Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive93

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Noloop

There's more background here than anyone will want to go through, I think, going back to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Slrubenstein and further back. User:Noloop and other editors, including me, have been involved in some disputes on articles related to Jesus' historicity for a few months; the current flashpoint is Talk:Historicity of Jesus. I think his characterization of other editors is getting out of hand.

In a comment made yesterday, he tells me that "You need to keep your religion out of it." Just to be clear, I haven't identified myself as a member of any religion; this is an assumption that Noloop has made based on his perception of my edits. Noloop has many disparaging remarks about Christianity, including a previous edit in the same conversation: "Next, someone will object to your use of Jesus freaks as sources, and so on. Keep it respectful, please." Here, he tells another editor that "You either need to be honest or stop editing." Noloop's most recent edit, directed at me, reads in part, "Your disruptive and dishonest "discussion" has gone on for months...Again and again and again you try to use authors and publishers who explictly promote religious belief in Jesus Christ as supposedly neutral sources. Again and again it is pointed out to you that worship is virtually the definition of NOT NEUTRAL. For MONTHS you have been playing these games. Show a shred of respect and understanding for other editors the principles of Wikipedia..." I can't help but see it as ironic that an editor can call me disruptive and dishonest and at the same time ask me to "show a shred of respect and understanding," especially since Noloop continually ignores the substantive point that the sources he objects to are by and large academic experts on the topic. What I would hope is that Noloop would tone down his rhetoric, stop making assumptions about other editors' religious beliefs, and stop trying to exclude sources from the article based on religious litmus tests. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And from today: "Akhilleus, make an effort to be thoughtful, constructive, to actually listen to what others say.". --Akhilleus (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the remark about "Jesus freaks" was a comment about language describing sources, not the sources themselves. Akhilleus dismissed a source preferred by some editors as a "random Swedish dude." I felt that was non-constructive and would lead to dismissal of his preferred sources in pejorative terms as well, e.g. as "Jesus freaks". I used the phrase as an example of what we want to avoid. His presentation of my comments, stripped of context, distorts the truth of what happened. It is precisely that kind of misrepresentation of others that leads me to call him dishonest. Noloop (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to complain about dishonest presentation of comments that strips them of context and distorts the truth of what happened, you'd do well to note that when I made the "random Swedish dudes" comment, I was echoing the phrasing of another editor, who asked "Can't we get out a summary of historical Jesus studies, and frame it within that context, before barraging the reader with critics and Dawkins and random Swedish dudes." There's a lot of conversation on the talk page about the particular Swedes referred to, which I hope people would take the time to look through, even though it's verrrry long. A salient fact from that discussion is that the Swedes in question are not experts in ancient history or biblical studies, the academic disciplines most obviously relevant to the subject of the article. So, they're "random" in the sense that it's as surprising to use them in an article like this as it is to use an expert on the Roman Empire as a source in an article on industrial policy in 19th century Norway. "Swedish dudes" is facetious, I admit it, and I'm happy not to use the phrase any more.
On the other hand, Noloop hasn't been shy in stating his opinion about sources either, and given his attitude towards scholars who have religious commitments (see, e.g. this comment and this RfC he started earlier today, and note this comment by another editors) it's easy to see "Jesus freaks" not as a hypothetical comment, but as a representation of Noloop's true feelings. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism and libel statements posted by user:93.97.27.62

User:93.97.27.62 has made several counterfactual edits to posts/ vandalism involving or associated with the music producer, Carl M Cox.

User:93.97.27.62 has since made uncivil, illfounded and libel remarks about the music producer, Carl M Cox without reason or justification.

User:93.97.27.62 has no talk page in order to address these matters.

Request is made for 1. Offending remarks to me permently deleted to avoid further potential litigation and 2. User:93.97.27.62 to be banned from wikipedia.

This request shall be reviewed within the next 48 hours for a status update.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/93.97.27.62 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greatest_Hits_(2009_Samantha_Fox_album)&diff=prev&oldid=388087666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.195.125 (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of zero tolerance for legal threats; see WP:NLT. If you want any assistance with this matter, you will have to withdraw the legal threat. If you do, I'll try to look into the issue. Looie496 (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Abuse by Users Paul.h & Binksternet in San Francisco Article

San Francisco http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:San_Francisco#Economy_second_photo. This dispute goes back to December 2009 regard a photo of San Francisco's financial district in the economy section of the San Francisco article. There was disagreement over which picture should be used and discussion and consensus was started. The discussion ended without a decision and the area was left without a photo for quite sometime until a new picture was placed there a few months ago. On October 6, according to the page's history, the user Paul h. decided to replace the photo with an original one citing that his is a "better one", ignoring the previous discussion held months before, as well as acting arbitrarily, and in my opinion deliberately inviting an edit war by his comment: "and see what happens." Although I reverted the picture back, he and another editor Binksternet continued to do so, without any kind of consensus except for what was reached between the two of them. Possibly privately Now, both editors do not and are trying not to have a discussion, although they conversely have pleaded for one, and are trying to intimidate, bully, and threatened me as an editor into forcing me to accept their decision. Binksternet acting on Paulh's behalf is now trying to silence me by first attempting to have me blocked by a 3R complaint, but was rejected. He continues to taunt me in baiting language as I quote directly from his talk page: "

And have also rejected my requests to wait for Admin mediation: "Why don't you don't listen to me for a change and wait for an Admin to decide and the WQA to be settled, rather than continue to talk and thus keep pouring gasoline into the fire?"

His response: "I will not wait for the cavalry, however. I feel quite justified in making my own decisions, and I know which images make more sense to me." Showing my point that he does not and is not looking for discussion, only forcing decisions that is only adequate for himself down others. Eman007 (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

When a single editor is in a dispute with multiple other editors, and can't get any support from other editors, that single editor has to give way. If nobody backs you, you need to give up the fight. You are right on the verge of getting blocked for edit-warring, as you have been told. Admins do not get involved in mediating issues like this. Looie496 (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
But as I mentioned before, and as noted on the link I presented, this was a discussion and a consensus going back months, as I did myself have support from other editors on that issue. They also themselves said that they are willing to discuss, but this never happened. Furthermore, there has not been enough time for other editors to come in and have their say and in put support. I'm also curious as your choice of word "fight". Since when is this "fighting"? You make it sound as if you're supposed to flame in order to get your edits approved? Eman007 (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
If you have support from other editors, then you don't need to revert over and over again; the other editors will help. If that takes time, then wait. Edit warring is not the solution. Looie496 (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The thing is I did wait. The history backs and supports this. I only reverted after they reverted it many times themselves and not willing to wait until other editors had their say and a conclusion from the previous discussion from back in December than other editors had been reached. As I noted and this again shows, Paul simpled acted, then got approval for his action in less than 24 hours before any of the other editors had their say. Paul is willing to wait and hold a discussion for a panorama photo on the same page, and requested the same for this dispute, but then they acted the opposite. I even suggested that someone go and take a new photo and approve that, but this was ignored. Eman007 (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to note User:Binksternet and User:Paul.h have not been yet been informed of this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

OK I have left them both a note about this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, MilborneOne. I cannot see why I am mentioned in this WQA; I have never been rude to Eman007. The first thing I did about the File:FinancialNorth.jpg image at the San Francisco article was to say on the Talk page that I preferred it for its composition. This entry of mine overruled Eman007 by a factor of three to one, including an IP editor who reverted him. Eleven hours later I reverted Eman007 with the edit summary "rv no consensus for that image", meaning that a new consensus had formed, with three holding a different opinion than he alone. Following this, I took part in talk page discussions about a panorama image, and I reverted Eman007's deletion of the FinancialNorth image one more time when he acted outside of the new consensus. In this whole process, I have not been rude with him. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I informed both of them on the discussion page of the article this morning of my intention of taking this here, and on Binksternet's talk page, as not only Binksternet acknowledged it, but he claimed he would put in his say here, to which at present he hasn't. Its all there on the San Francisco discussion page. 23:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Binksternet is bending the truth a bit and not telling all and everything.
As I mentioned before and can be viewed on the history page. Paulh acted arbitrarily, then formed a very quick consensus, before I and other anyone editors had their say. Paul also ignored an inconclusive conversation started back in December about that photo. There is another editor User:Optigan13, that also had his/her say, but didn't comment on it.
And speaking of that IP editior, this what he/she said:
'"I see this has been a serial problem with this article, considering the discussion further up on this talk page. Any of the photos in that section ("FinancialNorth.jpg"; "Montgomerystreetsf.jpg"; "Federal Reserve Band (San Francisco).jpg") except #2 (SanFranciscoEmbarcadero.jpg) would be fine as a replacement, and even the cropped version of #2 is better than the one currently there now. Thoughts?--64.81.57.93 (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)"'
I also made a suggestion:
"I'm actually going to go out and take a much better version today, taking advantage of the clear weather we've been having"
To which they ignored. Both editors are essentially saying "its my way, or the highway". So, essentially if I or other editor want to put up anything different than what they want on that article, expect Paul and Binksternet to gang up and force them out, then exploit a wikipedia rule to silence a critic.
So that editor didn't exactly approve of Paulh decision and was up for any of the photos from our previous discussion to be placed there.
The reason why I bring up the Panorama photo is that, Paul and Binksternet do not act arbitrarily there and are having a discussion on it, but they are not for this particular photo in question. Binksternet has been rude in the sense that he did not attempt to engage in any discussion or consensus with me or any other ediotrs and is seemingly acting in Pauls behalf to censure and silence me. He tried to have me blocked due to 3R, and when I told him that it didn't stand, he snidely claimed it was my "opinion". Eman007 (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I saw Eman007's offer to take a photo himself and I approved of it, but I did not wait for it. Also, I saw his determination to get an admin on the job, but again I did not wait for it. I was not going to trust that actions promised were going to be acted upon, and I wanted a decision made in the meantime. Eman007 saying right here that I ignored his announcement that he would take another photo is a little premature, as the new photo cannot be judged until it is delivered. Eman007 expects incorrectly that he will be dismissed if he submits a better photo. I, for one, will judge each photo on its merits rather than make a decision ahead of time.
Eman007's representation of what this dispute is about is based on a false assumption that Paul.h started it. I have charted out a brief history of the dispute so that people can see that Eman007 repeatedly failed to assume good faith on the part of IP editors, and that he did not notice he was the edit warrior when he was faced with three editors who opposed his preference. Eman007 appears not to understand that a consensus may well form against him; he has acted as if such a consensus is not a real one. This attitude will continue to cause him trouble with others until it is righted. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Binksternet continues to bend the truth further.

