Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive96

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Insult

One unsigned user insulted another user with this comment (he commented another user and called him "insecure rascal"). I do not know what is procedure for for acting in this cases, but I trust there are users who know. Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me: let them keep talking it out on the talk page. "Insecure rascal" would be one of the most inoffensive things an editor can get called here that I've seen; it gets much worse ;> If it escalates into serious incivility, well... BTW: you must notify editors you discuss here - use {{subst:WQA-notice}} for that. Cheers :> Doc talk 09:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I notified editors about this discussion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The reason why I "insulted" user:Megistias is because this issue needs to be taken seriously, and I can't believe at the things this user is getting away with. The maps he produces are a bigger "insult" themselves, he is cherry picking sources and counter-fitting history. I do not intend to insult the user any further, but believe me, he deserves a permanent ban. I have nothing against the Greeks and the truth, but when user:Megistias pushes a personal agenda rather then a scholastic one, it is clear he does not deserve to be here.

"The most dangerous untruths are truths moderately distorted." Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

( 174.119.109.116 (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC) ).

see the user's follow-up comment which *is* serious incivility and which shows his comment about being against a single author only to be utter crap85.75.242.25 (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

@85 it is already known that you're not a new user, so please tell us what was your username? Btw don't make personal attacks like calling people who disagree with you trolls.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

please cut the sophistries...there was no disagreement between me and the IP on the map...the IP is a troll because only a troll could make all the comments he did also yes im an old user (older than you i guess...unless you tell us what your previous username was..in other words have you stopped beating your wife yet?) but ive ALWAYS edited as an IP..now do you have any comments RELEVANT to this case or are you here to dazzle us with your sophistries?85.75.242.25 (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

MarnetteD

Not content to foil my prior attempt at a constructive edit to wikipedia this guy has now taken to stalking me as I attempt other uncontroversial constructive edits. New Monkey to monkey the TV show- just....wtf is the logic there? That show isn't called New Monkey at all...New monkey the music genre meanwhile- that its not such a big part of rave to warrant mentioning in the general article does not mean it is not rave. The old article on it seems to have been deleted and now there's not even a redirect? But I digress. MarnetteD is the embodiment of all that is wrong with wikipedia these days. He is a key example of the reason wikipedia stopped being the wonderful community it used to be. Only by combatting people like him can wikipedia stand a chance of recapturing its former glory. 90.217.99.8 (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

He has a point about it being a department store [1]. This should be taken, possibly, to WP:AN/I, and please get a username. BE——Critical__Talk 01:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Although there is a clear instruction to inform an editor when you are bringing them to this page I was not contacted about this thread nor the previous one here [2]. The previous thread should be read and absorbed before trotting off to AN/I. I can only echo the sentiments posted by the other editors on that thread regarding the attempts to override the redirect. This IP chose to ignore all of the previous advice. If they want to create a new article I can only suggest that they follow it. As to the current question a redirect was overridden to go to a page where therre was no mention of a music genre called New Monkey and I was only following the path laid out by a previous edit summary on that page. As to the personal attacks contained in the above they show a lack of understanding about the community aspects of wikipedia and all that is glorious about it now. MarnetteD | Talk 02:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I just meant that this isn't a matter of Wikiquette is it? BE——Critical__Talk 02:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks you for clarifying your post. I misinterpreted some of what you were saying and I apologize for that. I am not quite sure how any of this rises to the level of a post at AN/I when there has been no attempt to discuss anything on the talk pages for either redirect page that this IP was trying to change. Thanks again and cheers of the holiday season to you Becritical. MarnetteD | Talk 02:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Mactruth

Mactruth started editing in a POV way, among others adding blatant unreliable sources (blogs). After I revert most of his edits adding reliable sources (Richard Clogg, Loring Danforth) and warned him, he started harassing me, claiming I was the one who vandalised and posting lame statements on my talk page. He insists on keeping as "reliable" sources in the article POV authors such as Andrew Rossos (he never hide he is biased on the issue) and Antonio Milososki, the current minister of foreign affairs of the Republic of Macedonia, POV by definition. I haven't revert those yet, mentioning to him that they are POV and see how he will continue. He then copied the intro of my user page and used it in his user page in an at least lame way... Note that he has been blocked many times before for similar disrupting behaviour. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 08:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono

Cptono is a bully editor and uncivil to other users. Here is a statement he made on the glenn beck talk page:

Blah blah blah. You took such a good step in attempting to find sources. But we all know the Earth revolves around Mars. Also, double check what "reliable source" is just because a couple seem off. And if you really really ant something to change in the article, start providing some drafts. Cptnono (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And here is a statement he made on my own discussion page:

Go cry yourself to sleep, sweetheart.Cptnono (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed his history as an editor, this is part of a clear pattern. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have little use personally for the editor you're complaining about. But this is extremely weak sauce. The advice in the first quote seems reasonable (write a proposed draft/change). The second comment is a bit dickish, but so what? There may indeed be a broader problem with him (or not) but there's no there, here.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

These are just the two most recent examples. This is routine behavior for Cptnono, and he has done much worse in the past. He, like many editors, bullies new users, and users who disagree with him. And I would suggest saying something like "Cry yourself to sleep" when someone is raising legitimate points, is bullying. As is his other statement. I shouldn't have to tolerate. Nor should other users. Free exchange of ideas is fine. Free reign for bullies and jerks is not. If this is how things are on wikipedia, I will not contribute any more. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Read this: WP:DIFF. Compile a bunch of them if there there to be dealt with, and the open up an RFC/U (see WP:RFC). I strongly doubt anything will come of this specific complaint. It's just too minor in isolation. You'll have to demonstrate the broader problem, if it's there to see.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't minor. Veteran editors name calling and belittling new users, is a problem and it frankly reflects poorly on wikipedia. I've watched Cptnono as I've read articles for some time. He is a habit of attacking other users and using wikipedia editorial policies as a vessel for bullying. I am not going to take hours out of my day to trace every statement he made and build a case against him. Either the editors here are willing to do their homework to keep wikipedia free of cyberbullies or they aren't. But you can be sure, I will no longer contribute. Just don't feel like being attacked without any moderators stepping in. Especially when I raise a very legitimate concern, and it is clear Cptnono is abusing his veteran status to help advance his own partisan viewpoint in articles. Good day.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I got a warning for it. Doesn't hurt my feelings. Your comments were out of line and I am not bullying you. Simply asking you to follow our standards. You still haven't provided a proposed line with a source attached. That is a simple enough request.Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My comments weren't out of line. There are serious problems with that article. I pointed out what they were on the discussion page. I didn't even make any edits tot he actual article, I just wanted to bring problems with it to peoples' attention. Then I supplied some links to prove the point. I have no interest in attaching my name to an article that is obviously the victim of partisan consensus building. I noted that fact and you jumped all over me. I also have been watching you as a wikipedia reader for some time, and this is part of a clear pattern with you. I wish you no ill. But don't bully me and don't call me names. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If you do not see how "Am I the only one who suspects this article was crafted mainly by pro-Beck editors. The "disputes" section is an obvious attempt to obfuscate his numerous controversies." and "The bias is clear. Hide behind whatever pretend-editorial rules you want to" inappropriate then we are done here.Cptnono (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Those are my honest opinions based on the text in the article and its history. Perhaps I could have worded it better, but should I not express concern about bias in an article? I clearly saw evidence of bias, and you dismissed my concerns with a wave of the hand. You then used the rules as a bludgeon when it appeared I had raised some legitimate issues of bias in the article. There are plenty of good, unbiased articles on wikipedia. The Glenn Beck page does not appear to be one of them. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and just to show this isn't isolated. It appears there is another posting on this page regarding Cptnono. The person in question certainly made a snide remark to the editors, but that doesn't warrant this response from Cptnono:

"What does the mean you stupid fuck? Who do you think created that page? I know you are sad that no one agrees with you but shut up already. Cptnono (talk)"

Again, this guy has a history. You can it ignore it, or you can acknowledge it for what it is: bullying. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No. I have a history of incivility. I can acknowledge that. But I was not "bullying" you. "1) Do not attack other editors by assuming they are doing something like that. 2) Controversy'section are frowned upon so the info needs to be neutral with a neutral section header. 3)start your comments at the bottom of pages not the top." is not mean an anyway. But you just said you "Have no interest in wrangling with users" so maybe you should stop.Cptnono (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
And I would feel worse but calling someone a fuck was a response (albeit an inappropriate one) to an NPA and my responses to you were based on your continuous accusations of malicious editing. Pot calling kettle black.Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You were bullying. The snippet you just posted was not an example of that, what I posted of your statements was however. I saying specific editors were unbiased, I was observing that the page was biased and it looked like it was edited by people favorable to Beck. There is a difference between that, and what you did, which was to target your attack at me specifically. Forget it though, if wikipedia is going to let you continue using the F word against users (whatever your justification), I want no part in wikipedia. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The bullying started when you said "cry yourself to sleep sweetheart" on my talk page and when you said "Blah, blah, blah" in response to points I had raised. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

He is continuing to bully edit on the Glenn Beck Talk Page. I am trying to draft a reasonable entry, and he is just blocking it. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not continuing to bully you. Three editors agree that it should not go in and have provided reasoning. I have offered you several suggestions and not been uncivil since I was warned. You on the other hand have repeatedly asserted that editors are not including it due to bias which is inappropriate.Cptnono (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
My most recent suggestion [3]. Your most recent attacks/assumption of bad faith: [4][5] Cptnono (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Stuff like this isn't so bad but it isn't helping: [6] Consensus is part of what we do here and your response to not achieving it does not need to be to assume that others are intentionally editing in a malicious manner. If you notice, I have been editing the page for awhile and have been happy with its neutrality. It says some scathing things about the guy. If you do not think so you should request that it be checked for neutrality.Cptnono (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. You are just using the rules to be a bully editor. Plenty of editors agree with the addition, and you and the others are blocking it for political reasons. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it outrageous that in an article on a major political pundit, who frequently talks about Islam and Terrorism, the fact that he believes the number of muslims who are terrorist is close to 10% doesn't get mentioned. That is not a neutral article at all. You are just allowing beck fans to dilute the content. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you continue to take his words out of context? If you really want to rail about Beck simply go to DK or HuffPo or MMfA and post your thoughts on their boards. Arzel (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Again how are those words taken out of context. He said that many people say only 1% of muslims are terrorist and he thinks the number is closer to 10%. In 2003 he said something similar, stating that 10% of them want to kill us. Just because he was making another point when he said it, doesn't mean the statement has no meaning. He said it. That is a fact. It has been covered by major news organizations. That is a fact. This is exactly what I am talking about. Clearly users like Arzel are beck supporters and are protecting the page from additions that they feel are negative. There is no way anyone can listen to the program where beck says the number is closer to 10% and feel it is being taken out of contextDeliciousgrapefruit (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't care for Beck, and never listen to him. What I don't like are POV pushers that see something on MMfA, HuffPo, Daily Kos, or one of the other far left blogs come here to promote their point of view. The first I even heard of this incident was here, which leads me to believe that it is not that big of a deal. You should really take your issue up with all of the people that answered the orginial poll which gave Beck his ammo to begin with. Arzel (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I don't want to rail about Beck. I just want the article to accurately reflect what the guy is about. And I think him saying he thinks the number of muslims who are terrorists is close to 10%, is significant enough to include. When I look up a public personality, I want access to controversial statements they've made so I can make my own judgment about them. By all means, include the context, and include his explanation. But include it you must. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This sort of thing is not OK. I am sorry you feel beat up on but you came to the talk page and started rocking the boat and not assuming good faith. You are the continuing to be uncivil.Cptnono (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptono, you are being a bully editor. You are using the rules as a weapon to keep relevant details out of articles. You are misusing consensus as well. I looked up the consensus guidelines. At this stage, we should actually be getting mediation on the entry. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And the user just won't stop:"Because it is basically being written by his followers already.""he beck fans are able to have their way on wikipedia because they know how to use consensus as a weapon." WP:NPA can apply in two ways "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." and "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." The later would apply if I was a fan but I have already said on the talk page that I am actually not a fan. Editors should not have to deal with the repeated accusations. I can understand it happening but he has been asked to stop several times. I get that he disagrees and feels bullied but such feelings do not allow for him to continue to assume the worst of faith. So maybe it is time that he is given a firm reminder and notice that further personal attacks will lead to a restriction on him editing the article.Cptnono (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe its time to ban Cptnono's account because he bully edits and because he is basically preventing a highly relevant news story from being included in the beck article. Cptnono, I'm not going to wrangle with you on the beck page (which is why I haven't edited the actual article), but its clear you and many other editors are restricting items on that page for some reason. Can I prove its because you are biased? No. But I have a very strong hunch about it. And here is just another example of you bully editing someone.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And I would just ask the powers that be to examine cptnono's entries and his interactions with other users over the past several months. I am not the only one he has bullied, attacked or been uncivil to. And he has made a practice of using wiki policy as a weapon. What is more, he uses it selective to get his way on articles. I've taken the time to look up every guideline he cites, and with the possible exception of assuming good faith (a guideline I think is deeply misguided) he is missapplyuing all of them, or providing an incomplete picture of the guideline. Also suggest someone examine the Beck page. It has significant issues. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been warned for being uncivil to you and not continued. Blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive so it obviousley would not be needed. Even more importantly it has to be pretty extreme to warrant a block. Civility blocks are pretty rare and my one dickish comment to you was not severe enough. I am not saying I will make it again but it wasn't bad enough for a block. You on the other hand have ignored requests to stop. SO I don;t want to see you blocked neccassarily but it might be time for you to not edit that talk page anymore especially since you have already clearly said you are not interested on working on the article. If you do not want to work on the article you should not be there. I would welcome reviews of the page. Some people said the same thing you are saying a few months ago and they came in gung-ho. I sat back and watched and in the end they adjusted like 1 paragraph.Cptnono (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I was actually blocked for civility once (for three hours) but that was part of arbitration enforcement where decorum standards are much stricter. So maybe a good way to close this out is for me to be nicer (I haven;t even been mean to you since this was opened) and you do the same. But if you continue to make personal attacks you will need to not work on that talk page anymore. You should also probably consider working on the article since you are not improving the article right now.Cptnono (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
But I didn't realize there was yet another one.[7] I have linked you to NPA and spelled out exactly what you are doing wrong. Stop it.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono looking at your most recent responses on the Beck page, I don't believe you've become more civil. Perhaps your natural style is just a little peppery, and you don't realize how it comes across, but most of your posts come off as insulting. And the difference between what you are doing and what I am doing is this: I make general criticisms of the page and those who have edited it as a group, whereas you make criticisms of specific individuals. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have considered the article, but you;ve told me my addition will be deleted by you if I make it. You keep wielding "Consensus" and other guidelines as weapons. But when I look them up and compare them to our discussion it is clear you are misusing them. So far no one has provided good reasons for keeping the entry out of the page. A number of people have agreed it is relevant. And those who disagree, clearly won't change their minds no matter what. Which is why, out of frustration, I am saying the fans of beck are controlling the page. It may be against guidelines to assume good faith. But when it is so obvious they blocking consensus, what is one to do. I mean, one of them actually argued it shouldn't be included because in his view calling muslims terrorists is a compliment in their culture. I am sorry but Beck's assertion thatr the number muslims who are terrorist is close to 10%, and Zakarias response on CNN (as well as reactions in the Huffington Post and coverage in the NY Daily News) make this a major statement and controversy. It should be included. I assume anyone who wants to know about his views on musilms and terrorism would want that included. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Cptnono looking at your most recent responses on the Beck page, I don't believe you've become more civil. Perhaps your natural style is just a little peppery," Maybe that is the issue. Can you point to which response you are talking about since I do not recall saying anything lately that would be seen as offensive. Also, the content discussion should be kept over there and not here.Cptnono (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have twice had occasion to remind Cptnono about civility guidelines: [8] and [9]. The guideline Comment on content, not on the contributor is there for a purpose. Unfortunately the reminders did not appear to have the desired effect: "he can fuck off for making that comment" and "kneejerk garbage". I suggest that Cptnono take some time to consider why they were blocked for incivility after facing an Arbcom enforcement case. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have received a block (due to articles under AE having stricter standards) and warning since the Nov 17th one so it is stale and handled. And yes, on my talk page I did refer to your warnings as knee jerk garbage. Asking "Have you read WP:CAPTION" is not uncivil. If I would have said "Have you even read CAPTION" or "Hey, idiot, go read CAPTION" that would not be civil. It was an honest question that you read the tone in incorrectly. And your second warning was for saying that you had not presented an alternative. There was no personal attack there. We were having a discussion on how to improve the article and I was asking for you to do more. It was an overreaction on your part. And "knee-jerk garbage" on my own talk page is far from crossing any lines. Stop poking editors on their talk pages for no good reason and you won't have to deal with it in the future. The double standard shown in the above and below reports (editors making attacks then me getting grief for responding) is ridiculous but I can at least understand where Deliciousgrapefruit and Walter Görlitz are coming from. But this latest comment from Kenilworth Terrace reeks of a game being played or a simple overreaction based on other mistakes (I don't know which). And since since there is no true personal attack in this recent comment, no block or warning is warranted since I already recently received a warning based on bullet point two of Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Blocking for personal attacks we should be done here. There have not been any further personal attacks since F&W sent me a reminder. Cptnono (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The object of posting here was not to rehash previous discussions but to give some useful advice: (1) Comment on content, not on the contributor (2) Don't be uncivil when given useful advice. Take it or not -- your choice. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't just a civility issue. He is bullyediting and controlling the beck page. Just look at the discussions. He pretty much controls what goes on there and what doesn't. He is policing it, and using policy guidelines as a weapon to steer the page in the direction he wants (IMO). I did blow my top at him in a post, and I appologize, but it is very frustrating when the page is clearly being controlled by one editor who appears to be very biased in favor of the subject. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology. I also was way out of line with my comment so I hope you know that I sincerely regret it. Also, you are free to say I am biased here all you want. Just don;t do it on the talk page. And it is not "policing" but simply watchlisting. Notice that the recent conversationbstarted by me was because there was an edit war starting. Better to use the talk page than to edit war. Feel free to jump in but keep the accusations of bias out since I don't need to tell you anymore what my biases are.Cptnono (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't need to tell me your biases, you are showing them through your actions. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you have to keep on rocking the boat?Cptnono (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Because it is a major problem when one editor effectively controls the content of a page. At this stage, a mediator needs to step in and issue a decision on the article and including 10%. But you are not the person who should be making that call. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It is in your head. I don't control anything.Cptnono (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You do. You police the thread, and you've basically told me you won't allow the draft I proposed to be added to the article. You are the person on that article blocking additions. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This really has nothing to do with breaches of Wikiquette, but just to correct what you have said here, at ANI, and at the mediation page in one place: I am not the only editor who disagrees with you. Cptnono (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No, but you are the one actively blocking and you are the one who acts as if he is the head editor of the page. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks at Talk:Theosis

