Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive99

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Ludwigs2

User has behaved in a substantially incivil manner on my UT page, on article talk pages, and has done so with others. Collect (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC) |Collect: I asked you to provide sourcing for the term 'communist terrorism', [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACommunist_terrorism&action=historysubmit&diff=413803048&oldid=413797944 here. You have not done so, and are continuing to argue in a tendentious manner (argumentative, circular, and with multiple instances of IDHT. This is your first warning for such behavior. You will get one more warning, and then I will bring the matter to the attention of administrators and ask to have you sanctioned. -- ]

I responded with | Note the specific cite for "communist terrorism" furnished under the Shining PAth discussion. Perhaps you missed it? and a fairly clear edit summary Ludwigs is informed sternly not to post on this page.

Then guess what? | You're free to delete my posts if you like, but I will make such posts as and when I deem fit. If you don't like it, don't put me in a position where I need to. ::I did miss that reference, thanks, probably because it was issued in a separate argument and not presented as a response to my request. do you have other such sources? and the edit summary response with respect to source + note: the adolescent 'this is my room' thing doesn't work on me. I will treat you as though you are an an adult, regardless

Which strikes me as being quite beyond the pale for even last-worditis.

BTW, the cites include [1] after already furnishing more than a dozen other cites, which should be enough for any editor on WP. Collect (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If only we had a WP:Town Sheriff that could step in and give Ludwigs2 breach of peace block or redact his incivility. aprock (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
This is very far from his first offense, to be sure. Just that this time he went a mile too far. I am, of cource, bemused by his claims in his essay. Collect (talk)
@ AProck: That would be nice, wouldn't it.
I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem here. user talk pages are for discussing issues that don't belong on article talk pages. Users don't get to dictate who does and does not post to their talk page (though they have broad liberties about controlling or disposing of content that's there), and there are certain cases - such as formal warnings about problematic behavior - where posting a notice on a user's talk page is required before proceeding to stronger procedural measures. The only thing that could possibly be considered uncivil about this is the comment about adolescent behavior, which was more in the line of a humorous observation: it reminded me of that tween thing where they post "Do Not Enter" signs on their bedroom doors. I'll happily apologize for that if he finds it offensive. --Ludwigs2 18:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Might as well add: | Collect: I don't f%cking care. you cannot use the results of an AfD as a justification for not providing sources. I would humbly suggest that a pattern of incivility is apparent. Try also [2] to show it is not just I. Collect (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC) In the same vein, a number of Catholic priests are pedophiles, but we do not create the term Catholic Pedophilia, as though there were something intrinsic to Catholicism that encouraged pedophilia. You obviously cannot find sources that intrinsically link communism to terrorism in the manner that you would like (because if you could you would be pouring those sources all over this page with extreme glee), so that leaves you in the hole. Heck -- might as well stick in his wondrous sterotyoing of priests as pedophiles while we are at it. Collect (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Lastly for now - examine see wp:HUSH. next warning you leave on my user page gets administrator attention) which rather implies he asserts that no one can post on his talk page - whilst he was free to ignore my considerably more polite request. Collect (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure about the problem here. I'm old enough to legally use swear words for emphasis (at least in the US), and I am perfectly entitled to point out the flaws in your reasoning and your failure to provide sourcing. You seem to be confused about the nature of civility on wikipedia. Civility policy is not designed to protect you from things that you don't want to hear; it's designed to protect you from personal attacks, gross indecency, and improper accusations, none of which I have engaged in. Read identifying incivility and tell me where and how I have stepped over the line.
While you're at it, you should look over tendentious editing with respect to your own behavior, because this discussion will soon be turning to the numerous ways you have been pushing the limits there. --Ludwigs2 19:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I am willing to let anyone review the many cites I furnished on the talk page, and the "interesting" responses thereto. I find your assertion that you (who use the word "duputy" ) can use any words to other editors that you desire to does not comport with Wikiquette, that your attitude that you control your own talk page and also control mine to be "interesting" and your overall history with others to be "interesting." Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad that you find me interesting, I apologize for any unfortunate typos I may have made in the past or may make in the future, I'm fascinated by your misperceptions of how I control my talk page, and I am still waiting for you to provide some justification for this wikiquette aside from what appears to be unbridled rage. --Ludwigs2 19:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