For starters, he did not give any kind approval for me taking any photo. I suggested that I take a photo, and neither him or PaulH responded. Now he has gone and created a distortion of events on the discussion page of the San Francisco article. to further prove his "innocence" and slander me even further though I already give a summary previously in this thread twice over. But as always and part of his abuse, he does not seem to listen or look at my point of view. Eman007 (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You resorting to dishonesty is disgusting and vile Binksternet.
For starters, dating back to the original discussion back in December 2009, while the user Optigan liked FinancialNorth1, he preferred a cropped version of the fourth photo, to which no including PaulH or you for that matter said anything as clearly noted in the discussion. As i'm saying again for the umpteenth time and as the record showed, no decision was made and the discussion ended. Paulh, or you did not say anything. If he wanted the photo then, why didn't he continue to press his case then and convince a consensus then? I would've left it at that then, but instead he and other editors including Binksternet remained silent. I didn't restart the discussion because I assumed that the editors simply lost interest, or didn't have the time.
Furthermore, I did not "slip in" as you disgustingly, dishonestly, facetiously say. I only added that photo because I noticed for the time being that no one had made a decision since the original discussion back in January. Again, no one did or said anything for months after I put in the photo. You and Paulh cannot claim you didn't see the change, because you made several other edits throughout the article for months.
Again, Paul did not form a consensus prior to the change, or continue the discussion where it had left off. As soon as the IP editor suggested a discussion over which photo to use, Paulh instead changed the photo, then got a "consensus" from Binksternet. The IP editor liked the photo, but, quoting the editor again:
"Any of the photos in that section ("FinancialNorth.jpg"; "Montgomerystreetsf.jpg"; "Federal Reserve Band (San Francisco).jpg") except #2 (SanFranciscoEmbarcadero.jpg) would be fine as a replacement, and even the cropped version of #2 is better than the one currently there now. Thoughts?--64.81.57.93 (talk)"
"I'm going to replace it with "FinancialNorth.jpg" and see what happens."
The crux of it was that Paulh made the change before even Binksternet approved it, or I or other editors could respond. So what consensus?
Binksternet's abusive little crusade against me shows my point that he and Paul have no interest in perusing collaborative editing efforts. Despite my reverts, I at least agreed to having a discussion and a "photo choosing contest" as it were. Paulh did not and Binksternet is now acting as some kind of enforcing. I don't see Binksternet asking the IP editor in question or other editors to the SF article including Optigan13 have their say either in this. He is not apologizing to me and asking that we resume the discussion and consensus, something that at least Paulh did earlier. Only showing his intentions as pure slander towards me as attempt to have me banned purely because he disagrees with my edits or whatever personal victory he may get by flaming me
Eman007 (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry you think I want you banned. I want you to realize that IP editors are worthy editors. Your actions set their involvement at a botheration to be fixed or ignored. You overturn their edits out of hand and you do not count them as helping to arrive at consensus. I want you to realize that you have become the edit warrior when you act aggrieved at others outnumbering you. Corrections to all of these misapprehensions will be good for the wiki. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You wrote, "You and Paulh cannot claim you didn't see the change", but I do claim I did not see it. I currently have 4900 articles on my watchlist, and changes that come from editors whose names I recognize are very low on my radar—I do not investigate them the same way I look into new and unknown names making changes to articles. I say "slipped the photo into the article" because there was no edit summary to alert other editors like me who skim the watchlist for highlights. I assumed good faith about your edit, Eman007, but you chose to act against an article talk page thread without letting people know. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Editor Binksternet has put together a good history of the events associated with this dispute. The short version is that Editor Eman007 has an intense dislike of a certain photo in the San Francisco article and has instigated two edit wars to remove it or replace it using a consensus-of-one (himself) both times. Eman007 also has an enormous chip on his shoulder and thinks that editors actions are targeted at him and are not really about the content of the article. I would like to assure Eman007 that I did not see the photo he inserted in August, and did not know it was his edit that I was reversing when I replaced it. Further, I did not remember that it was he who had instigated the December 2009 war about this photo. This really isn't about Eman007, it is about a silly photo in a one section of an article in an on-line encyclopedia. It is, as Binksternet accurately noted in an edit summary: A Tempest in a Teapot.--Paul (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Paulh and Binksternet continue to essentially distort events and actions in their favor to even very dishonestly put words into my mouth. A synopsis of their lies and inconsistencies:
Binksternet claims that he does not want me banned, yet he was the first and hasty to report me as a 3R and name-call me as an "edit-warrior", when not even Paulh or the other editors did so. If I was a so-called "edit warrior" who supposedly did this in the past, how come they nor any other editor did not report me then? Will they continue to lie and say I was doing so in "good-faith" at the same time initiating edit war?
A point that Binksternet and Paulh intentionally and dishonestly left out was a change to the section made by user Optigan13 on 09:20, 7 January 2010. I did not revert that change at all. But for some reason, I am an "edit warrior" according to their unfounded taunts?
Another dishonest inconsistency of Binksternet: "Slipped in" and "Good faith" going together. That is contradictory. And again, why was it "good-faith/slipping in" then, but not now?
Paulh continues to dishonestly deny that he saw the photo change in August, yet looking at the page history, they are quick to correct changes to the article, as Paul made several during September. He was quick to notice changes to other sections of the article and to a photo montage, but not this one he was quick to notice back in December? Another example right there of such dishonest inconsistency.
I can assure you I do not have a "chip on their shoulder", as my record shows for my edits in this article and others across wikipedia. The record clearly shows that I did and usually do reach for consensus. Even after the inital reverts in December I agree to discussion and consensus and threw in my two cents. Again, as the record shows, Paulh dropped out of the consensus and debate and said nothing.
The problem lies with Paulh and Binksternet with their asocial behavior. As you can see they did not and still have not invited the other editors that participated in the discussion to this, or, going back to the original discussion. As i'm mentioning again, they rejected my offer of taking a photo and adding to the page, and then lied that they did approve here on this WQA page. Paulh and Binksternet because they have spent the most time and edits on that page, and looking at the history, do not invite for consensus too or other editors to put in their opinions before making changes, and carry an insular attitude to editing that page. If they do, its only cursory and you see by this particular instance, they decide before they ask for consensus.
I do not think that that photo works as a good representative of the subject in question and why a replacement should be found. Paulh has an obsession with that photo as its pretty clear and evident and refuses to have it replaced. Evidence supporting this again, goes back to the December discussion when it became evident that editors preferred other pictures, he did not respond or finish the discussion. Nor did he invoke it again in October when he said and quoting him: "I'm going to replace it with "FinancialNorth.jpg" and see what happens", after which Binksternet approved. After. Which means that technically he did before getting more votes. The IP editor liked FinancialNorth1.Jpg, but was open to other suggestions and specifically ended his post with Thoughts? To which Paul wasted little time in changing the photo and Binksternet approving this change. There wasn't much of a consensus or time for any other editor to chime in. Anyone who disagrees with him now has a "chip on their shoulder" or is an "edit warrior".
Paulh continues to dodge my question: Why didn't he invoke or go back to the original discussion back in December which he dropped out of? He cannot pretend he didn't see it because its been sitting there for months.
This is less than a "tempest in a teapot" than just the simple truth being on the stand. Paulh and Binksternet can't seem to stand anyone disagreeing with them and are now trying to use the system to rub out disagreement, and resorting to inconsistencies and sheer lies and distortion of the facts to get their way. If its just a "silly photo in an online-encyclopedia"? 'Why don't you allow people to change it?'[User:Eman007|Eman007]] (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Odd that you would select a Wikiquette noticeboard as the place to call two editors dishonest. Usually, people come here after something like that, rather than delivering it here in the first place. :/
To me, the dispute is an opportunity to learn new methods and improve community interactions. Though I do like one image more than another, the reason I spent energy to chart out the history of the dispute is so that it can serve as a learning experience, for editors to see their interaction style more plainly. I hope it helps, eventually. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
But you are being dishonest. You both are retrying to re-slant this dispute and past history in your favor, which is one of the reasons why I brought this here in the first. Thats when you first deny, then downplay, dishonestly, to outright ignoring other things said by me and other editors. You say that you aren't trying to cesure/ban me, but that was one of the first things you did. You claim there was a consensus, but then Paulh acted before one was truly reached/responded to. You rejected my attempts and find/take another photo, but then you come on here and lied saying that you did. You name call me as an "edit warrior" but there is no history of such under my user name. The last time I tried changing the photo back in December, there was not an edit war, no one was reported for 3R, and didn't I make any reverts after Optigan made changes in January. This was deliberately left off the "history of the issue" you just created, thus making you a liar.
As I just mentioned, this is clearly just you and Paulh flexing your ego on editors. You guys have a long background of editing, and its clear you're trying to keep this intact.
If anyone should be learning anything its yourself, in that showing what ugly and dishonest lengths you're willing to go through to take down someone who disagrees with you, while making yourself look good in the process. Is ego-flexing like this really worth it?
Again, if its just an image, then why all the fuss if someone wants to change it? Did you guys really think that one same image would stay there forever? I've changed and taken down photos on virtually all of the San Francisco-related, and other wikipedia pages without a fuss.
I just recently completely revamped the Golden Gate Bridge article, removing many photos. However, I change this one particular photo in this article, and you guys scream and fuss like this? I've never seen anything like it. I thought this is Wikipedia, not Flickr.
Eman007 (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Stop calling me dishonest and a liar. I am not trying to slant anything; I am calling the situation as I see it. I did not see Optigan's January change you mention, so I could not have "deliberately" left it off my brief history.
Show me where I rejected your offer to take a new photo... You will not be able to because I did not reject it. As it happens, I accepted your offer in my thoughts, but I decided I would wait to comment until it showed up. I did not think you required encouragement to take an action you said you might take, which is why I did not write anything about it. Yesterday, as I was driving to a committee meeting in The City, I thought that it was too bad that low-lying fog was going to be inhibiting the ideal golden hour shot from Twin Peaks. I thought that a very windy evening would be best, as such weather makes for the clearest photos with the least haze.
Your argument "why all the fuss" over just an image is a two-sided weapon: I can ask just as easily why you are fussing over it. For me, the point is to improve your wiki skills, by pointing out the problems you have not yet acknowledged in yourself. Start with WP:Assume good faith, a crucial step. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You are what you are Binksternet. And you keep doing it more. You just put up a comprehensive "history" going back months of my actions regarding this situation, but then you miss the whole detail of Optigan's edits? Who are you trying to kid? The facts are all there! How do you compose a "history" and claim it to be comprehensive and factual, but ignore details like that? This backs me up that you are lying and that you selectively chose details, slanted to favor your view.
You can also stop lying about accepting substitutes. I specially suggested that I offered to take a photo, it received no response.
I am not creating a fuss. You guys are. As shown in the record, this is my second time putting a consensus for that photo. You guys don't seem to want one. You quickly tried to have me silenced instead. I mentioned several times back in December as in now, I think that photo should be changed. The other editors also agreed to changing the photo. You and especially Paulh did not. Paulh dropped out of the discussion back in December when he lost the majority vote, and changed back to it, the moment someone suggested changing it back. As I mentioned before, i've changed photos in other wikipedia articles and received no opposition, response, etc. I change this one photo and you and Paulh go into attack mode. The other editors are open to other photos. Optigan even presented one. A picture I previously submitted that he cropped. You dishonestly left that out of your "history" too. You and Paulh are not. You guys never can seem to answer this question: Why?
You like to point fingers at others, but not yourself. Just because you are a veteran editor, doesn't mean you're flawless or inscrutable. Look now. I just showed you that your "history of the dispute" is full of flaws and holes, and you denied it right up to now. Once again, before you start calling others ugly, you need to look in the mirror yourself. You talk about "good faith", but then you now freely admit a "history" you put up is not exactly accurate. You tried to have me banned, then you deny that you did. You name call me an "edit-warrior", but there is no instance of that in my entire time in Wikipedia.
Seems that you need to read that "Good-faith" article more than me.
At least Paulh admitted he wanted to work with me. I'm still waiting for you. You can flip it all you want, but you still have not answeed my original question: Why is this picture so important to you guys that it must not be changed? Is this picture worth the fuss? And you can't start with "two-sided weapon"; I given my reasoning as to why it should be changed numerous times already.
Eman007 (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
My advice: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Binksternet (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
You still can't admit your wrongs, your dishonesty, never answer any of my questions, and continue to lie and play sidestepping games offering advice you clearly need to take yourself. Exactly the reason why I brought you here. You are abusive. (Eman007 talk) 1:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Feedback

Feedback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been harassing me and being uncivil to me for a while now. See [1]. He edits my comment and shrinks it down so no one can see it. When I bring it up to him, he acts like it's commonplace to do that. Then see: [2], his attitude there is also poor. He's attacking people, and attacking me because I call him out on being uncivil. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the instance of the minimized text was cleared up on RobJ1981's talk page I find it conflicting that this single incident is described by RobJ1981 as a continuous occurrence. The following excerpt from a comment by Feedback should also be noted [3] "And what really isn't needed is someone like you swaying discussion from the main topic to some side-complaint without contributing to the discussion at hand in any way whatsoever. Noticing that your first and only post in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, the article, the discussion, the guideline or anything relevant whatsoever" RobJ1981 has a history of making random sporadic appearances at WT:PW (the talk page of WikiProject Professional wrestling) in various discussion topics, not to contribute to a discussion by any means but only to "police" certain comments and subjects while aggravating situations that always deviate from the original discussion. While I find enforcement of policy crucial to the integrity of the project, what RobJ1981 does is distracting, annoying, and simply not needed.--UnquestionableTruth-- 03:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't do anything wrong. All I did was try to calm Feedback down. He acted very uncivil and took disagreements too seriously. Getting so mad over articles really doesn't help this site at all. Also note: the above editor has had issues with me in the past, so of course anyone I disagree with is instantly an ally of his. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
You were instigating the user by deliberately taking the user's comments out of context and then accusing him of being uncivil. Why don't you provide some diffs to specific remarks you perceived to be uncivil. The only diffs you have provided are a biased recollection of a minor misunderstanding between you and the user that I had to correct, and the diff to the discussion where you supposedly found evidence of misconduct. Anyone that reads that discussion in its entirety will clearly see you aggravating the situation. Finally, I'll make it clear to you that I'm only here to bring some neutrality to this alert, as I was forced to do so by that heavily weighted opening argument of yours. --UnquestionableTruth-- 06:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Right here: [4] is a great example. The last sentence wasn't needed at all in that post of his. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
You refer to this sentence... "Noticing that your first and only post in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, the article, the discussion, the guideline or anything relevant whatsoever, its safe to say you don't give two shits about the consensus that is being searched for here so why don't you go do something you do care about like getting blocked for harassment." where he points out that you have been involved in and blocked for harassment before? --UnquestionableTruth-- 19:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
My take on this is that RobJ1981 is harassing Feedback rather than vice versa. Looie496 (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Did you even see the discussion he posted in? He called people "meatheads", plus attacked me. That's unnecessary and shouldn't be ignored. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I did. I also saw what happened before that. Looie496 (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those situations where neither side is blameless. Yes, Rob sometimes provokes people by policing discussions. Yes, Feedback's comments are at least borderline at times ([5]). With that said, what is the purpose of this discussion? It won't resolve anything, and it will just amplify the drama all around. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

With that said, note the author of this particular alert. --UnquestionableTruth-- 06:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
See this recent discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#Triple_H. Feedback replied with a rude comment at me. My post was perfectly fine, as I directed the editor to the correct place to post. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld

Some personal abuse / not assuming good faith concerns:

  • Accused User:Edison of cruelty (among other things) [6]
  • When I responded on his talk page [7] he accused me of childishness [8]
  • Accused unnamed editors of prolonging an AfD "out of spite" [9]

StAnselm (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It's actions / alerts / investigations like these that drive people out of Wikipedia. I think it's worth reconsidering before upping the ante. Qwrk (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand this comment-- there are some clear issues evidenced in the diffs above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia sometimes just looks like the real world; bureaucracy killing off initiative. I think you should weigh the the good that Blofeld brings against the "minor issues" mentioned here. Qwrk (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Do as you seem fit, including wrecking up the whole place. I'm outta here. Qwrk (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

How does this report help wikipedia? What is the point in wasting everybody's time when there is an enormous amount of work to be done on here? So a couple of editors can take pot shots at me because I've expressed major concerns with the way the current AFD is being conducted, reopened under peculiar circumstances and the outlook of some of the editors who commented? This report proves my point exactly that time (and belligerence between editors) is more often than not completely unnecessary. Even the confict over the original AFD would have been avoided if people can bothered to rationally discuss the article first before taking to AFD and not taking to AFD after I and another editor had spent a lot of time adding 300 references. hat's the root of this conflict, you try adding 300 references to try to improve an articles and then have somebody say they don't appreciate it/want to rid of it immediately. It is persistence like this against editors who you happen to disagree with that drives people away from the encyclopedia, you're lucky that I happen to care a great deal about what is important (the encyclopedia itself) otherwise I wouldn't have stayed here ten minutes. Everything I do on wikipedia is constructive, this is why I conflict with editors I see who appear to be the opposite and waste time/try to destroy/moan about the hard work of others that it is not quite good enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The point, I think, is that if you respond to things in an overly emotional way, it produces reactions that end up wasting your own time as well as the time of others. You yourself are really in control of whether this happens. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like relatively minor incivility, but it's still unproductive and has to stop. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 17:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Folks, just how do you assume good faith and "be in control" when you add 300 references to an article and then somebody AFDs while you are working hard at it when the list has been there for over a year and suddenly the delete votes start rolling in. Good timing?. Then despite your efforts to explain that the list is being sourced people like Edison still demand that the list is sourced on the spot and lack patience for you to work on it. It is exasperating to say the least so it isn't your place to sit around telling me what or what I should not say when it is a situation I'm facing, not you. Unproductive is StAnselm demanding that the AFD be reopened and reporting me here. Yes, people who I don't even know can take pot shots at me go and have fun. I'm one of the few the true productive editors this project has. In fact it is because I'm so productive that I have little time for people intent on undoing the work of others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
As Blofeld knows, I'm no fan of his, but this is ridiculous. Coming straight to WQA just because someone got a little snappy? What happened to a quiet "I have a few concerns about this" discussion on the user in question's talkpage? I may have a diametrically opposed view to Blofeld on how Wikipedia ought to operate, but I don't think even his harshest critics would deny that he's put in thankless hours improving obscure but important topics for no reward. Everyone has the occasional bad day; unless you can point to a systematic problem, I really can't see what purpose this exercise is supposed to serve. – iridescent 22:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou Iridescent. Hey not all my articles are obscure, Deforestation in Brazil is one of the world's most serious issues and Kathmandu and Thimphu etc are world capital cities although each of these countries outside the anglosphere can be called obscure I guess. And actually I think we both (and all) have the same long term goals of wikipedia but just disagree on the way it should be done. Who wouldn't want to click on every article on not have to do a huge amount of work just to get it to acceptable status.. Ideally every article would be FA quality. I think the only thing we really disagreed on is that you are opposed to short stubs created in a batch for a topic like many are on here and are not convinced that certian hotels are notable. I used to try to think in the long term and that they will be expanded eventually. Given the lack of real contributors I'm increasingly coming around to the view that it is best to flesh out articles you create with a few sources so that the article has some use. In fact at times, like Nvvchar I wish we had a system in place on here which removed all short stubs and ensured that eveyr article is sourced and that we could built it gradually with higher quality. But then I think potentially zillions of people can edit wikipedia so stubs have a good chance of expanding. The problem is that most are left stranded. and neglected. Anyway, I'd say that many of our fuller articles have more serious issues than most of our short stubs, full of POV/potentially libellous claims, errors, unsourced claims etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