User in question has engaged in a long series of personal attacks focusing in particular on one other editor (User:Esoglou). Attacks have included charges of lying, laziness, mental incompetence. Bad enough if done once. Unacceptable as a pattern of ongoing behavior. Richard S (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've said it before and say it again. On an article talk page: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Please in advance forgive my frustration that I am sure will reflect in my reposne here. But uh..Fair enough to the critique of me but uh...why is Richard ignoring Esoglou's vio of the WP:3rr and focusing on me? [10] This diff is off of the same talkpage Richard was on that same talkpage at that moment making comments. Richard appears to be very selective in what he notices. Notice all of the other Wiki policy violations that Esoglou has committed and no one. NO ONE. Is publicly saying anything to him at all. No one went to his talkpage and posted that he stop as it looks like he is committing 3rr no one has said anything to his citation tag abuses and attacks that reflect bad faith. No one is addressing that on the Dec 16th Esoglou committed 3rr on the theoria article [11]. No one is saying anything to esoglou or filling reports on his behavior and when I do nothing gets done. Heres where I reported Esoglou to the 3 RR noticeboard TWICE before and nobody is doing anything [12], [13] Except complaining about me calling Esoglou lazy and incompetent. This is the exact same behavior that is running editors off of this project and the administrators are attacking the people whom out of frustration make comments critical of this type of disruptive behavior. Funny but isn't this very noticeboard a noticeboard to point out behavior and be critical of it? Why the double standard? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding WP:CIVIL. It's simply, "be civil". There are no loopholes. --132 20:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Leaving aside the issue (which has been mentioned to LoveMonkey several times in the past) that 3RR / edit-warring / disruptiveness / incivility complaints should be made on the appropriate notice boards and not on article talk pages, the incident which LoveMonkey mentioned first above (here) does not appear to me to be a 3RR violation. (See the entire section on the talk page, including material posted there after LoveMonkey's initial complaint.)
I haven't looked in detail at the Theoria article issue, but the incident which LoveMonkey reported on that article's talk page would (at the very worst) appear on its face to be new material added by Esoglou, followed by two reverts. Possibly an edit-warring violation (depending on the nature of the exchange), but not a violation of 3RR.
As for LoveMonkey's edit-warring notice posted on the notice board last July (yes, July 2010!), it's my impression that this notice requires more detail in order to make it clear that the activity is edit warring and not simply a content dispute. I'm not in a position to say why no admin came along last July and either requested more details or closed the report in a timely manner, but the proper response to this is not to reject or ignore the notice boards and insist on posting accusations in edit summaries and article talk pages. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Some specific, recent examples which I believe will illustrate the kind of thing Richardshusr (talk · contribs) ("Richard S") is reporting:

and, by contrast, an example of a recent interaction between Esoglou and Richardshusr:

Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

V7-Sport

Resolved
 – SnottyWong squeal 00:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:V7-sport is refusing to adhere to talk page formatting guidelines, and keeps placing his posts out of chronological order (placing his later responses above everyone elses earlier responses), and interjecting them within other people's posts, instead of responding afterwards. I have tried to fix this[14][15], and pointed him to WP:TOPPOST, but he keeps reverting back to the incorrect formatting[16][17]. Could someone uninvolved please take a look at this. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to file this, but I'm just trying to get someone he's not in a conflict with to talk to him about formatting. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries folks, I called a waaaaambulence. Nothing to see here. V7-sport (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
V7-sport, he has a point. Repeatedly interjecting comments out of chronological order makes it very difficult for other editors to determine how the conversation unfolded. Whether or not this is something you do often, I have no idea and I'm not going to dive through your history to find out. If it is something you do often, please stop. If not, then you're probably fine. WP:TPO says that interruptions can occasionally be ok in certain circumstances: "In some cases, it is okay to interrupt a long contribution, either with a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or with a heading (if the contribution introduces a new topic or subtopic; in that case, one might add :<small>Heading added for REASON by ~~~~</small> below the heading to make the nature of the change clearer). When introducing an interruptive break, please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption. One may also manually ensure that attribution is preserved by copy-pasting the original signature to just before the interruption." Also, Jrtayloriv, it is considered rude to modify other people's comments on talk pages. I understand why you did it, but in the future you might just want bring up the problem with the user in question and ask them to fix it themselves. SnottyWong converse 19:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Snottywong -- I will do as you suggested in the future. Seems like this particular issue is resolved for now -- he's started to use normal formatting. When I posted, I thought it was going to be a long-term issue due to the manner in which he responded. Anyhow, someone can feel free to close this as resolved if they want. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Brewcrewer

At this diff User:Brewcrewer writes in response to a Request for move from the current title Allegations of Jewish control of the media to (the former title) Jewish control of the media (antisemitic canard) with the comment: "Allegation" implies a reasonable claim, which this isn't, except of course to antismeties, conspiracy theorists, and the rest of that gang.-- I asked Brewcrewer to remove the personal attack section, obviously against wikipedia policy, and because there were a number of editors who had supported the current title. Brewcrewer just ignored me. It didn't help that, as the diff shows, User:Jehochman - an admin who should know better - called my request "bullying" and defended the language. Perhaps someone could point out the wikietiquette problem and ask Brewcrewer to remove it. And if you are really energetic point out to Jehochman that it's not bullying to request its removal. (If I was a bully I'd go straight to the relevant Arbitration Enforcement where others have obtained short term blocks for such insults.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I read that as Brewcrewer stating that the claim was not reasonable, not the title. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia:Wikietiquette#Avoid_indirect_criticism makes it clear that it is uncivil for Brewcrewer's language to clearly imply bigotry by those who support another title than that supported by the editor. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
He is not implying bigotry from the people who support another title, he's implying it from the people who think the allegations are real. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone just criticized me for putting in "some people are paranoid" about one of the titles, and obviously some wiki editors would be included in some people. So I removed it. Similarly, in context of this topic area and on a page where editors are repeatedly challenged to prove they don't support the allegation of total control, this can be read as an accusation against wiki editors, as a subgroup of the larger group. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it most likely, as Sarek says, that Brewcrewer did indeed mean "that gang" to mean people who find the assertions reasonable, not people who find the word "Allegations" reasonable. On the other hand, it would have done no harm for you to phrase your response more along the lines of I read that as including all the editors who have supported "accusations" and "allegations" which would be offensive - please rephrase it, and certainly Jehochman would have done better to confine himself to making Sarek's point. So more restraint next time all round, please. Now let's all get back to building an encyclopaedia, shall we? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • If you assume good faith, this problem evaporates. CarolMooreDC, Wikipedia is not a battlezone. It's not a soapbox. If you just engage with other editors and listen to their concerns (and state your own) instead of trying to steamroll them with wikilayering, noticeboard threads and lengthy policy quotations, things will be much better. Jehochman Talk 19:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty seeing a personal attack here by anybody. I assume Brewcrewer was not attacking Wiki editors, but rather people in general who make that allegation. However, he should tone down his language. Figureofnine (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle

Resolved
 – Parties have agreed to disengage. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names has become dominated by a single user and thus unproductive. I am requesting that an uninvolved administrator watch the page and intervene if necessary to reset a course to effective action.

My concern is that the behavior of User:Born2cycle will discourage others from leaving an opinion on the two proposed actions against User:Pmanderson. User:Born2cycle neither brought the initial complaint nor made either of the two proposals for disciplinary action. Throughout the discussion, however, User:Born2cycle has engaged in "aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict," which WP:CIV expressly prohibits. At least three participants in the discussion have asked User:Born2cycle to stop (here and here and here). Even if User:Born2cycle feels that s/he has made a sincere effort to contribute positively to the discussion, s/he needs to consider why others are reacting badly to his/her tone.

Based on the following criteria at WP:CIV#Identifying incivility, I identify the problematic behavior as follows:

  • Ill-considered accusations of impropriety and belittling a fellow editor. Here I'm accused of dodging a question after I gave a lengthy exposition of what values underlie my view (I consider this irrelevant, but was attempting to comply with a request). In the last comment to me, User:Born2cycle accuses me of "stonewalling and question evasion." These words impugn my credibility as a good-faith editor, though as User:Aldux pointed out, the characterization is untrue. WP:NPA states: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."
    • User:Born2cycle continued to malign my credibility at User talk:Aldux#If that's not stonewalling, what is? It is exceedingly bad etiquette to complain about another editor without notification, and this is a form of indirect hounding. If there was a problem with my behavior, an incident notice should have been filed, and I should've been reported. Or he should've brought the discussion to me. My lengthy responses show that I did not "share my opinion and run"; I don't think the matter at hand is a yes or no question; my discourse was not meaningless. I did answer the questions; User:Born2cycle just didn't like my answer.
  • Need to have the last word. User:Born2cycle seems reluctant to allow other users to have their say. He stopped posting only when I didn't defend myself after being accused of "stonewalling and question evasion." But simply walking away from this kind of behavior only condones and encourages it to continue: an experienced, highly regarded editor has just posted his opposition to the block and User:Born2cycle has initiated another round of interrogation. (This editor, wiser than I, has not engaged.) Notice that User:Born2cycle does not interrogate users who agree with him; these questions are not posed in the spirit of disinterested inquiry.