And in the midst of this you issue a 2nd formal warning, per canvassing and stalking policies which seems remarkable as an attempt to defuse this on your part. Collect (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Ludwig, I am not going to weigh in on the content issues here (not the forum for it), but for the rest of it - this isn't hard. Refrain from profanity in your edit summaries (although I personally don't care); more importantly, if someone asks you not to post on their talk page then don't. Take it to the article talk page and play nice. Eusebeus (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Eusebeus: I'll do my best to refrain from profanity around collect (though I find it hard to believe he is actually upset over the kind of mildly crusty language I'm prone to), but I don't see how I can promise not to post to his talk page. As I said, there are times when posting to a user talk page is the correct and appropriate thing to do, and any other action would either be inappropriate or extremely inefficient or ineffective. I'm going to bring this up at Pump (policy) for clarification, in fact, because it strikes me that attempts to block other users from your talk page (short of problems falling under wp:HUSH) are contrary to the project's interests. feel free to comment over there if you disagree.
    • @ P.s. to Collect: I'm not particularly trying to defuse this situation, as I don't personally see anything that needs to be defused. Provide sources like I asked, discuss them reasonably, and we can move on to better things. --Ludwigs2 20:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
You state above "Read identifying incivility and tell me where and how I have stepped over the line." In the edit [[3]] it appears to me two of the referenced tenets are violated. (a) use of profanity and (d) belittling comment to another editor ("Pffft" edit summary). While you behavior is probably not sufficiently egregious to warrant sanctions, neither is it particularly civil.Gerardw (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, there's room for discussion here, but I read those two subsections differently. For the first, the passage does not say 'profanity', but says 'gross profanity or indecent suggestions', implying something far more intensely personal than 'I do not <exp. del.> care.' Nor do I think that the proscription against belittling other editors was meant to prevent editors from pointing out poor argumentation or improper behavior. Collect is doggedly resistant to rational discourse on this topic, and it's exceptionally frustrating. While a more sober 'You are using this same invalid reasoning for the 17th time now' would have been been more on-point, would it actually have been considered more civil? 'pffft' carries exactly the same idea, but more naturally, and without the blunt, in-your-face accusation that the longer phrase holds. Whatever the case, I am not going to give him a pass on tendentiously bad reasoning just because he has the temerity to drag me to wikiquette. --Ludwigs2 02:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm uninvolved, but frequently edit similar pages as Ludwigs. Anyway, this appears to be good editors wasting eachothers' time. I suggest toning down the rhetoric and moving on. Very briefly, on the content, 'Communist terrrorism' is a needless term, as is any which represents a modifier as inherent to its object. Communism is an ideology and terrorism is a tactic. Sometimes they overlap, but one cannot inherently claim the other (did you do that terrorism? no that wasn't us, we do regular terrorism. that was communist terrorism).
As for the wikiquette, combining intelligent arguments with acerbic comments may well come off as, well, uncivil. Perhaps the users here can pick amongst them? As for preventing people from posting on your talk page, Wikipedia:UP#OWN doesn't seem to support that right, although it's generally not worth trying to reason with people who don't want you talking to them in the first place. That said, the right of response in one forum or another seems reasonable, and preventing someone from posting on your talk page means that their only recourse is boards such as this and other punitive, time-sucking fora. Issuing warnings is not stalking; it's standard where one suspects policy breaches. Similar to templating regulars, however, warning people you are in a direct conflict with rarely helps. Perhaps addressing the issue a less ultimatum-ish way would do more. Plenty of articles needing fixing; I think this thread can go the way of most others, just as a heads up and a break on conflict escalation. Ocaasi (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:USER#Ownership_and_editing_of_user_pages. Generally, if an editor asks you not to post to their talk page, it is good wikiquette practice to respect his or her wishes. Eusebeus (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing in the policy the supports an individual user "banning" someone from their talk page. Gerardw (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems to fit descriptions of problematic behavior outlined here and here:

  1. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;
  2. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express;
  3. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

I suggest a full reading of WP:CIVIL (especially the lede and the first two sections: "Incivility" and "Co-operation and civility"), WP:AGF (especially the lede, the "About good faith," and the"Demonstrate good faith" sections), WP:DR (especially the lede and the "Avoiding disputes" section), and WP:NOTBATTLE.