My request is that Dr. Blofeld not give way to personal attacks, like "can't you read english" in the AFD (directed toward someone else) and not he distort or report incorrectly what others in a discussion have said. He claims above that I "demand that the list is sourced on the spot " when my request was that totally unsourced names not be listed in some list of people who have done something evil, since there were thousands of people in the era in question who had the same name as the Nazi party member listed. He also incorrectly stated in the AFD "c That you showed an astonishing ignorance that ALL missing articles are not notable and therefore tshould not be included in a list." I had said no such thing, but rather I said "If a name is not notable enough to have an article, then it is clearly not notable enough to be in the list." and "A redlink listing a living person as a Nazi is a BLP violation unless a reliable source is present in the List article itself." On his talk page, Dr. Blofeld said "You are accusing me of laziness?" (The ironic italics are from his post) and "You were the one who tried to bully me about my Greek museum stubs and ranted on about me as a lousy editor on some forum weren't you?" I do not recall ever making such derogatory comments toward Dr. Blofeld. I certainly do not feel that his implication, by the italics, that I am lazy is justified. Such strawman arguments in which he complains bitterly about things the other person did not say should be avoided. He has turned discussions of policy and content into complaints about unuttered insults, full of invective, such as "The directory argument is a f*****g joke." Edison (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

What's funny about this is that you done NOTHING to help wikipedia all week (with the exception of Ashesh Malla) while you been sitting around moaning about me and complaining that I don't reference my work I've been getting a lot done. Then all you did was rant on about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Like hell it does. Double standards wherever I look on wikipedia. Bringing up the WP: directory argument is a huge joke as it met none of the criteria and if you compare a simple one page list to over a hundreds directory pages of List of minor planets (which appear to be unsourced) then your argument is ridiculous. Act like a muppet in completely ignoring our intentions with this list as were clearly stated and I will treat you as one. Discuss things rationally with me without getting the wrong end of the stick and I will talk to you as a decent human being. It takes two to tango. If you spout a load of garbage and completely get the wrong idea of what is going on then I'm likely to not take your comments well. You can all very well say "oh Dr. Blofeld you should be civil and be as sweet as apple to pie to these nice people who want to delete your work but when your comments seem so way off what is actually being done, I made it blatantly clear to you that the inter links to german wiki were not intended to act as sources but still you ranted on about lack of sourcing when we were in the middle of working hard at adding them and kept saying things like "German wikipedia is not a reliable source". We know for crying out loud that it isn't, nobody said it was, you had ignored what was made very clear that the interlinks were not for references purposes and that external sources would be found regardless. And then you demanded that everything be done immediately whilst we were making very good progress on improving the list and wouldn't allow us time to finish. It is highly frustrating that you just appear to have little perception of our intentions and when you did respond all you did was say "Promises promises" in a sarcastic fashion and left a message on my talk page telling me about my shoddy history of neglecting articles. You should really take a long hard look at yourself and understand why I have not taken your comments warmly. We are only here now because I was disrupted with an untimely AFD which came at a moment when I and another editor were working hard to fix the issues and as you can imagine its a frustrating thing to not be permitted to work at sorting something out and having people jumping to the wrong end of the stick while you are the process of doing do. I was not the one who suddenly started snarling at people. I;ve snarled at people because a] my work was under threat b] people were making comments like "the article is missing from english wikipedia so its not notable". If the AFD hadn't interrupted me or you and some others hadn't have made comments in the fashion that you did would I be arguing with you, no. We promised we'd have the list FULLY sourced soon enough but that was not good enough for you was it:

Here is your comment and initial rationale for deletion:

Delete: "If a name is not notable enough to have an article, then it is clearly not notable enough to be in the list. Wikipedia is not a directory. Linking to German Wikipedia is clearly not adequate, because a Wikipedia is not a reliable source".

Everything about this is completely wrong. Firstly each name is notable enough to have an article, people are working hard away to ensure that the articles are translated into english, unfortunately not enough editors are doing so, so we still have scores of missing notable articles. You are frustratingly confusing articles which people haven't got around to yet like this one which was one of the "non notable red links" but was added yesterday as not notable to have an article which is rubbish. Every name on the list was/is notable enough for an article and plenty of sources prove so (and are practically all about the same level of notability in their respective fields as the example I've given), so basically you are using lack of time/numbers to write content as a criteria for removing potential articles from a list. b]You implied that a simple one page list was a directory when such A-Z list are perfectly acceptable on wikipedia and we have thousands of such lists. All you did then was continue to cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as if the rules have suddenly changed fir this particular A-Z list. The list violated none of the criteria of that "policy" . c] You wrongly perceived the German interlinks to be our attempts to "source" the article when we had clearly already stated that this was not the purpose of them. d] You would not wait for us to source them but moaned that it should be done NOW and how untrustworthy I am with sourcing despite over 400 references being added at that point. Seriously do you wonder why such comments irritated me?♦ Dr. Blofeld 01:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you persist in belittling others and me for disagreeing with you? You say I have done "..NOTHING to help wikipedia all week (with the exception of Ashesh Malla).." If that were true, it would not lessen the import of my statements about your lack of civility. In fact what does my contribution history for Oct 10-Oct 16 show? About 107 edits over 10 or 12 hours, including 12 other AFDs, in some of which I provided references to show the topics were notable, some of these references requiring a trip to a research library. Many additional hours were spend checking "Recent changes" for vandal edits or for problem edits, as well as library time looking for material for new articles. I contributed to five Reference Desk topics, did vandal reversion, speedy nomination, references added or edits to 6 articles, and other edits I consider helpful to Wikipedia. All edits related to your article's AFD and this Wikiquette amounted to a very small portion of my Wikipedia work time. Please do not belittle other editors whose available time for editing, pattern of contributions or editing interests differ from yours. Then, yet again, you make up a straw man by selectively juxtaposing things: The phrase you quote was absolutely NOT in my initial Delete argument, but was a response much farther down in the AFD. My initial Delete comment called for deletion of the article unless all redlink names which were unreferenced were removed, and did not contain the text you quoted, which appeared in a discussion later in the AFD. After you were blocked last year for personal attacks, in your apology you said in part "All you neededs to say was Blofeld please remove your comment and calm down and I'd have got the message." So I am saying, please calm down and do not take content discussion or even deletion discussions about one of your articles as a personal attack requiring insults, namecalling, profanity, or misquoting of your perceived adversaries. I believe that you are a hard working editor who spends many hours contributing to the project. Please assume good faith and try to remain civil, and not to lash out when there are differences of opinion as to when material (such as the redlink names) belong in the project page of an article, and when they need to be moved to userspace while awaiting reliable referencing. A consensus can be arrived at for keeping an article about important Nazis once the unreferenced names are moved out of the main article, without all the vitriol. Edison (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you persist on finding diffs from the past to back up your statements? 107 edits in 10-12 hours, but how many are actually important edits to the encyclopedia itself? Stark few. You come to my talk page and accuse me of article neglect and are basically saying that I'm unlikely to bother referencing the list "promises, promises" as if I'm the lazy editor. So you're hardly the one to tell me I ought to be working harder. I see no personal attacks specifically directed at anybody, nothing more than HUMAN frustration about the way you've addressed things which are not even issues in regards to the list. You had a point about unsourced additions, which is why I'm been working hard at adding sources but you expected it to be done isntantly and you did not so much as reference a single edition yourself.. Seriously you should look at more important things rather than digging up my history from ages ago to make me look bad again. I've been blocked very few times and those were only the result of attacks on my work and my editing to which I showed HUMAN frustration with. The time you spent on finding diffs and moaning here you could have gone on expanding a stub to start class level. Are you capable of contributing something useful to wikipedia, I hope so. Because you're countless posts at places like this and AFD are not constructive and I think you really forget what the spirit of wikipedia and self-support between editors is really all about. . How can you assume good faith when you work really hard to add now over 500 refs to an article and people still reopen an AFD and totally get the wrong idea of the purpose of them? This is my last post here and until you start showing me some decency (to stop digging up history about my past to paint me in a bad light instead of finding the overwhelming good I've done for wikipedia) and to discuss the way forward rationally I'm likely to still be on poor terms with you. Basically if you get in my way and try to deconstruct work I do for wikipedia I get very annoyed, stay out of my way and discuss things with me with and avoid delete votes and misguided (and untrue) comments and I'm sure I'd be perfectly nice to you, which I am to most editors on here. I'll be a really friendly person unless you try to undo and nuke work I've spent time on, I then take delete votes and opposition to my work to be the worst kind of insult on here. Have respect for my editing and I'll return it. My behaviour on here is generally a reflection of how I'm treated. I'm on the best terms with people on here who respect my work and me as an editor and are easy-going in regards to content. I'm open to constructive criticism from time to time but not in a way which makes me look as if the majority of my edits are poor and the majority of my comments to other editors "uncivil". There are real people people behind the posts on here who have real feelings and get upset when it seems their time spent on here, purely volunteer work that none of us have to do, is under threat and disapproved of by others. If you were truly a constructive civil editor you'd be replying to my constructive comments here and efforts to improve the article which matters most above all this nonsense. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Again I did not say "you should be working harder," and in fact said "you are a hard working editor who spends many hours contributing to the project." Please read things all the way through before responding to them. I am sorry to hear that you will get "very annoyed" if I !vote to delete something you have worked on. I will continue to read all AFDs and contribute as I see fit, arguing for keeping or deleting or merging or redirecting as called for by guidelines and policies, not by whose name is on the work, and I will certainly not be warned off from AFD by you. Again I point out that I never demanded that everything be referenced instantly, only that it was inappropriate to have redlink names with no references in a listing of persons such as Nazis. A working list of such names belongs in a user subpage, which is where they got moved. Edison (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I also agree that the list did need sourcing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The matter appears to be resolved. Edison (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

QuackGuru

QuackGuru editing and responding fairly tendentiously on this policy page. There are ongoing discussions about three separate sections - Giving equal validity, A Simple Formulation, and the inclusion of a video in the article - but QG is continuously editing and reverting the sections without discussion (despite having been asked several times to participate more in talk), and his talk page comments are consistently non-responsive, and generally amount to repetitive challenges or commands to other editors, rather than productive discussion. It's pure stonewalling, designed to disrupt consensus rather than build it, and no one in talk seems to be able to get him to interact more productively. any outside help would be appreciated. diffs follwo (just from the last couple of days - you can easily see more if you care to go back farther):

article diffs

  • [10] - reasserting his preferred version without talk page discussion, and removing an 'under discussion' type template that pointed to the discussion
  • [11] - reasserting his preferred version without talk page discussion, and removing an 'under discussion' type template again, on the grounds that 'enough discussion' has occurred (though consensus on the talk page is actually moving away from this version).

talk diffs

  • [12] - just for baseline; these same statements are repeated, regardless of the responses he gets from others.
  • [13]
  • [14] - bald assertion that his preferred version is better, demand for a specific explanation of the dispute tag (despite the fact that there is a couple of hundred lines above on the dispute)
  • [15] - stonewalling with more of the 'this version is best' language, plus note at the bottom how he ignores my explanation in the paragraph above to assert again that no explanation has been given.
  • [16] - again, he ignores my explanation to claim that I did not give one.
  • [17] - unexplained assertion that a revision being discussed 'gives no direction to editors', plus another statement that ignores my explanation to claim that I am unable to explain.
  • [18] - another claim that I haven't explained, followed by a fairly wild assertion (which isn't problematic in itself)
  • [19] - an assertion that there is neither consensus nor explanation for changing the section (neither of which conforms with the discussion in talk], plus the first claim about the video removal. Also, what I think is the real motivating factor here: a near-claim that he is using these policy revisions to support a conflict on a particular article page.
  • [20] - video talk: argumentative and repetitive.
  • [21] - ditto
  • [22] - another non-responsive post about the simple formulation section
  • [23] here he actually refers to an answer I gave above one of the times he claimed there were no explanations given. rather than treating my statement as a response, however, he treats it as though it were a claim I've made, and then uses it merely to reassert what he's been saying all along. then in the lowere section he's back to the video and the 'no specific problem stated' pattern
  • [24] - and again, 'you have refused to explain...'

--Ludwigs2 21:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If s/he's messing around with one of WP:5P's guidelines without consensus, then maybe WP:ANI might be a better place for this post? — Fly by Night (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
well, I'll go there or RFC/U if I need to, but since QG is an established editor, I thought it best to start with low-key peer discussion. the policy sections are under discussion anyway, and when the discussion closes whatever gets done now will most likely get undone, so it's not a huge worry from a policy perspective. --Ludwigs2 23:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I sympathize with the concern, but I can't imagine how anything will be gained by bringing the matter here, as opposed to discussing it at WT:NPOV and taking it to ANI if it gets out of control. Note that although QG is a longtime editor, there are few editors still around who have more extensive block logs. Looie496 (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
QuackGuru is a good faith, well-meaning, incompetent editor. I do not think Wikipedia has a chance to address the problem at its root, so WQA is unlikely to help. What we need is sanctions that make it possible to stop him quickly and without too much disruption whenever he gets one of his idiosyncratic ideas and tries to push it through. The proper place for that is RFC/U. Hans Adler 09:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Largely agreeing with just about everything already said here, this is one of the many cases where I feel like WQA ought to be more useful than it actually is (but at least it's on the record now as an early attempt at dispute resolution). I've been present during Quack Guru's recent conduct at WP:NPOV, and it hasn't really been a civility issue, but rather incredibly tedious not-hearing-anyone-else editing. Core policies really should not be changing minute-by-minute. I'm inclined to agree with Hans about competence as being the real issue. I'll support an RfC/U. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:RfC/U seems the best bet to me too. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I have had similar interactions with QG on the Chiropractic page. I was regularly unpleasantly surprised by his prosecutorial approach and the general way that his editing made the article into much more of a battlefield than it needed to be. I say this despite the fact that he was not wrong about several issues but nonetheless chose less civil, consensus-seeking, and discursive ways to make his points. User:RexxS is a good counterpoint as a scientifically minded editor who doesn't stoop to pushing skepticism or policy without apparent regard for discussion. Please see these comments at the recent/ongoing/stalled mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-08-23/Chiropractic#Editing_environment. Like other editors in this project who promote a phenomenally strong point of view with a consistently baiting or tendentious style, QG would be an enormous asset were he not such a pain in the Wiki. Ocaasi (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
QG has been violating WP:OWN at Chiropractic for years. When, oh when, will the admins permanently ban this user? S/he adds no useful content. --Surturz (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Rinpoche and Buddhist sex abuse cases