Desired outcome. User:Born2cycle's behavior could deter editors from leaving opinions, particularly neutral parties who aren't motivated by either animus or loyalty and who don't want to subject themselves to this kind of aggressive cross-examination. Therefore the desired outcomes are:

  • A neutral, uninvolved administrator should watch Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names and intervene if this kind of exchange resumes.
  • All or most of the section following my initial comment here on the block proposal up to the next opinion should be placed under a collapsed header, so that it doesn't leave the impression that anyone leaving an opinion contrary to that of User:Born2cycle will be subjected to similar badgering.
  • User:Born2cycle should not be allowed to play the role of prosecutor and to dominate a forum designed to solicit a range of opinions.

I plan to leave a notice on the project page, and on the talk page of User:Born2cycle. Thanks for your time. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

tl; dr. Unhelpful forum shopping by Cynwolfe, cf WP:KETTLE and WP:POT. Mathsci (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Diffs demonstrating forum shopping and similar behaviour by Cynwolfe? Nev1 (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
There is already a lengthy public discussion taking place on a subpage of another noticeboard (WP:ANI). There is no need to enlarge that discussion to here, using WP:CIVIL as an excuse. My own understanding is that the discussion there concerning blocks is totally irrelevant, as there is no prospect of a block, The best idea is for both users to disengage and go their separate ways. In fact both of them are making contributions in good faith and there seems to a large degree of agreement between the two of them. If they want to discuss things further, they should both stay on-topic and restrict themselves to the proposed topic ban. Archiving the unhelpful discussion on a one month block might be the easiest solution here. Mathsci (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Specific diffs would help. This is about Born2cycle's behaviour, not Pmanderson's which should be the primary topic of the other thread. Born2cycle is certainly being quite tenacious and is spilling over onto other talk pages. Nev1 (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad Mathsci agrees with my desired outcomes. I haven't filed one of these before, so apologies for errors of procedure. It was my understanding that I was required to inform all those who were involved; therefore, I posted a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names, because the number of people who have contributed there made it impractical to post notices on individual talk pages. I thought it would be "forum shopping" if I made my own selection of editors to inform. I'm not asking for any action to be taken against User:Born2cycle; I just want to make sure an uninvolved administrator keeps other editors from feeling intimated, and keeps the discussion on track as Mathsci suggests. But just to clarify for my own future reference: it's OK to complain about an editor on a third-party talk page? (I saw this by accident, when Aldux made an edit to the obscure article Siburius and I wondered whether the user was interested in Gaul.) If I were to do so, no one would be justified in complaining? This was after I had stopped responding (check the time codes here and here). I didn't respond there, and I haven't responded at the project page; however, Born2cycle has already indicated that he intends not to let others have their say in peace, and I'm not the only editor who would like him to change his rhetorical strategy. Mathsci is quite right, however, about the direction of consensus and the otiose nature of further discussion of a block. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There are some very important underlying issues being discussed here, so I welcome this inquiry in to my behavior.

Of course I'm not neutral on the issue of whether PMA's behavior in question here was appropriate, but I would welcome those who disagree with me to question anyone who shares my opinion on this matter to question us in the same manner as I question them. This is how we get to the bottom of issues in courts, and there is no reason it should not work equally well in WP discussions, for the same reasons. These discussions are much more analogous to courtroom testimony than to cocktail parties in which it is considered bad etiquette to ask pointed questions about off-handed remarks that people make, and I ask that the appropriateness of the questioning at issue here be judged accordingly.

As Cynwolfe notes above, his/her view was based on the general opinion that "blocking should be reserved for users who damage the usefulness and credibility of the encyclopedia". So, I thought (and still think) it would helpful for everyone involved in the discussion (including Cynwolfe) to know whether this view was based on the related in general opinion that "rude, uncivil and disruptive behavior towards other users on talk pages damages the usefulness or credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia", or whether it was special dispensation expressed for someone for whom she was biased favorably. I still don't know the answer to this question, but still believe it would be useful to the discussion there. Cynwolfe was of course free not to answer, and free not to reply at all, but he/she chose to reply without answering, repeatedly, so I kept re-asking. Please note that every time I allegedly "badgered", it was in reply to yet another post from Cynwolfe in which he/she "responded" but did not answer.

I'm also disturbed by the implication here that pointed questioning (what Cynwolfe derides as "role of prosecutor") about stated opinions, especially in deliberations about relatively serious questions like the blocking of someone, should be discouraged.

I know that the refusal to answer questions is a pet peeve of mine, and I suppose I get a bit obsessive about it, especially in important contexts like this one is. But I just can't imagine refusing to answer a simple yes/no question about a position I've taken. I mean, are we in these discussions just to share our opinions and run, like at a cocktail party, or are we trying to understand each other (and our selves) and hopefully find common ground and consensus through the discussion? If a position does not hold up to scrutiny, why maintain it? Why would you want to hold a position that does not hold up to scrutiny? How do you know whether your position holds up to scrutiny unless you hold it up to scrutiny? So, I presume we all want the meaningful discourse and not just a pointless like it/don't like it festival, and so I do get frustrated when others are simply not forthcoming about what they're saying and why. So I remain perplexed by Cynwolfe's refusal to answer an important and relevant yes/no question. Without such answers, others have no way to distinguish legitimate objective defenses of the behavior in question from rationalized statements made in defense of someone they are biased to support without much if any serious objective consideration of the inappropriateness of the behavior in question.

Cynwolfe claims the question has been answered. Yet I still have no idea what his/her opinion is about whether "rude, uncivil and disruptive behavior towards other users on talk pages damages the usefulness or credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia" (which is what was asked). If anyone else can figure out an answer to that from what was posted, please let me know, but I suggest that "answered" is being conflated with "responded".

As to the concern that questioning like this "could deter editors from leaving opinions, particularly neutral parties who aren't motivated by either animus or loyalty and who don't want to subject themselves to this kind of aggressive cross-examination", I suggest neutral parties are unlikely to make the kind of ambiguous statements (in support or opposition) that raises the kind of question I asked here. For example, Cynwolfe cites as a supposed example of my problematic behavior my questioning of the statement of a "highly regarded editor". But that statement in defense is entirely about the person whose behavior is being judged ("PMA is a knowledgable editor who makes many valuable contributions"), not about the behavior in question, which is the basis of my question. As to deterring other biased editors like this from making biased statements like this that they are unwilling to explain, I suggest that would raise the level of the quality of these discussions for the ultimate betterment of the encyclopedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, part of the problem here is that you asked Cynwolfe a loaded question. In fact several of them. "Do you believe that rude, uncivil and disruptive behavior towards other users on talk pages (not to mention in the edit wars and move wars in which he tends to engage) "damages the usefulness or credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia"? If not, are you for deleting WP:CIVIL? How about WP:AGF?" Just because Cynwolfe avoided a yes or no answer does not mean she avoided answering your question. This looks like a reasonable answer to your question. Pressing for an answer for your loaded question was unnecessary harassment. That kind of obsessive behaviour chills discussion. Could you tone down the rhetoric. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Nev1, please consider the context in which I asked my supposedly loaded question. In a discussion in which PMA was accused of being rude, uncivil and disruptive to varying degrees, Cynwolfe stated, "What I find "telling" is that when I ask, as I have numerous times, for a demonstration of how PMA's behavior damages the usefulness or credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, nobody can answer". Maybe you know what Cynwolfe means by "damages the usefulness or credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia" here, but I wasn't sure when that was written, nor am I now. However, I carefully crafted my question to be clear that I was intending to reflect the same meaning in my words as Cynwolfe did in these words, by using Cynwolfe's words. What would help put Cynwolfe's position in context is to know whether Cynwolfe believes in general that that kind of behavior simply never "damages the usefulness or credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia" (e.g., perhaps Cynwolfe believes since this kind of behavior is restricted to talk page banter it does not affect article space), or whether this was just being said in this case due to personal bias.

So, I asked, "Do you believe that rude, uncivil and disruptive behavior towards other users on talk pages (not to mention in the edit wars and move wars in which he tends to engage) "damages the usefulness or credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia"?

A loaded question is by definition based on a controversial assumption. I try very hard to avoid asking questions based on controversial assumptions, and this situation was no exception. So, it would be helpful to me if you would clearly identify what you feel is the controversial assumption in my question. And, if you think Cynwolfe answered the question (though without a yes or no), please tell me whether Cynwolfe believes that the kind of behavior in which PMA engaged never "damages the usefulness or credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia". Thanks.

By the way, did my repeated questioning of Cynwolfe in that discussion "damage the usefulness or credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia"? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A loaded question is designed to elicit one of two responses. Either the person agrees with the questioner, or if they disagree the question is phrased in such a way that it appears unreasonable. Your second and third questions demonstrated that the first was indeed loaded. If you really wanted to understand what Cynwolfe meant rather than engage in this aggressive behaviour you would have asked "what do you mean by 'damages the usefulness or credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia'?" At best, your question was poorly phrased and your subsequent behaviour embarrassing.
I am not here to assist you with your comprehension skills, Born2cycle; Cynwolfe's response is there for you to re-read if you wish. I don't know whether your repeated questioning of Cynwolfe damaged the encyclopedia or its credibility, but it certainly didn't improve it. Nev1 (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
By your definition of "loaded question" asking Clinton whether he had sex with Monica Lewinsky, or asking anyone, including Cynwolfe, anything that they would rather not answer, is a "loaded question". So, yeah, in that sense, it was a loaded question, and intentionally so. But it was not based on an unreasonable assumption, which is the true characteristic of a loaded question. "Are you still beating your wife?", asked of someone for which wife beating has not been established, is the quintessential example since there is no way to answer it without acknowledging that one is wife beater. Please note that asking a convicted wife beater if he is still beating his wife is not a loaded question, so context is crucial. There was nothing in my question that presumed anything unreasonable, so it was not a loaded question.

Since grade school I've tested in the 99th percentile for reading comprehension, thank you very much. When I ask about X, and the answer is in regard to Y, that's not an answer. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to support the comments from User:Cynwolfe. All wikipedia contributors have the right to an opinion, but in insisting on having the last word and commenting on everyone else's comments, Born2cycle is making a farce out of the Pmanderson debate. Deb (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The page in question is not attached to an article, so no (to answer the question before Deb's comment), it has no immediate or direct effect on the credibility or reliability of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names is about how the community wishes to respond to an editor who provokes strong negative feelings in a significant number of people he deals with. It's important that some editors also like working with him when he's a courtly curmudgeon and not Captain Ahab, and that some productive editors have mixed feelings. The voice of one editor should not be allowed to dominate a community forum of this kind and create an impression that one view is more important than any other, nor is that page the appropriate place to discuss WP:CIV "in general". I made the remark Born2cycle keeps quoting as a reason not to block an editor, and so the question makes no sense: no one has suggested that Born2cycle be blocked or placed under external restrictions, only that the behavior be moderated voluntarily. If you believe that WP:CIV is a black-and-white policy, then you should acknowledge that when you're asked multiple times by multiple editors to tone it down (a fourth editor now has asked), you're doing something wrong rhetorically or socially and ought to pay attention to what that might be, and not just assert the righteousness of your cause. This is indeed why WP:CIV exists. Nev1 understands very well how the rhetorical framing rendered the line of questioning unproductive: "have you stopped beating your husband?" is not a question I'd care to answer "yes" or "no." Cynwolfe (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
LOL, I used the still a wife beater example above to make the opposite point before I saw this. Note that you can identify the controversial assumption in the question, "Have you stopped beating your husband?". The controversial assumption, of course, is that you have been beating your husband. Since you're drawing the analogy, what is the controversial assumption in my question to you? Do you believe that rude, uncivil and disruptive behavior towards other users on talk pages (not to mention in the edit wars and move wars in which he tends to engage) "damages the usefulness or credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia"? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The sheer volume of Born2cycle's comments are a burden, and tend towards becoming some kind of harassment. Here an editor points out Born2cycle commented far more than any other editor in a different discussion, somehow with a nice link to a count of all edits in that discussion. In another discussion (not sure which one) i have seen Born2cycle repeating things because he asserts (perhaps correctly) that an editor didn't read everything Born2cycle had already written. That's a sign u've written too much, not to be remedied by repeating. This is arrogant in a certain way, believing that one given topic is so important that everyone must consider it, and that they must deeply consider everything said about it, again and again. Give other people credit for making their own choices about what to pay attention to. --Doncram (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I hear you. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to let it go if Born2cycle really has heard what people are telling him. Born2Cycle decided not to comment further at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names, but I was disappointed to see him engage immediately with the user who is the subject of the complaint on the user's talk page. Seems like looking for a reason to feel wounded; this remark by Pmanderson may be found "uncivil" by those gathering firewood for PMA's burning, while others might find it a succinct and unvarnished restatement of what Doncram pointed out above, with statistical verification. I notice that of Born2cycle's last 500 edits, only about 10 were made to the content of articles (excluding a few moves and redirects) — a vanishingly small percentage. Of course editors should participate in whatever way they choose, but I don't think I'd be wrong to say that some editors have found it therapeutic to limit their participation on talk pages and forums, or to take a break from these altogether, while resetting their priorities by focusing on article content, and not obsessing about the behavior of other editors — such a focus being the heart of WP:CIV. I look forward to doing that myself, and wish Born2cycle a happy new year. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I'll boldly close this. Happy New Year everyone! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks from IP user

Please assist, after a warning the user 71.164.114.50 re-attacked me and wrote some long amazing post on my talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nahome&oldid=405228494 User claims to be from Newport - quick Google of the store they claim to be from says Newport NH But IP traces entirely to someone/somewhere else entirely (I'm sure that is just a lie like everything else). Then a couple hours later that same began re-attacking me on my user page and elsewhere. I even tried calling the store he said he was from, they had no clue what I was talking about. It is just more tricks please stop them from doing this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nahome&oldid=405250909 Help!!! Nahome (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that this IP user was blocked for personal attacks. Hopefully he will get the message. Figureofnine (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:TALK policy, including off-topic content, and make new headers for new topics

As a new user, I am having a problem with an experienced editor (EE).  The EE and I are now in dispute resolution on his user talk page [here].  There is a table [here] that includes the sequence of related posts up to Dec 26, with diffs for four posts on Talk:Sentence spacing including three by the EE.  This dispute involves the context of the three posts on two sections of the Talk:Sentence spacing page [here] and [here].  The EE doesn't seem to be able to discuss the extent to which his three posts are off-topic, or the relevance of making new headers for new topics.