Finally, the focus here should be on how to be more civil and how to de-escalate situations that detract us from improving the encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Some good thoughts are being expressed in this thread but I would like to say something else that I don't think has been said yet. Common sense tells us that if an editor is upset with you the best thing you can do is leave that person alone for at least a little while. Going to their talk page to lecture or the templates that makes so many very angry is not a real good idea if you really want an editor to cool down. Ludwig, I know you know this is true. I've seen you too lose patience with editors for doing exactly like what you did here. I know that you know putting that second warning on Collect's talk page was not going to give a calming affect so why do it? I've seen you in battles with quite a few editors in the past. I think part of the reason for this is that you do not back down. You have to, just like everyone else has to back down at times. You can't always say what is on your mind to an editor like you say you do. Everyone, please remember that at the end of the day, every post you have talked to in words has a real human being behind it. Sometime's we forget that I guess. With everyone being different, it means that the way we talk/type to them should also be different. What I mean is this, when I type words to someone I try to remember that it is 'someone' I am talking to. When I get done typing I try to always remember to read what I wrote and make adjustments if necessary to make sure that what I say says what I want to without doing harm to the person I am talking/writing to. This really isn't hard to do and it really doesn't take that much time to do. I just thought maybe saying this would give some thoughts to think about. Please now can everyone shake hands and go do something else and maybe have some fun doing it? :) Good luck and I hope I make some sense. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Would seem like a good idea for both editors to back away and take a time out.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate ANI against me

On 15 February CBM told me on my talk page that he felt that the edits I was doing such as this one with my AWB were against policy. When I asked him to explain he provided links to the AWB rules which do not mention the problem he perceives. When I then told him I intended to continue but if he had a problem with the edits he should open a discussion at the village pump and see what the community says he threatened to remove my AWB. When I again asked him to clarify and continued editing he removed my AWB access and then left a thread at ANI making me look like a Wiki-Criminal.

My problem and the reason for this Wikiquette alert is that I feel as though he went against policy and instead of opening a discussion to clarify what he felt was a policy violation on my part he used his admin powers to remove my AWB access and discredit me by leaving an ANI notice about it. I believe I have a good record of editing and this has tarnished my reputation on WP. Kumioko (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Not appropriate to raise issue under discussion at ANI here. Please see WP:ADMINSHOP Gerardw (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
This isn't forum shopping I have an issue with the way my ANI was handled. The ANI was directed towards me and this is directed towards the one who incorrectly revoked my AWB rights and submitted me to ANI. Unless your saying that issues and complaints against an admin cannot be addressed here in which case I would ask where I would take such a problem? --Kumioko (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The problems should be addressed at ANI. Gerardw (talk)
At the ANI currently beign addressed on me or should I open up a seperate one. I honestly don't expect it to amount to much since he is an admin and I am not but I want it to be on record that I believe he acted innappropriately. --Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure as I don't spend much time on ANI; I think keeping the discussion centralized makes the most sense. Gerardw (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
You can close this if you want I can clearly see that knowone cares. I am going to stop editing anyway and invest my time where its more appreciated. --Kumioko (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Underween

Resolved
 – handled at ANI

A new user's only edits are to nominate five AfDs and write on two talk pages. Two AfDs have been speedily closed [4] [5], while the other three currently don't have comments. His talk comments are uncivil. [6] [7]. I'm out of my league when it comes to handle matters such as this. Bgwhite (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't remember the indeffed user, but nominating Transformers-related articles for deletion is the MO of someone recently shown the door, and who socked to get around it. Any ideas? Dayewalker (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Upon further review, this is clearly a returning disruptive user. I've opened a discussion on the ANI page here [8] to try and get some admin attention. Dayewalker (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

offensive comments in Farsi Wikipedia

  • user:94.182.107.202
  • fa:حسن بن علی

In the article above I required the person who editted the article, i.e. Mr. Behzad.Modares to leave a referrence by adding [citation needed] tags. I explained what I meant in the discussion page. Right after that, Some user with IP address 94.182.107.202 undid my tags and left an offensive comment in the summary section, directly attacking me. Besides, same person editted my talk page and left me a vandalism warning while accusing me of using doubles. This is while I had not even editted the article in at least 24 hours except for contribution in the discussion page. I wonder how I can remove the vandalism warning.Kazemita1 (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User: Mallexikon - Repeatedly calling editor "vandal" when they delete for NRS using WP:BURDEN