Rinpoche (also probably editing with a number of anon IP addresses such as 87.61.175.179 (talk · contribs)) has repeatedly claimed that I have been lying and refuses to make an attempt to assume good faith after I have twice spelt out why their assumptions are incorrect about who has authority or has requested the article deletion they are objecting to. As an experienced editor I have attempted to offer them possible positive actions to take and encouraged them to collaborate over re-drafting and resolving the issues. Though in my opinion their behaviour is deliberately offensive and uncollaborative I feel this is not so extreme as to require a report on ANI but some advice on the advantages of civility might help them if from uninvolved parties. The links given above will show this is not a dispute between two parties but a pattern of problematic behaviour, however I would welcome advice on how I could have handled their comments differently to achieve a better outcome :) Fæ (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I also have some concerns about User:Rinpoche:
  • The username seems to be on the edge of what is permissible per WP:Username policy and standard practice. See Rinpoche and factor in that the editor is active in the area of Tibetan Buddhism, with no apparent concern for the private sphere of Tibetan lamas.
  • The user got an article speedily deleted and found themselves in a DRV with no preceding AfD. That's a problem because of the possible appearance of process wonkery over content issues. When I tried to address the problem by explaining to the user why the content was problematic, I got a "but look at that other article" type response, to which I responded by fixing a BLP violation at that other article. When the user still didn't get it I expressed my frustration, but without coming even close to the massive crossing of lines that happened in this post and this post. It would be tedious to explain on how many levels that post was wrong, and much of it isn't immediately obvious. Don't follow the link unless you are willing to read the entire surrounding discussion and follow the link from my user page to my homepage. (That's where the "studying in Austria" and the that one can insult me by insulting Austria must have come from.)
  • Obviously the previous two things are nothing compared with the user's insistence that Buddhist teachers sleeping around with adult women (who apparently somehow manage to mistake them for saintly while being subject to their advances) are every bit as reprehensible as Catholic priests abusing little boys and that Wikipedia must be used to root out this evil. Hans Adler 12:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Reply from Rinpoche First of all I don't know of the IP addresses involved, neither of which is mine (in the very early days of my Wikipedia account I sometimes forgot to log in and thus posted under an IP but this hasn't happened since I found a way of ensuring automatic login). I can add secondly I'm not collaborating in any way with any other party. I haven't even sought to gain support for my request to restore the page deletion initiated by you which is the basis of this issue (this is becaue of my onanistic vows which I take very seriously indeed).
I have to candidly say that I don't believe even this request for advice is in good faith. Right now going through ny head is the kind of whining sound Cartman makes in South Park when he seeks to manipulate his mum. However on this occasion I'm prepared to play the game.
Firstly I suggest you simply stop pissing people off. Your first responses to my request for a clarification about your behaviour were advices to take a deep breath, have a nice sit down and a cup of tea. That was very patronising of you. You should have understood that I was likely to be very angry and directly answered the issues I raised - why you didn't notify me of what you had done rather than raise your concerns on the talk page as I had invited users whose deletions I had reverted to do (and I can add now why didn't you look at the talk page where I had discussed the issues you eventually raised on the BLPN thread). On that first exchange I did not say you were lying. Rather that I did not believe you were trying to be helpful in your response to my request for an explanation.
Secondly indeed stop patronising people. In your response you said I was free to disbelieve you but that wiki practice was to assume good faith. Well thank you but I did know that and I took the opportunity to thank you for being free to disbelieve you and that I still didn't. But I didn't say you were lying about anything. Just stressed again I didn't believe you were trying to be helpful.
Thirdly I suggest you pick your quarrels more carefully. What was being deleted and reverted was material about Ole Nydahl, a very controversial and charismatic Buddhist leader who amongst other things has firmly upset the apples in a 1,000 year or so Tibetan lineage cart - you have to be tough to do that and as I remember Ole from long long ago (I mean this lifetime: I mean I'm not as clear as Ole is about previous lives) he's tough enough OK. Plus plenty stupid enough for sure (which is essential but don't get me wrong; I really like and respect him and I went to enormous trouble a few weeks ago to edit his wiki to present a more nuanced and sympathetic account of his consdierable contribution to western Buddhism). I don't know what those IP addresses have been saying to you but I can well understand it might be impassioned. Frankly the only way you should want to get involved in this is you have some commitment to the debate and there's the issue. You imply you don't, that you just happen to be strolling by and you see this thing going on about Ole and well you just sort of got disinterestedly involved because some chap with a precious wiki monniker wasn't defining his terms clearly enough. Or alternatively toughen up: if you can't stand the smell under the blankets don't fart in bed.
Fourthly make sure the issues you raise really are worth raising. When I finally got to look at your concerns I found them absolutely puerile. An article I has spent hours researching and contributing deleted without my knowing because you wanted me to define 'abuse' (never mind that I had opened the article with a description of what was meant by abuse in the context and that everyone thank you has a pretyy good idea of what is abusive or not)? But I still didn't accuse you of lying, just that I still didn't believe you were being helpful(no honestly you're not, really, trust me)and that I didn't wish you well or goodbye (good riddance whatever).
But since we're here ... are you in fact lying? I mean I've often noticed that the reason people are accused of lying is because they are lying? have you noticed that? Just a suggestion.
I sincerely hope this helps.
Now go fuck yourself. Rinpoche (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Rinpoche you were rude to Fae. You refused to accept her statement that she had not tagged your article for deletion. When she attempted to explain and tried to poor oil on troubled waters you refused to WP:AGF. You were obviously annoyed with the disappearance of your work but many things happen in wiki which are infuriating. That's one of the reasons why we have behaviour policies; so you don't take out your frustration on the nearest editor whom you may see as the cause. Now you are adding insult to injury by blunt accusations of bad faith ("are you in fact lying?"), heavy sarcasm ("I sincerely hope this helps") and aggressive abuse ("now go fuck yourself"). Not impressive. What do you propose to do about it? Fainites barleyscribs 23:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I have just blocked Rinpoche for 24 hours for the personal attacks above, and for refusal to disavow them. Looie496 (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
OK. Fainites barleyscribs 20:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge

After a fairly lengthy, bad tempered dispute I and others were topic banned by arbcom from Gibraltar related articles. After returning to editing I have made an extra effort to edit in a civil manner. Richard has reverted each and every edit I have made, in many cases acknowledging they are well written and sourced. Tonight after I initiated an RFC, Richard has chosen to link to a bad tempered post from the past, made when he knows I was in a bad state mentally. I have a long term problem with PTSD, Richard is aware of this, he is aware that I was suffering badly when I made that post and I sincerely believe that his purpose in doing so tonight was simply to belittle and humiliate me. Diffs of offending post [25]. Justin talk 20:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This is way out of line. You are violating the remedy that was imposed on you in the Gibraltar case, and I have formally notified you of that fact on your talk page. I strongly advise you to find another topic to work on. Looie496 (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
No I am not out of line, I apologised unreservedly for those remarks and they're constantly flung back in my face. Something that is contrary to our civility policies, especially given the unresevered apology. I have done nothing to repeat the conduct that led to the topic ban, I have been civil, tried to use the talk page, used dispute resolution and chose WP:WQA instead of WP:AE first. Your warning is misplaced. Justin talk 16:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
And I note that the talk page is once again filled with walls of text that deter discussion. And include what is a lengthy personal attack. Walls of text were noted in the arbcom case as a contributing factor and the discretionary sanctions apply to all parties, which includes Richard. Justin talk 16:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I should like to point editors to this 2000-word edit on the subject of Justin's "incompetence" and this follow-up in connection with this. In my view, this is baiting and is distinctly inappropriate. Pfainuk talk 17:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

RomanHistorian: Incivility and stalking

I had a content dispute with User:RomanHistorian, so now he's stalking me and trying to poison my reputation. This is after reverting many of my edits on articles he cares nothing about, and calling for my permanent block. This is nuts. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that there are multiple versions of his anti-me comments on that talk page, as someone kept reverting them. Also, he followed me here with similar comments. This is someone with a grudge. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ya, I've noticed the same. Dylan, please stick to one location when reporting issues. If you didn't report it to the proper place, someone will tell you. Since you posted here, could you provide the diffs? Netalarmtalk 04:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Netalarm, I believe this is the only official venue where I've reported his behavior. I did drop a courtesy note on the talk page of another editor, but I don't think that counts. I'll go get you some diffs after I finish my meal. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. No, I didn't take it to BLP. I discussed the issue on the article talk page, which led someone else to bring it to BLP. Then RomanHistorian posted his comments about me on both BLP and the article talk page. I don't think BLP is the best place, but I do think the content dispute needs external resolution. This is all completely orthogonal to RomanHistorian's very personal intervention, and I'd like to focus on that here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Initial comment on blp

Initial talk comment

Replacement talk comment after Ronz reverted the initial one

New comment on blp

Justification for new talk comment

Inexplicable self-revert of justification

Self-revert of talk at urging of Ronz, after text was hidden away

I hope I got the list right. There's a lot more than this, unfortunately. He's had it out for me since he got blocked for edit-warring against me. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to file a wikistalking complaint against him. He has been wikistalking me for almost the entire time he has been on wikipeida (about 6 weeks). Just look at my main page if you want to see how productive and long I have been on wikipedia. I have never dealt with someone as disruptive as him. Pretty much all other editors, even those whom I passionately disagree with, are willing to compromise. He isn't. He just reverts and re-reverts and re-re-reverts on and on and on. I can't reason with him and it SO infuriates me to have edit after edit after edit reverted, often within minutes, by him, no matter how trivial the edit. I offer to discuss the issues with him and he will have none of it. He usually doesn't comment on the discuss page when he cold reverts my edits, actually he only says anything on them at all if I comment first. And when he does comment, his comments are not constructive, but more about me being a bigot and not knowing what I am talking about. He promises to keep reverting everything I do, no matter what, because I am a bigot, fringe, and don't know what I am doing. Look at his revert of my change here[26]. He reverted my edit within minutes, and when I tried to discuss it in the talk page he would have none of it. Look at his explanation on that revert "reverting everything by "RomanHistorian" due to blatant anti-Catholic bias and a complete lack of citations". I used citations (look at the revert) but he just ignores them. He promises outright to revert everything I do and calls me a bigot on top.
He was reverting just about all of the edits I made on a wide range of articles. I would make an edit, even a one or two word edit, and he would revert it. For just a few examples, take my change here [27] to Book of Genesis. I made a one word change (changed "basic" to "final") and he reverted that. There are numerous examples of these kinds of petty one-word changes. Or take his change Here [28] on Book of Deuteronomy where I changed "a product of late authorship" to "compiled into its final form" and he just reverted it almost instantly. I made large changes here[29] and here [30]. He called me a bigot (he repeatedly does this; he calls me anti-catholic, an extremist, fringe, and insults my intelligence repeatedly). For more look here [31] here [32] and here [33] and he reverted them quickly without discussion and without willingness to compromise. Of course I could give you many more examples but at some point it just gets redundant. His edit warring is not limited to me. In just one of a great many examples I have seen, this edit by Bdb484 [34] was reverted by him [35] within minutes. I could provide many more examples but it could get redundant quickly. Besides the Insane Clown Posse fight he caused above, I have recently noticed edit warring from him in Battle of Jericho [36] [37] [38] or you can just look at the edit list to see his edit warring [39] or him fighting with Alky2000 over at [40]. Besides the accusations of edit warring on individual article boards, he has been accused multiple times [41], [42], [43] (I also reported him over this issue [44]). The most recent time the moderator agreed he violated 3RR and locked Gospel of John for two weeks. I don't know why he takes everything so personally, but since he keeps calling me an anti-catholic bigot I can only assume it has something to do with some odd religious issue. I first encountered him when he reverted this[45] over at Authorship of the Bible, which was quickly followed by more reverts on that article within about two hours [46], [47], [48], [49]. Notice his reason on his second revert of mine, "reverting everything by "RomanHistorian" due to blatant anti-Catholic bias and a complete lack of citations". Give the fact that this was the same explanation given on the later edit mentioned above, it seems he declared from the beginning he would "revert everything by RomanHistorian". He is wikistalking me, and has been doing so from the moment he first reverted my edits. I can't reason with him, and as one can easily see in his other edits, he tends to be very disruptive just about everywhere he goes. I assure you that the links to his reverts and edit warring I have provided are only a small fraction of all he has done against me and against other editors over the 6 weeks he has been on Wikipedia. He has been disruptive from the moment he joined. How am I suppose to deal with someone who just reverts everything I do without discussing and without being willing to compromise?RomanHistorian (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's a hint: not by following me around and defaming me. We disagreed on content and you got blocked. It happened, now get over it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I won't get over it because it is part of a destructive pattern I am sure you will continue.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Look, either you can go find something to do that doesn't involve me, or you can keep this up until you get blocked. If you're a mature adult, you'll choose the former. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If you leave my edits alone, or at least work with me towards a consensus on what you disagree with, I would be more than happy to work with you. I don't like having to be this adversarial. If you work with me, I will get over my issue very quickly.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please stop "squibbling" for a minute, please? Dylan, on a content note, you do realize that this[50] addition to that article is WP:NOR, and that the source you provide in the edit summary fails per WP:CIRCULAR, right? It should have been reverted, yet you restored it. Why? Doc talk 06:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently on a self-imposed vacation from all Bible-related articles and have no interest in discussing their content. I'm here to find out why this person is stalking and defaming me. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
He won't answer your question. Convenient.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
There's no need to answer it because it's already been answered. There are plenty of references to support the version I restored right here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It looks like that was part of their edit war on Battle of Jericho, with Alky2000 removing it and Dylan continally restoring it without discussion. Look Doc9871 above. I was trying to come to some peace with him, and then look at his comment above. He goes right back to attacking me. I do not like being confrontational with him but each time I try to make peace he goes right back on the war path. Also notice that he reverted a change I made to this posting a few minutes ago [51], even after all of my complaints in the paragraph above about him reverting my edits. What am I suppose to do?RomanHistorian (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
That's nice. The difference is that 1) I didn't even know about 3RR at the time 2) I moved on. Note how I can both learn and move on. That's two things I can do that you can't or won't. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I hope the Wikiquette editors take note of this. I can't work with him because of what you see above. Every last time I try to work with him he just refuses to do so, cold reverts and remains hostile. I also noticed that my offer of truce above remains unanswered by him. I want to work with him but he refuses to work with me. What am I suppose to do???? My offer of truce remains, and I so wish we could stop this hostility. I don't like it and don't want it to continue.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
There's no "good" or "bad" guy here: each of you are accusing the other of stalking each other's edits. The way this usually goes from what I've seen in extreme cases is an interaction ban. Does it need to go there? Hopefully not, but they are there for a reason... Doc talk 06:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
By all means, go there. Do whatever you have to do. I'm willing to move; he's not. He accuses me (falsely) of once having stalked him. I'm stating the obvious fact that he is currently stalking me right this minute. The difference is obvious. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I am offering a truce if you accept it. That means we leave each other alone and if you want to change my edits then you have to work towards an agreement rather than just reverting and disappearing.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Or else you'll stalk me some more and defame me on random talk pages? You're not in a position to offer me a truce. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I said we leave each other alone so no "stalking" or "defaming". Is it yes or no?RomanHistorian (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If you promise to stop stalking and defaming me, I'll consider this matter closed. If you go back on your word, I won't rest until you are permanently blocked. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Does that mean that if you have a problem with one of my edits, you will work towards a compromise?RomanHistorian (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If Dylan's on a self-imposed break from Biblical articles, there shouldn't be too many articles you two edit in common.[52] Can you both edit articles without one showing up to where the other is editing? A mutually agreed-upon interaction ban? It's better than a real one. Doc talk 07:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My worry is that when he comes back, he will continue to revert and not be willing to compromise. I will completely avoid him, except where he reverts edits I have already made. I can tolerate him reverting some of my prior edits without making an issue, but I am afraid he will go beyond just a couple and do what he did before: revert just about everything. If I can't get him to agree to compromise, I don't see how we can avoid each other when he does come back. I am not going to revert him back since that tends to just be destructive. I will probably have to seek other editors to come into the articles he decides to change. I definitely want to avoid more trouble with him. What do you suggest, if he comes back and starts reverting without discussing?RomanHistorian (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, IBANs and any sort of blocks or sanctions won't happen here, but at AN/I. If you two actively stay away from each other, whomever shows up first to revert the other on any article would have broken your peaceful agreement, and then it's probably time for more drastic measures. Interaction bans aren't uncommon, but you both seem willing to try and avoid conflict with each other. I'd say any reverting without discussing is a bad sign for any editor, and that bridge can be crossed when it's come to. I've got your pages on my watchlist, and hopefully if things flare up again they can be cooled down quickly. This report will be archived for future reference. :> Doc talk 07:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a distinct lack of parity here.
This all started when RomanHistorian removed any mention of the Catholic-only books of the Bible from an article that discussed the authorship of all of the books. He made a bad change, I reverted it, with explanation. This sprawled out into other content disputes on Bible-related articles. At the time, I was very new and didn't know about 3RR or much of anything else, so I took the bait when he reverted, and I edit-warred to counter what I saw as his bias and ignorance. Note that he has no such exculpatory factors in his defense, which is probably why he got blocked and I didn't.
The moment he came back from that block, he allowed his anger to change this from a content dispute to a personal vendetta. He stalked me to a half dozen articles that had nothing to do with our dispute and reverted me with mocking comments. He made false accusations of 3RR violations in an effort to get me blocked. He tried to drum up support against me from anyone who would listen.
It didn't work, but it left such a bad taste in my mouth that I walked away from all the Bible-related articles. Even then, he came to my talk page to threaten and harass me, promising I would be blocked permanently if I changed "his" articles. And today he spammed both BPL and the talk page to, of all things, the Insane Clown Posse in an effort to discredit me.
The problem isn't that we disagree, it's that he seems incapable of normal behavior. For this reason, I'm not here to bargain with him, to offer a tit-for-tat agreement. All that would lead to is a resumption of his attacks the moment I make an edit he doesn't like.
The bottom line is that he absolutely must stop stalking and defaming me. No excuses, no conditions, no exceptions. He doesn't get to continue stalking and defaming the moment he doesn't get his way. He doesn't get to bully me to prevent me from protesting when he puts his own special spin on what are supposed to be neutral, objective articles. He doesn't get to do these things no matter what, because they constitute unacceptable behavior. Anything else, and he deserves to be kicked out of here forever. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
"The aim of this page is to move disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour." This needs to go to AN/I if both of you can't agree to disengage from each other: things might not work out so well for either of you over there considering the diffs that are here (I see bad "things" from both of you). But you're both good editors who don't want to be tethered with sanctions and blocks, I'm sure. I've seen this type of thing before: just stay away from each other's edits, and don't talk about each other in a negative way (or at all, if it's that bad). It can only get worse for both of you if you can't edit in a collegiate manner when you interact on articles. Trust me on this. You'll either a)Learn to avoid each other, b)Learn to actually edit alongside each other to improve the encyclopedia, or c)Be forcefully separated by blocks and/or sanctions. a) and b) are the ones you wanna go for here. Interaction and topic bans, civility parole... it's a bumpy road. Hope this helps, and good luck to both of you :> Doc talk 09:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This may well have to go to ANI because I walked away but he followed. So long as he thinks it's ok to stalk, defame and intimidate, no compromise is possible. Frankly, I have invested much less time into this site than he has, so I have much less to lose if we both get kicked out. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No one wants to see you kicked out, and Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you make a statement like that at AN/I, the tide could quickly envelop you. It's a community project, and diverse members of the community are expected to edit in a collegiate fashion. If there's one revert or negative comment, the interaction ban proposal will be drafted ASAP. If you want him blocked for hounding right now, you're on your own to file that report over there (and it would have to be a very convincingly presented report from either of you to succeed). Does this sound halfway alright? Doc talk 09:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, actually, RomanHistorian said quite plainly that he wants to see me kicked out. However, I realize this is not a battleground, and that's precisely why I'm not interested in battling. I'm only here so I can make things better. If I'm not allowed to make things better because I have this stalker following me around and shouting that I'm the Antichrist, or because I've been ordered not to edit articles on any topic that actually interests me, then I gain nothing from staying.
At this point, I'm going to write RomanHistorian a simple but sincere warning on his talk page, explaining that if I see him "talking trash" about me or following me from article to article , I will immediately go to AN/I and demand a block. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Perfectly reasonable. Things will be watched by others as well, I'm sure. Cheers :> Doc talk 09:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see this is getting settled. I had tried to calm the dispute between these two when I saw RomanHistorian's comments at BLPN and Talk:Insane Clown Posse. Without diffs, too much of RomanHistorian's comments come across as personal attacks, rather than good faith efforts to identify and resolve problems. BLPN is not a proper venue to air such complaints. Neither is an article talk page. However, it does look like there is much to be desired from Dylan Flaherty behavior. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Divebomb

