadn't been online and was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but in checking seems you were on for numerous hours just yesterday editing dozens of articles. As you have been every day since this resolution was suggested. So what is your response on the idea of use deleting the content on the archive talk page and achieving peaceful resolution by doing so? LBear08 (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Findings

There has been no stalking or harassment. LBear08 wants an old conversation removed from the Talk page and Talk page archives of Talk:Michelle Rodriguez, and has been removing the conversation in violation of policy. When the other involved editor reverted the removal, LBear08 incorrectly characterized this as "stalking." (Note that other editors have reverted the removal as well) While I believe the Talk page content in question could theoretically be removed without harm to the project, I would not feel good about doing so without the consent of all involved parties, and that has proved unattainable. Ultimately, LBear08's removal of Talk page content is in violation of policy, and if he/she resumes this behavior, it could result in a block.

Both involved editors engaged in disemvoweling, a highly uncivil and disruptive practice that is clearly prohibited on Wikipedia talk pages. Both editors have been warned and agreed not to do so again. If either editor engages in disemvoweling again, it could result in a block with little or no warning.

There are very valid suspicions of sockpuppetry on the part of LBear08 (User:L8ear08, nearly identical username, similar editing pattern) but as the alleged sock account does not appear to have been used disruptively or to evade a block, I would prefer not to comment on it at this time.

I was unable to find a compromise between these two users. However, I am marking the thread as "Resolved" anyway because there is no outstanding issue that needs attention. There is no ongoing content dispute, and both users have ceased their objectionable behavior. I strongly suggest that both editors move on with their lives. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[38] - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not right that someone can be threatened to be blocked for simply defending themselves against FALSE accusations. Mdsummermsw simply needs to let peace be achieved and move on, as suggested. Thanks Jay for your help alas as you said there is no resolution LBear08 (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me just point out to both of you how sad it is that you are edit warring over a talk page archive. Nobody reads the freaking archive, trust me. I have changed the status of this from "Resolved" to "Stuck". I still do not see anything actionable.

Mdsummermsw, if you are gung ho on seeing some action taken about LBear08's alleged socks, file a report at WP:SSP. The talk page is not really the proper place for it anyway. I would encourage you to stop edit warring over the talk page archive, as it is just not worth it, regardless of whether policy is on your side, and you could find yourself in danger of WP:3RR.

LBear08, I would urge you just leave the talk page archive alone. Nobody is going to look at it anyway. What was said was said, there is no point in trying to erase it from history. The best way you can put this past you is to move on, not to insist on removing it from the talk page archive.

I just don't see what either of you want. It seems you both just want independent acknowledgment that the other person is a bigger jerk than you. Well, it's not going to happen, because you've both engaged in unproductive behavior during this dispute and quantifying who did it more is just not a useful exercise. Move on with your lives. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You know what? Because I actually do have a life and cannot spend 5 to 10 (or more) hours a day, every day, editing and un-editing articles, in some attempt to win petty Wiki-wars, I will move on. Thank you Jaysweet for the time you've spent on this attempting to help me reach a peaceful resolution. It seemed pretty simple, alas turned out to be impossible. Clearly someone has to choose to let go of ego and step back. Apparently I'll be the one to do so. It is much appreciated the time you've spent on this though, despite the unfortunate results. Thanks again! :) LBear08 (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and I sincerely commend you for letting it go. Cheers, and happy wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that in spite of what (s)he has written here, the user has continued to delete the same content. Ilkali (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have warned LBear08 in no uncertain terms, and removed the Resolved tag again. Any further tampering with the talk page archive on the part of LBear08 will be considered simple vandalism, and could rapidly result in a block. As such, I have changed the tag on this section to Stuck. While earlier there was a Wikiquette issue (both users engaging in disemvoweling) all we have now is a user who violates policy, then lies and says they will never do it again. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Chump Manbear

Resolved

– Not an active alert -- occurred nearly a month ago, may not have been a personal attack, user warned, hasn't edit since

Incivility on talkpage for User:Lester (16 May). --Brendan [ contribs ] 08:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what action you want taken at this time. The comment in question occurred nearly a month ago. In context, one could argue it was not even a personal attack (Lester had removed the text "fucking cunt" from an article, allegedly in violation of WP:CENSOR, so the header text was referring to the content, not the editor. Still not a great choice IMO, nor a particularly civil message, but it does not appear to have been intended as the name-calling it appears to be). The editor received a warning at the time, although it was eventually retracted after the mess was sorted out.

Moreover, Chump Manbear hasn't made any edits since the incident, so this is not ongoing behavior. There's not really anything to be done about it. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh...

Resolved

– User warned and blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to handle something aimed at me. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Egads! I gave them a level 3 personal attack warning, but frankly if I were an admin myself I might even consider blocking them right here and now for the "car crash" comment. (I definitely understand why you don't want to do it yourself, though) --Jaysweet (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My only care is that this user might now think it's ok to say the same kind of disruptive things to other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Very troubling behaviour. Fortunately, user has already been blocked for 31 hours by barneca. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Neon_white

Resolved

– User reminded/warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Incivility: User talk:Something X#Paramore. Particularly the If you want to waste time and the Alternatively, use common sense comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Something X (talk • contribs) 17:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The comments were brusque, but I do not feel they were particularly incivil. Frankly, arguing against a genre classification that cites NME, the NY Times, and Rolling Stone probably is a waste of time. I don't think you are going to get very far with it.

In any case, I would urge both you and Neon_white to refrain from edit warring. I will keep an eye on the situation in case it escalates. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I notified Neon_white about this thread, and suggested that he tone it down a little bit. I will not give him a civility warning at this time, as I do not feel his comments crossed the line; however, it still wouldn't hurt to tone things down. I hope you guys can work this out. Thanks and happy wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly this could easily be considered an abuse of process. The comments are based solely on experience. The reliable sources noticeboard is not going to declare the New York Times, NME and rolling stone to be unreliable sources. Regardless, i did not try and stop anyone from asking on the noticeboard just expressed my opinion that it would be a waste of time. Common sense, which is a fundamental part of all editing, should tell you that these are not questionable or extremist publications. Policy does not require pleasantries. --neon white talk 21:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note here and here. I'm assuming you both get the message so I'm closing this WQA as resolved, as there's nothing else to see here. It can be reopened if any problems continue hereafter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

User 90.201.13.142

Resolved

– for now. Anon informed/reminded of relevant policies and guidelines. 08:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I noticed that user User_talk:90.201.13.142 is making a number of changes without making edit summaries. I mentioned this issue to the user on their talk page, but they don't appear to be very open to suggestions. Tweisbach (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Argh... user is making constructive contribs and doing very tedious work that I sure wouldn't want to do... but not only are they not using edit summaries (and making it clear that anybody who has advice for them should piss off), but with this edit, he or she violated WP:SIG and WP:CIV. Grumble... Normally, I would issue a warning or two and move on. But I have a feeling issuing warnings to this user is going to result in a lot of drama... Hrm. I'll probably do it anyway. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave them a welcome template, a notice about edit summaries, a notice about signing posts, and a custom notice about civility. Fingers crossed... --Jaysweet (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is edit summary compulsory? I often omit, for a variety of reasons, eg

running out of time
I can't see any way of summarizing in less space than the edit itself, & a longer one wouldn't be a summary

Peter jackson (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not compulsory, but it's a good idea if you are doing something like removing redundant categories (as the IP in question is doing). If somebody just sees the edit with no summary, it looks like you are just blanking content. But if you put an edit summary that says "rmv redundant cat" or something, you are a lot less likely to get caught in confusion.

I was more concerned with the fact that when Tweisbach nicely suggested to the user that they use an edit summary, the user replied with "GET A LIFE." heh... ;D --Jaysweet (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I echo Jaysweet's comments here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Rollosmokes

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

– Directed to appropriate noticeboards. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just spent the last six hours or so attempting to undo damage done by user:rollosmokes to various pages related to the 2009 DTV transition for US full-power television stations.

There are currently 1800 or so full-power US TV broadcasters using the 1953-era NTSC analog television system. Almost all are now simulcasting existing programming and additional digital subchannels using ATSC digital television in preparation for the federally-mandated shutdown of analogue full-power TV on February 17, 2009. Most will shut down the analogue transmitter and leave the digital facilities on their current frequency and power assignments; there are four or five hundred exceptions to this pattern. Digital stations on VHF band I will want to move to higher frequencies due to insanely-low power limits on low-VHF DTV. Stations above channel 51 will be forced to move to lower frequencies as the 700MHz band has been auctioned for other purposes, such as mobile phone operation and Qualcomm's channel 55 MediaFLO service. A few channels will be reassigned for emergency two-way radios.

This leaves WP:WikiProject Television Stations with the potentially-huge task of determining where these stations will move (many are returning to the original analogue channels, but there are exceptions) and finding a means to have the correct info appear in the infoboxes for these stations once all of this is over. Tracking down and updating five hundred local television broadcasters on February 2009 is not an option; the task is a large and time-consuming one, requiring that affected broadcasts be identified and FCC records be searched to extract the info from the relevant construction permits for each station.

There is about eight months left before the transition is over, so time to track down and update the infoboxes is limited. The changes are far-reaching, as categories (Channel XX television stations in the United States) and information on subchannels (one digital TV station can be carrying anywhere from two to five different programmes from different networks at the same time on the same carrier) are all affected in some manner by the transition.