The EE in my original contact was notably helpful.  Soon thereafter the EE found his way to the Sentence spacing article and made his first posts.  In the first sentence [here] the EE makes note of posting without investigating the section.  For both of the disputed sections, the EE is either never willing or never able to respond to technical questions about the subject.

The recent dispute-resolution discussion is at [re: WP:TALK policy, including off-topic content, and make new headers for new topics].  I have given the EE [here] a list of the number of times I have used the term "off-topic" without him having responded.  I believe that I have made a sincere effort to move the conversation forward and that I have not been met with a like response.

Thanks, RB  66.217.117.24 (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the most salient issue is that you appear to have some difficulties communicating clearly. I made a serious effort to figure out what you are talking about by looking over contribs, and failed utterly. Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I happen to have Johnuniq's talk page on my watchlist and I see the disruptive edits of this IP anon as they crop up. John has shown great patience and forbearance in responding to them in the face of the IP's refusal, or inability, to explain just exactly what he wants. I have considered advising John to just delete such messages as they appear, rather than waste time responding to them, but that might create even more distractions like this one. --CliffC (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
If anyone has any questions, please ask here. Otherwise I probably will not comment much. I would like to clarify one point. The above report includes Soon thereafter the EE found his way to the Sentence spacing article and made his first posts. A possible interpretation might be that I got involved at the article because of a comment on my talk page. That is not correct: My first edit at Sentence spacing was 23 June 2010 (diff), and my first comment at Talk:Sentence spacing was 2 December 2010 (diff). I am pretty sure that RB's first comment on my talk page was 14 December 2010 (i.e. after my involvement with the article). Sorry about the length of my talk page; I have been putting off archiving to try to force myself to attend to something I said I would do in a section on that page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree here with Looie496 and CliffC that the point the anon is trying to make is unclear. I also note that the anon has made elaborate efforts including tables and abbreviations of usernames and talkpages to explain the points they are trying to make without actually making them any clearer to the external observer. In my opinion whatever point the anon is trying to make does not merit the amount of time and effort invested in pursuing it and if it continues it will be clearly unconstructive. Despite this, Johnuniq has replied with commendable courtesy, patience and civility to the persistent and elaborate enquiries of the anon. I think this alert is completely unwarranted and should be closed. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Johnuniq, I was not aware of your revert on the Article page, thank you for the correction.  So where I said "Sentence spacing", I should have said, "Talk:Sentence spacing".  Your last analysis for me on WT:TPG was early on December 2 [here].  Your diff of your first post on Talk:Sentence spacing was also dated December 2, that being 20 hours later.  I hope that clarifies the statement you questioned.  Are there questions you have asked that you feel I have not answered?  Thanks, RB  66.217.118.91 (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Looie496, what I am talking about is "off-topic content and make new headers for new topics".  Table 2 says, "Summary: RB has used the words "off-topic" ten times.  In five replies, Johnuniq has responded with those words zero times." Does that help?
CliffC, "Just exactly what I want" is that Johnuniq make new headers for new topics.
Dr.K, I have consistently said that I would continue to respect Johnuniq's opinion.  I think you know that I've been patient, courteous, and civil.  This page says that this is the place to report "difficult communications".  If I say "off-topic" ten times, and Johnuniq responds zero times, I think this is not a problem of being unclear, this is a breakdown in communication.  Do you still think that this alert is "completely unwarranted" here?  If so, then where should I seek assistance?  Thanks, RB  66.217.118.91 (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi 66.217.118.91. I am doubtful that you by coming here will get any better assistance from this board than you already got from Johnuniq. Let me clarify. If three editors tell you here that they don't understand what point you are making, it should be a good indicator to you that the point you are making is not clear. Coming to this board with an unclear message will not make it any clearer. Thus I am unclear as to where you should go to obtain assistance. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 11:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum (NPA & Incivil remarks)

Resolved
 – Graham Colm (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The editors have agreed to move on.[18]

I left a template warning for this user concerning a personal attack by Implication against Sven Manguard on the RFA I listed above, to which I received an unpleasantly incivil reply. I have a job to do as much as anyone on here, and I don't appreciate being told to "Go away and annoy someone else" when I'm doing what the rules imply should be done. BarkingFish 19:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You might review WP:DTTR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Sandy, noted. However, at the time I left this note, I did not know that Malleus was a regular, I'd never seen him around, never seen any contribs from him, nothing. I did what I was supposed to do according to what I'd been taught. This isn't about my actions however, but the remarks from MF on both the pages above. I do a damn good job here usually, and don't appreciate users, no matter HOW tough they appear, racking on me when they are in the wrong. BarkingFish 19:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Leaving templated warnings for established editors is more uncivil than a few cross words imo. If Sven was so hurt by Malleus's comment, he should have brought up the complaint himself. Besides, it's not like Malleus made the comments unprovoked. Where is Sven's warning for violating AGF? AD 19:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Warning someone for "violating AGF" is extremely counterproductive. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Wrong is relative. A quick check at user contributions will solve questions about established users. This is about your actions, now both yours and Malleus'. A belief that reporting a user to Administrative noticeboard is about the other user is erroneous. Further, you seem to think that the work one does is somehow not to be considered in one's immediate actions or should reflect a decision in an administrative action. In that line of thinking, again perhaps consider the work Malleus does. To get more to the point to resolve this quickly, the crux of this conflict is more about what is considered uncivil yet again. What would you like to see done, BarkingFish? What is your ideal now in this scenario? Do you think Malleus should be blocked? --Moni3 (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
What would that be likely to achieve that previous blocks have failed to achieve? Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, which is why I asked. --Moni3 (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I can tell you exactly what another block would achieve. Absolutely nothing. Nada. Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Unless it were indefinite, of course. ;) -GTBacchus(talk) 19:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
That's never going to happen. There's countless admins standing by waiting to reverse it. Iridescent, Nev1, Ucucha, Moni3, etc. Besides, it'll never garner consensus. Wahoh (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Wahoh, you appear to have created this account just to weigh in on this discussion, apparently to stir a pot that does not need to be stirred, what with calling people twats and now this downright inaccurate statement intoning a cadre of admins exists to protect Malleus. That marginalizes the admins in question as well as Malleus. What are you trying to accomplish here? --Moni3 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Obviously it wouldn't stick if it's not done right. First there would have to be a certified RFC/U or two, and then an ArbCom case. Established users don't get indef'ed without the groundwork being laid. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

See below for my responses to the rest of you. As for what I would like to see done, since it appears Malleus is insistent on ignoring warnings no matter what for, I would like someone who he can't pick off as an "easy target" (as he puts it), such as a normal user, to lay a warning on him, and see where ignoring it gets him. BarkingFish 19:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Leaving warnings for Malleus is pointless. Many have done it before - easy targets and otherwise - and it accomplishes nothing, except possibly to irritate him. Sorry. Leaving warnings in general is not a very good idea unless you know the person to be a rank newbie who has never seen our policies. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Jesus, you're misunderstanding everything. Malleus is not deeming you an "easy target". He's saying that you consider him an easy target.
You've still not learned. You are wrong, no one else. Wahoh (talk)
I was using his terminology to list myself, since it appears that it's been twisted to make me look bad when I was following the procedures I'd been taught. I may be in the wrong, but I'm not the only one. BarkingFish 19:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I wish you'd stop saying you were following the procedure you have been 'taught'. We are not in a school here, you are responsible for your own actions. You made a mistake, you were too hasty to chastise an editor for a comment not even directed at you. I think it would be best for all concerned if you just let the matter drop. Malleus is probably not going to demand an apology from you for your unwisely placed template, nor should you expect some punishment be bestowed on Malleus. Just leave it be, is my advice. OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 19:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I've never demanded an apology from anyone on wikipedia, and I don't expect to start now. I think that BF made a couple of mistakes that are almost incomprehensible after his six-year tenure here, but what's done is done. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
"I've never demanded an apology from anyone on wikipedia, and I don't expect to start now." We like that about you Malleus. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 20:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
OohBunnies! - How else am I supposed to describe a process where someone completely new to something is shown by other editors how to do things, what to push, when to push it, what to put where and how? Is that not a process of education, which implies that I had been taught by others? BarkingFish 19:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
It just seems that you are trying to shift the blame for your mistake, and I'm fairly sure no one taught you to template the regulars. You may have never seen WP:DTTR but it's common sense not to leave a 'Welcome to Wikipedia' template on the userpage of someone that has clearly been here a while. That aside, many are in disagreement with you about the comment you deem to be a personal attack, so it's probably wise to just let it go and move on. This discussion isn't helping anything. OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 19:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is you who is in the wrong BarkingFish. If I were to call your templating of an an established editor as careless or idiotic (which I have not), then you may perhaps feel somewhat chagrined. That would however be a far cry from calling you careless or idiotic (which I have also not done). As I pointed out at the RfA that has prompted this report, your position is very far from a logically consistent one when you ignore the comments (aggressive) made by your friends in favour of trying to lynch someone you believe to be an easy target. Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
FYI - Sven is not one of my friends. I did not ignore the comment on purpose, I dealt with the first thing I saw. I do not consider you an easy target, far from it. I did what I thought was right at the time. BarkingFish 19:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
So have you yet warned Sven for his "personal attack" according to your definition of that term? Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why you now say that you consider me to be far from an easy target, when only a few moments ago you claimed to have no knowledge of me whatsoever. Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The advice of people off wiki is a big help in gauging who you are dealing with, Malleus. BarkingFish 19:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I see. So you were put up to this by your IRC friends? Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
No, not at all. I posted a note to IRC to say I was doing it, and one of the administrators in the channel who I decline to name simply informed me that "Templating you for anything wasn't a good idea," and "Good luck with getting something done about it." I was also informed that "you'll (meaning me) probably be the butt of a lot of criticism for this, and it'll be like pissing headwind trying to get something done." in private message. I was sort of ready for this by the time I got this going. BarkingFish 20:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
You appear to have lost track of the point that I'm not the one in the wrong here, you are. I made no personal attack, despite your apparent inability to understand the difference between commenting on the editor and the comment. Have you learned that lesson yet? Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) - Malleus, I've taken enough of a battering in the last hour or so to get that through - I was merely commenting on what was said to me at IRC, in response to your message above. That is how I formed the opinion, based on the interaction of others with you, who informed me that no one would do anything, whether you were in the wrong or not. I've realised I was wrong, I don't intend to apologise for it, because I thought I was right. Even people who apparently don't know you (like User:Wahoh) seem to think you're always right, so why the hell should I bother? You might as well close this, in fact, please do. Frankly, I can't be arsed anymore. BarkingFish 20:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, BF has made a mistake and should apologise and this discussion closed. Graham Colm (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
According to what I have been taught over the last 6 years on Wikipedia, I have not. I do not intend to apologise for doing something which I felt was right and which tied in with the manner in which I was trained and learned my way around the Wikipedia. You can close the discussion if you wish, since it appears I'm now in the wrong, despite not being in the wrong in the first place. BarkingFish 19:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is it that people always come crying about personal attacks but fail to realise that their "buddies" are the only twats making them? Wahoh (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is it that anyone thinks that calling people "twats" is a remotely good idea in any context? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a rather apt word. Maybe you ought to consider using it too. Wahoh (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
It's unhelpful, and disruptive. Keep it up and you'll see. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with GTBacchus. Did I ever tell you about the time I was blocked for using the word "sycophantic"? Malleus Fatuorum 20:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Are these things always cooked up on IRC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment anymore, but I will respond to that. The people on IRC had NO INFLUENCE whatsoever in my decision to post this WQA. I did it of my own accord and only posted to them that I had done so, at which point I was told I was essentially in for some hell, which as I've discovered, was perfectly correct. Nothing was "cooked" up. BarkingFish 20:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I have closed this discussion. Any further comments are probably better placed on user pages. Graham Colm (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

While I see that this was closed, since it seems that my actions stirred this pot, I am going to leave a comment here anyways. It is below, bulleted, and seeing as this is a closed discussion, I'd appreciate it if it didn't go on to start another round of nasty comments.