This editor has resulted using conduct unbecoming of an editor for no reason. Which you can see in their most resent edit regarding the content merger of the Transformer character articles. Sarujo (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, you omit the fact that the comment was in response to one of your ridiculous ideas, namely to merge several large articles into character lists, which had already been debated further up the page.
Plus, I'm having a bad day and am therefore in a bad mood. --Divebomb (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
One, it not a ridiculous idea. It's only ridiculous cause you refer it as such. Two, my statement's were not bad behavior, yours were. They're irrelevant, so don't try to paint as a villain in this equation. Three, real world problems is no excuse to pop off on other editors. Whatever happens to you in the real world should stay there. Sarujo (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Well forgive me if I feel that lists are not a place to offload content that should not be moved at all. --Divebomb (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Your opinion is dually noted. What isn't is your attitude. I can see your sarcasm cog isn't malfunctioning. The idea of the incarnations being in their corresponding character lists is to allow the proper emphasis be made on them. While the main character page could have a paragraph just saying something regarding the incarnations. These types of articles should really be generic at best. If we want go in any super detail regarding one version then we use their section in a corresponding list. Plus, as the years go by, more and incarnations will be created. Making either page too lengthy in the kilo department. So how is that ridiculous? Sarujo (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
No, normally when we go into super detail about one version of a fictional character with many different versions we split off said section from getting too long. --Divebomb (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
So what is the big taboo of having these incarnations placed somewhere where they can get proper nurturing? You see what has happened on the Starscream article and how the corresponding incarnation articles are. Each character getting things like infoboxes. Don't you think we owe it to place them in page that we know isn't going to be overloaded? As each series is finished so we won't see anymore new characters come out of the woodwork. Sarujo (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no big taboo. I simply oppose putting that stuff into lists. --Divebomb (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you even seen a character list before? Sarujo (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have. Like I keep repeating, lists are lists, not a place to offload content. I'm perfectly okay with limited descriptions of the characters in question being added to the lists. It's when you propose merging the pages into the character lists that I get annoyed.
Also, I believe this was a section about my incivility, not our content dispute. --Divebomb (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes it was, and as you pointed out the whole thing got you annoyed, which should never happen. I'm also pointing out that, even when you take the rules on civility out of the equation, the incivility is still redundant. As you appear to be misunderstanding where I an coming from in the matter. Calling them ridiculous when you apparently don't where the results will end up. Yet, you're ready to get uppity and drop F-bombs over the matter. Sarujo (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
"F-bombs" plural? I used that word once, and as an intensifier to boot. --Divebomb (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
You're in no position call out trivialities as faults in this discussion. The fact that I pluralized something is highly irrelevant, especially when the powers that be can look on the talk page, it's edit history, and your list of contributions and see the exact number of times. The thing I'm seeing here is you're putting message out of, "yeah, I did it - so what", which suggest if the situation were to arise, you'd do it again. As I stated, real world problems should not govern an editors actions. Yet you, like many potential editors, don't seem to realize this. So you come on anger-editing, and pop off a somebody. Yet, your need to call attention anything I do just to justify an act of incivility, or to try and void a discussion is beyond me. Just like it's even more beyond me why the powers that be haven't already jumped in here to mediate this discussion. Sarujo (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Uninvolved Editor's View: Both of you need to put your sticks down and return to "Why should the articles be merged?" Go back to Wiki-policy and find reasons why or not the articles should be merged or not, listified or not. Repeating the same arguments and responses over and over does not build concensus, it simply generates more heat than light. Hasteur (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Faustian

This is currently at AE; no use addressing it here. Looie496 (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Repeated and never-ending usage of the words like “lie”, “falsification” “dishonesty” etc.; argumentum verbosium accusations in “POV”, “falsifying sources” etc – links and diffs are [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] . Notice would be nice about to avoid name calling and incivility like (“This lie was placed into an entire section created by Jo0doe (talk)”) [58] ,and accusation based upon a mistranslations [59] of the Ukrainian and Slovak texts [60] Thank you . Jo0doe (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User above was blocked for a year and then for 6 months for falsely using sources and for exactly the behavior he is being criticized for. See here: [61] for block log and here: [62] for Russian wiki permaban. He is here now, doing the same thing, only because the original blocking admin seems to have retired, others don't want to delve into the mess, and I don't have time now to file an A/E.If anyone's interested, here are just two examples of his misuse of sources: [63] and [64].Basically his game is to find foreign language stuff that he hopes others won't or can't verify, and then based on those sources add things to the articles that the sources don't say (creative interpretation to be euphemistic), or cherry-pick facts that present a false picture of what the source says.Faustian (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Jo0doe's charges are groundless, frivolous and obviously retaliatory.--Galassi (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Seconded; Jo0doe's accusations are entirely retaliatory and meant solely to cause an editor he is engaged in warring with further grief. His entire modus operandi revolves around wasting other's time, just like with this grievance he is filing. --Львівське (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Facts about blocking reveal a different picture [65] - [66] -[67] and [68] -not plain English (I admit it ) is not the same as suggested above - also would be nice to look at word "falcification" here [69] -and same source and same wording [70] - not.? Also list of still unexplained blanking [71] [72] [73]

[74] [75] [76] [77] [78]. And same action by last signed above party - [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]. This nice [89] and [90] - And I guess why all historical documents related to articles [91] removed.

Also another word "lie" used -[92] . Jo0doe (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Rinpoche

Resolved
 – Rinpoche is currently blocked indefinitely for incivility and trolling. Looie496 (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just off a 24 hour block (see above), Rinpoche is at it again, now with attacks in edit summaries and edits. See [93] and [94]. Mkativerata (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain to me what is complained of here? I certainly don't wish to be discourteous here (whereas I certainly did in the remark I made which gained my my 24 hour block). I should be very happy to amend any specific concerns you have and if appropiate apologise. Rinpoche (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
"little Hans", obviously. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Well that wasn't obvious to me - it was meant as nothing more as an affectionate allusion to Sigmund Freud's (Austrian) famous little Hans but I apologise unreservedly if it give offence and I shall edit it out directly. I would say however that really it's something i would hope that someone as formidable and robust has Hans Adler is, I mean he even uses words like 'crap' for heavens sake, could shift for himself here.
Do let me know if there's anything else I can do for you (I can put in "big Hans" for you if you like, any kind of "Hans" honest I'm easy, it really isn't an issue. Rinpoche (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Listen, you currently come across like someone who has had a severe meditation accident. Whatever is the purpose of Buddhist practices, your current state of mind cannot be it.
Surely you were aware of the line you crossed when you floridly invited me to join you in your "onanistic vows" exercises. Surely you were aware of the line you crossed when you took my remark (insisting on differentiating between abuse of children and abuse of adults) out of context and in your response turned it into a defence of paedophilia.
If you are a troll: Congratulations. Well done, very impressive. It was a pleasure to meet you, but the game is over now.
If you are a genuine lama I recommend that you stop editing Wikipedia and seek the help of a health professional. Hans Adler 08:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hans. I certainly didn't wish to be discourteous on this occasion or ever. Tease you a little, yes (I've seen your remarks on Wikipedia here and there to the effect that humour has no place in Wikipedia and of course that makes you a tempting target).
I've already said to you that we can't possibly have anything more to say to each other. Ultimately it was your edit of Sogyal Rinpoche, whose wiki I've never touched because I have nothing to contribute (but I did look at it and understood how difficult it must have been to reach consensus on what to say about his issues concerning his sexual activities), that persuaded me of that. I don't really see the point of my enlarging further or for that matter why I should.
I don't completely understand some of your remarks. The reference to 'onanistic vows' (a play on 'monastic vows' of course) is just a joke I often make, well known to my friends. I was implying that I like to deal with issues like this entirely by myself without seeking the solidarity of others. I do this because of a fairly complicated philosphy, partly informed by Buddhism but also to be found in in the writings of Heidegger and Kierkegaard.
I don't really know how to respond with your remarks about differentiating between the abuse of children and adults. Were you saying that I'm defending paedophilia? Accusing you of defending paedophilia? Nonsense to both.
I had to look up 'troll'. Hitherto I only know the word from 'Lord of the Rings' and children's books. I gather it's someone who deliberately posts inflammatory material on the internet with a view to soliciting an emotional response. Not so. But I am passionate about defending my article.
Of course I'm not a lama. The picture on my user page is of Kang Rinpoche and the quote below it is a very striking and beautiful one from Peter Matthiessen's novel The Snow Leopard. It's also well known to my friends why I choose this monniker and that is not for you. I can assure you however that you were beyond offensive privately to me when you described it as at the limit of what was acceptable on Wikipedia.
I've already told you what I am. I am a mathematician like you (imagine). Rinpoche (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems that "little Hans" was a witticism just as "clever Hans" might be. Hans should please allow for a little levity in these discussions. It is a cliché to observe that the Germans have no sense of humour. I'm not sure whether there's any truth in this but it is certainly the case that other people are fond of wordplay and Rinpoche seems among them. If the joke has fallen flat in this case then we should please just move on as humour does not bear close inspection. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    • How is repeatedly calling someone little Hans (which in itself comes across as, well, belittling and patronizing) "witty" or "affectonate" when the "little Hans" supposedly referred to is a boy with "Oedipal wishes and castration anxiety", and you are in opposition to the one you refer to as such? How can this ever be witty and affectionate, and not plainly insulting? Fram (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Well I'm sorry about that. It was thoughtless of me but it was just that, thoughtless. I have already apologised. I don't intend to emasculate myself or anything by way of further penance. I'm open to a duel though. I suggest urostomy pouches at 10 paces. All I can manage really my age, not being all that robust any more see. Rinpoche (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
      • You are both missing some key information. Having grown up near the Palatinate, I have a high level of tolerance for what some people consider abuse. But this kind of thing really goes too far: "Hans dear boy, try hovering it over the pic below and then keep stroking it a while, that's right, nice and slowly just like that [[masturbation | it'll do you good honest]] you'll see" [95] This was supposedly just part of the Hans in Vienna -> Freud's little Hans joke and therefore harmless. I disagree. And I can't say I am particularly eager for constant allusions to where I live and the comments about the supposed quality of my scientific work, and, most recently, the claim that something I have said in a deletion review might prevent me from getting tenure in the UK.
            • Just curious but what does the Palatinate have to do with this? I'm supposing that this is another joke but I don't get it.