The {{Infobox Broadcast}} is used to generate the infobox on most of the articles in question; it lists, among other things, the analogue and digital channel assignments for each station along with power, antenna height, network affiliations, ownership and various other vital statistics. An approach of listing the current channel assignments (digital_temporary) alongside the final ones (digital) was tried and various changes were made to this initial draft in response to comments from others on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations. These efforts are being hindered by this user's constant revert wars in which he repeatedly overwrites the templates with an outdated version. He also has repeatedly [39][40] been removing information from large numbers of individual articles regarding final channel assignments and re-inserting incorrect information on subchannels (Annex B to the ATSC65/C spec on psip.org is clear that a channel with "13 analogue, 61 UHF digital" must number its digital subchannels 13.1, 13.2... and not "13.1/61.1 PBS", for instance.)

There have been complaints before, including one dispute (see User talk:TV9) where this user carried on a lengthy revert war over capitalisation of brands such as "The CW" and another in which a long series of consecutive reversions were made with inflammatory edit summaries such as "(Undid revision 209145341 by A Man In Black THIS IS A PROTEST REVERTION)" [41]. He has also been spamming user and user talk pages with WP:SOCK allegations, typically directed against anyone who attempts to undo the damage he's been doing and with no evidence provided to back up any of the accusations. If the affected users attempt to revert this nonsense, he starts another revert war.

In one particularly egregious case, he made four consecutive reversions to WP:RFPP [42] [43] [44] [45] removing a response to his demands for {{Infobox Broadcast}} to be locked at a revision that would list the final DTV allocation for many stations in place of the current one. WP:RFPP itself was briefly protected sysop-only to stop his disruptions there. While he has attempted to plead ignorance on templates on at least one occasion, he has been an active WP editor since January 2006 and should know better.

As he does have some legitimate contributions, administrators so far have issued warnings but no blocks. If he were to participate constructively instead of undoing large amounts of work done to deal with the upcoming DTV transition and launch into pointless edit wars and accusations in which anyone who crosses him is WP:SOCK, WP:VANDAL or worse, he would be capable of making a legit and valuable contribution to the TV station wikiproject. He's been here for a while and, whatever his claims to the contrary, does know his way around here.

However, his removals of information on digital television deployment in his country need to stop. No one is going to make the effort to dig out final DTV assignments and station information on four to five hundred terrestrial broadcasters and get the info into the encyclopædia in time for February 17, 2009 analog shutoff if he continues to disrupt the process by deleting info from pages and breaking the infoboxes. I estimate that, were one person to attempt to get the missing info into the pages before transition, the time required would be at least one week of full-time effort, maybe more. It's no small task.

Meanwhile, the information needs to be there, and there is a de-facto eight month federally-imposed deadline. We're not going to get there unless the disruptions cease, and even then there's some risk that the cleanup of the mess that is US DTV transition will be a lengthy and labour-intensive process. --carlb (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not an issue for WQA. This is a place for impolite/incivil communications. For vandalism, go to WP:AIV. For suspected sockpuppetry, go to WP:SSP. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Generalmesse

Resolved

– User warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Generalmesse (talk · contribs) has posted identical abusive comments directed against me at [46] and [47] after I removed links to WW2 Axis propaganda he'd added to the external links sections of these articles. Could an uninvolved editor please warn him about this incivility? Thanks, Nick Dowling (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor has been warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Mareklug

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

– Users directed to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug (talk · contribs) has repeatedly been incivil toward me despite my requests to stop. He also refuses to WP:AGF and questions my motives without justification. See these diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4. I would appreciate administrator intervention. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

More diffs for an administrator to look at: 1, 2, 3. Tennis expert (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tenis expert is waging a campaign of replicating an individual move, amounting to a mass move, on certain biography pages, which will introduce a corrupted rendition of the biographed persons' names (all of them living, therefore subject to specially vigilant protection of their human dignity). It has been noted by more users than just me, that willfully distorting a person's name harms their dignity. Furthermore, his manner of conducting this article renaming is a low-level but broad replication of a formulaic reason for making the move, so discussing this on individual pages is pointless, as doing so effectively hides the issue from the broad Wikipedia community, instead of introducing it in a central forum, where consensus-building should be attempted instead. These actions are uncivil in and of themselves, and harm the project, as they circumvent making consensual decisions by us all on merit, not just by people editing tennis articles, of whom I am one, although I edit in many areas. Tenis expert has been unwilling to address what arguments have been given against his proposed moves in the three particular cases where I challenged them, and has chosen to continue to perform this proposition to alter the status quo in a swarm-like way. Instead of reasoning, he restates the reasons given against his proposed move, and asks if he understands correctly, often distorting what was actually put in writing. These actions do not promote confidence in his good faith, as the reasons against are plain, self-evident and true, as he is simply wearing down the opposition, and proposing to move pages without input from the most knowledgable Wikipedians, who perchance don't happen to edit tennis biographies, or watch their talk pages. Tennis players are hardly the only subpopulation of Wikipedia-biographed persons to whom the rationale for such article moves could be made, and in fact, similar campaign was waged some time ago in the professsional hockey player biographies. Most importantly, a notable person who plays tennis professionally may well be more than just that, and may have earned notability as a writer or a model or a coach or a teacher or a politician. Their identity should be respected, regardless of any attention they may have attracted by some English-language niche institutions, such as data bases and rankings or tournaments. Now Tennis player wishes to outright silence the opposition or remove it from editing Wikipedia altogether, by administrative intervention. --Mareklug ^talk 12:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no issues here. For requests for administrative intervention, please go to WP:AN/I. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Frank Anchor

Resolved

– Compromise reached independently -- major kudos to davidwr for brokering the compromise

Keeps adding a SPA tag to all of my edits. Only because he disagrees with my opinions here. My first post was tagged and that's fine, but every post does not need to be tagged just because my opinion differs with his. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

See discussions here as well. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not doing so because we have differing opinions, I am doing so because when you make such a major contribution to an AfD (as you found several possible precedents to the article - I would consider that a major contrib.), it should be noted that you have made very few outside edits to Wikipedia Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 04:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute seems to be resolved, see: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Pioneer Conference --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Alientraveller

Resolved

– Editor given warning about unnecessarily snarky edit summary

As I see it, there was no need for user Alientraveller (talk · contribs) to use sarcasm in his removal of my RFC on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transformers_2:_Revenge_of_the_Fallen&action=history.

I am an inexperienced editor who did not know what an Edit Conflict is and still does not, because no explanation was given. Nevertheless, I was not impolite in my creation of the RFC (which I still think is valid and not appropriate for a single editor to remove - comments welcome) and do not think the use of sarcasm was justified.

I would appreciate any thoughts and apologise if this is not the correct thing to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.32.31 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT:

Another editor restored (diff) the RfC section. — Athaenara ✉ 10:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't think that's what the editor was making the comment about - fact is, Alientraveller should not be sarcasticly removing posts - his conduct is at stake.

OH! And, he's now resorted to calling another Editor "silly" on the same page - is this appropriate behaviour??? What can be done to stop him??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.151.245 (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have notified the editor of this discussion and advised him that, while not a gross civility violation, this edit summary was probably not a good idea. As far as the "silly" comment, I don't feel like it crossed the line.

If you have future complaints about this editor's behavior, please provide diffs of the comments in question (diffs are described at the top of this page) to make it easier to see what is being discussed.

And no worries, you came to the right place :) --Jaysweet (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a gross civility so didn't require too much 'pressure'. But I'm thankful for you contacting the editor in question. I consider the matter closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.32.31 (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User 67.68.33.180 (Personal Attack in AfD Discussion)

Resolved

– Personal attack redacted by an uninvolved editor. — Athaenara ✉ 10:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In the AfD for Koboi labs, and anon IP (67.68.33.180) posted a most distasteful comment, which is a clear ad-hominem attack that I feel clearly constitutes bigotry and is clearly unacceptable under the personal attacks policy as it as an epithet against a person with a history of disabilities. The actual diff is here. I strongly suspect (without proof) this is the article's creator unhappy about the AfD. I am not asking for action to be taken against the user, as I have already issued a level two warning against the IP, and I am aware this would be a silly request for checkuser. I am simply requesting the community's approval to remove the text added in that diff from the AfD discussion. I am loathe to modify the comments of another in an AfD, no matter how invective or bigoted, and am doubly so since they were directed against me. I find WP:RPA of no guidance here, and feel that Process is important. I am therefore not comfortable unilaterally removing the invective from an active AfD discussion. Thus, before I just go and remove the comment, I am asking the community's leave to do so here. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

done. Dloh cierekim 22:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Naruto134

Resolved

– For now... User warned by Ludwigs2 (thanks) and so far has not resumed the behavior. Will re-open if necessary.