Resolved

User: Mallexikon keeps calling me a “vandal” when I delete completely unsourced material, and he just reverted my edits twice here[9]. He inserted completely unsourced material stating that technical claims of esoteric Traditional Chinese Medicine terms was as obvious as that “the sky is blue” so did not need any sources, and that the limited material he inserted with Chinese language sources was OK per WP:RS. He did not respond in any way to my comment at talk pointing out that Chinese language sources are not WP:RS in an English language encyclopeida and pointing out WP:BURDEN for the editor trying to insert unsourced material here[10]. Instead he again called me a vandal]. Instead he reverted my deletions under WP:BURDEN and he again called me a “vandal” here[11]. PPdd (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

    • Hi PPdd, I never called you a vandal - I called the heavy-handed deletion of my edits vandalism (there's a difference). WP:BURDEN is not an excuse to go around and just delete material you think doesn't carry enough citations. If my material was unsourced (it's not) the correct way of dealing with it would be as follows:
    • "Dealing with unsourced material:
      If a claim is doubtful but not harmful, use the [citation needed] tag, which will add "citation needed," but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.
      If a claim is doubtful and harmful, remove it from the article. You may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless it is very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to the talk page either. Use your common sense.
      All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed from articles and talk pages immediately. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel."
    • I'm editing in totally good faith, my edits are in no way harmful and we're talking about TCM here, not living persons. So please, PPdd, relax.
    • I'm definetely not happy about how you have been acting here - you make a very aggressive impression on me. This is what you wrote on my talk page:
      "If you continue to ignore WP:BURDEN and revert my edits, I will report to the RS violation alerts, and you will be in violation of 3RR and get banned."
      Why do I feel like I'm being bullied here? And why do I find our dispute at the Wikiquette alert page when it's only 3 days old? Mallexikon (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Calling a good faith edit vandalism, as here [[12]] is uncivil.
There's not minimum time requirement for an editor to request assistance here.
PPd is correct, the burden of proof is the person added unsubstantiated claims. The preferred course of action would be for Mallexikon to properly source his additions prior to adding them to the article. Gerardw (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Gerardw. From his contribs, Mallexikon appears to be a relatively new, and single purpose editor for an alternative medicine and its spin offs, who did what he thought was alot of work, and does not understand why the Traditional Chinese Medicine article can't be a nonMEDRS advert for TCM, so he is likely frustrated at Wiki policies and guidelines, which is understandable. But on the other hand, he seemed to know well the term "vandalism", so maybe he is not really so new, but had to assume a new account for some reason. PPdd (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
He just called me a vandal again[13], and reverted again, despite a 3R warning. PPdd (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right I shouldn't call PPdd's deletions vandalism (still, I never called him a vandal). But I reverted again because he deleted properly sourced material, like here [[14]]. Mallexikon (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh and yes, by the way, I actually am a new editor, and I do find Traditional Chinese medicine quite fascinating. I don't want the article to be an advert for TCM though (quite ineffective therapeutical methods all in all) - it is the culture-anthropological aspect I'm interested in. How about your intentions here, PPdd? Mallexikon (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. I have tried to find RS for anything I deleted from TCM, and most of the material was reinserted with RS or MEDRS before you returned from your vacation. I even put the material you wrote on the talk page and made a call to other editors to help me find RS for it, but you probably did not see it buried up in the talk page when you got back. I have no way of knowing which editor makes which edit, so if one editor does not put RS on their edits, it might appear to that one editor that I am picking on them, when I am not. I am marking this respoved. PPdd (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Resolved

173.18.86.157

This IP has refused to collaborate with me, instead resorting to personal attacks and a false edit war accusation. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not committed any personal attacks, thank you. There is, however, an edit war, at least in my opinion. If it helps, we're mutual participants, so we're all in this boat together. Pseudonym 02:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.86.157 (talk)

USER:David spector

The above User Page appears to be self promotional and may be in violation of WP:UPNOT, WP:SOAP, and WP:FAKEARTICLE. Could someone please take a look at it and give their objective opinion? I have notified the user that his page is under discussion. [15]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Concur that it's self promotional. Gerardw (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The guideline prohibits "Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia." The user page in question is rather short and the material in question does not appear to be "extensive". Much of it appears to fall instead under the provisions that allow "Limited autobiographical content" and "Significant editing disclosures".   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
It certainly seems to fall under WP:UPNOT: "Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links)." It also comes across like an article as well. Denaar (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's a blatant violation, but it's much more than what I've come to expect from appropriate biographical information on a user page. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus that USER: David spector should adjust his user page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The userpage looks fine to me. The user in question has been a steady editor for over eight years; it seems appropriate to me for them to have a userpage describing their offwiki life (particularly in this case, as they do try to edit articles related to that work and those hobbies). –SJ+ 22:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Page ownership