Colonel Warden (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    • Due to my (layman's) impression of this editor's mental state, assuming that it's not a troll, I tried to get a professional involved via OTRS. But apparently there is no process for early prevention of new LTA cases. Hans Adler 10:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Slightly redacted after Fram's feedback.
        • Hans, I understand your frustration and complaint, but please leave out any speculation about the mental health of other editors. Focus on their edits, and get them blocked if they continue; but don't get yourself blocked for making personal attacks in retaliation. Just report whatever insults and similar remarks he makes, without any comments about motives or reasons: most people will see these edits and agree with you, and you can safely ignore the others. Fram (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Redacted, thanks for the feedback. I made the statement a bit more subtle, but it's still important for understanding my motivation and therefore appropriate here. I am seriously concerned about the editor. Hans Adler 10:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
          Thank you for this Fram (if it be support) but on this one thing Hans Adler is quite right. I'm bonkers all right, no question of it. Lost it completely ages ago thank god. I finally stopped looking for it and there it was staring me in the face all the time. Thanks anyway. You sound pleasant. Rinpoche (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

This alert is based on Arthur Rubin's rollback of my good-faith edit sourced to The Guardian with no edit summary. When I asked for why my edit was treated this way, Arthur responded contemptuously (User_talk:Arthur_Rubin#Minor_tag.3F) and implied that I was a 9/11 Truther or something, despite the fact that I do not recall contributing to 9/11 articles except for one edit adding an econometrics journal article about possible insider trading by the terrorists in June 2008 (nor did I come even come remotely close to endorsing 9/11 Truther beliefs in the subsequent talk. However, I think this is somewhat irrelevant - even if I was a 9/11 Truther, which I'm not at all, editors should be commenting on the content, not the contributor, the first instruction of Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Avoiding_disputes. People who are conspiracy theorists shouldn't be hounded, although I do think that they should be monitored.

Arthur Rubin is an administrator, and is generally expected to comply with policies, especially the simple and easy ones like civility. Administrators are expected defuse conflicts when possible rather than inciting them. When I saw his response, I was provoked into anger (although also somewhat confused). Since I've been on Wikipedia for several years now, I've matured enough that I didn't respond in kind - but when I asked him to adopt a more polite tone, he responded by asking if I had or would (not clear) read the article that I'd summarized. This is despite the fact that I've been requesting that he discuss his justification for the revert on the article's talk page, for proper recordkeeping.

Arthur's flippant response led to me to look into his history, which shows that this is not an isolated occurrence. In November 2009, (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive575#Severe_Wikihounding_and_Disruptive_Editing_by_Arthur_Rubin), Arthur was chided by a couple neutral editors for marking non-vandalism as vandalism, one of whom noted that he had previously brought it up with Arthur. There's also a 2007 complaint about a rollback similar to mine. Although not directly related to the wikiquette issue, Arthur Rubin was blocked 8 times in early 2008, mostly for edit-warring although one was related to a contentious tool abuse allegation where he was unblocked to participate in [[the discussion. There have also been complaints that Arthur Rubin assumes bad faith and doesn't discuss well (eg Gregbard's complaint and some other dispute), but these disputes were too contentious to mean much.

Interestingly, right above my "Minor tag?" section on Arthur's talk page is User_talk:Arthur_Rubin#Unexplained_an_unwarranted_revert..., complaining similarly about a summary revert with no explanation. What I want out of this alert is for Arthur to adopt good faith, acknowledge the guidelines of the WP:MINOR tag, make some effort to adopt the recommendation in WP's procedural policy of "Always explain your changes in the edit summary to help other editors understand the reasoning behind them" (WP:DISCUSSION), and actively work to use an internet tone which is not contemptuous, disrespectful, and anger-provoking. II | (t - c) 00:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like Arthur. He is very aloof. He makes no substantial contributions himself, but rather deletes others' work. Usually he does so with little indication of why. He is very presumptuous. He has been around long enough to know how to avoid actual policy violations, but will play to the hilt. He is the type that knows how to abuse all of the informal guidelines (e.g. "assume good faith is not a suicide pact" so he doesn't have to). He is over-sensitive on certain issues so as to try to dramatize his criticism. He is a prima-donna who like articles the way he likes them, and if they are not, WELL, then it's just total nonsense! Nonsense!
To be completely fair, he can break down and offer some constructive input but he never does any of the work himself. Usually it takes several reasonable approaches before he drops the drama and cools it.
Good luck dealing with him. He has been around too long and is most likely incorrigible. Greg Bard (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I have admonished Arthur Rubin for misusing rollback. If this had been an ordinary revert, with a proper edit summary, there would not be any issue here. Looie496 (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
<redacted comment about Gregbard: See WT:MATH#Notification: Effective deletion of formal theorem for his latest antics, which is probably why he found this section.>
As for the content, II has made absurd edits in the past, but I should have checked to see whether this one was absurd, instead of merely being wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah me and my "antics," with my integration of subject matter and all. I'm terrible. If my contributions are antics, your contributions are "shenanigans" and "hi-jinks."Greg Bard (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Gredbard, that was neither helpful not appropriate - and you should know, detracts from the case at hand. The goal here is to improve communications between individual users in cases of possible incivility or minor personal attacks - your statement serves as the opposite. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Since the issue at hand is Arthur, in reality, your oversensitive digression is counterproductive. However, I will take it under advisement. Arthur is prone to high rhetoric like "absurd" and "nonsense" and that is obviously my point here.Greg Bard (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No, Bwilkins was spot on. Your comments were completely out of line, regardless of what you may think. And when called on your bad behavior, you turn around and blame the person pointing it out. "Oversensitive digression?" Good grief. 72.74.203.71 (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You know, I'd really appreciate it if Arthur would back up statements like "II has made absurd edits in the past". Personally I think it's a bit absurd to say that about someone without a diff. But we've all made mistakes, and I'm sure I've made a few in the past three years that I've been editing. II | (t - c)

Colonel Warden

Resolved
 – At least let's pretend like it is, can't we? -- further discussion won't accomplish anything. Looie496 (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Participating in a deletion discussion where the user and I obviously disagree on whether the article should be kept or not. User, against WP:AGF, left a mean-spirited comment I can only interpret as attempting to discredit me by accusing me of being a deletionist and implying that's why my RfA didn't succeed. Oddly, he also made mention of an April Fool's prank from 2008 that I have never denied. All incidents are three years old and the mention of them seems to be a bad faith attempt to discredit me because I disagree with him. User has also been engaging in fights in the same discussion with other editors. From what I hear, this .

Granted they are not the only editor making unneeded comments in the discussion but are the most visible and, in some senses, heating up the other comments. It would be of help to all involved if these snide comments and attempts at discrediting editors in violation of WP:NPA could stop.

Diffs:

  • [96] Says that an editor's inability to recognize things in the manner he sees them is a "failure of literacy".
  • [97] Ad hominem attacks me for three year old incidents.
  • [98] Makes what appears to be a civil comment but leaves an edit summary of "on game playing".
  • [99] Rather than simply address an editor's concerns about sources, accuses them of recentism.
  • [100] Accuses an editor of pushing a WP:NPOV when they question the reliability of a 135 year old one paragraph letter to the editor as a source.
  • [101] Accuses anyone who doesn't agree that the topic is notable of being an idle critic.
  • [102] Accuses all editors who believe the approach is uncyclopedic of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
  • [103] Accuses all people who !voted delete to that point of pushing a WP:NPOV.

It should be noted that the version of the page most users had commented on when Colonel Warden first voted and accused everyone of POV-pushing was very much an unencyclopedic personal essay that was even written in the first person. [104] Redfarmer (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you're right in principle, but when an editor puts substantial work into creating an article, you have to expect that editor to show a bit of emotion in defending it from deletion. Colonel Warden is advised that losing one's cool is almost never helpful, but I don't see anything here that is actually terrible. Looie496 (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It started before he had made a single edit to the article other than to put the ARS tag on it. Accusing an editor of not being literate and trying to defame an editor by bringing up irrelevant incidents from three years ago are pretty counterproductive too. Redfarmer (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The sequence of events may seem confusing now. My understanding of them is:
  1. A new editor creates this article
  2. He is then heavily bitten in the usual way by the NPP who CSD, PROD and AFD the article. No-one lifts a finger to help him, of course.
  3. A string of editors then ridicule the article at AFD
  4. I patrol AFD a day in arrears and so review the AFD after a day. I discover that the topic is quite notable as there are multiple books with exactly this title and numerous other sources besides. I point this out and, to their credit, some of the other editors qualify their opinions stating that, if improvement can be demonstrated, they will !vote to keep.
  5. I tag the article for rescue by the ARS but no-one else shows up so, when I find the time, I start work on the article myself. The changes are extensive being a complete rewrite with numerous inline citations of relliable sources to support all statements made.
  6. I am not thanked for my effort but the open-minded editors confirm their opinion that the article should be kept.
  7. By this time, hostile zealots have been attracted by the ARS tag. They criticise the article, my efforts and myself. I attempt to respond in a civil manner to their comments but it is difficult to answer such criticisms politely when one has to refute them robustly lest one be thought to be conceding the argument. The interaction with user Redfarmer appears at the start of the discussion due to the timing of his first comment, but the indented comments, of which he complains, took place much later after the discussion had become inflamed by the other comments lower down.

Regarding user Redfarmer, my point was to observe that he has something of a history in matters of deletion. This seems fair comment in the circumstances. It is unfortunately the case that such discussions turn into factional tugs-of-war. Opposing editors constantly comment on my associations with the ARS, describe me as a rabid inclusionist and the like. I would prefer that we discussed topics in a dispassionate and impartial manner but, when such faction fighting starts, it seems reasonable that partisans be identified. Note that Redfarmer has chosen to pursue this matter in a partisan manner, singling me out while failing to include editors from his side of the argument.

I otherwise have no history of conflict with Redfarmer and it is surprising to me that our path have not crossed before. If he is genuinely upset then he may have my assurance that I bear him no ill-will and do not consider him an idiot or otherwise of poor character. He should please accept though that his views on deletion are not in the centre ground and that, in such a discussion, he should not be surprised to be identified in this way. When I make a point of some sort, I always like to back it up with evidence in the spirit of our WP:V policy. So, I did not just identify Redfarmer as an extreme deletionist, I cited some evidence to support this view of him. I understand that this may be seen as raking over the coals of ancient disputes but Redfarmer himself makes observations of a related sort on his user page and so it seems that his history is not forgotten by himself, let alone others. It was these rueful comments that led to me to investigate their basis. I suggest to him that, if he wishes the past to be forgotten, then he should forget about it himself and archive his current user page.

I shall review my comments in the AFD and will remove or amend those which, on further consideration, seem improper or unhelpful. I do not like to strikethrough comments in such circumstances as the point is that incivility should be expunged completely so that other editors are not inflamed thereby. I shall not report in detail on this as the matter is quite taxing already and this wikiquette issue is a tangent from the main topic of the lion and the tiger. But if more thoughts occur to me, I shall comment here as appropriate.

Colonel Warden (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether I'm a deletionist or not shouldn't be relevant, but the fact that you went out of the AfD looking for information on me seems to indicate you were looking for information to discredit me. The evidence you cited was a single comment from the RfA that you apparently didn't even verify, as well as, bizarrely enough, an April Fools Joke I played in 2008 which is completely irrelevant as to whether I'm a deletionist or not. The fact that I'm semi-retired and still feel quite bitterly about that RfA should have told you I don't agree with its results or its arguments. Just like the editors back then, you jump the gun and assume I must be a deletionist simply because I don't agree with you. The comment in question the user actually went through my recent history and counted the number of articles I had speedied and voted delete on, ignoring the fact that, at the time, I was active in new page patrolling, meaning I was encountering junk on a daily basis. I provided several articles in the same RfA that I had saved while others were willing to delete them, but was ignored, just as I was on several things in that RfA, which I now consider an unfunny joke. There were genuine issues and I told people that, if those issues were why they didn't want me as an admin, I was find with it; however, people voted against me for all the wrong reasons.
If you look in my recent contribs as well, you'll notice that, the few AfDs I've participated in recent times, this is one of the few I'm actually going delete on. Not that it's relevant at all to the fact that, in the context of the AfD, you were smearing me. You can tell me all day that you didn't intend ill will, but actions speak louder than words.
For the record, I only include you because you're the only one who has directly responded to me, and it was a completely unneeded comment that does not add to the conversation. Your blaming this on parties is just a cop out, especially because, in my history of editing with Wikipedia, I've refused to identify as either a deletionist or an inclusionist, as I consider both points of view extremely narrow-minded. Redfarmer (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I suggest this is closed now. There is far too much time spent worrying about civility on Wikipedia anyway, and if that AfD left Colonel Warden feeling the need to lash out it is hardly surprising given some of the comments levelled at him (and not at his edits).  pablo 09:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You know, I've seen plenty of incivility around here in the inclusionist vs. deletonist wars, and I perused a number of the diffs listed, only to find that there was nothing substantial to them: no personal attacks, unless saying "that doesn't agree with policy" is itself a personal attack. I wish everyone were as civil in their fervent disagreements as Colonel Warden. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    • You don't consider bringing up irrelevant, out of context incidents from three years ago in an effort to discredit me being uncivil? (By his own admission, he posted the accusations to lay out the political landscape, as he puts it; to his credit, he's deleted the attacks, but only after it came this far.) Redfarmer (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • By Colonel Warden's usual standards, this is not incivility. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 18:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Graph isomorphism

User:Bkell and User:David Eppstein deleted significant part of this talk page! They have no right to do it! User:Bkell wrote "hid discussion of original research—Wikipedia is not the place for this" after my undo "This is Talk page, and related to Wiki!" he wrote "okay, deleting entirely this time—you are not discussing the Graph isomorphism article, you are asking for comments about your own original research". However, since April 17, 2010, noted User:David Eppstein, User:Arthur Rubin, User:EmilJ took part in this discussion, and nobody said that it "is not the place for this". Moreover previous undeleted part is similar discussion about another "OR". I see no logic in noted actions by User:Bkell and User:David Eppstein. This looks like destructive action for normal discussing the Graph isomorphism article.Tim32 (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning is basically summed up at User talk:Tim32#Your comments at Talk:Graph isomorphism. The inclusion of his own original research in the Graph isomorphism and Graph isomorphism problem articles seems to be a persistent issue with Tim32, as evidenced by the other comments on his talk page. Please note, too, that after "deleting entirely this time" and giving it some more thought I restored the discussion, though still hidden. I don't believe I have anything more to add. —Bkell (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, let's note the fact: Bkell wrote: "that after "deleting entirely this time" and giving it some more thought I restored the discussion, though still hidden". So, Bkell agreed that his first action was not correct! Ok! Let he give more thought! Congratulations - may be in future we will have real freedom for discussion in Wiki!--Tim32 (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Pseudomathematicians only waste everybody's time, including their own. Discussion of pseudomathematical papers should never happen on article talk pages, except when directly relevant to possible improvements of the article. Self-promotion is an unacceptable use for talk pages. From the talk page guidelines:

Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: [...] Refactoring for relevance: Archiving material not relevant to improving the article [...]. Formerly it was not uncommon to simply delete off-topic posts, but this has led to disputes from time to time, and it is generally better to move such threads to an archive page. It is still common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article) and test edits, as well as harmful or prohibited material as described above. Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion.