This user is very uncivil toward new contributors, and has also been warned several times before. He ignores any and all comments posted on his talk page, and is also uncivil in edit comments, calling users "idiots" and "preschoolers". I left a civil comment on his userpage explaining why I felt something should have been included in an article, however, he ignored it and posted a rather harsh comment on my talkpage and threatened to report me. Proof may be found on his talk page here, also here, his comment on my talk page, and here as well. Thank you. --SWJS: The All Knowing Destroy All Humans! Nerd(Cortex Scan) 18:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the "preschooler" diff that SWJS mentions. I don't care for this one either. FWIW, it seems like Naruto is acting in good faith. The uncivil edit summaries are a problem, though. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that's a little unpleasant. I'll leave a note on his talk page. --Ludwigs2 19:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Geogre

Resolved

– hopefully. 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been subject to regular insults, impugning of character, and refusal to avoid direct questions asked directly regarding the content of an article William Melmoth on that articles talk page and archived talk page, and the editor's talk page, by the editor above named. I wish him to receive formal warning from another party that such behavior is not acceptable. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out this archived ANI thread that is substantively the same controversy. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

John, cut it out. You've been asked to step away from this situation over the course of several days now, by multiple admins, but you have persisted. Threatening people when they question a wikiproject assessment is inappropriate; you were encouraged to engage in discussion originally, but at this point it is best for all that you simply step back. I understand that you are angry that an editor has objected to the assessment made by a member of your wikiproject. Anger rarely improves articles or leads to fruitful conversation, and your anger has led you to make several incorrect statements and less than optimal decisions. If you feel that this matter between the wikiproject and Geogre simply must be straightened out, I suggest that you ask another member of the project, perhaps one who has not insulted Geogre by saying he lied about being an administrator, to continue the discussion. Right now, the two of you are oil and water. Risker (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And I asked several relevant questions which were not answered with anything but aspersions on my character. That is unacceptable. I would welcome having reasonable discussion with Geogre, but he seems either unwilling to engage in such, or incapable of it. Why should such, well, stonewalling, not be told to cease? John Carter (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Risker's advice is very good. Geogre may be "stonewalling" because he has realized he is incapable of continuing the discussion rationally, so it is better to say nothing than to continue to proceed in anger. I have to do the same thing sometimes, and believe me, it drives my wife crazy! ha ha ha... In any case, it is often valuable to just step away until you are not so pissed off. I think that is what Geogre is doing at this point, and I think it would benefit you to do the same. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So, presumably, his insulting others rather than directly answering questions directly asked is an indication that he is being reasonable? John Carter (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A fair question. I suggested to him on his Talk page that if he wants to back away, he needs to do so silently. ;)

I must admit, I feel a little awkward trying to mediate between two admins :o --Jaysweet (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be a good time to review what Wikipedia is not. Perhaps this would be a good time to reflect on what your objectives were when this discussion started, and whether or not this current course of action will bring the fulfillment of both your own objectives and those of the project. Perhaps this would be a good time to go to the pub and have a bitter. You very much give the impression that what you're doing right now is making you very unhappy, and it isn't leading to the harmonious editing and collaboration that characterises Wikipedia at its best. Geogre can only irritate you if you let him irritate you; if you leave him alone, he will find something else to do. Please step back. Risker (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This and this and this. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I already mentioned this to Geogre on his talk page.

John Carter appears to have moved on (has made several edits today and said nothing to Geogre). Geogre has not been active, but hopefully when he comes back he will also move on. Thanks for the input, but I don't think we really need to see more "evidence" at this point... I just want to put this in the past. It's sad to see two administrators and extraordinarily valuable contributors feuding in such an acrimonious fashion. :( --Jaysweet (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

- Agree. I don't approve of the edit-warring by the subject or the incivility by either party. I'll assess the article in question according to each WikiProject's quality scale (as they differ from project to project) and hopefully that matter is resolved too. I'm marking this WQA as resolved for now, assuming any further edit-warring and incivility ceases. I am hoping topic bans will not be necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User:AvantVenger and his IP account User:71.114.30.158 -- Gross incivility.

Resolved

– User shown to be a sock of an indefinitely blocked user - and is blocked in turn

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

A simple editing dispute at Self-replicating machine was escalated to a revert war - then the user went 'off the deep end' on the talk page of that article (See the end of Talk:Self-replicating_machine#Photo and text additions). I made an attempt to calm him down and explain 'why his statements were deeply offensive (although they were clearly aimed at me very carefully by reading my User: page). But his most recent remark (at time of writing) was:

Don't scrape your stealing finger at me you useless piece of trash. You made the first attack on the honorable Charles Michael Collins with your stealing foreigner affirmative action open source speak with the rest of you stinking putrid stealing demagoging, lobbying invaders. Do we come and lobby Adrian's country? NO! I could care less if the communist Wikipedia "blocks" me. Go home. I'm also a musician and saw what Napster's "open sourcing" did to the entire world music business. If you steal and try to bust patents we don't want you here. OPEN SOURCE PIG. AvantVenger (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I should explain that Charles Micheal Collins appears to own a patent which I suggested was invalid due to prior art. I don't see how this constitutes an "attack".

This user edits about 50% of the time using User:71.114.30.158 - so if a block is to be considered, both that account and User:AvantVenger would need to be included.

I trust we can take speedy action - because this just went beyond reasonable limits.

Thanks in advance.

SteveBaker (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only are you stupid and do not know one iota about what you are talking about on patents BUT YOU STARTED IT BY ATTACKING CHARLES MICHAEL COLLINS. I don't expect the rabble to be much smarter, particularly throngs of bleeding heart trash open source pigs who steal music, books, movies and inventions. All of you can go right to HELL! AvantVenger (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

AvantVenger blocked for 24 hours for persistent incivility and soapboxing. EyeSerene^talk 08:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. SteveBaker (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am quite put off by how the user responded to the block, but I am marking this as Resolved for now. If the user comes back from the block and resumes incivility at the previous level, I think it's more of an admin issue than a simple Wikiquette issue. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I should add that it wasn't my intention to make an end-run around the Wikiquette mediation process - I blocked them before I read this thread (per a separate report at WP:AIV) based on their escalating and on-going loss of control on the article talk page. EyeSerene^talk 20:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I now believe that AvantVenger is the real-world person Charles Collins (stripping out email address - Risker) - who appears to be the indefinitely-banned User:Fraberj. My evidence is here User_talk:AvantVenger#Is_AvantVenger_really_Charles_Collins.3F. I trust we have an admin here who knows what to do next! SteveBaker (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

alternative medicine

Resolved

– The only person showing civility problems in links provided by Ludwigs2 is him/herself, and he/she has already been warned for it

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

I have a pair of editors - user:OrangeMarlin and user:ScienceApologist - who are defending what seems to me to be a particularly biased version of the page. they refuse to respond to questions, and have used insults and personal attacks to back up their reverts of my edits see this link and this. they do not seem to be willing to discuss any compromise. this behavior also spills over into other pages.

I admit that my edits are broad, but I also think they are justified.

I have a separate RfC out for comments on the page to deal with the edit difference, but I would like an independent discussion of their behavior as well, because they are both tremendously biased and heartily rude.

thanks! --Ludwigs2 05:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't really help; first came to this page myself to complain about Orangemarlin and the only effect was for him to throw more insults at me. He seems to have a group of friends who back him up on everything here.Restepc (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludvigs2 has been edit warring and has already violated 3RR. He has also deleted warnings from his talk page and has now been warned. Let's hope that calms him down. This is a spurious alert. See his talk page. -- Fyslee / talk 06:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't usually involve myself with these spurious attacks on me, but Restepc's odd remarks piqued my interest. But thanks Fyslee...watch out, you might be a part of my cabal, which will mean a lot of these things. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Woot, a cabal, sign me up! Shot info (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs and Restepc: Please remember that this page is for Wikiquette issues (civility, etc.), not for content disputes. Frankly, I am not touching the content dispute over alternative medicine, and I must say that I very much admire ScienceApologist and OrangeMarlin for the tireless work they do in this and other similar arenas. Frankly, if I did what they did for even a week, I would be driven to quit Wikipedia.

You mention insults, but I don't see them offhand and I am not going to read through Talk:Alternative medicine, dear god no. If there are specific remarks you are objecting to, please provide "diffs" (the instructions for doing so are outlined here) of the comments in question, and we can judge them in context to see if OM or SA have crossed the line. (While I said I admire those guys, I have no prejudice either way about whether they may have behaved in an incivil manner at some point. Happens to the best of us, and if they have, they will be warned to stop.)

Unless there are specific insults that you can point to, I am inclined to label this a "content dispute" and suggest that the RfC you already filed is the best way to proceed. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I skimmed the links that Ludwigs2 sent, and while I see a lot of borderline personal attacks and incivility from him, SA and OM appear calm and rationale throughout. The only time SA even comes close to a personal attack is when he accuses Ludwigs2 of "hawking alternative medicine" IRL and therefore having a conflict of interest in regards to the Alternative medicine article -- however, I have reason to believe SA only made this allegation after long discussion and careful examination of the evidence. Therefore, while he did comment on the editor rather than the edits, I think that identification of a potential conflict of interest is one area in which it is acceptable to do so.