Galbarm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user thinks he owns Shahar Pe'er's page. I have made reasonable edits to include H2H with just top 10 players and I have been subjected to these reponses. #1 and this: stop interfering with something that is not yours. Since when has acting like you OWN a page which you edit frequently been acceptable. This user only edits this page and turns it into a faKnowIG (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)n page. As can be seen by my smacking head aginst brick wall to make it conform to other artciles. Page ownership and comments like that are not acceptable. KnowIG (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

KnowIG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'm not sure if this is the place to response - anyway: Since when are you suppose to limit the amount of information that should be shown in a page? The user 'KnowIG' hasn't complained about the reliability or about the quality of the section that I added - appearently, his only complaint is that the section contains too much information - something that I was never aware of being an issue for an encyclopedia. In the worst case, I would expect him to transfer the section into a page of it's own but that user 'KnowIG', thinks he can just erase sections I worked very hard on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Galbarm (talk • contribs) 09:46, 18 February 2011

Both editors appear to be editing warring and neither using talk page. Gerardw (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Correct, although the information being added by Galbarm is entirely unreferenced which isn't what we want on BLPs. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If reference is the issue I won't argue about it. I'll add the necessary references. I can't give a direct link to the statistics shown on the tables, everything is gathered from the players stats and matches history in the official WTA website. Should I link to the home page of the website in this case? I don't think it would be useful. Galbarm (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The homepage. How is that an adequate reference. Seriously though this is about your ownership comments. Stop trying to avoid it and talk sunshine. KnowIG (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Me saying that I own the page is what bothers you? Even if I did say this I can't see why it's an important point. The truth is I haven't claimed or even hinted it's mine. I just said it's not yours and actually you were acting like it's yours by erasing sections. Surprisingly, we both agree that linking to a homepage isn't an adequate reference but if we got to the point where refrences are your issues I'm sure we can find a solution. All of the statistics in the tables I created are taken from the official WTA website so I'm sure it can't be called an original research. Which leaves us with finding a proper way to create references. Check the references I've just created a couple of hours ago and let me know what you think (You can edit them by yourself if you have a better idea but please don't erase them) Galbarm (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't weedle out of it you said explictly and implied explicitly MY PAGE go away! It is an important point cause you can't behave like that, that's the reason for this thread your claiming of the page. Which you can not run from it's there in black and white. :sigh: KnowIG (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Galbarm, you have said that at least portions of the article are yours in this edit summary. Neither one of you have spent any time on the talk page discussing the edits in question. Edit warring is never a solution, it just ends in people getting blocked. My suggestion is to make a case for the edits you are making on the talk page and try to come to an agreement. ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
However GB in the link above I think I have set my stool out and it's up to Galbarm to reason why my view is not "correct" and all I have had in response is him edit warring and claiming ownership of the page. And it is the ownership which I have trouble with here. Casue NOBODY OWNS a page. KnowIG (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I may have said it but again, there's no way that what I've said when I was angry by seeing a work that I made being erased is be the point of discussion here. The page is not mine, ok? Happy? What matters is the article itself and as such I agree that if KnowIG as any other issues with my edits he should open a dialogue on the talk page. Btw I just checked now and what I said was "Don't touch my tables" so don't put words in my mouth. But again - it is a pointless issue and waste of time to even discuss it. (Galbarm) 07:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
So you finally admit that you did try to own the page or at least sections of the page. It's totally unacceptable. What you should do is revert and keep your faults/comments like that to yourself. Now I was being bold and you reverted. Perhaps you should take as much responsiblity for going to a TP as anyone else.
[[16]] Galbarm (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Dicklyon