Removing this useless thread was permitted but discouraged, because it's unwise as it can lead to escalation if someone complains as you did. I guess that's why the material is now back on the page, but hidden. If you prefer it to be properly archived on the archive page, without hiding, or if you prefer to have it moved to your talk page, then I am sure that can be arranged. In fact, I would be surprised if there was any objection to you doing it boldly on your own. Hans Adler 19:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Please note: he outraged me here, he wrote "Pseudomathematicians" -- I am not "Pseudomathematicians", I am computer scientist. I have acm professional certificate and more ... I am 30 years in this area. I had been printed in BYTE etc (about 100 papers). Is he expert to said this word "Pseudomathematicians"?!! --Tim32 (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
If you are not a pseudomathematician, then you are at least pretty good at appearing as one in that thread. You are not doing yourself a favour by trying to advertise your preprints here. Hans Adler 21:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you pseudomathematician?--Tim32 (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This belongs on WT:SPAM (where there is a recent discussion on editors who only add references to their own work instead of doing anything constructive) or maybe WP:COI/N or WP:OR/N, rather than here. And in any case Tim32's description of what happened is inaccurate: I didn't delete anything, I merely put on off-topic thread back into an archive box after Tim removed it from one. I have entirely removed off-topic threads from some other talk pages, and I believe that I am well within my rights to do so, but I didn't think this one was so far off-topic as to deserve that stronger treatment. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry David, Yes you did not delete it. But I still do not understand why it should be hidden in contrast of unhidden part of that Talk page, which part is similar?--Tim32 (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
David Eppstein printed one (or more) paper(s) about graph isomorphism and so he has WP:COI and has not WP:NPOV. He disagreed with my results and so many times he wrote very aggressive comments about me in talk pages. For example: Talk:Graph isomorphism problem,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(mathematics)/Archive_1#Source_code_and_pseudocode

Many times he deleted reference to peer reviewed source

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11172-006-0105-6

that had been cited in other sources, for example Arjeh M. Cohen , Jan Willem Knopper and Scott H. Murray, Automatic Proof of Graph Nonisomorphism, Mathematics in Computer Science, 2008, doi 10.1007/s11786-008-0052-8. These references have to be added to GI applications section (chemical application), because it is opposite approach for SMILES and graph canonization noted there. In the result of such destructive actions by David Eppstein, now we have no WP:NPOV for the section. Also, David Eppstein replaced standard definition of Hosoya index and so on. This looks like WP:HA.--Tim32 (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

PS. Bkell wrote in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Eppstein#Wikiquette_alert : "Hi, David. I notice that our friend User:Tim32 has opened a Wikiquette alert concerning us: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Talk:Graph isomorphism. Thought you might like to know. (18:51, 21 October 2010)" It seems that David Eppstein asked Bkell to edit graph isomorphism talk page (see the page history also).--Tim32 (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What? No. I have had the two articles Graph isomorphism and Graph isomorphism problem on my watchlist for a long time. I notified David about this discussion because you were supposed to (see instruction B5 in the blue box at the top of this page) and you didn't. In fact I was only cryptically notified about this discussion by a side comment at the end of a remark on your own talk page: "(See Wiki alerts also)." It took me a while to figure out what "Wiki alerts" was. —Bkell (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Your and David's actions were synchronized. Why you did not hide this "off-topic" a month ago? Or (it would be more friendly) why you did not say "stop talking" to User:David Eppstein, User:Arthur Rubin, User:EmilJ when they discussed the paper this summer? :-) --Tim32 (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
There was no synchronization involved. I have graph isomorphism on my watchlist, found out about the recent changes to the talk page from seeing it there, and reacted accordingly. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Why you did not hide this "off-topic" a month ago? And I still do not understand why it should be hidden in contrast of unhidden part of that talk page, which part is similar? Do you want to say that discussion of http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2010 is not off-topic, but discussion of http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1808 is off-topic? Nonsense.--Tim32 (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Time32, this is an obvious case of no immunity for reporters. A pair of very sensible editors have judged your comments off-topic, and filed them accordingly. The didn't delete them. They were exceedingly civil throughout. The further you pursue this, the more you will demonstrate that you either do not understand, or you refuse to abide by the No original research rule. StAnselm (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

1) Do you want to say that unhidden discussion of http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2010 is not off-topic, but hidden discussion of http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1808 is off-topic? Nonsense. 2) Am I sensible editor?--Tim32 (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
PS. If David Eppstein is "very sensible editor", why he did destructive actions? (See above)--Tim32 (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User:CloudKade11

I have recently been having issues with this user. I don't know how much evidence can be found as the user usually deletes it. User is rude, makes personal attacks, and makes edits based on his opinions. One I remember is "doesn't belong here," the user removed information based on that reason, completely from the page. I said if he thinks there's a problem where the information is, then move it, as you're the one with the problem about it. He replied "I'm not doing your dirty work for you." Now, that's all I can remember, here's the most recent:

He doesn't think repeat ratings should be in Television articles, so I brought it up for discussion. You'll see by his edit summaries removing it he's rude Here is the revision history "No one cares about this, it's that simple, WARNING." On the same page in the past he's inflated ratings, and when challenged ignores. User repeated that action and I said "what didn't you understand the first time," user replied: "I don't respond to rude idiotic comments." Here is the conversation about ratings, to make you're own judgments

Now, onto my user page. The latest is: "don't make if you don't reply I will continue to remove the idiotic detail and if you add it back without consulting me first, you will be reported," "Try acting like a normal human being for once," "You really need help."

I am prepared to face scrutiny on the way I may address. My first comment is always civil, but when the users ignores and carry's on, I become more aggressive. If this is a problem, please let me know, so I can change the way I have been speaking.

Here is somebody else's user page he's commented on, he believes the source is unreliable (which it's not), so anyone who adds it gets a warning because he doesn't like the source. The same above with my comment about repeat ratings, it's up for discussion. But he deletes the section because "he doesn't care," about repeat ratings. Here is his first page revision history, for comparison on all the deletes

Please, any help would be greatly appreciated. Jayy008 (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

All I said was that it was unnecessary to have that in the article. What other way to say it than "no one cares" could have been more simple? I also don't appreciate you going through my conversations with other users, since you know nothing on how the whole thing started or if it was ever resolved. So please don't do it again. Thanks. And I NEVER, repeat NEVER said I deleted the section, because "I didn't care". Why do you always have to change what I say to something worse so people can assume I'm the bad guy here? Yes, I'm new to Wikipedia, but this user has been harassing and being immature around me ever since I started editing the 90210 (season 3) article. Jay008 doesn't seem to like my edits, therefore he/she removes them or calls them vandalism, and if I oppose that, he/she becomes angry and begins to tell me how he/she will report me if I don't stop. These are FALSE accusations were talking about here. Again, this is to Jay008: DO NOT GO THROUGH MY CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER USERS. I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT ONE BIT. MYSELF AND WATTLEBIRD HAVE RESOLVED OUR ISSUES. Also, that user is known for constant vandalism and uploading copy righted images to Wikipedia. If anyone should be reported here, it's Wattlebird. He/she began to use profanity against me with repeated rudeness. And Jay008 decided to look the other way and find whatever he/she could to make me seem like the bad guy. And no, I don't think the repeat's ratings should be in the article. No other article on Wikipedia has any repeat rating of any kind. I mean are we really going to add each rating for all the repeats in television history? I took it off, because it's obviously not necessary. But Jay008 decided to come up with a reason for me, and say that I removed it, because I didn't "like it". Which is 99.9% false. Then I said if he/she added the same thing to Gossip Girl (season 4)'s article, then I'd leave it as it is. But of course, no valid response or sometimes no response at all, thus making me angry, frustrated and irritated which eventually leads to me to become rude at times. I just can't reason with this user. I'm sorry, but Jay008 never listens to what I have to say unless it's something he/she agrees on. I'm not sure if I mentioned this or not, but I'm actually following another user's footsteps here on Wikipedia. I do whatever he does or says to other users. He's said simple things such as "no one cares" or "doesn't belong here" and people have tended to leave it as it is. This user has been on Wikipedia for years, and people seem to agree with mostly everything he says. This user also has never been a "trouble maker" or any sort of thing like that. I don't know, I just believe Jay008 blows things way out of proportion. CloudKade11 (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Making a final personal coversation with the user. As requested on my talk-page now I've made a formal case against him. Jayy008 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Well CloudKadell is certainly a little brusque and indeed has acknowledged being rude above when frustrated or irritated. However, Jayy008 was less than civil in the original disagreement about "inflated" figures. Accusations of vandalism should not be made when there is a genuine disagreement about interpretation of figures. Also, CAPS in posts are seen as shouting and therefore best avoided. I would advise both editors to take a brief break before hitting that "save page" button and to hold off on the "warnings". Fainites barleyscribs 22:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you please tell me what's "less than civil" about: "Hello, please don't inflate ratings as you did in the 90210 season 3 page. It had 2.05m viewers for the first half of the episode, then it fell, a lot. The average number between both half hours is used on Wikipedia." Using hello to start it off, begins nice and following it with "please" with even nicer. So could you explain that to me please? Also, I've tried Here, to reason one last time, a long set of words. But it went ignored despite being at the users request. I request intervention against bullying. Jayy008 (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This, both edit and summary is less than civil.Fainites barleyscribs 23:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Because the user continued to inflate after the first comment. I was under the impression that once you have assumed good faith the first time, you don't have to assume it the second time if it goes ignored? Jayy008 (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Calling editors vandals because they disagree with you about the interpretation of sources and relevence of information is not very polite. It's liable to make the recipients testy. Your definition of AGF means that if an editor does not agree with you first time round, you are entitled to assume bad faith and behave accordingly. If you think about it that cannot be how AGF works. Fainites barleyscribs 23:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but rules are rules. It had nothing to do with me disagreeing. Average ratings are just how it's done. I don't understand why you're making out like it's my opinion having correct ratings? :S. That's like saying if somebody changed Mariah Carey's latest album to 5 million sold, and the user who reverted it called it "vandalism," was wrong because it's their opinion sales are lower. confused. Jayy008 (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Well no because he hasn't plucked a figure out of the air. It's the first figure in the source. If you say there is a rule on wikipedia about first and second half viewing figures, have you referred CK to it? Fainites barleyscribs 00:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My take on this is that Jayy008, although he makes the common mistake of incorrectly describing edits he doesn't like as vandalism, is otherwise making every effort to be polite and cooperative, whereas CloudKadell has repeatedly been rude, uncivil, and argumentative. CloudKadell seems to have gotten a wrong impression somewhere concerning Wikipedia's norms for behavior. There are severe limits on how long this belligerent and argumentative style of interaction will be tolerated. Looie496 (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Really Cloudkade? You going to throw up that someone has uploaded copyrighted images? What about the 35+ copyrighted images you uploaded without a proper license. When I tried to discuss it with you, you said I'm in no need of stalkers/creepers. Thanks. I would advise anyone looking into this matter, to go through CloudKade talk page history. Not to mention threats they've posted on my talk. They call any edit they don't agree with or are unsure about, "vandalism" ([106] [107]) or leave users uncivil warnings.[108]. Mike Allen 01:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I just want to throw in "that user is known for constant vandalism and uploading copyright images." I think what should be taken into account is the user I am now. I don't think I've had a vandalism warning since my first archive. And I can't remember the last time I uploading a copyright image? That last warning I received for it was here And the only normal warnings I've received were there too. I don't delete all my warnings from my page. PS, am I supposed to defend myself here or shut up? Jayy008 (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Umm, I think the latter, since Mike Allen is talking about CloudKade11. Sorry, I guess you were talking about the comment earlier on by CloudKade11. StAnselm (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Well CloudKade has agreed he's been rude. The question is, what does he propose? Fainites barleyscribs 11:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to my earlier comment, you're correct. And no Fainites, he's basically said he was provoked, calling my attempts at a reasonable conversation stupid and idiotic. Jayy008 (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ged UK

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

Request for unprotection: [109]. Response by Ged UK: [110] I have no idea what "You know perfectly well there's an explanation, it's the same one you get every time you ask" means, I have never had any explanation from Ged UK before. 1) I find such behaviour incredibly rude, and unjustified. 2) I believe that Ged UK is abusing his position by declining an unprotect request - for he is the person who protected the article in the first place, he would hardly agree to unprotect the article. This represents a conflict of interest. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

He has also ignored 2 previous communications I have left on his talk page regarding the issue, however he replies to everyone else. I suspect this was because I requested unprotection for the TV Polonia page 2 days ago, and it was granted. However he re-protected the page with no reason again almost immediately. I suspect prejudice against IP users. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment This accusation against GedUK is absurd - he is one of Wikipedia's best and most civil admins. There's a number of IP editors who have been edit-warring on a number of TV channel articles (partly fights between IP editors in Thailand and Poland), and when one is protected they move to another one - so we don't see a lot of vandalism on any one specific article, but we see it slowly moving from article to article. If anyone wants to edit TVP Polonia while it is semi-protected, they can easily register their own account. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you please comment on my original concerns, notably about Ged UK's rudeness, and also about the abuse of declining to unprotect a page he has protected. I am very disappointed that you regard my concerns as "absurd" (this in itself is an uncivil accusation) and fobbing me off with the comment that I can register; however I notice you are very active in editing the same articles as Ged UK, and seem very friendly with him. It would be good to have a response here by someone who is not involved in his edits, and can have an unbiased view of the situation. Anyone? 82.152.216.15 (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Interesting to read the thoughts on BSZ's user page: For me, biting new content contributors is one of the most damaging actions there is and For being uncivil to newcomers? Yep, that's a good candidate for blocking, because it has great scope for damaging the encyclopedia by chasing away potential content contributors. The whole Wikipedia culture can initially be confusing and daunting, so we should never be uncivil to a newcomer, this all seems at complete odds with your dismissive attitude to my concerns above. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that I think accusations of incivility by GedUK are absurd, as he is one of the most civil people around. And that is not at odds with my comments on my user page - protecting newcomers does not mean I cannot disagree with them when they make unwarranted accusations against other Wikipedians. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion that he is "one of the most civil people around", however that does not explain his recent uncivil behaviour regarding protection of the TV Polonia article. I did ask that you comment on the concerns, so please can you let me know what is an "unwarranted accusation" that I have made. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I think 1) is unwarranted, as simply not replying to you on his Talk page is not a breach of Wikiquette - nobody is obliged to answer anyone else if they choose not to. Re point 2), declining to unprotect an article that he protected is not an abuse of position - in fact, the protecting admin will often be consulted in such cases because they know the full reasons for the original protection, and other admins might not. Anyway, that's my opinion - I'll leave it for others to comment now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually 1) wasn't about not replying on the talk page, but about the bemusing "You know perfectly well there's an explanation, it's the same one you get every time you ask" - What? I have never received any response or explanation from him previously, so what can this mean? And what should I know "perfectly well?" 2) I take your point that the protecting admin "know(s) the full reasons for the original protection", in that case why not discuss the full reasons instead of "You know perfectly well there's an explanation, it's the same one you get every time you ask". 82.152.216.15 (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2010 (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:Ronz

This conversation has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to think that he can act unilaterally in ways that are, in my view, disruptive to the project.