Since Ludwigs2 has already been warned, I am marking this as resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

well, since someone has marked this as resolved, then I guess I'll let it slide, even though I don't consider that correct. anyway, after a good night's sleep and a few moments' reflection, I'm reasonably confident I can handle this situation on my own anyway, so no worries. --Ludwigs2 20:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

People have the attention span of fleas. Next time give diffs, and further, quote the worst part of the diff so people won't actually have to click on it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

that's good advice, thank you. :-) --Ludwigs2 21:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A recent Arbcom ruling that occurred shortly after the above comments has prohibited Martinphi from participating in any discussion surrounding ScienceApologist with which he was not originally involved, so I am closing this discussion. There is nothing more to add, please do not comment further. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Koalorka

Resolved

– No issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The abovementioned user harrassed me about "flag removal from certain pages" which he won't or maybe can't even specifically mention. The fact is, the last flag which I might have removed from any article was probably more than two weeks ago. This is his message to me just now on my talkpage which I had deleted. I double check back at this user-talk page and found that he was embroiled in some kind of mess with another Administrator, that I won't want to get involved in for obvious reasons. Quite frankly, this gives me the impression that he might be taking things out on me for no valid reason(s). On another note, I had dropped the same user a wiki-smile (mentioned here) about two months back and he seem quite unhappy about it even though I tried to be civil with him. Appreciate if maybe some admin can help me get this guy off my back, thank you. --Dave1185 (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looking at this, I don't see how that can be considered as having "tried to be civil with him". Of the two of you, your tone is much more aggressive. Regardless of when this action in question happened, he apparently just came upon it. The Mmmkay at the end was unnecessary, but it certainly doesn't constitute harassment, or even incivility. I don't know what flag he's talking about or what article, but if I were you, I would politely ask him to clarify, then do some research to find out what happened and what should be done. If you need assistance with this, feel free to ask me on my talk page. LaraLove|Talk 07:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Cberlet

Resolved

What can be done about these kind of comments - Revert: the point is to help readers--not masturbate over ideology, You are both acting like total jerks. Please stop edit warring? Few months ago I tried to contact him on his talk page but he removed my comment with edit summary remove POV warrior spam. -- Vision Thing -- 17:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your attempt to reach him on the talk page is from two months ago, so I don't consider that particularly relevant. However, the "masturbation" edit summary is inappropriate, and I have warned the user accordingly. I am about to look into the edit-warring that sparked the incivil edit summary and will report back about what I find. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I was using the term "masturbation" in a metaphoric sense within the context of suggesting Vision_Thing actually start interacting with other editors here on Wikipedia in an appropriate way rather than continuing a pattern of self-stimulation. Vision_Thing has a long history of manipulating Wikipedia for unitary pleasure for several years. I have repeatedly engaged in attempts to edit constructively with Vision_Thing: I have asked for outside comments, I have constructed votes, I have taken Vision_Thing to mediation. Vision_Thing, usually in concert with various sockpuppets, meatpuppets, single topic accounts, fake accounts, and banned accounts, has been engaging in a multi-year POV edit war relating to definitions of Fascism, national socialism, Nazism, neofascism, and neonazism (among others). When Vision_Thing is outvoted by other editors, Vision_Thing simply waits a few weeks or months, and starts the edit war over again. I think the term "masturbation" was apt and appropiate. I am surprised that the term is considered "inappropriate" here on Wikipedia, where cyber-masturbation is common, but apparently it is, and I will not use it again.--Cberlet (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The metaphoric implication was quite clear, and that's where I thought you crossed the line. Obviously there are no individual words that are verboten on Wikipedia... but calling someone's edits "bullshit" or "ideological masturbation", especially in an edit summary, is pushing the civility policy.

The problem with edit summaries is that 1) they are highly visible, 2) you cannot take them back or edit them later (at least not without admin intervention), and 3) they do not provide enough context. It's really not appropriate to accuse someone of ideological masturbation without a clear explanation of what you mean, what behaviors are leading you to say that, etc. When you just toss the term about in an 11-word edit summary, it comes across as if you are flinging insults rather than trying to characterize a type of behavior.

So, no, the term is not always considered "inappropriate", but I would probably directing the term at another editor in an insulting manner it in an edit summary.

The edit warring is another story, and there are channels for addressing this. Let me know if you want to try and pursue this. In the meantime, just try to keep it civil. Thanks! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I see your points.--Cberlet (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll mark this as resolved then. :) Thanks!! --Jaysweet (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Blogsd

Resolved

– User blocked 24 hrs. Admins aware of behavior and continued incivility will result in an indef block. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been receiving raging and extremely profane messages, edit summaries, and such from Blogsd. They're referenced here[48]. It started with calling me an idiot, then progressed to further insults and profanity.

I've done a little digging in the last few minutes and discovered I'm not the only person he's been calling an idiot[49]. He's also reverting editors' edits for reasons that I can't comprehend, like stating that wikilinking to the article on Oman is vandalism to be stopped at all costs[50], and that wikilinking to the article on the Toronto Star newspaper is vandalism[51]. I believe I need assistance. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have them a level 4 (final) warning for personal attacks. As far as the mysterious reverts, I think he/she was objecting to the removal of an unsourced statement. In the former case ([52]), the previous edit was the removal of an unsourced statement, and I suspect that Blogsd hit the wrong undo button. In the latter case ([53]), a paragraph was removed as well as the wikilink.

The civility issue is much more severe than the bad vandalism reverts, so let's see what happens next. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

to be very Polite as wikipedia standard i m extreme sorry i beg ur pardon that i dont care about ur worrring . new u can block me as i already back up all text i need in my wikipedia profile. but i m affred u cant block me permanently . block my id i will creat new one . block my ip . i m using dynamic id here. block my 1st 4 digit of IP ( which u cant do it for permanently for obious reason) i change my ISP . i will use cyber cafe which will use entirely new IP . so do wateva u wanna do , do it dude. u can now block my id thnx . will see u with a new id saonara ^Contact

Okay, so yeah, if this user ever bothers you again, just copy-and-paste this to ANI:

Gross incivility: [54] [55] [56]
User warned against personal attacks: [57]
User threatens to use sockpuppets to evade block: [58]
User continues to disrupt after final warning and threat to user sock puppets: [insert diff of anything else he does here]

Put that in a new section at WP:ANI, and he'll most likely be indefinitely blocked. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

“

Stay here. I'll be back.

”

— Terminator version T101

Blogsd^Contact

--

I got another uncivil post to my talk page, stating that he would use sockpuppets, that was left after Jaysweet warned this user. (Part of that same threat to use socks is repeated by Blogsd above this comment, in the form of the Terminator quote.) As recommended, I have opened a new section on WP:ANI: Wikipedia:ANI#User:Blogsd. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for the confusion about both of us posting to ANI. I had to leave in a hurry and didn't get a chance to tell you I'd already started a section at ANI. :)

I am marking this thread as resolved. If the user continues after the block, a quick post to ANI will likely result in an indefinite block. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jordan Cardiff

Resolved

– somewhat. Sockpuppet blocked, but blocking administrator Jayjg advised to make more appropriate block summaries in block log. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This users last edit summary on an edit to David Irving was "It's evident this article is tightly controlled by a gang of angry Jews. I'm not just accusing. See their profiles-might have to look at their page history. can't reason with em. tis unacceptable.)". I find this sort of language troubling and inappropriate for Wikipedia (or anywhere else for that matter). For the record I have edited David Irving, and I'm not Jewish. I don't want to bite newbies, and this is only this users second edit. But can someone not involved in the article, and familiar with whatever our rules on civility are please have a look. Jonathan Cardy (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted a message to his talk page. LaraLove|Talk 13:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I was about to post a much harsher warning but you beat me to it by a few minutes :) I'm not 100% sure we want to keep an editor whose first (and so far only) mainspace contribution includes a rant about "angry Jews", but I suppose we'll see what happens. Perhaps he'll just go away. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked indefinitely (manifestly excessive I think - we can't bite newbies for their first edit I don't think). I'll leave the blocking admin a message. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg may know more than us: An obvious sock. Anyway, we'll see what he says. FWIW, I don't think an indef was entirely out of proportion. If the user wants to contribute constructively, they can create a new account. Unless, you know, it was important to them to retain the "angry jews" comment in their contribs... --Jaysweet (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Although, unless Jayjg has evidence this is a known banned sockmaster, he should have asked someone else to do the block, since the sock specifically mentioned Jayjg by name... (but if this is a known sockmaster, all bets are off) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a very bad block, not just for that reason, and it's duration. It's also a strong assumption of bad faith. In the absence of any form of counselling and for a first mainspace edit, this contributes to the chilling effect. We have personal attacks warning templates after all.... I've told him on his talk page. If it is a known sockmaster - then it really should have been noted in the block logs. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

@Jaysweet: Account creation is blocked. LaraLove|Talk 22:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Pixelface

Resolved

– The main parties involved agree the civility issues have been resolved. There remains a larger issue of how to hold effective policy discussions, but that is beyond the scope of WQA

I believe User:Pixelface's current behavior (starting approximately on June 6) on the RFC for determining whether the current version of Notability (fiction) has global consensus is out of line for civility for behavior expected of editors, particularly in an area of heated concern.

I will admin the topic is a very sore one, as it hits right at the center of the emotional inclusionists/deletionists issue. I am fully aware of Pixelface's views and respect those views for what they are, and I can understand the frustration behind seeing what you strongly believe in be overwhelmed by others.