  • My initial comment on Ironholds' RfA was not meant as a personal attack. At the time, I had nothing against Malleus and barely knew him.
  • Malleus' subsequent response was, in my opinion, overblown. However by the time I saw it, it was several layers deep in other people's comments and counter-comments. Me being the fool that I am, I dived in, mostly out of the belief that I had done nothing wrong with my initial posting and was being unnecessarily attacked.
  • A progressively more and more heated discussion ensued, which, realizing that it was devolving, I tried to end via collapse three times. Malleus reverted it twice, apparently not willing to disengage. I, again being a fool, did not realize that this was further fueling the fire, and continued to respond to what I saw as provocations.
  • With the third collapse not revered, I left for dinner. When I came back, I was informed of this. Having had time to cool off, I realized that the RfA comments incident was an unpleasant affair with obvious wrongs committed by both parties. I really had no intention of touching that again. However I would like to go on the record and say that I neither know BarkingFish nor put him or anyone else up to this. Indeed had I not been told of this place, I would not have known of its existance.
  • Finally, both because I do not want to get brought back into this mess, and because at this time it is my belief that any further interactions between Malleus and I are unlikely to result in anything other than a fight, I am exercising my right to refuse to further engage on this issue. Any comments made to me on my userspace on this issue will be removed without response, and any further discussion on this or the RfA will be logged but otherwise ignored. Unless these incidents wind up being brought up in an area that requires my input, I will not feed this fire anymore. As to Malleus, I would greatly appreciate it if I received no further contact from him or about him for the foreseeable future, for both our sakes. I personally will do the same towards him. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl

Please can the recent comments made by BrownHairedGirl here be reviewed to see if they amount to a personal attack and weather further action should be persued in this instance. --Lucy-marie (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you linked to the right page? I can't see anything there that remotely approaches a personal attack. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec)See also the discussion at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Comments_and_AGF. The substantive issue is a disagreement over the relationship between a policy and a guideline, and I have drawn attention to my view that Lucy-marie (talk · contribs) selective application of policy makes her arguments bogus. In the discussion at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Comments_and_AGF and at Talk:James Chichester-Clark I have asked to clarify the contradiction in her rationales, but so far she has not done so, and prefers complaining of "personal attack". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec)I concur with Bretonbanquet that there is nothing on that talk page that comes close to an attack. BTW Lucy when posting here you are required to inform the editor in question that you are discussing them here which you did not do. Fortunately, another editor has done that for you. MarnetteD | Talk 18:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read the comments towards the bottom of the discussion such as this edit --Lucy-marie (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That diff would indicate that you are being uncivil ("... complete nonsence [sic] ...") The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
That's your own edit, Lucy-Marie. I'm lost already here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification would have been posted but and edit conflict was recieved as another user had posted before me.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read the comments towards the bottom of the discussion such as this edit --Lucy-marie (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was not refering to the user as complete nonsence but the uncivil tone in whcih thier comments were made and that the comments had no relevance to the issue of the page move request.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies this diff--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything there that's not article-content-based, such as the suggestion that your argument is bogus. It's rather similar to your "complete nonsense" comment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Lucy I would advise caution as you proceed. IMO at this moment you would seem to be approaching a WP:BOOMERANG situation. MarnetteD | Talk 18:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Again there is nothing approaching incivility in the post that you have linked to. Also per the guidelines for talk pages please stop inserting your posts into the middle of previous entries. New items are to be added in chrono order to avoid confusion about who was saying what when. MarnetteD | Talk 19:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. And I have removed entries by other users duplicated by Lucy-marie. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I am simply posting to specific discussion but due to edit conflicts posting chronologically has not been possible without the edit conflicts the posts would have been chronological. If other posts were accidentally dupilcated i apologise.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec*3)I was puzzled why a comment by another editor was cited as evidence that I have been uncivil. The second diff is indeed my comment, in which I criticise the arguments put forward by Lucy-marie. Such scrutiny is an unavoidable part of forming consensus, and if we are to make good decisions it is important that editors are free to examine and criticise a rationale which they perceive as flawed.
I don't want to make this a pile-on, but I have already had requests from numerous editors to take a broader look at Lucy-marie's conduct, including several calls for an RFC/U. I still hope that this can be avoided, and hope that the feedback here may be helpful to Lucy-marie. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue I take with the second diff is they are of a personal nature and irrelevant to the Page move request. They should have been made on my personal talk page and not on the Page move discussion. I believe they are a smear attempt on that discussion but that is just my opinion and not a formal accusation.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
They aren't of a personal nature - they were focussed on the argument on that page, so that page was the right place to continue it. Bringing this thing here is pretty close to a formal accusation, I would think. A "smear" is a heavy word to describe this, and terribly inaccurate. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Saying "Your argument is bogus" is unnecessary. Comment on the arguments in an objective way. If you can't do that without commenting on another editor, then consider just saying nothing. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
That's over-sensitive. By that token, Lucy-Marie can be similarly criticised for her "complete nonsense" comment. Let's be realistic here, neither are personal attacks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say they were, I'm trying to give good advice for avoiding even the appearance of personal attacks -- but alas no good deed goes unpunished. If that advice is over-sensitive, then so is the policy at WP:AVOIDYOU. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Neither comment is out of bounds, though both could have been toned down a bit. I don't see anything actionable here. Figureofnine (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I was surprised to see BHG at the Wikiquette board, as this is a civil contributor in my view. Agree that there is nothing at all actionable here. If anything it's a WP:BOOMERANG situation, so let's close this and start the New Year fresh. Jusdafax 22:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. What I find striking about this board is how infrequently I see genuine incivility raised as an issue here. There is a lot of incivility on Wikipedia, but little of it seems to be discussed here. Figureofnine (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

BHG had her knuckles wrapped some months ago and transformed into a very civil and co-operative editor. But this case was prompted and just as soon as you drop it this unnecessary nationalist bad-mouthing happens. Adding <grin> after invectives makes them neither ironic nor funny. What's of more concern is that she is a very active editor and admin wrt Anglo-Irish articles. Ephebi (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

User: NinaGreen

NinaGreen is an editor whose remarks at the Talk:Shakespeare authorship question mainly consist of hectoring, badgering and personal attacks on editors and admins. The section headings at her talk page pretty much tell the story of her relatively short Wikipedia editing career, with clashes between editors and admins both. She has been blocked once for disruptive editing when she used an IP address. Lately she has concentrated her attention on me, making aspersions and accusations and causing disruptions on the page. Her constant badgering and hectoring and inappropriate accusations of impropriety has contributed to an extremely toxic editing environment.

Diffs:

accusations of collusion to hide biased editing,

accusations of dishonesty

false complaints of my “ownership” of the article

accusations of misusing policy

accuses other editors of collusion to turn the page over to me

says editors should recuse themselves from editing because of their bias and open flouting of policy

accuses editors of collusion and that I edit to my personal beliefs

more hectoring and accusations of stonewalling

Skipping many similar rants to these:

accusing admins of colluding with me to keep control of the page

started a section entitled “Tom’s Censorship of the Peer Review Page” after I removed her inappropriate attack on the peer review page, which she promptly restored.

I myself have lost my temper and have had to apologise and retract some remarks. No such self-awareness has been forthcoming from her. Any remonstrations from editors or admins are taken by her as a personal attack.

My hope is that she will take notice of any admonishments from the editors here and modify her editing style to conform to Wikipedia standards for collegial editing.

Tom Reedy (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


This is not an etiquette issue or an issue of 'editing style'. It concerns Tom Reedy's admitted bias and his complete control of the SAQ article which I raised on the Peer Review page today in the comments below. These comments were twice censored by Tom Reedy, who removed deleted them from the Peer Review page so that the editors doing the peer review of the SAQ article could not see them.

I've placed this comment on the Talk page for the SAQ article, and I'm placing it here as well so that peer reviewers will be aware of the restrictions which, contrary to Wikipedia policy, have been placed on any editing of the SAQ article to improve it. I've made many attempts to improve the article on a number of fronts including lack of neutrality, presence of synthesis and original research, excessive length, excessive use of footnotes which almost equal the length the article etc. etc., and in every case I've either been prevented from editing at all by Tom's demand that consensus be reached on the Talk page before any editing by me can be done (an impossibility), or Tom or one of his close associates has instantly reverted my edits before anyone can even look at them or consider them, even though I've placed the edits up for discussion on the Talk page. This is all completely contrary to Wikipedia policy, and no article should be even considered for Peer Review when this sort of strong-arming of any opposition is going on. Here's what I wrote to Tom on the subject on the Talk page:
Tom, I can't recall a single topic which has been brought up on this Talk page to any purpose. The reason for that is that you control the article, contrary to Wikipedia policy, and you will not allow a syllable of it to be altered without your express consent, which you never grant. Nor will you allow a single edit by anyone other than yourself to stand without instantly reverting it. You have admitted that you are biased, and have even gone so far as to claim that your bias brings a useful perspective to the article. No editor of this page who is among your close group of associates has ever objected in the slightest to any of this, and no administrator has intervened in any way to prevent it from continuing. That's an objective view of the status quo with respect to the SAQ article. It is far from Wikipedia's intent and Wikipedia's policies.

It is quite true, as Tom admits, that he has made completely inappropriate personal attacks on me, only one of which he has apologized for. But i addition to Tom Reedy's unrelenting personal attacks, the principal issues are Tom's admitted bias (of which details are available on the SAQ talk page), and his complete control of the editing of the SAQ article, of which not a single syllable can be altered without Tom's express permission, completely contrary to Wikipedia's policy that no editor owns a Wikipedia article. It seems beyond dispute that no article should be put forward for peer review by an editor who has admitted bias concerning the topic of the article and who completely controls the editing of every syllable of the article and purports to 'own' the article.NinaGreen (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Provide diffs to prove the dozen offhand generalizations critical of Reedy. That is all that independent minds here care to look at. Expressions of opinion are neither here nor there. In fact, in the absence of such diffs, your repeating here the phrasing 'unrelenting personal attacks' just documents what Reedy is complaining of, and in itself, since you,ve repeated it dozens of times all over wikipedia, grounds enough to suggest his complaint is justified.Nishidani (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, anyone who goes to the SAQ Talk page can find the passages in which Tom has admitted bias concerning the subject of the SAQ article and has even gone so far as to claim that his bias provides a useful perspective to the article! Similarly, anyone who goes to the SAQ Talk page can see the instantaneous reverts of any edits I've made, and the stonewalling of discussion on the Talk page of any edits I've suggested, and Tom's insistence that the smallest edit to the SAQ article must be approved by him, evidencing his attitude that he 'owns' the article, in which you have throughout aided and abetted him. In the same vein, anyone who goes to the SAQ Talk page can see for him/herself Tom's personal attacks on me. The facts speak for themselves. It is time this violation of Wikipedia policies came to an end. And the idea that the SAQ article has been put up for Peer Review while this sort of abuse of Wikipedia policy is going on is a travesty.NinaGreen (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't operate like that here. Accept advice, obtain diffs. You said the attacks made against you by Reedy are 'legion', and yet fail to provide even one diff. You appear to know, despite several months of editing, nothing of policy, cannot collaborate, turn a deaf ear to polite advice, and call those who won't accept your opinions at face value relentless violators of wiki policy engaged in personal attacks against you. Now the encyclopedia's normative modes of work are a 'travesty'. It looks to me like you wish to be banned, and are taunting the patience of everyone in order to suffer that sanction. Why one should do this is a mystery, except if . . .Nishidani (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Nishidani (and, in other places, Tom, too), I understand your frustration, but I don't think it's appropriate to keep nagging Nina about providing diffs, without showing her how she can do it. She is still a pretty new editor and is clearly doing her best to refer to edits in other places. Even if her method takes a lot of space, please help rather than cavil. Nina, diffs are very useful. I have written a help page about them for new editors, which I tried to make as clear and simple as possible: Simple diff and link guide. It tells you both how diffs can make your posts more effective, and, in simple steps, how to produce them. Please check it out. Bishonen | talk 09:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC).
Okay. Didn't think of that. If she had asked me to clarify, I would have shown her. My problem is, I have read a huge volume of complaint, and the lengthy threads in which Tom has engaged with Nina, and, perhaps it is my bias or ageing memory, simply cannot square this with her assertion that his attacks on her are 'legion'. Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Coptic101 and Lihaas

Hello, if you look at the talk page and read the last two edits you will see quite quickly the situation. I'd like a neutral 3rd party to mediate this. Coptic101 is a good faith editor, who was badly effected by the event the article is about. He or she is a highly valued Wikipedian in that he or she speaks both Arabic and English fluently. He or she also seems willing to work with the community to try to resolve conflicts. He or she is however new to wikipedia and still struggling to fit in, does not understand WP:COI, WP:RS, or WP:OWNERSHIP. Lihaas is more experienced and is trying to do some WP:NPOV work and some copy editing. Maybe Lihaas has been rude to Coptic101, I'll leave that up to you. Thank you much! Tim.thelion (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

WHAT? I have had NO WAR with coptic whatsoever, he reverted me i walked away from that page. the admin on the edit war page that i reported with an ip said it was NOT A war with the IP so i returned. You can see his talk page that MANY other editors warned his "npov"
you can also note, that coptic correspondence with me entailed "Please next time before making nonsense edits like this one" that is civil and IM being rude? Im ultimately baffled by this sulkign to the admins from an editor who also recommended it should be page protected when i posted on that page!
lets not forget that weve tried to explained to him the concepts to read and it doesnt matter to him. (a possible sock)
But of course now the admins will resort to a 1-sided block. (Lihaas (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)).
No where in this did I sugest you be blocked or say anything against you. Indeed, that's not what this page is for. At the top of the page it reads "Avoid filing a report if: You want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures to be imposed/enforced." I just asked for a neutral 3rd party. Though I'm really not convinced you where polite when you posted this to my talk page. Tim.thelion (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Then whats with the acquisition of a "wikiquette alert"Lihaas (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there something unsightly and taboo about doing what I did? I don't understand why I made you so upset. I didn't say you did anything wrong, I just asked for a 3rd party help you two sort things out :( :( :( Tim.thelion (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
i also said im taking leave of absence from the page. why the complaint? i asked on talk page i discussed, i was re-reverted, i left. simple!Lihaas (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ctpnono Continues to Buyllyedit

Cptono Continues to Bully Edit the Beck Page and to post things on my discussion page== I am having serious problems with user Cptnono. He is controlling the glenn beck page, lawyering on the wikiguidelines to eliminate legit. content, and basically assuming control as the managing editor of the page. Further he keeps posting things on my discussion page. I do not want this editor posting on my discussion page, and I would like for someone to investigate his behavior on the Glenn Beck page. I have made a number of complaints and no one has done anything.

He is misusing consensus and applying other policies where they are not actually applicable. If he acted like an equal editor among many, it wouldn't be so bad, but he treats other editors like they are below him, like he has special authority on wikipedia.

Plus he gave me a warning that was unwarranted on my discussion page. I did not violate the policy he cited. And I happen to know that edit disputes are not grounds for a warning. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not made any personal attacks since being warned. You however have just made another one. Do not comment on contributors like this.[19] An admin already warned you and I warned you since I did not want to drag it to ANI. But you cannot be disruptive on a BLP and you cannot attack other editors. You can open an RFC or (even better) try working on a paragraph regarding his views on Muslims as I have suggested. The edit has more than one editor objecting and you did not make the edit in accordance with the one editor who agreed with you.Cptnono (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Bullyediting isn't about personal attacks. It is about enforcing your will onto a page by beating other people over the head with policy guidelines.