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

Dicklyon has been uncivily accusing me of bad faith editing or other false accusations, without even telling me he is doing so, in places I just happen across, such as here[17] where he accused me of being "on a destructive binge", just because I applied WP:MEDRS to medical claims in an article making them, and here[], where he says MEDRS is "being applied by User:PPdd to dismantle articles". I am not dismantling articles. I am deleting medical claims that are not MEDRS. This is a much more serious matter than BLP, for the reason stated at MEDRS, and I am deleting completely unsourced claims that I cannot verify. Dicklyon has reverted my edits, in violation of WP:BURDEN, then is going around and making false accusations about me and violating etiquette in doing so. It is causing an unpleasant atmosphere to edit in, especially as I do not know where else he has falsly attacked me. PPdd (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for not notifying you that I mentioned you. This was an etiquette violation, I agree. As for the rest, I don't think it was uncivil, and I think I explained my edits and started appropriate conversionations about them. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
@PPdd: If that is all the evidence there is of uncivil behavior, I do not think that raising a report here is warranted. Yes, everyone should be nice at all times, and I have not looked at the underlying issue, but if you are going to make an edit like this which removes most of the content from an article, you need to expect some stiff comments. Most editors are human, and no matter how correct your edit is in terms of policy (I have not examined that), you should not worry too much if an editor who supports the old content regards the matter as a "destructive binge". I am not saying that such a description is warranted or acceptable, and you do not have to accept the comment, but it does not warrant a report. From the above, it looks as if simply registering your concern with Dicklyon on their talk page would have been adequate. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. There's no minimum time limit on when an editor may ask for assistance in resolving an issue; too often WQA's are not requested until parties have been in conflict so long that resolution here isn't possible. Could this have been resolved elsewhere? Probably. Does that make requesting assistance unwarranted? No, it's fine. Gerardw (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
In any case, I think this is resolved with Dicklyon agreeing that he might be peleted by a rare caliifornia snowball (even though he did not give me a LOL for my "tiger's penis" comment). PPdd (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
LOL. And if you got blocked for making fun of my name, you wouldn't be the first. Dicklyon (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I almost got blocked for my own name, and had to change it at the last minute before the block to PPdd. You know, nominating someone for an etiquette violation might be a good way of making friends around here... :) PPdd (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
What a strange Wikiquette conversation... Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Bobf, its Dicklyon's fault. He put that irritiatingly pleasant smiling photo of himself on his user page, disrupting my attempts at being nasty. So I guess you might call him a "disruptive editor". :) PPdd (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if Dicklyon grows taller when he is excited. Sorry, couldn't resist... I think I may have to accuse him of WP:BAITing me into a WP:CIVIL violation. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure, who doesn't get turgid when excited over wikipedia? Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Charming though he is, PPdd's behavior is very troubling to me. At a rate of many hundreds of edits per day, he's having with way with alternative medicine articles, and when he gets pushback from me and others, he's trying to rewrite guidelines like WP:MEDRS to better support what he's doing, which is to move the altmed articles toward a very non-neutral med-only POV. So if I get grouchy at him again, that will probably be why. I'm not saying "bad faith", just that he hasn't fully embraced the concept of WP:NPOV and is on a tear to promote his own POV. Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, "grouchy", now I'm accusing you of bad faith. Here's why. Your talk page says you are on a Wikibreak, so I spent time cooking up all these nasty things to say about you here, thinking you were on break and would not be able to defend yourself here, so Bobthefish2 wouldn't say "What a strange Wikiquette conversation..." again. But you are not on break, and can defend yourself against my inane nastiness... so failing to take down your wikibreak was bad faith that cost me my prescious "nasty attack the defenseless" time. :) PPdd (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
More seriously, I am trying to add to MEDRS re medical claim sourcing, per the spirit of MEDRS not to have Wiki contain any assertions of medical efficacy that are not backed up by reliable sources, and the discussion can be seen at the WP:MEDRS talk page. My last such suggestion got unanimous consensus, but it only applied to a specific case for one alternative medicine. PPdd (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
But most of what you removed were not assertions of medical efficacy. Dicklyon (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
That's a good point I missed. In a sense, the content added by dick is really about human physiology according to Chinese medicine. In WP, I believe the topic of human physiology is not under WP:MEDRS since it's more of a science article. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
By the way, you should take this to RFCU, NPOV, or some specialized science discussion forum. User:PPdd may take RFCU a bit personally. WP:NPOV is a bit inactive. You can try this, but it doesn't seem too active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 (talk • contribs)
I was actually about to reword things as "beliefs or practices of author", rather than assertions of fact supported by scientific journals, just as I did at anthroposophica medicine, which resulted in this[18], but when I had gone through it all, I noticed that there was abosultely nothing, that was not in acupuncture, so was about as clear a case of WP:CFORK as could be under its first definition, and the stuff had long been up after the identical stuff was deleted from acupuncture, as clear an example of POV abuse as there can be under the second definition in WP:FORK, so rather than doing the work to reword it all, I brought it to AfD for consensus to redirect under CFORK. Instead of providing arguments as to why it was not clear cfork, editors attacked me ad hominem, calling me "destructive", a "butcher", accusing me of bad faith editing, etc. As of today, there is still not an example of something that belongs in the acupoint article and not the acupuncture article, only ad hominem attacks on me, unresponsive to the stated reason to redirect, and not in the acupucture article, leaving my requests to cite one example to disprove contentfork. The only thing that happened is User:nageh changed his vote from keep to redirect. I am still mystefied others have ignored me repeatedly, and not either changed their vote or provided a single example that shows it is not Cfork. I am still awaiting an aopolgy from User:Colonel Warden for calling me a butcher, which set the tone for the whole "discussion". Perhaps another etiquette alert is in order for that. PPdd (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Content discussion isn't best done here, nor comments regarding other parties. Please open an WQA if you wish to discuss another editor. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This alert is supposed to be regarding Dicklyon and has been marked resolved for a while...is there anything left to discuss regarding his behavior??Gerardw (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
No problems with Dicklyon. :) PPdd (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