I encountered Ronz when I engaged an RS/N request regarding Weston A. Price and a source being used in that entry by fringe critic Stephen Barrett - see here. The consensus in this discussion, as well as a similar discussion at the FT/N, has been that Barrett, while a notable critic of contemporary fringe science/health theories is not a reliable source on Weston Price, or the historical context in question. User:Ronz appears not to accept this and has been acting disruptively in relation to those whose comments appear to him to be at all critical of Stephen Barrett. In fact he appears so "sensitive" to criticism of Stephen Barrett, that others regularly comment on it when they encounter his behavior - [111], [112]. Over the last few days Ronz has being acting disruptively in this area, at times under the claim of WP:BLP and of protecting Barrett from "libel" and "defamation".

I should note that Ronz did not refactor the comments or ask the editor who posted them to refactor the comments but instead chose to remove them in entirety. When he started these deletions a couple of editors who objected, reverted him, myself included. I tried to tell him to get some outside input on the BLP matter since he appeared alone in his belief that there was a violation. He made no efforts to do so, and just kept reverting. It was made clear to me that since a BLP concern was raised by Ronz I should not edit war to restore them so I stopped reverting him, and instead started a thread at the BLP/N. Not a single editor commenting at the BLP/N has agreed with Ronz assessment of there being BLP violation in the deleted text, yet Ronz is now trying to WP:GAME the system by tagging the conversation as "stuck" and later as having "no consensus". He did the same thing at the FT/N discussion, also declaring it "stuck" and edit warring to keep it in, despite a clear consensus on several matters. He doesn't agree with the consensus of course, and it relates directly to Barrett's reliability as a source on Weston Price, of course. In my view this activity is disruptive. Ronz clearly has a "sensitivity" when it comes to Barrett and it isn't helpful. What can be done?Griswaldo (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


Curously enough, making the same arguments on multiple noticeboards tends to reach "diminishing returns" exceedingly rapidly. At least make different arguments on each. Collect (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that this is forum shopping. Assuming good faith, I think that it is more likely that it’s two different editors filing independently without realizing what the other was doing. Also, there are some substantive differences in the filings. But, I would agree with you that the two should be merged. Perhaps User:Griswaldo could add his comments from here to the filing at ANI and close this one. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
sorry, this is true - I had no idea Griswaldo was bringing the issue here. should we close this one and stick with the ANI discussion? or the other way around? --Ludwigs2 19:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
ANI would probably be a better place for this sort of discussion, considering the extent of it. Griswaldo's comment here would be very useful if it is put over there, I think. SilverserenC 19:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hxseek

In the midst of edit warring (almost a half dozen reverts within 24 hours) Hxseek dismissed requests for sources whiel flinging around accusations of nationalism and accused another editor of being a troll. This editor had reverted some the edits by Hxseek, where Hxseek removed sourced information and replaced it with unsourced information. I explained that he should withdraw his personal attack, he removed my comment. Since I quit reverting him (since his edits finally had sources), he decided to come to my page to gloat, because Wikipedia is definately about winning. He has then gone on to continue making accusations against the other editor, as if the other editor or I were the ones responsible for the original sourced information. At no point has he apologized or acknowledged what he has done is wrong. He has had multiple editors explain that his behavior is wrong, and he has shown that he's gotten the message, but he continues appear to be oblivious to the nature of his behavior, refusing to WP:AGF, accusing the other editor of falsehood and me of being unintelligent. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I note another editor has already intervened on the talkpage to try and assist with collegiate debate, suggesting an RfC. Looking it over it appears as follows;
  • Hxseek's edits lacked sources. He edit warred to keep them in despite legitimate requests to provide sources if replacing apparently sourced material. He subsequently supplied sources on the talkpage in detail and finally in the article. In the course of this his behaviour has been pretty offensive to User:Ian.thomson. User:Ian.thomson raised this CU on Hxseek.
  • Hxseeks also takes great exception to the original sources which he claims are a) inadequate for purpose and b) misrepresented in any event. He expressed himself in strong terms and the other editors took umbrage at the accusations. User:Ian.thomson did not seek to defend the original sources which did not originate with him. His concern was that the changes were adequately sourced. User:HonestopL does seek to defend the sources and his tone and manner are also uncollegiate. However, after the intervention of User:Dougweller the discussion appeared constructive until HonestopLs edit here, whereupon Hxseek accused him of lying, misrepresenting sources and falsifying edits. When User:Ian.thomson stepped in to raise WP:AGF and WP:NPA he was accused of disruptive, pseudo well intentioned commentary.
  • Now these accusations about the sources are pretty serious ones which will require examination of the sources to resolve. This can't be done whilst editors are hurling insults at each other and assuming that those trying to ensure civilised discussion are ill-motivated.
  • I would suggest that the relevent passages and evidence of notability from the sources are provided and that if that does not resolve matters, set it down for an RfC.Fainites barleyscribs 22:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a difficult issue because on the one hand Hxseek is having serious problems with civility, but on the other hand his position on the issues appears to make more sense than the alternative. In particular, using the Farley book as a source is bizarre. Looie496 (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I thought some of those sources looked a bit odd. Bosworth as well. But even so - how can this be resolved if eveything goes off at a tangent in a flurry of abuse? Fainites barleyscribs 00:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I do, on the one hand, admit that I should be more cool on the talk page. I do extend an apology to Ian.Thompson for calling his additions "pseudo well intentioned". I will watch my sarcasm in the future.

However, Ian.Thompson's other accusations are incorrect. Specifically (A) he has accused me of making a personal attack on the user HonsetopL. This is unjustified. I did accuse him of falsying the (already poor quality sources) he used. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is not a PA, but a reflection on his edits - even if he was not the one who originaly constucted them. He has justified their continued use - despite the fact I actively searched them and found nothing refering to "Greater Iran" which HonestopL insisted on using as the only possible location of Scythians. Not only is this entirely incorrect, academically, but the term itself is (a) imprecise (b) vague (c) politically loaded. I have re-iterated that I have no personal / political connetions with Iran or countries which might be anti-Iran. Honestop, on the other hand, appears to have a particular interest in maintiaing that Iran be mentioned as the lead sentence, despite the fact that the none of the quality sources mentioned anything about an Iranian homeland. The only (questionably) reliable source is Encarta - a rather general, primary school level source. Even if we accept this, then this should not be given WP:UNDUE, and mentioned as possible scenario at an appropriate place in discussion. I really think the flow of my arguements are better. And am I inbcorrect that, if and when there is controversy reagarding an issue, 'generalist' sources might not suffice ?

(B) I did not accuse Thompson of being unintelligent. His insistance on policing civility, etc (which might be justified) is his perogative. However, he has done little to nothing to contribute to the article itself. That is what I have said- as it is clearly visible- and the remark was not of a general nature with regard to his overall capabilities. What is more, I suspect Mr Thmopson is biased here, for he has done absolutely nothing to advise/ warn HonestopL for his questionable editing Hxseek (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll is considered a personal attack, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is a personal attack. Here you imply that HonestopL is trying to deceive editors, disrespecting editor's intelligence, and then you go on to say that I've bought it, which is an implication that I'm stupid enough to fall for what you think is a trick that intelligent editors wouldn't fall for. In that post, you also say "if you have anything actually cnstructive and intelligent to say," which implies that I've said nothing intelligent nor constructive (you know, like asking for the article to have sources). But then again, I guess I must stupid since I apparently can't spell my own name right. As for contributing to the article, why is it that you didn't seem the least bit capable of citing sources until I repeatedly pointed out WP:CITE and asked you to cite sources? As for bias, HonestopL tried to make sure that the article had sources, and hasn't been insulting to other editors. I've explained to him that I'm not as eager to see the old information remain as he is, I'm just concerned about the article being sourced, and with editors not making this site look bad. As for the Iran issue, as I've said before, Greater Iran describes areas "significant Iranian cultural influence," it isn't any more nationalistic than saying English is a Germanic language. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
What's very questionable here is persistent lying and twisted of non-facts by users Hxseek. He makes up a lot of accusations and blows air and never shows for anything. If you want to defend him putting in unsourced POV opinion of the origins of Scythians linking them to Kurgans in Russia as he did, over the Encarta Encyclopedia by a Ph.d in History of Ancient Persia from Oxford University, I have doubt you have a balanced approach.
I have been very polite through out this whole process so don't try and make this out to be me when all the users involved pointed to Hxseek. And I don't understand how 2 unknown editors to this conversation suddenly come out in support of Hxseek after everything blaming me for what? quite speculative! Just read the conversations of the Talk page of the Scythian and his character towards us asking him for sources when he refused to provide any. He's a POV pusher and harasser.
Hxseek was very disruptive and making credentials attacks to the sources like Encarta Encyclopedia like "I read this when I was 12" and brushing off The Persian Empire: a Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period as "very generalist, and not really focussing on nomads" which is ridiculous if he knew how solid this book is.
To top it off he reverted 6 times in a 24 hour period, that 6 times and he's been here a long time he knows better, how come no block??
He keeps making up things saying things like I'm a nationalist for "Greater Iran" and I pointed out the 5 sources all said "Persia" or "Iran" and Hxseek claims the "Persia" is NOT a "region" therefore cannot be used as a origin! Judge the sources to his: Here's for the Iranian Origin
  1. ^ Brosius, Maria,(D.Phil) (1997-2009). MSN Encarta - Scythians, Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2009. "Scythians, groups of nomads that originated in Iran and inhabited the Eurasian steppes in the 1st millennium BC ..."
  2. ^ Kuhrt, Amélie (2007). The Persian Empire: a Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period. Volume 1. New York: Routledge. p. 44. "The Sacae are the Scythians, in this instance the Scythians of Central Asia, who always lived on the margins and beyond the frontiers of the Achaemenid empire ...."
  3. ^ Bosworth, Joseph (1848) The Origin of the English, Germanic, and Scandinavian Languages, and Nations; p. 204
  4. ^ Farley, Frank Edgar (2009) Scandinavian Influences in the English Romantic Movement; p. 197
  5. ^ Saklani, Dinesh Prasad (1998) Ancient Communities of the Himalaya; p. 42
I'd also like to just point out that Encyclopedia Britannica says for Scythians origin as:"Scythian, member of a nomadic people originally of Iranian stock who migrated from Central Asia to southern Russia in the 8th and 7th centuries bc. " They also say for "Central Asia" that it is "north by Russia and on the south by Iran, Afghanistan". So that's pretty much in sync with what the Encarta Encyclopedia and The Persian Empire: a Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period. Volume 1 says, all 3 are very solid.HonestopL 01:09, 23 October 2010

To respond:

  • What's stated by Encarta goes against other sources. At best, you would be breaching WP:UNDUE by insitantly reverting to a version which states that "Scythians came from Greater Iran".
  • The Kurht book is talking about the Sakae specifically- a distinct and particular branch of Scythians. As it is clear from the sentence you have just mentioned
  • Britannica - the article on Scythians simply uses central Asia, which is different to Iran. you then connect it to another article, which states the bounderies of central Asia. This is a bit of a stretch to use convincigly. Again, Britanica is hardly an expert source. It is a rather general description, just like Encarta. If you look at other expert sources, like the ones I discuss (Cmabrdidge Inner Asia; Art of the Scythians; A History of Russia, central Asia, Mongolia; Europe before prehistory' EMpire of the Steppes; books which devote hundreds of pages to such issues ! All have different conclusions, but none of them point to "Iran")
  • As for your other 3 sources, I fail to see how they're even worth considering

What's more, poor HonestopL seems to believes that Indo-Iranian peoples spread FROM Iran, rather than TO it (According to some sources, the Scythians may have originated in the region of Persia (now Greater Iran), in Central Asia.[13][14][15][16][17]. If a branch of the ancient Iranian peoples, they would have expanded into the steppe regions by 1000 BC.[18][19][20]

Not only has confused the issue, but he totally got it in reverse ! And those sources say nothign about Indo-IRanian spread FROM Iran in 1000BC. It is not even disputed that Indo-Aryan languages spread into what is now modern Iran. When he incessantly reverts edits with such nonsense, and uses sources falsy to support such absurd claims, calling him a troll is not far fethced. So is he nationalistic, or just totally misinformed? Either way, I do not see how we should entertain such behavious, although Wikipedia is both for academics, and those not so academicaly inclined, alike

And Thompson, you seem to be taking this way too personally and are making far fetched claims. It might appear that you have now engaged in a personal crusade. Also, for your information, I fail to see how there is Iranian influence in Siberia ! In any case, the term is vague (to quote your quote - "an area with significant Iranian influence") and anachronistic for the period involved. Why would you insist upon using it when the literature has clear, specific alternatives (and none actually mention "Greater IRan"). Eg Tuva, Kazakh steppe, souther Siberia, Ponto-Caspian region. These are the terms we need to use !

Hxseek (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This thread is about Hxseek's rude behavior, not y'all's views on sources (that's what the article talk page is for). Hxseek, have you just not read WP:AGF? Are you incapable of following it? It's one of the things that this site is based on, and if you don't want to follow it. And since subtlety was ignored last time, my name does not have a damn P in there! It's already written for you! How can you misspell it when the correct spelling is all over the place? A symptom of your lack of consideration of other editors? As for a "personal crusade," can you show that I have any sort of history with you? No. Can you show that I have any sort of history of doing this? No. You have treated other editors wrong, and you continually refuse to acknowledge it except as meager signs to get people to back off. You've been blocked for this sort of behavior in the past (once for edit warring using sockpuppets, once for personal attacks, and once for just edit warring, for which you pointed to the past unrelated edit warring block as if it was relevant), if any sort of poor behavioral history appears to be present, it's your's. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Hseek, let me then apppeal to your own interests. You may well be right about the sources. I don't know. But they need to be presented and discussed so everyone else can see. This needs to be done without bad faith assumptions, sarcasm and insults. It is quite possible to argue firmly without all this. If what you say about the inadequacy of the old sources is right then it will quickly become apparent and you will have won the day. However, if you edit war without citations and attack and insult other editors, however irritating you may find the stuation, you will just find yourself having to waste time at WP:WQ, WP:ANI or worse, having handed yourself over bound hand and foot to your opponents. What's the point? Fainites barleyscribs 17:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hxseek, you making things up again. Go through the 5 sources and they say "Persia or Iran". Second, if you have proof all these sources are faulty, please for once in your life, give some academic references related to the question.

And thirdly, You just exposed yourself. In relation to the Origins of the Scythians you say: "Hxseek: Tuva, Kazakh steppe, souther Siberia, Ponto-Caspian region. These are the terms we need to use !" This is the problem, you are acting very bias and it would be helpful you could please stop the disruptive behavior and not ignore users trying to be rational with you.

BTW Britannia says the Scythians are of Iranian stock...originating from Central Asia that they migrated to Southern Russia, which they also state stretches from north Iran to southern Russia. Hxseek just broke the 3RR again in a 24 hour period and reverted 6 times in 24h a few days ago. Users would take him a little more seriously if he could spell correctly, and showed more respect to everyone here. Ian.thomson has made VERY important points relating to his history of Blocks. Outstanding just how far he will go. HonestopL 11:53, 23 October 2010

That's rich coming from you, talking about 3RR. And it is not my POV to use the terms, but what's written in the sources. Whats is' your POV is Greater Iran Hxseek (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

HonestopL is trying to resolve a content dispute (on a topic on which he apparently knows nothing to begin with) by wikilawyering. There is nothing to see here. --dab (𒁳) 08:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive93&oldid=1150995045"