You know full well the other objections by editors were little more than "Muslims should be happy to be called terrorists because that is what they are." (I am paraphrasing of course). I looked up the guidelines. My entry cites reliable sources and is neutral and relevant. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What is more, though you redacted my claim, I think it is well founded. YOur behavior is absolutely bullyediting. And users on the page have basically expressed their support for beck or his ideas and then gone on to attack including the entry. I don't see the big deal with mentioning that, if people have explicitly come out in support of beck's statements. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It was explained to you already by an admin.[20] I have also tried explaining it. You have been provided all of the necessary links and advice. I have also brought this to the edit warring board for the reverts on the BLP.[21]Cptnono (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No you are the only person who has been explaining your position. And you know perfectly well that isn't warranted. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I am the only other person continuing to discuss it. I suppose I could just stop responding as others already have.Cptnono (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you could. Again, we should enter into mediation, as the dispute appears to be between you and me at this point. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to start understanding the comments left to you by others. You have been warned by an admin for attacking other users (yet you continue) and you have had another explain why mediation is not yet appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been warned as far as I know Cptnono. But its fair to point out, you've been warned more than me about these matters. Mediation is absolutely appropriate, since no valid reason for blocking the material has been provided. Again, I believe this is a misapplication of consensus according to my understanding of the policy (which I've read several times. You simply keep asserting things. But you and are both equal editors on wikiepdia. I feel like you are using a lot of imperatives and acting as though you have more authority than others. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already told you that I do not have any authority. You were warned on your talk page by an admin:[22]Cptnono (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Then please stop acting like you have authority. You make me very, very uncomfortable. I feel like I am being bullied by you, and that you revertin content that legimately belongs on the page. I received one warning. You have received multiple warnings and complaints. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice to anyone following. I have filed an ANI for attempted outing.Cptnono (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And I didn;t do anything of the sort. I woke up today to a warning saying I violated your privacy, and that I had threatened to do so previously. However I was unable to view the content where I supposedly did this. Let me be clear here: I did no such thing. As far as I can figure I was, at most, a little rude, by referring to him using a slang term for "buddy" or "guy", that also happens to be a proper name. I would like to challenge this warning. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

YOU FUCKING WIN. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This editor continues to push me and others around. He uses wikipedia policy to boss around editors. If you look at his statements on the Glenn Beck Discussion page, he talks as if he is the page supervisory and we are his employees. I know I've overeacted to him significantly in recent days, but I do hope people will see that this didn't occur in a vacuum. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I am one of the editors who is bullied by Ctpnono particularly in relation to the various Vancouver Whitecaps articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate the input Walter. This is my point. It is part of a pattern of behavior. Again, I don't know if he just doesn't realize it, but debating Cptnono on an article is like being chewed out by an abusive boss. I would like for him to understand, he doesn't have any more or any less authority than the rest of us. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Griswaldo on Talk:Involuntary_committal_of_Victor_Győry

Ok, this is not a very serious case but in my opinion it needs a few eyes on. There is a pretty heated discussion about sources on Talk:Involuntary_committal_of_Victor_Győry. Griswaldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly accusing me of being disruptive because I added a couple of sources that I didn't verify myself but that were clearly verified by the admin User:NuclearWarfare when he nominated the article at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Győry nomination, where the sources are listed including the number of paragraphs covering the subject). While I understand the whole issue is contentious, I've never heard that adding sources verified by another editor (a quite respected admin, by the way) was "disruptive", and in my opinion it is quite an attack. Can someone uninvolved weigh on the issue? Thanks a lot. --Cyclopiatalk 16:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarification - The sources were not "verified" by another editor as pertaining to the entry contents. They were simply listed as the only sources that pertained to the topic at all that could be found by that editor. Mind you the same editor nominated the page for deletion because it lacked adequate sourcing. Given that fact it is truly hard to understand how Cyclopia would believe that the sources were "verified" to support the exact content of the entry.Griswaldo (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Griswaldo is correct. I commented further on this here. NW (Talk) 02:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm puzzled. On the talk page you said: I skimmed the contents, but didn't really try to verify anything specific. - That you didn't verify anything specific is OK, but you had a look at the contents and you did verify that they talked about the article subject (as they in fact perfectly do, as verified personally now that Jayen466 sent us copies of the articles), so it seems to me that my WP:AGF on your source listing was correct (and in any case didn't deserve to be repeatedly called disruptive, quite a serious allegation here). --Cyclopiatalk 02:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
"The sources were not "verified" by another editor as pertaining to the entry contents."  True "They were simply listed as the only sources that pertained to the topic at all that could be found by that editor."  True "Mind you the same editor nominated the page for deletion because it lacked adequate sourcing."  True NW (Talk) 02:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Response by Griswaldo

Cyclopia de-Proded the entry and in doing so added two incomplete news references based upon their mention in the PROD rationale, along with a third complete reference to a book titled Mental Illness, based on its mention in the PROD rationale as well. Another user removed the incomplete references since they didn't actually cite any information. Cyclopia, edit warred ([23], [24]) to keep them in despite admitting on the talk page to have never accessed or verified these sources. In doing so he also edit warred to keep in the citation to Mental Illness, which I had separately removed due to it's misuse. I also started a talk page discussion about the poor source, but Cyclopia chose not to engage it before reverting my removal. He now appears to agree with my removal but has not explained why he added it in the first place, or even admitted to making a mistake. I believe he is acting disruptively because during an active AfD discussion he's puffing the entry up with sources that do not belong, or that he has not bothered to verify and is edit warring to keep the puffery in. Telling him that this is disruptive is not, in my view, a breach of etiquette, but I'm open to feedback.Griswaldo (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not "agree with your concerns"; I understand them -quite a different thing. I still think that the source makes sense and explained that on the talk page. And I read it before adding it -so much that in fact I added it inline. I am also not puffying; I removed a couple of unreliable sources as well. In any case the point here is not what do we think of sources, but your calling me repeatedly "disruptive" or rebuking my comments with "BS" for a mere technical disagreement -something that I see as a violation of civility. --Cyclopiatalk 16:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Calling people uncivil for questioning his long-standing reckless attitude to BLPs is rather typical of the myopic rule-gaming that Cyclopia engages in. He doesn't seem to see that how we treat articles on living people outweighs the in-house niceties. Given the long-standing and vexatious nature of this, I'm wondering whether a BLP-related topic ban would be in order.--Scott Mac 16:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)
      1. Not the right venue. Open a RfC/U is that is your concern.
      2. I invite you to find proper BLP violations on my part justifying a topic ban (possibly in the abovementioned RfC/U). Otherwise what you're proposing is just a threat of silencing who happens not to share your point of view on the issue. --Cyclopiatalk 17:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Edit warring to keep in unverified and fallacious citations to BLP information after repeated explanations of the problem is indeed a BLP violation and you did it more than once.Griswaldo (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Not unverified: NuclearWarfare verified them. Do you really trust me more than him? And they didn't cite direct BLP information, they were further reading. About the "fallacious" one, that's your opinion, which I disagree on. Again, please learn that we can agree to disagree, but disagreement is not a reason to attack people or call them disruptive, least to topic ban them (again, if that's your idea, WP:RFC/U is that a-way). --Cyclopiatalk 17:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Please quote the statement by NW that lead you to believe that he had "verified" the sources, or the policy that allows you to add sources to any entry without verifying them yourself first, particularly to information that pertains to a living subject, as all the information in this entry does? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but defending myself from his accusations is absolutely appropriate in this venue. Regarding your general involvement here please see my comment below.Griswaldo (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:TROUT all around. Cyclopia, Off2riorob, and Griswaldo need to simply focus on content and follow WP:TALK better. At least Off2riorob chose to step away...
It looks like Off2riorob and Griswaldo understandably lost their patience trying to determine the rationale for Cyclopia's editing. Off2riorob lost his cool 15:32, Cyclopia took offense at the incivility [25], and the Off2riorob escalated the situation further 15:42, before leaving the discussions.
Griswaldo then jumps in to escalate the problems further, again and again. 15:52 16:08 16:11 16:12 16:14 16:14 Cyclopia eventually gets tired of pointing out the problems and brings the complaints to a proper forum here. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
When someone acts disruptively, again and again, asking them to stop acting disruptively each time is not "escalating" anything. Cyclopia escalated by bringing the situation here. Now that it is turning on him you want it to stop? Why is that Ronz? The only time you and I have interacted here I seem to recall being highly critical of your own behavior. I also seem to recall that so many people were critical of you that you threatened to retire. Now if you think that my behavior towards you then is pertinent to this discussion then by all means bring it forth (I'm open to criticism), but I think it is highly dubious of you to show up as if you are disinterested third party commenting on what you see. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Unlike others here, I simply looked at the civility concerns, and provided diffs. The diffs show an escalation of incivility. No one has yet contested the facts of the situation, only tried to justify their behavior because of other concerns, or find ways to attack editors as a way to dismiss their arguments. Ironic. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Unlike others here you have prior involvement with me of a negative nature. I don't see any personal attacks anywhere, so please stop repeating that claim. The diffs you provided are not of escalating incivility. There is nothing escalating about them. I'm just telling him repeatedly how disruptive he's being because he's being repeatedly disruptive. Ronz, can you please do me the favor of not commenting here given our history? I can't see how it is productive in its present form. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Please WP:FOC. That is the problem here. Personalizing disputes only hinders resolving them.
If the content dispute is a part of reoccurring problems with Cyclopia, no one has provided diffs, so such comments look like personal attacks.
You shouldn't have repeatedly told him he was being disruptive, per WP:FOC, WP:AVOIDYOU, and WP:TALK. Yes, Cyclopia caused some disruption. Your response was to cause further disruption.
In contrast, Off2riorob made a few inflammatory comments then left the discussions. It would have been better if you had you been able to do the same. --Ronz (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I provided diffs of his disruption above (edit warring to maintain unverified, partial citations as well as a fallacious one in an entry about a living person). Please stop with the patronizing lecturing. I will not respond to you anymore Ronz as I'm well aware of where that leads from our last encounter, which is why you're clearly here in the first place. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I was unclear. Both Off2riorob (18:47) and Scott Mac (16:57) make reference to other disputes. Griswaldo (17:08) asked for clarification on what action should be taken because of those other disputes. Yet no diffs or other information has been provided on such disputes. --Ronz (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
My position is that I see the repeated support of content of little note that is uncited and often without any attempt to improve it as extremely detrimental to the project, I see Cyclopia doing this often. I would really like to clear this up with him. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the content dispute was a mess. If this is a reoccurring problem, provide some diffs for context. --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Evidence that Cyclopia is a recurring problem? That's easy. I have trouble finding the school article talk page where Cyclopia inisted on listing children attending the school just because they are children of celebrities, but while looking for it (I thought I had mentioned it on Jimbo's talk page at some point) I found this discussion: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 57#Eric Ely AfD. In it, Cyclopia tried to defend a BLP violating article that was ultimately SNOW deleted against Jimbo. Hans Adler 09:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