However, the method by which Pixelface is approach this debate seems like it's trying to seem who can shout the loudest to make their point overly clear. There's no specific diff that exemplifies this behavior, though telling people "they're wrong", bringing up a point that doesn't apply to the specific section of the discussion while pulling from the user's history to try to prove them wrong, assuming bad faith, repeating the same points over and over and even trying to shut down the consensus process before it can begin. There's at least 30 other editors at that page and over 200 edits since the 6th, and no one else seems to be taking the same aggressive defensive stance that Pixelface is, and the atmosphere the comments generate is not healthy to good discussion.

If this is not considered uncivil behavior, then I apologize to Pixelface for the inconvenience and will drop this matter. --MASEM 03:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That editor *was* wrong. That editor said the notability guidelines can only be more strict than WP:N but not less strict. Clearly a false statement. The question about games *did* apply to that thread. Saying you ignored all the discussion on WT:NOT between my first removal of PLOT and my second removal of PLOT is not assuming bad faith; your claim that discussion had not taken place between those removals, however, was. And your refusal to address specific articles is why I keep bringing them up. And I didn't try to shut down anything. Are you saying you started the RFC because earlier I mentioned the {{rejected}} tag? I'm not the only person who has mentioned the {{rejected}} tag. Speaking of aggressive stances, how many people in the Oppose section[59] have you been arguing with? Let's see, you're the first responder to the first 6 opposers, you eventually made a comment under the 7th opposer (me), you were the first responder to opposers 9,10,11,and 12; and you replied to opposer 13, 16, and 20. So you may want to look at your own behavior regarding "shouting the loudest" and aggressive stances.

And if you're so concerned about the civility of the discussion, where are your Wikiquette alerts for TTN and David Fuchs? Where is your Wikiquette alert for the editor who said "gutter trash"[60]? Here[61] TTN says "I do find it funny that the opposers think that their whole "everything it notable" ideal still has any chance in hell." And here[62] David Fuchs says "Congrats. You infuriate me to no living end. I can parrot quotes from people all day long too. That doesn't help jack-shit. Disk space is not the issue here, stop pulling a straw-man." and "If I had a nickel for every time someone invoked WP:IAR... oh wait, since I can ignore rules, I'll delete your userpage, talk page, block you indefinitely, and trash every article you've ever worked on. Will that make you happy?" Considering that nearly every opposer is getting a wall of people arguing with them, and there is practically no space between supporters, I think I've been pretty civil. Considering your proposal aims to wipe out millions of hours of volunteer work and has the support of an editor currently under editing restrictions regarding wiping out that work, I think I've been pretty civil. Considering your proposal has the suppport of multiple users whose names have shown up in the past at WQA, I think I've been pretty civil. Considering your proposal has the support of multiple people who have referred to other editor's good faith edits as "vandalism", I think I've been pretty civil. As far as I know, nobody but you has made a comment at WT:FICT saying they think I've been uncivil, but I have seen several other editors told to watch their civility. I'll be happy to stop commenting at WT:FICT if you think my absence will improve the atmosphere. From the looks of it, your proposal doesn't need opposition from me anyway. --Pixelface (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not the fact you or I are replying to every message - it's the tone, as pretty much your comment shows, is where the problem is. It is confrontational and almost requires an equally confrontational response, which if progresses leads to edit wars, blocks, or worse. I am not asking you to leave the FICT, NOT, or any other discussion, nor expecting that as a result from here, but I am asking you to participate in resolving the issue, not inflaming it. Yes, there are others that have made a single reply or two in the FICT discussion that is heated, but not in nearly every reply they've made has been bordering on this same level of confrontational and accusational language that you have made; if any other editor on that page made as many such confrontational statement, I would have included them here too. --MASEM 22:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Masem, you replying to nearly every person who opposes your proposal looks confrontational. To me, it appears like you felt threatened when I mentioned the {{rejected}} tag, and you reacted by starting an RFC on FICT — which you seem to have focused more time on than any other editor. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize. Do you think the RFC has done anything to resolve the issue? It looks to me like the same old division. I can think of a possible way that might help resolve the issue. Ask people a simple question. Ask them to fill in the blank:

A fictional literary character can generally be considered to be notable if _____
A fictional television character can generally be considered to be notable if _____
A fictional comic book/graphic novel character can generally be considered to be notable if _____
A fictional film character can generally be considered to be notable if _____
A fictional videogame character can generally be considered to be notable if _____
A fictional vehicle can generally be considered to be notable if _____
A fictional item can generally be considered to be notable if _____
A fictional location can generally be considered to be notable if _____
A fictional concept can generally be considered to be notable if _____
A fictional _____ can generally be considered to be notable if _____
A fiction television episode can generally be considered to be notable if _____
A fiction film can generally be considered to be notable if _____
A fiction book can generally be considered to be notable if _____
A videogame with a a significant plot can generally be considered to be notable if _____
A comic book/manga title can generally be considered to be notable if _____
A comic strip can generally be considered to be notable if _____
A webcomic can generally be considered to be notable if _____
A toy with a significant backstory can generally be considered to be notable if _____
A storyline can generally be considered to be notable if _____
A _____ can generally be considered to be notable if _____
Fictional topics that should probably not have separate articles include _____
Fictional topics that are generally suited better to lists and not separate articles include _____
When someone searches for a fictional topic, the search term should generally be a redirect when _____
Fictional topics that should generally never have separate articles include _____

And don't just ask involved parties of E&C1 and E&C2. I'm sure there are millions of editors that aren't even aware the discussion at WT:FICT is taking place. You're trying to decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of articles from one talk page, so don't expect smooth sailing. As far as I know, nobody else but you has said at WT:FICT I have being uncivil, so you may want to consider that when you think about my tone. I don't think I've inflamed the situation at WT:FICT. But if you think so, I'll go ahead and not comment at FICT for a week and you can see if the atmosphere improves. I would even be happy to not comment there anymore until the RFC ends in July. I think you'll find that maybe I'm not the problem. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Pixelface here. I have seen far more blantant incivility and tendentious editing from some on the other side of the discussion that no one can reasonably single out anyone here. Throwing out allegations against each other does not help the discussions progress. The bottom line is that it is a contentious debate and just about everyone involved should focus more on the pages under discussion than on those particiapting in them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface's editing behavior is bordering on Tendentious editing (or has already crossed this line), and while not necessarily uncivil in the usual sense, it is extremely tiring in a plonk-worthy sense. S/he has also started disputetagging WP:NOT in the last few days again (with prompt reverts), which had caused much drama at WP:NOT and ANI in the last two months before. I endorse Masem's summary that "the atmosphere the comments generate is not healthy to good discussion." Just to make clear, this note here is not intended to single out Pixelface as the only culprit, but very few editors have had what I perceive as similar bad track records for heating already heated discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs of this supposed "tendentious editing"? This board is for civility. And are you saying that WP:NOT#PLOT is *not* currently under discussion, which is what the {{disputedtag}} says, the small text in WP:NOT#PLOT itself says, as well as what the {{fiction notice}} says, which is transcluded on WT:FICT, Wikipedia talk:Plot summaries, and several other places. If you think my comments at WT:FICT are creating an atmosphere that's not healthy to good discussion, I'll be happy to leave and you can see if the atmosphere improves. Would you like me to do that? --Pixelface (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll skip the diffs and just point to your recent history with WP:NOT again. To cite WP:TEND, "the term [tendentious editing] also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors" and (example) "You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people." Maybe Wikipedia:Disruptive editing would have been more fitting (although it refers to article editing), which says "Disruptive editing already violates site policy, yet certain editors have succeeded in disrupting articles and evading disciplinary action for extended periods because their actions remain limited to a small number of pages and they do not commit gross violations of Wikipedia:Civility. Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by [...] exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity." Are you grossly incivil? - No. Do I perceive your edititing behavior harmful for productive discussion? - Yes. Is WP:WIKIQUETTE the right place to bring this up? - Possibly. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How about the recent history of you and Masem at WP:NOT? If me and Hobit remove PLOT from NOT [63] [64] [65] and you and Masem insert PLOT back into NOT [66] [67] [68], does that not indicate that section of policy is disputed? If several people have said on WT:NOT (in Archive 17, 18, 19 and the current talk page) that PLOT should be removed, does that not indicate that section of policy is disputed? If discussion about PLOT has been going on for three months, does that not indicate that section of policy is under discussion? If Masem states in their edit summary that discussion had not taken place at WT:NOT from March 10 to March 29, when WT:NOT looked like this, who's being tendentious? If I get reverted by an E&C2 party who reports me for "vandalism" for removing PLOT from NOT and I get blocked for vandalism and I leave Wikipedia for a week and that E&C2 party then tells another E&C2 party it was good news I left and several uninvolved editors state my edit was *not* vandalism, who's being tendentious? If the editor who originally added PLOT to NOT removes PLOT from NOT and he's reverted by an E&C2 party, who's being tendentious? If there's an edit war at WP:NOT and I'm not involved and WP:NOT is protected by an E&C2 party who's not uninvolved in the dispute over PLOT, who's being tendentious?

I've been discussing PLOT at WT:NOT since January. It boggles my mind that Gavin.collins, Eusebeus, and Seraphim Whipp think PLOT is not disputed. I know Gavin.collins knows it's disputed, because he's commented multiple times at WT:NOT. I also know Eusebeus knows it's disputed, since he commented in the RFC on PLOT. And having been in an argument with Seraphim Whipp in the past since I dared ask her friend if he had read the vandalism policy since he reported me as a vandal for removing PLOT from NOT, she should be also be aware that PLOT is disputed. Any one of them could click on the history tab for WT:NOT and see which section of that policy has been under discussion for the past three months. While I have repeated some of the same arguments at WT:NOT, I *have* persuaded other people. I've repeated myself at WT:FICT and I *have* persuaded other people. Of the people who have commented at WT:FICT, who has "repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles"? I appear to face opposition from a small group of E&C1 and E&C2 parties, who are biased against a group of articles.

And what are the articles I've disrupted? As someone who's never created a plot-only article and as someone who routinely adds reception information to articles, what are the articles I've disrupted? Do you know many articles some people in the Support section have disrupted? It's funny you ignore all the other incivility at WT:FICT and all the disruption by supporters of Masem's proposal and single me out. It's funny that multiple people in the Support section have been referring to other editors' good faith edits as "vandalism", and you and Masem single me out.

So, seeing as you've opposed my edits to WP:NOT, you have the opposite opinion of the FICT proposal that I do, you decided to summarize the arguments by the opposers but did not also summarize the arguments by the supporters, you said the opposers need something "actionable", you were an involved party of E&C1, and you were contacted by an editor under an editing restriction to perform edits they are not allowed to perform — is this your "neutral third opinion" here on my civility? I haven't even begun to say what I really think at WT:FICT. I've bitten my tongue and I think I've been pretty civil. Of the people who've commented at WT:FICT, I could easily point out who I think are the productive editors and the disruptive ones. I won't be commenting at WT:FICT for a week so you can see for yourself if the discussion becomes productive with my absence. Thanks. I think we can mark this thread as resolved. --Pixelface (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to read such huge blocks of text (as I said elsewhere, my time is limited). But, as you even demonstrate in this thread, your replies tend to be (much) longer than what you are replying to, and you raise new (or the same) points over and over again and request answers until the editors are tired of replying to you (as I am right now), in which case you claim consensus. This is (I guess) exactly what Masem meant with "shout the loudest to make their point overly clear". And this in turn is what I meant with Tendentious editing. (There is no need to reply to this, as I am neither asking you a question, nor am I going to read another huge block of text. I know your position already.) – sgeureka ^t•c 06:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Your time is limited, but you can read this huge block of text at WT:FICT and summarize of all of it? And I haven't been claiming consensus. I've been saying there is no consensus. And it's funny you link to WP:TE at WQA, since TE was created by an admin infamous for their rampant incivility. I won't be replying here anymore. --Pixelface (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I didn't read that huge block of text and never claimed I did; I skipped the replies of soapboxing people and was still perfectly able to get the gist of it. – sgeureka ^t•c 02:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you guys actually want a 3rd-party opinion on this issue, I suggest you take WP:TLDR into account. I for one don't have the time to sort through all of this mess ;p :) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe my initial paragraph summarized the issue to the TLDR degree. --MASEM 04:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll agree with that. I looked at the diffs, and I don't see anything egregious -- it just kind of sounds like a heated policy discussion. The only diff I'm not sure I care for is "bringing up a point that doesn't apply to the specific section of the discussion while pulling from the user's history to try to prove them wrong".

As far as repeating the same arguments over and over, this is why I have given up participating in any discussions regarding a change in policy. I frankly can't even stand to read them. :) If further action needs to be taken beyond observing that, yes, that has been a very frustrating discussion with tensions rising and the occasional ad hominem attack, somebody else needs to do it, because I just can't bring myself to read that debate. Every time I try, my eyes glaze over and I start to get a headache :D Pixelface is not helping, but there must be a dozen other editors making equally unhelpful comments. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I will point out WP:TLDR to Pixelface on his Talk page. That much I feel is definitely an appropriate action ;) If we need to go past that, like I say, somebody else will have to do it. Large blocks of text with no paragraph breaks make my head go POP! --Jaysweet (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is another case of what I certainly believe to be tenatious and uncivil editing. On WT:NOT, Pixelface has posted the same basic arguments with the same links to AFDs to support the point in a matter of 3 hours (not accounting for the fact that Pixelface has used the same points repeated in the same discussion thread or elsewhere on NOT): first time, second time, third. It's one thing to stick to your guns for something you believe in, but this type of discussion is not helpful to reaching a conclusion. --MASEM 02:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Linking to AFDs where PLOT is ignored is not uncivil, Masem. It actually shows that PLOT does not reflect consensus. Would you like me to show you what real incivility looks like? There are several people at WT:FICT I can cite. --Pixelface (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To Pixelface: I still don't think this is really a civility issue, but Masem has a point about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of reiterating the same links multiple times. You might consider creating a sub-page off of your user page which summarizes this point, and then you can just very briefly link to that when it is relevant to your argument, e.g. "Many articles that start as plot summaries go on to become FAs, see User:Pixelface/My chosen AfDs". This could help cut down on the verbosity of the discussion, and give your argument more impact.

Masem, what action do you want taken here? I don't see any egregious civility issues, and while Pixelface is being sorta tedious, the discussion itself is inherently tedious and I don't see how that can be avoided. Such is the nature of (or IMO, failure of) the consensus-based decision-making process when you have far too many participants. :/ (which, again, is why I refuse to participate in policy discussions on Wikipedia anymore under any circumstances) I have suggested that Pixelface take a different tack... But if he wants to write way too much text in a discussion that already has way too much text, there's not much that can be done to stop him, I don't think. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you got the one that can be dealt with here: at least as I observed it, the long and mostly repetitive replies were questionable and thus I brought the point up here (and thus why the pre-apologies if they weren't considered a problem). I see no problem if Pixelface wants to refer to an essay of his/her own should they want to reiterate the same points, just to help improve discussion and readability of talk pages. Assuming Pixelface does this, I consider this aspect resolved, and apologize for the inconvinence. There's a larger issue of how Pixelface's general approach to these discussion (the tone and nature) is in line with the resolutions of the ArbCom Episode and Character cases, which would need to have a more formal review beyond what this process can provide (including others that may have escalliated the situation like Ned Scott and TTN) there should the issue continue to grow. --MASEM 14:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It is Pixel's disputatious, passive-aggressive responses & he knows it - he can drop the unconvincing, wide-eyed "who-me?" act. This is why, Pixel, you have been the subject of numerous discussions at AN/I; you STILL have not apologised to User:Moreschi for wasting his time cleaning up after your churlish, pointy and disruptive little outburst on the Symphony pages. Honestly, what are hoping to gain in all this? As far as I can tell, every time you try to push your point, you succeed in warming the cockles of those who already agree with your position, and antagonising most everyone else. Frankly, this is RfC fodder. Eusebeus (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Eusebeus -- do you have specific complaints about recent behavior? The WP:POINTy symphony merge proposal was a pretty lousy thing to do, but that was like three months ago. The rest of your comment is just ambiguous and vague insults towards Pixelface.

Again I would reiterate to Pixelface's detractors: What action do you want taken? I don't see anything blockable here, and I've already asked Pixelface if he would please be less tedious. If the only tedentious editing he's done recently is at that horribly tedious discussion over at WT:FICT, I'm inclined to write it off as pissing in the ocean -- it's kinda rude and gross, but there was already a lot of nasty water there to begin with. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Findings by Jaysweet (talk · contribs)

I thought it would be worth summarizing my findings, in support of the compromise proposal below.

Pixelface's nature of argumentation at WT:FICT (repeating the same arguments over, occasional red herrings and borderline ad hominem attacks) is tedious and somewhat disruptive to the consensus process.
Moreover, not only is this style of argumentation not helpful to consensus, there is also strong reason to believe that it is not helpful to Pixelface's position either. Repeating the same arguments without further elaboration or attempts at compromise has the effect of diluting the argument, and may create a perception that Pixelface does not grasp the issues being raised by the other side. It would be beneficial to Pixelface, as well as the community at large, if he were to take a few steps back and possibly limit the volume of his participation on this discussion.
Despite the above, Pixelface is far from the only editor engaging in such tedentious behavior at WT:FICT, and furthermore his behavior is pretty much on par with what happens in every policy discussion I have seen. Therefore, I cannot justify any administrative action against Pixelface. Compromise and voluntary compliance are the only options.
The community would do well to address the dysfunctional process for addressing policy issues. It is my belief that the effectiveness of consensus as a decision-making process begins to fall off rapidly with >7 participants, and with >20 participants it is completely ineffectual. However, this is only my opinion, and any remedy to the dysfunctional policy-setting process is far beyond the scope of WQA.

--Jaysweet (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Findings by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk · contribs)

In partial response to Jaysweet:

The nature of argumentation at WT:FICT (repeating the same arguments over, occasional red herrings and borderline "ad hominen" attacs) is indeed tedious and somewhat disruptive to the consensus process; however, participants on both sides of the discussion have engaged in such behavior.
This style of argumentation may indeed not be helpful to consensus, but because both sides have done so, neither side is really being helped here at convincing their opposition. Again, participants on both sides are repeating the same arguments without further elaboration or attempts at compromise, which may create a perception that multiple editors do not grasp the isues being raised by the other side. If Pixelface should step back, then so should a number of others again on both sides of the discussion or we should find a way to get totally new editors into the discussion who have not yet commented.
I obviously agree with this point about administrative action against Pixelface being unwarranted.
Here I think we need to think of ways of getting the larger community involved in the discussion.

Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with all of this. While I stand by my findings, I think you could replace "Pixelface" with at least a half a dozen other editors and they would be equally true. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

WT:FICT compromise proposal

Ooo, just when I was about to give up, there is some hope!

Pixelface, as per above, would you agree to create one or more essays in your user space which summarize your main points, and then rather than constantly reiterate them on WT:FICT whenever a new participant shows up, you can just provide a one- or two-sentence reply directing them to your essay? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally against pointing people to essays. I already told Masem on June 10 that I wouldn't comment at WT:FICT for a week. And I haven't commented there since June 9. That was 4 days ago. On June 17, I will ask Masem if he thinks the discussion at WT:FICT improved with my absence. If Masem thinks it has, I won't comment at FICT until the RFC is over on July 3. I've already given my suggestion above of how I think the discussion could be improved: the fill-in-the-blank questions that I think the community should be asked. I'd be happy to give my opinions on those questions at FICT on June 17. Saying Masem wasted his time rewriting FICT was uncivil of me. Asking Masem "Are you done playing Internet lawyer" was uncivil of me. Masem, I apologize for making those statements. But I think Masem is behaving like he owns WT:FICT. Masem has made 679 edits to the talk page — that's more than anyone else and over 100 more edits than the next editor. For perspective, I've made 36 edits to WT:FICT. I will work on my tone. But other than that, I seriously don't know what Masem wants. I'm not the only one confused. I've asked how FICT applies to various articles with no answer. Masem says WP:NOT#PLOT is not disputed (it is). At this AFD I *added* reception information to the article and Masem dismissed it. Masem's an admin. So please ask Masem if the article that got deleted met the current version of FICT or not. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to mark this as "Stuck" then. As I mentioned before, the general tone and productivity of the discussion is about on par for what I've seen with policy discussions. This is a Wikipedia-wide problem, and far beyond the scope of a Wikiquette alert. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be marked as resolved because I've already apologized to Masem for two uncivil comments I made towards him, I agreed to leave WT:FICT so Masem could see if the atmosphere improved, and even if I have been "repetitive and tedious", that's not a violation of the civility policy. --Pixelface (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

To me, it's resolved, in the sense that WQA cannot do more than with what I've seen and I accept Pixelface's apologies on the comments; there is a general larger issue of incivility all about these policy pages (beyond just Pixelface) that probably rubs against the ArbCom request that people not inflame this dispute and works towards a compromise solution, but not to a point where its necessary to call them in to put down enforcement against that. I will note I never asked Pixelface to not comment at FICT, and though FICT has been calm over the past week because Pixel's not replied, I think this is more due to the fact that we've resigned that as it sits, the current version of FICT is not going to work (the split between inclusionists and deletionists is too great to overcome) in addition to the issues falling more to a question of the flexibility within NOTE before readdressing how to fix FICT. --MASEM 05:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

– to RFC and back to mediation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Pmanderson has continued to repeatedly utilize personal attacks against me, after being asked several times by myself and others to desist.

I believe his reasoning is an interpretation that I accused him of being racist (further confirmed here). I attempted to clarify that it was his comment of "we are not here to incorporate the POV of the Japanese General Staff" to which I objected.

Examples of his attacks include the following links: [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]

Requests for him to desist in such activity can be found at the following links: [89] [90] [91]

Any feedback would be appreciated. Oberiko (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see grounds for this charge, which seems to stem more from frustration not rudeness. You seem to be locked in a content dispute, but it has not devolved into the kind of uncivil name calling that would make WQA appropriate; this is not dispute resolution by other means. On a side note, I have to laugh over the actual content being disputed. Consensus among historians is so overwhelming about the start of WWII that any attempt to provide an alternate "start" date would be so heavily qualified with footnote after footnote going through the POV revisionism that the article would lose all its readers before they even got beyond the opening paragraph. This argument may be intense, but as it stands the net result will be the loss of credibility and likely readability. Eusebeus (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Baseless wikilawyering. Click randomly on the links above and see nothing of consequence. I don't see how anyone can object to the comment "we are not here to incorporate the POV of the Japanese General Staff": we are not. BTW I concur with Eusebeus's analysis of the dispute. Jooler (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I don't see personal attacks, I see discussion and some disagrement. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as a personal attack - no matter how frustrating it may be. SilkTork *^YES! 10:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? I do not see how, at the least, the following are not personal attacks:

"No process that contains Oberiko can come to any useful end; "
"Can Oberiko read English?"

Oberiko (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I see divisive obstructionism from Pmanderson, who rejects anything from Oberiko as Not Invented Here. Pmanderson is continually using offensive communication styles to belittle and dismiss Oberiko. For instance, he uses the single word "liar" in his edit summary response to Oberiko here. I wish to see an end to the hostility in the debate. Binksternet (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel it was somewhat disingenuous to have failed to point out that this stems from an ongoing mediation case. I am inclined to let the mediation cabal deal with it... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My reasons for calling Oberiko a liar are summarized here: not only his misrepresentation of other editor's comments, but his reading of the sources. He cites as opposition to 1939 a source which says The Second World War opened with the assault on Poland. There are various less damaging explanations for this, including difficulty with English, and in longer discussions, I have considered them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the edit summary liar is in response to this edit, which ascribes to me a position I have never stated, because I disagree with it. It may well be intemperate, but it is not unprovoked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As an admin uninvolved in this situation, but someone who has had prior disputes with PMAnderson, the above links to not show any personal attacks. I agree with Jaysweet. This should stay in mediation. LaraLove|Talk 04:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In this particular dispute I can point to numerous instances ([92] [93]) of Oberiko apparently misinterpreting my comments and mis-quoting them back to me. It is questionable whether this always arises from an accidental misunderstanding, and I think PMAnderson has concluded that on the whole it does not. Jooler (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I echo what has been said by LaraLove and Jaysweet - there are no issues concerning WQA here. The concerns raised by the editor initiating this may be more appropriate for RFC, but otherwise, should be left to mediation. There's nothing else to add. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Redux

User has been bullying other users at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Tennis for days on end now, while burying other people's arguments under many repeats of the same long-winded rhetorics, against the prevailing consensus. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You may as well add me to the complaint as well, since I'm the first one who broke the assumption of good faith. I'd sum up the ongoing argument as WP:TRUTH v. WP:WIKILAWYERING. Somedumbyankee (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear god, I stared at that discussion for like 5 minutes, and while I understand what is being debated, I still don't have the slightest clue what each side's arguments are. It's a total mess.

I don't think Redux is violating the civility guidelines or anything (although, with that ridiculous mess of a discussion, who knows? If there is something I missed, feel free to provide a specific diff of the offending behavior), but he/she, along with a number of other editors, are unintentionally muddying the waters to the point where it is impossible to discern any sort of consensus or logic from that discussion.

I have left a note on the page in question suggesting a better way to proceed. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't think this will generate results. We just basically have aggressive behaviour by one person who seems to feel the need to voluminously reply to anything said in opposition to him (which represents most people on the page) and perpetually raises straw man arguments and misquotes/twists policy to sound like it agrees with him. There is a bullying attitude, but I wouldn't say it's actually extended to actual bullying at this stage. However there is a clear resistance to developing any consensus which digresses from his own predetermined opinions, and somewhat deliberate attempts to stop it from developing. Orderinchaos 01:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Redux is not "bullying" or "burying" anyone against the "prevailing consensus." This alert is absurd, ridiculous, and unwarranted (notice the lack of diffs by the original poster) and is yet another effort to short-circuit the debate by those who disagree with the elimination of diacritics in the names of tennis biographies on English Wikipedia. Tennis expert (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Completely absurd alert from this user (who btw has followed the discussion during retirement :) ) When is it bullying to state one's opinions? Moreover, sometimes one has to state them again, as some refuse to listen. --HJensen, talk 19:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