So, Hans Adler, let me get it right: is disagreeing with you equal to "being a problem"? In that AfD there are other 4 "keep" !votes apart from mine (e.g. Bearian, DGG): are these people "problems"? Are you people accustomed to free and frank dialogue or do you live in a walled garden of people all thinking the same? --Cyclopiatalk 10:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Disagreeing with me is not a problem. I said you are a problem. That's because you are wasting the time of more serious editors with your immature behaviour:
  • Disagreeing with fundamental principles of Wikipedia such as WP:BLP, and being very obstinate about that even when you clearly have no chance to change anything.
  • Trying to change the inclusion criteria for an online encyclopedia against overwhelming resistance, while not having a clue of what an encyclopedia is and what kind of information does, or does not, belong in it.
Hans Adler 13:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, so you're evidently talking about another editor, because:
  • I don't disagree at all with WP:BLP. I disagree with crying "BLP!" when it is not necessarily appropriate or when actions go beyond policy.
  • I never tried to change inclusion criteria (even less so "against overwhelming resistance") the closest I went I can remember was a suggestion to change the wording of WP:CORP to remove the limitation against the use of local sources a couple of times, but this was all in the normal day-to-day discussion of guidelines that is made 24/7 on WP; I don't remember having attempted to change WP:GNG or the like: I simply ask that guidelines are being respected and I tend to favour a slightly inclusive interpretation of them (like many others, and symmetrically with others that favour exclusive interpretations).
I hope it's clearer now. --Cyclopiatalk 13:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me of your peculiar debating technique. It's the same you employed at Talk:Brentwood School (Los Angeles, California)#"Arnold Schwarzenegger's daughter" when you were trying to defend the following sentence which you had introduced in the article in an new section: "As of November 2008, the children of governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Oliver Stone and Jack Nicholson attend the school." In that discussion you claimed that understanding a source and distinguishing between its main message and any inconsequential fluff it also contains is "POV". Apparently you have a similar approach to our policies and guidelines, pushing for random misunderstandings that make superficial sense based on reading the words in isolation from all other guidelines and established practice. I don't know if this is intentional trolling or just reading incompetence, but this disruptive pattern falls under WP:Wikilawyering and is not allowed. Hans Adler 14:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Blatant misrepresentation of that thread apart (here is what I said: The fact that the information in the source is a "journalistic trick" is your POV. We're not here to question the motivations that made them report the information.), can you 1)point me in detail which "misunderstandings that make superficial sense" I am guilty of and 2)explain me how your rant above rebukes or is in any way relevant to what said before? --Cyclopiatalk 19:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Well. I don't think Cyclopia would dispute that he votes keep for just about everything, or the he often supports articles with uncited content and makes no attempts to improve them, I have little time to scour his contributions but this is the type of thing that I have seen: - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Sailor Went to Sea - where he adds some claimed references to the AFD discussion and supports and is then supported keep as per cyclopia by an IP:70.27.31.10 in its first and only edit! and and another rescue group member adds - keep - not a good article at present but I think notability can be established??? and none of them made a single edit to the article which still now is uncited and looks like this A Sailor Went to Sea - wikipedia should be so improved. The articles creator said on the talkpage - It is quite clear to me why it has been proposed that the article be deleted:It lacks content,but unfortunately I do not have the knowledge needed to contribute..... So I hope that someone will try to improve the article in order for it to be considered of quality good enough for wikipedia and the deletion proposal be cancelled. - Well no one did improve it, they just voted keep. Off2riorob (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This comment is totally offtopic, but I answer the same. It is difficult to improve something if that something is erased, isn't it? That is why keeping articles (on notable subjects) is, in my view, the priority. We don't have a deadline and what can be solved by editing is not a reason to delete. Therefore yes, I agree that it would have been better if I also made an effort to improve the article, but better have improveable content than no content at all to improve. My pattern at AfD is to vote mostly keep simply because usually most articles that really need deletion already pile-up lots of delete !votes and there is no need of adding to those. I tend to concentrate on cases where arguments and sources may make a difference. --Cyclopiatalk 11:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Its not off topic, its my issue with your editing, ignore it if you like, but I see such contributions as I have highlighted here as detrimental to the wikipedia. Can you please make some effort to actually improve such rubbish rather than just voting to keep it? Also, I asked you only the other day to please stop linking me to to essays that have no authority. As for the one that is part of deletion policy, you repeatedly link to it but you don't actually do it. As you are repeatedly supporting keep and people are apparently following your lead can you please at least make a commitment to attempt to improve articles you are voting keep in? What I have seen of your editing pattern, if as in the example there , three keep votes, you the ip and the other rescue member - no danger of deletion so you didn't attempt to improve it. In cases where it is looking like there may be a deletion you move to actually add some cites in an attempt to move the AFD in the direction of keep, that is fine but I would just like to request that in the cases like the one I have presented that you also make a commitment to attempt to add cites to uncited content in similar cases also and not just walk away when it is kept without any improvement at all.Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Off2riorob, I want to make a few things very clear:
  1. Your personal issues with my editing are off topic here on WQA. You are welcome to discuss them on my talk page, or to post a RfC/U if you are truly concerned and you want community advice.
  2. You see such contributions as "detrimental". Well, I find that removing notable and verifiable content much more detrimental instead -not counting the fact that deletion policy is on my side. So what? We agree to disagree and move on.
  3. You're not going to tell me what essays/guidelines/policies I may link or not in my comments. If you don't want to read them it's up to you but this is a public discussion and if I link to essays as a shortcut to explain my point of view, that's absolutely within my rights and I'll continue to do so.
  4. I see no reason to "make a commitment" -even if it would be very nice to do so, it is not the priority. The priority is having something that can be later improved, by me or someone else: if (notable, verifiable and otherwise policy-compliant) content is deleted, there remains nothing to improve. Therefore to help such content being kept (within policies and consensus, of course: you'll notice that I very rarely send stuff to DRV for example, even if I truly disagreed with deletion, because I value the community consensus) is my priority. Also in many cases I can find sources for notability but I am not necessarily the most skilled person to actually use them to improve the article. I agree that I could do more to actually source such articles and I'll try to do but -again- I can't "commit". I sourced the article you pointed out now.
Please come to my talk page if you want to further discuss. I welcome constructive criticism. --Cyclopiatalk 11:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • - Ok, thanks for your comments, it is a talkpage issue I agree and if I have any future points I will discus them with you there, your comment " I'll try to do but -again- I can't commit" is at least some meeting point. I see you have added some cites to the article Cyclopia, thank you I really appreciate that, if I see more of that I am more likely to be giving you barnstars than nagging..not that I am stalking your edits because I am not, regards. Off2riorob (talk)
Cyclopia, the problem is that you, and editors who think like you, often show up to save articles that have been tagged with numerous problems for years, and then after they are "rescued" you do little to nothing to make them worthy entries. When we keep entries like that around we're not doing a service to the spread of knowledge, we are doing a detriment to it. Why doesn't the article rescue squadron rescue articles in need before they go to AfD? Why don't you find bad articles that are on notable topics and make them into good ones? You claim that what you are doing is saving them so that others can come around to make them into good articles. When those others don't come around what then? We have junk information lying around under the banner of Wikipedia that is often too partial to be useful, misleading or flat out wrong ... or worse, in the BLP cases, harmful. If you believe so strongly in keeping useful information in the encyclopedia you ought to 1) work to improve the entries you want to save and 2) have a better sense of what is actually worth saving. It's like you're trying to stop every garbage truck before it hits the land fill and asking them to unload all the rubbish because possible some of it can be recycled. If you want to recycle responsibly you need to do it right, and from what you're saying yourself above you're simply not discriminating. In terms of the situation that got us here, you're also going about it in a manner that at times simply violates policy (e.g. adding unverified and fallacious references to BLP information). I can respect the fact that while I find your general approach detrimental it isn't against policy, however when you start slashing the tires of the dump trucks at night so that they can't make it to the landfill, then there is a real problem. This episode, in other words, is a real problem and it is beyond simply being unhelpful, it is disruptive and against policy. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It's quite sad that we're arrived to the point that one has to justify himself for being an inclusionist like it was a crime, however here we go:
  1. and then after they are "rescued" you do little to nothing to make them worthy entries.: An entry on a notable subject, provided it doesn't violate our basic policies, is a worthy entry. It may be an ugly duckling, but it is worth saving nonethless. Yes, I could go and improve every article on WP, but this is, you know, a collaborative project. It seems clear to me that you cannot improve stuff if such stuff is erased. So I took this as a priority. Other people, more skilled on the subjects, may then go and improve them.
  2. Why doesn't the article rescue squadron rescue articles in need before they go to AfD?: Ask them. I'm not exactly an active ARS member. I think however the reason is that AfD puts the articles in danger, and if an editor believes the article can show evidence of being notable, asking for help for finding such evidence is only natural.
  3. Why don't you find bad articles that are on notable topics and make them into good ones?: See above. I think that saving content is a much more crucial priority than making it less ugly.
  4. When those others don't come around what then? : We have no deadline. If they will come, good. If they won't come, nothing bad happens -we have a poor entry but that's it.
  5. have a better sense of what is actually worth saving. : My sense of what is worth saving is usually supported by guidelines and policies -I don't attempt to save article on non-notable college bands or madeup stuff.
  6. In terms of the situation that got us here, you're also going about it in a manner that at times simply violates policy (e.g. adding unverified and fallacious references to BLP information). : I reject this accusation entirely. You received, like me, copies of such articles from User:Jayen466 and you have surely verified yourself as well that they were, in the end, entirely appropriate as further reading for the article. If anything, it is perplexing that NW first brings out a reference in his AfD nomination and then claims not to have verified it. I assumed good faith and evidently I was wrong in doing so. I can agree, for the sake of being paranoid, to be less good-faith assuming and I'll double check such stuff by myself, but in the end the references are good and reliable. Therefore I completely reject your description of my actions as "disruptive and against policy" as a disingenous personal attack. --Cyclopiatalk 13:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And did the Mental Illness reference verify after the fact like the references sent out by Jayen? No it didn't. In fact by adding it you unwittingly added a reference to word for word reproduction of a blurb from a Scientology publication, something even you had agreed rather specifically was not usable in the entry because Scientology was not a reliable source. Why did you add it, to BLP information no less? Clearly you either 1) did not bother to read the reference you added or 2) willfully mislead us. I believe #1 was the case, but that is clearly disruptive and against policy as well. The fact that the other two unverified references, were verified after the fact, does not change what you did. When you added them they were not verified. Case closed. We judge actions by the context of those actions and not by future contexts. If you broke into someone's house and stole a lawfully owned gun from them claiming, "that gun will likely harm someone in the future" and you were convicted of theft you would not all of a sudden be pardoned because that same gun harmed someone in the future. Wikipedia does not source entries on the wishful hunches of editors. You may wish to see where that type of behavior inevitably leads after it exhausts the community's patience -- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, the repeated claims you have made that your own WP:AGF led you to believe that NW had verified the sources are outright baffling. 1) There is no evidence that he did so, and he has verified that he didn't and that no such evidence exists. 2) Even if he flat out said ... these sources relate to the entry contents as they stand, it would still be up to you to verify them before adding them. We don't edit by proxy here. You are culpable for what you add to the encyclopedia. Case closed.Griswaldo (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Case not closed at all.
  1. The Mental Illness reference is still good in my opinion. I read the reference before adding it obviously. But one thing is using a Scientology blurb per se, a completely different thing if is a book takes it and quotes it in context. I understand this can be a matter of editorial opinion, and that's why I "understand your concerns", but it looks far from being as clear cut as you want it to be.
  2. You are culpable for what you add to the encyclopedia. : I didn't invent these sources out of the blue. They were brought on the table by NW and I trusted his judgement. Was I wrong a priori in trusting his judgement? Perhaps, but then we should question why NW brings evidence of sourcing in a nomination (even if claiming they are not enough for notability) without actually verifying them, not me trusting him being a trustworthy editor. Was I wrong, in the end, in trusting that judgement? Not at all, as you have verified yourself. Notice also that such sources were not used to reference any specific bit of information -they were just added as "further reading". So, in the end, who was trying to remove proper RS from an article?
  3. Again, if you truly want to submit a WP:RFC/U on me, you're welcome to do so. Otherwise yours are just vague threats. --Cyclopiatalk 13:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I spend almost my entire time on Wikipedia searching for, finding, and removing material that is either libellous, unfair, or otherwise violates our neutrality policy. Occasionally, I bring stinking, marginally notable messes, to AFD: often where they've been toxic and unmaintained for years. You ignore the wider problem, wikilawyer about GNG, and resit deletion at almost all costs because "I think that saving content is a much more crucial priority than making it less ugly." You don't see a problem? "Less ugly" is here a euphemism for potentially harmful, unscrutinised, long-term messes - of which we have thousands of festering unnoticed and unmaintained. Sheeesh. You wonder why I see you people like you as part of the moral hazard of Wikipedia?--Scott Mac 13:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC) You wonder why I see you people like you as part of the moral hazard of Wikipedia?

I spend almost my entire time on Wikipedia searching for, finding, and removing material that is either libellous, unfair, or otherwise violates our neutrality policy. : That's excellent and I praise you for doing so.
Occasionally, I bring stinking, marginally notable messes, to AFD: often where they've been toxic and unmaintained for years.: What do you mean by "toxic", "stinking", "marginally notable" and "messes"? It's a really honest question -they seem to me vague and subjective concepts and I can't figure out what you precisely mean.
You ignore the wider problem: I don't ignore it at all. Removing libel and unsourced negative statements to protect living people is all jolly good. I only try to argument when I see such actions being unhelpful for the encyclopedia (for example when fully sourced information compliant with BLP policy is nonetheless challenged).
"Less ugly" is here a euphemism for potentially harmful, unscrutinised, long-term messes : Then scrutinize and de-mess them. Why simply slashing them? Can't you use a more constructive approach? I keep practically all articles I deprod or discussed at AfD in my watchlist and regularly scrutinize them for vandalism and the like. Is that a bad thing?
You wonder why I see you people like you as part of the moral hazard of Wikipedia? : Frankly no, I am not especially concerned about your moral judgement on me. That said, the point is that I fully agree with BLP policy; I disagree when we step beyond it and begin to remove fully sourced, verifiable content, actually violating it and hurting the encyclopedia. --Cyclopiatalk 13:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Well Scott I fear that what you do takes work -- finding these entries and doing the background research to realize where the problems lie and to determine if the entries can be saved within our policies or not. What someone like Cyclopia does takes next to no work -- voting "keep" and then possibly copy pasting references from Google, or from some list on a talk page to make the entry look more keep worthy. Go figure that every time I ask why the ARS doesn't preemptively act to find and rescue article content by adequately researching the topic and writing a policy compliant entry before it goes to AfD I'm simply met with evasion. The answer is perhaps that doing so takes too much work.Griswaldo (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
...and nominating articles for deletion/PROD and even avoiding taking the time to check for sources takes even less work. --Cyclopiatalk 12:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure who you are directing that too. Finding only inadequate or irrelevant sources like those that aren't really about the subject or don't qualify as RS should lead to the conclusion that the sourcing is not there. That is quite different from not doing the research which I certainly do, to the best of my abilities before nominating anything for deletion. On the other hand you have clearly shown that you do not bother to read sources before adding them to create the appearance of sourcing. I'm not sure there is much more to say about this at this point. I hope you feel the WQA was worth the time, because it appears to have accomplished zilch. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Finding only inadequate or irrelevant sources like those that aren't really about the subject or don't qualify as RS : Which sources were inadequate? Which sources were irrelevant? Which sources didn't qualify as RS? Which sources weren't really about the subject? You're just throwing out accusations at random. Diffs please.
On the other hand you have clearly shown that you do not bother to read sources before adding them to create the appearance of sourcing. : I did not bother to read only sources that I thought someone else has read, since he cited them, and that proved completely relevant. I assumed good faith. What a deadly sin.
I hope you feel the WQA was worth the time, because it appears to have accomplished zilch. : Well, if anything for me it has accomplished to know better what kind of people I have to deal with. It's infinitely sad that persons unable to handle a discussion between diverging point of views without resorting to attacks and false accusations are drawn to work in a collaborative project but well, we're all human beings I guess. --Cyclopiatalk 19:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Simple solution

This appears to be part of a larger personal battle. I'm sorry to have gotten involved. That said, if either Griswaldo or Cyclopia had simply followed the appropriate behavioral policies/guidelines, none of this mess would have happened:

  • WP:DR: Focus on content, disengage to stay cool, and stay focused on the task at hand.
  • WP:CIVIL: Be understanding and non-retaliatory
  • WP:NPA: Comments should not be personalized, use appropriate forums for discussions of editor conduct rather than article talk pages
  • WP:TALK, especially WP:TPG#YES: Comment on content, not on the contributor; be concise; keep discussions focused.