HJensen's own contributions on this topic both now and in previous iterations of the debate elsewhere have been fairly incivil on a fairly consistent basis. Less verbose than Redux, but a hell of a lot more personal. Orderinchaos 01:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, to help out, without going too much into the exact theme of that discussion. Jaysweet, don't feel bad ;), that discussion is at a state now that makes it very, very difficult to catch up. The general theme is actually very similar to this discussion, currently ongoing at the talk page of WP:BLP. That is, what is the extent of community discretion to discredit common usage, once verified, on the basis of unverifiable assertions by users. Particularly, if we are seeing common usage in English-language sources, which would define the title of our article, is it valid for us to claim that all the sources are "wrong" and decide that Wikipedia will right that wrong? My answer to that has been no, because that would be original research and point of view. On the tennis discussion, people are now claiming that they have consensus to retain status quo. We had consensus in a previous discussion to move, but then this consensus was considered "insufficient". I didn't mind. Then, of course, canvassing started to take place. I have also explained that, unless it can be established that shuning verified common usage on whichever ground that is based on user assertion is not original research and point of view, it will mean that we cannot have localized consensus to authorize that, because we have a more significant consensus, established in WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV, that says that those are non-negotiable in writing the encyclopedia — so far, people have actually admitted that the sources will indeed show common usage without diacritics, but that that's meaningless for [whatever reason] -- that's not negating OR and POV, that's continuing to give unverifiable reasons why we should ignore the sources, that is, OR and POV..
Now, I have indeed been posting more vehemently, but the purpose of this, and it has been clearly stated, is not to "bury" anyone, but rather to cause discussion. Otherwise, what we have is people coming over and saying "oppose because removing diacritics proves only that no author had a properly configured keyboad". That's not the only claim made, of course, but it is actually one of them. Was that ideal? No more than the alternative would have been: have people "vote" and then claim that, by headcount, there is consensus to maintain [what is essentially] original research and POV. They can, of course, attempt to establish that it is not. That is why we need discussion, not voting. But people only wanted to vote, as it was done in other occasions when diacritics and spellings were discussed. In the discussion that I have been able to provoke, some people have been personally offended for being told that they are wrong, which is all I have done; they have also been refusing to get the point and then insisting that there is no point in discussing it further, calling my counter-argumentation "bulying". Redux (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No, your argumentative style (not your argument itself) is borderline bullying. You just repeat the same (false) arguments in 500 word essays over and over and over again as if this actually helps debate. The word I was looking for was filibuster. The only reason it is "difficult to catch up" is that any poor sod who wants to figure out what is going on has to read pages of padding from one contributor who seeks to contest every opposing editor/rationale in exactly the same way. This is not discussion, it is a poorly concealed form of social engineering to create a "last man standing" scenario so your arguments, which not only represent a minority viewpoint in the discussion but need greater justification given that they're a change from the previous consensus (demonstrated by no significant changes over a two-year period) will trump others simply because they've been worn into the ground. Moreover you have shown an arrogance and dismissiveness towards other contributors (especially indisputably good faith ones such as Kotniski and Evlekis, from whose contributions to the debate I have found stuff I didn't know) which is entirely unacceptable. These things have stood for a very long time with basically noone challenging them, now we have three or four editors from one project working to try and overturn that. No demonstrable cause has been given for this action, nor has it been put in the context of any actual policy, other than a chronically poorly-worded guideline which seems to trip all over itself and several policies which don't relate to the situation at hand, given that the players' correct names are verifiable in reliable sources with diacritics and no original research needs to be entertained to establish what they are. Orderinchaos 01:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not much point in rehashing the argument here. The point is basically that the two sides are talking past each other and WP:IDHT is the reason why civility has left the conversation. There is a guideline, and one side of the debate rejects that guideline. It's a valid question for the guideline, and WT:UE is probably the place the discussion should happen, though there's a separate proposed policy at WP:UD. Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Somedumbyankee has summed it up very well. In a discussion where both sides are completely unwilling to compromise and where communication is rapidly breaking down, a background level of incivility is almost unavoidable. I would urge everyone involved in the discussion to take a deep breath and back away. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So, now Redux is not "bullying," he or she is "borderline bullying." Where, oh where, do we draw the line? If you (Orderinchaos) believed Redux's arguments to be "(true)" instead of "(false)," would you believe it OK to post them over-and-over again? I'm asking because that's exactly what the opposition to the tennis moves requests has been doing. In fact, because the opposition appears to be more numerous in terms of numbers of editors who have posted (perhaps because of canvassing), who exactly is trying to create the "last man (or woman) standing scenario" and who exactly is trying to wear whom into the ground? Your silence about this tactic is really quite significant. I've asked before and I'll ask again: supply diffs to support your claims that Redux has been bullying, arrogant, or dismissive. Otherwise, stop making the claims. Finally, you've tried to turn this Wikiquette alert into yet another debate about the substance of the tennis moves request. This is clearly not the appropriate venue for that. Tennis expert (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No I haven't - I've focussed squarely on behaviour. Bullying would include threats beyond the action or user talk page stuff, this is borderline bullying as it's stayed within the confines but is still aggressive, dismissive and single-minded, and is clearly operating in a deliberate and tactical manner to drive off other contributors rather than engage with the facts. Also, the oppose side has in general behaved well on this occasion. In a previous debate where I took a similar stance several months ago, some who agreed with my stated position behaved reprehensibly, and it was one of the main reasons I withdrew from that debate after it failed to go to ArbCom. I don't *need* diffs - the RM/Tennis page stands as evidence by itself to any neutral person (and several have in fact reviewed it to that effect). Orderinchaos 00:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on not needing the diffs yourself. Obviously, you know in your own mind what you mean in your own posts. But it's only fair to readers new to this debate and to Redux that the complainers/accusers supply the diffs. I thought that was required in situations like this. In my opinion, the adamant refusal to provide them despite being asked to do so is persuasive evidence of a lack of evidence to support the complaints/accusations. Therefore, they should be dismissed out-of-hand. Tennis expert (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"Adamant refusal" is blatantly false. I was just about to run out for a bus to an all-day class when I wrote that (00:03 = 08:03 AWST), and still have assignments due this coming week, so my time on Wikipedia is limited enough without chasing down diffs for things. Please assume good faith, as I have towards yourself. Orderinchaos 07:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Weird on three counts. (1) You are apparently saying that we should assume your good faith and not ask for any diffs when you publicly accuse editors of wrongdoing. That's not how this works. (2) You didn't say anything about needing to catch a bus for an all-day class. Instead, you said, "I don't *need* diffs - the RM/Tennis page stands as evidence by itself to any neutral person...." Because I can't read your mind, that sounded like an adamant refusal to me. But I look forward to your list of diffs to support the "borderline bullying" accusation. (3) As for your always assuming good faith toward me, that really meshes well with your threatened block of me the very first time you ever contacted me on anything, which you later admitted was hasty and unwarranted. Tennis expert (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if my earlier wording was unclear - I was most certainly not refusing (more expressing incredulity than anything else). I didn't feel it necessary to burden the page with minutiae of my offline life as it seemed irrelevant at the time. As for your point 3, I did apologise and retract (not only on your talk page but also openly on AN/I) as soon as I realised I had chronically misunderstood the situation. There was in this case a separation between intent and result - the result of the action had been disruptive, but there was no intent to disrupt and I realised you'd been left somewhat holding the can for the decisions of others. As an aside, if you note that I did not initiate *this* action but yet seem to have been left with it by its initiators, there is a surprising amount in common between your position then and mine now. Orderinchaos 20:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) I believe there is a difference between apologizing for an action and then saying I never did it versus simply apologizing. (2) The difference between you and me is that I stopped making tennis article page name moves when the support I had thought was already there did not materialize. (That support is now there in the proposal to make the moves but not for immediately making them.) You, however, persist in pursuing this Wikiquette alert against Redux when the initiator appears to be long gone. So, in addition to your ongoing refusal (temporary?) to provide diffs, our positions are not as "common" as you apparently believe. Tennis expert (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I would encourage those involved to read WP:WQA#Findings by Jaysweet (talk · contribs), as well as WP:WQA#Findings by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk · contribs) above -- except, replace "Masem" with "Guido den Broder", replace "Pixelface" with "Redux", replace "Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles" with "Tennis expert", and replace "WT:FICT" with "Wikipedia:Requested moves/Tennis". It's essentially the same exact problem... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about (replace "Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles" with "Tennis expert")? Tennis expert (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I felt that Le Grand's role in the WP:WQA#User:Pixelface discussion further up this page is pretty similar to your role in this discussion. (And you should take that as a compliment, I thought Le Grand was being quite rational ;D ) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was confused because that user tried to end the discussion with "findings." Even I (who has a clearly expressed preexisting opinion) would not be enough of a bully (or filibusterer or oppressor or liar (or arrogant or dismissive SOB)) to attempt that tactic. ;-) Tennis expert (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(As an aside, filibuster effectively means jamming the airwaves to prevent debate - I don't think you could be accused of that in this case!) Orderinchaos 00:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, fair point. He was putting his opinion in juxtaposition to the "Findings" section I had already created based on what I saw as a 3rd party. Maybe a bit heavy-handed, but I appreciated his comments anyway.

Anyway, you're right, that part of the analogy is weak. But the overall similarity between the discussions is striking... In both cases, the complaint is about a user who is endlessly repeating themselves on a hopelessly tedious policy discussion. That's definitely not helpful, but I'm not going to go issuing a warning to Redux (or Pixelface) when there are a half a dozen other people on that page on both sides of the argument being just as repetitive and tedious :D

The same advice I gave to Pixelface would apply here: Summarize your arguments on a subpage in your user space, and then link to that rather than repeat yourself. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree that repetitive posting is not the best way to conduct discussion. Except in this case, were it not for repetitive posting, there would have been no discussion at all. We had seen how discussions on this and other similar topics have taken place: there is canvassing, and many users show up sustaining a "oppose" — thus dragging the process into a vote-like situation — per [whatever reason]. Since we define filibuster as jamming the airways to prevent debate, we might say that canvassing is the filibuster in this situation.
So how to try and break this trend? I thought a way to do that was to respond to people individually, because that would probably cause at least a few of them to engage in actual discussion, where they would need to be able to sustain their rationale convincingly. What would be the alternative? Certainly not wait until 15 people, who knows how many "canvassed" (is that a word?), have posted "oppose because Wikipedia can't disrespect x culture" and, after a while, make an umbrella post deconstructing the rationale, when people have already moved on and are probably not even monitoring the discussion anymore. And then what? Count signatures and see which "side" has the most supporters? That's a vote (and a questionable one at that, if there has been canvassing), not a discussion. Redux (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)