--Ronz (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Time_Will_Say_Nothing

During NPP, I stumbled on The Teetotaller and it appeared to be an excerpt from a book. The article had already been marked for speedy deletion by another user (sorry, I didn't track who before it was delete) and then it was changed to a redirect. The article creater undid the redirect and restored his article. I restored the redirect and then left a message on the creator's talk page. I immediately was accused of coordinated harrassment. I tried talking to the user the explain the problem and help them understand. The user continued to make bad faith comments about me here. He also made similar comments on another user's talk page here and here. Finally, a third user posted a PROD on the user's talk page and immediately he this editor of harrassment too here. Request someone not involved help.--v/r - TP 03:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The page The Teetotaller no longer exists, so the reasons for this post are unclear! The above post does not accurately or fully represent what has occurred. However, it is helpful to have the issue aired. I am having to deal with a wide variety of edits by people many of whom have obviously not bothered to understand or even read the material properly before editing, or else edits where one editor simply repeats an edit or tag without noticing that it has already been discussed, or else edits where editors contradict each other, or else edits that are simply ludicrous in the sense that they misdescribe or misrepresent or misinterpret, or else ego-driven edits, or else edits by editors maliciously belittling the content, or even edits by editors who can't even spell! Not all of these apply to TP by any means. I made it clear that the allegation of harrassment was not directed at him exclusively. I have no wish to fall out with anyone but I am being repeatedly placed in a position of having to defend what I am doing robustly and from people, some of whom who are plainly and persistently determined to find reasons to challenge it at all cost. There is a fundamental issue with the competence and integrity of certain editors. There is also an issue with multiple editors piling in one after the other to defend each other, which can legitimately be described as harrassment. There seems to be no co-ordination between editors, nor any policy that prevents one editor from changing, on a whim, the outcome of a conversation with another editor. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I may be missing something but how is Up to Now (autobiography) not a copyright violation ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It was published in 1929, so it's in the public domain. I think you're right. I thought it was in public domain at first, but according to [26], works whose authors died in 1939 on are still protected. Feezo (Talk) 04:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If you had bothered to read the discussions with previous editors, you would know the answer to that question. You are indeed missing something. This is what I mean by harrassment. Editors making wrong or incompetent comments without taking due care or without realising that the issue has already been dealt with. I OWN THE COPYRIGHT Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Without a link I don't know what discussions you are referring to. If you own the copyright and you wish to donate it to Wikipedia you need to read and follow the instructions at WP:IOWN and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Have you done that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This is exactly what I mean by incompetence and harrassment. I am not donating the copyright to Wikipedia. I am simply placing some content on Wikipedia. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you read the links I provided ? You said that you own the copyright to the material. You said the issue of you adding copyrighted material has already been dealt with. Where was it dealt with ? What have you done to ensure that there isn't a copyright violation ? Please explain and/or provide links to the discussions. Wikipedia violating copyright is a serious matter so please try to respond in a way that is appropriate to the issue and stop commenting on editors. I'm not interested in what you think, I'm only interested in what you have done to avoid copyright violation. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
What I have done is: a) not violate copyright, b) put a copyright notice on the page concerned, as you would have seen if you had taken the trouble to look. This is a clear example of the problem here - slapdash editing. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, taken collectively, the multiple edits on my work as described above, most of which are quite wrong like yours, amount to harrassment. Thank you for admitting that you got your edit wrong. If you had looked into what you were doing properly BEFORE editing, rather than steaming in without taking due care, you would have got it right, which is to say you would not have edited it at all, which would have been helpful and constructive and, yes, competent. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I included one of those diffs in my initial report.--v/r - TP 04:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
All this reflects very little credit on the editors concerned. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Where are the citations for this article, Time Will Say Nothing (talk · contribs)? That one source, without page numbers or anything? If you made this article up: it's original research. If you "lifted" content from a reliable source without credit: that's even worse. See WP:BURDEN, WP:COPYVIO... and WP:CIVIL as well. We don't cut-and-paste (without appropriate "footnote" references) around here: it's bad. Doc talk 10:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You could easily find the answer to that yourself, if you were genuinely interested in doing so. You are the editor. Why should I do your work for you? Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I doesn't work that way. WP:BURDEN: the burden is on you (the including editor) to prove it, and not for others to do your work for you. Otherwise, it will be removed without anyone losing a second of sleep out of guilt. Trust me on this one... Doc talk 12:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have provided the answer to at least one editor. It is pure harrassment to "require" proof that has already been provided. Also, please note Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Trust you? I don't think so! Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That hole you're digging is getting deeper... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TWSN:That's smart, in a way: trust no one. But, if you think my advice is harassment... oh, boy. Fine. Stay the course you're on and I'll send you my best wishes. Never seen this kind of thing before: it's totally unique! Good luck with the revolution :> Doc talk 12:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that the personal attacks are growing.--v/r - TP 20:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
They continue this morning. I am beginning to think that this editor is too attached (WP:OWN)to articles concerning the Shaw family to be able to edit them collaboratively. He's heading for another block (he was blocked last night) if he continues in this vein, but a topic ban might be a better alternative. Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Cyclopia

I went to ask a question [[30]] regarding deleting the photos on the ejaculation article as being from unreliable source, a porn site. It is now unclear that they were on that porn site before they came into wiki-commons. Cyclopia stalked me to the page where I was asking the question, set up a link to my question on the ejaculation page. He then proceded to undermine me as he had been doing on the article talk page, by telling others not to listen to me, and refering to me as lonely and attention seeking, in reference to my attempts at advancing a new consensus. He also claims I am "forum shopping" something ARBCOM firmly rejected as an accusation against me when I filed with them (at that time I had not taken the time to study all of the info about ARBCOM before filing and I thought they dealt with content, not just conduct). I have admittedly somewhat persistently argued for removal of certain content on the ejaculation article, primarily the four-plate photos there. I have been met with very little graciousness from Cyclopia in the course of the discussion in which he has frequently refered to me as trolling for continuing to press for a new consensus. I do repeat the same reasons at times, as I thought that was how to keep the issue from fading and becuase they are IMO good reasons, and I feel that with greater support such reasons could advance a new consensus, and there is currently at best a very weak consensus there. one other editor whom I regard as astute in his comments on the page (User:Bdell555) said on the talk page there was just a status quo on the images. Cyclopia has misrepresented the strength of the consensus calling it firm when the closing editor of the last RFC held on the issue said that "he would hestitate to say there was a consensus" and felt wider input was necessary. This is another reason I remain within the discusion as the strength of any consensus is often over-stated. There have been a few further objections since then, but I have not bothered to set up an RFC on it again as yet. My difficulty with Cyclopia is that he insists there is a consensus firmer than it is, he tells others not to listen to me, and he has started to stalk me, and undermine me when I seek further advice about grounds for deletion of the aforementioned images. DMSBel (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you had actually explained why you thought the source was unreliable when you asked the question at EA/R, rather than asking "can such content be deleted as unreliable" it might have made things simpler. Frankly though, I think it is apparent that this question about sourcing was just being used as an excuse to raise the issue of whether the article need include such images. If you wish to discuss article content, this isn't the way to go about it. I'll not comment about what has occurred between Cyclopia and you, as I've not been involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I did state so very early on. Are you saying I am not allowed to check grounds on which an image can be deleted? If there are grounds an experienced editor should state them freely when asked for assistance. Sorry That is not meant to sound like you withheld anything, but there is more than one possible ground for deletion .There have been other editors when I asked about the images who have said to me unreliable source perhaps. Thats why I asked. Am I not allowed to ask these questions? I have been discussing it on an off for months with many other editors agreeing over that time with deletion. There is nothing complicated here, I was stalked to the page and undermined by Cyclopia. What's complicated, I had presented my reasons before cyclopia joined about why I thought it was unreliable. DMSBel (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think you could have avoided a lot of drama if you had told Cyclopia you were going to bring this to a noticeboard (I'd actually expect it if I were in a discussion with you). If you had, he User:Nigelj wouldn't have thought you tried to forum-shop. From the article talk history it seems that you two have been discussing this for some months now, so I don't think trying to get the photo deleted was a clever move, nor was trying it without saying so on the ejaculation-talk. Our contributions are out there in the open, and as long as it's relvant to the discussion two editors are having I wouldn't call checking the contribs stalking (or did Cyclopia start editing other articles you've been working on? that might be stalking, depending on how he edits those pages). I don't really think this is a wikiquette issue, perhaps you should try getting a third opinion or start a new request for comment. --Six words (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I have told Cyclopia, as soon as feasibily possible, comments started coming in here quite early. I could not post a link till it was set up. Any more comments inserted inbetween existing ones may get missed as yours nearly did here. Please post at the end as I dont want to have to re-scan the whole thread all the time. Whether you think trying to get the photo deleted was a "clever move" is absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. "Without saying it on the ejaculation talk page" - oh please, I have said it over and over, The photos should go. There was no attempt being made to delete it without mentioning it on the talk page, I would have presented that as a ground for deletion if an experienced editor had told me it was on the page. I did not realise there was a policy that I had to link to a question I was asking relevant to the page, somewhere else on wikipedia. You are not even asking questions of me, you are attributing to me what you think are my motives as though they are in fact my motives. DMSBel (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I prefer to keep threaded discussions together, so I'll answer here and take the risk that you won't read this. With “bringing it to a noticeboard” I wasn't refering to the wikiquette alert, I was talking about your question at WP:EAR, and judging from your initial complaint (you said Cyclopia was stalking you because he commented there) you didn't plan on telling him you had posted a request there. If you check the timeline you'll also find that I didn't bring up anything that was answered already. You came here for comments, you got comments. While you're free to ignore them you cannot tell me what to bring up and what not. --Six words (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, sorry misunderstood there about were you meant. thanks for clarifying. I think it was becuase you said "bring this". That is why I thought you had asked a question I had already answered. Apologies. (I have taken that out but can't remember at moment how to do strikethough). Back to the linking from ejaculation to editor assistance. As I said I was not aware of the policy about linking when asking a question elsewhere (but related to that page). No the reason I called it stalking which Cyclopia has now told me he was not doing was because of the tone of his post, after my question. If he had just simply linked I would not have thought of him as stalking, I'd have wondered about the link because I did not know about that policy of linking to assistance questions related to the article. I apologise for any slip-up there, but I can assure you it was not done intentionally. Any deletion reason would have been posted back to the thread. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You were not stalked to the page. Anyone can check your user contributions for any reason whatsoever. It's a public display of all of your edits. As it was, you were forum shopping, which is against Wikipedia policy. Cyclopedia did the correct thing and notified involved users via the talk page for ejaculation. You may be uncomfortable with that, but that does not mean it is stalking, nor does that mean they have done anything wrong. While I think Cyclopedia could probably be a bit more calm and less abrasive when dealing with you, your misunderstanding of many policies on Wikipedia and continued attempts to push your own POV can make their reaction a bit more understandable. --132 20:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry who is authorised to respond here? Outside of me and and Cyclopia. I expected Admin who are not involved, or have any POV. 13 sqrd is an involved editor. Is it just anyone?DMSBel (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Every editor is allowed to respond, even your opponent(s). --Six words (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well I know Cyclopia can, I sent him a message. Ok I leave it open till someone closes it.
To 132 - I was not "Forum Shopping" which is daft, for an RFC would serve me better if I wanted more people to join in. I went there solely to find out about whether porn websites are considered unreliable as a source. DMSBel (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Your actions can be seen as forum shopping. You ask the same kind of questions at different forums when previous discussions did not support you. Then when the new discussion is linked from the page in question you object to that. This can make it look like you don't what people who have been involved in the past to be involved in the new discussion. This might not have been your intention that is how it looks to me. ~~ GB fan ~~ 20:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
What they can be seen as and what they are are two totally different things. I know why I went there, to ask a question. Cyclopia should remember from the ARBCOM that they affirmed my reasons (albeit I misunderstood ARBCOMs purpose) as genuine, that was a previous occasion he tried to pin "forum shopping" on me, thats if he read what they all said. This is not about me!!! Let Cyclopia file one on me if he wants i'll answer there. Unbelievable do you guys think you can just turn round my own complaint on me and no-one notice. If anyone has complaint file it and i'll answer it!!!!!!! DMSBel (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
You start a thread about Cyclopia. Did you think no one would than check your contributions out as well? They are quite relevant to the topic at hand. Garion96 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
You should read over the section titled "there is no "immunity" for reporters" at WP:SHOT. Your edits aren't immune to scrutiny just because you're reporting someone else (and I should know; I ended up in a similar situation a few years ago). --132 21:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hope you foot is better now. I think I have remained as civil as reasonably can be expected in this dispute, and correctly interpreted policy. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
No this isn't about you it is about your complaint. Part of your complaint was that you were accused of forum shopping and I tried to explain how someone might interpret your actions as forum shopping. I don't think anything has been done that requires anyone to be reported for anything. ~~ GB fan ~~ 21:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Answered that. Twice now. Anything else to ask? I will be asking ARBCOM to check on this too, if necessary. DMSBel (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
ArbCom is the last step when everything else has failed - and they (just as the volunteers answering here) will also review your conduct. I'd advise you not to go to ArbCom. --Six words (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)when I say that I don't mean to say “never go to ArbCom”, but I doubt it's a good idea in this case and it's definitely a bad idea as long as you haven't tried everything else first.
Ok lets see how this goes. I have already answered the same question twice, does Cyclopia have to put in an appearance at any time?DMSBel (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
He doesn't have to. If you want him to comment here, you could (politely) ask him to do so on his talk. --Six words (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, did that as soon as I could after posting my alert. DMSBel (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I happen to be an admin, and you can take it from me that admins have no privileged role in these discussions. They are only empowered to carry out the communities consensus. No, Cyclopedia is free to comment here, or to refrain from commenting. And we are free to draw our conclusions in either case. And while you can certainly take this to ArbCom, I second Six words. The case would almost certainly be rejected as a waste of time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks helps to know how this works, I'd have thought a facilator would have been involved, but anyway. If we try to understand each other it should get sorted fairly quickly. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be better not to prempt either their accepting of it or any ruling they would take. Perhaps we can resolve the matter sooner. DMSBel (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Excessively rude behavior and personal attacks by User:Exxess

While User:Exxess deleted their grossly offensive commentary, per this diff here, that does not excuse their conduct. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This is all about a single AfD discussion [31]. Ignore and forget. Biophys (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
If someone can't deal with people not agreeing they ought not edit in a venue where there is no (by design) ownership of content. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive96&oldid=1138287061"