70.67.12.154

IP editor 70.67.12.154 (edits here [19]) has been engaging in edit warring/content removal on global warming-related articles. However, what brings me here is a specific accusation toward another editor of socking here: [20]. I was torn between coming here and ANI, but figured it would be best to head here first. Kansan (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP asked User:Vsmith (an admin) whether he's a pseudonym of User:William M. Connolley... I wouldn't worry about it. Apparently Vsmith isn't concerned. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree w/Sean.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

User:KnowIG

Resolved
 – looks like this users action resulted in a block before others could comment. If they return any future interactions will bear watching

As you will see from this editors block log they have a history of blocks for personal attacks and incivility. They have obviously not learned from these blocks because the attacks have continued both here Talk:Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II#Winner of Blue Peter contest and specifically here [21]. The warning for this attack was immediately blanked here [22]. If this user could learn to discuss without personal attacks then that would be a good outcome but it seems other eyes and comments on their behavior are needed to bring that about. MarnetteD | Talk 15:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User notified here User talk:KnowIG#Notice. MarnetteD | Talk 15:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh for the love of God!. The first time this user sees me the first thing he thinks is lets get him blocked. At the end of the day I haven't been rude and he can't get his own way and doesn't like it. And this admin is abusing power cause he doesn't like a response how pathetic. And this is exactly what annoys me with this place. People need to grow up stop acting like a child and grow a pair. Forgoodness sake. KnowIG (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Lets get a few things straight. A) I have not asked for a block but you behavior needs to be examined. B) You have been rude as you continue to comment on editors and not on material to be entered. C) I am not an admin. D) Wikipedia is a community and if you can't act civilly within it you should expect to have that fact commented on. D) My pair is just fine and grew many moons ago. MarnetteD | Talk 15:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Well lets get a few things straight. Sice your not and admin. DO NOT USE TEMPLATES ON MY PAGE!!!!!! Don't not comment on me. DO not do anything keep your mouth shut and learn what incivity is and then you will learn how rude people will go. Watch your mouth sunny KnowIG (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Warnings templates can be posted by anyone and I think the incivility in this last post speaks for itself about why your behavior requires examination. MarnetteD | Talk 15:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The user has logged in with a new IP (2.102.254.209). Please block it too. Galbarm | Talk 00:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I second that. Not only has the user bypassed a block, but he continues to incite problems on this very page.NJZombie (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_body#Black_body_problem

I have not made any previous complaint but now I feel that I am just wasting my time trying to engage on the matter of Black body physics. Writing in the talk pages and requesting consideration of technical matters concerning the explanation of the physics of Black bodies I am getting only personal abuse from editor Dicklyon who when unable to respond to my points advises me that "I think you should stop trolling" and "find a physics tutor and learn your way around your confusion". This sort of response has been repeated many times. I have largely ignored the abuse but on occasions asked him to desist but this just provokes renewed abuse.

I suggest this kind of activity is outside the purposes of Wikipedia and I would like to know what to do further, if anything. Thanking you in advance for any consideration you are able to give to this matter. --Damorbel (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And I'll say it again. I think you should stop trolling, and find a physics tutor and learn your way around your confusion. Dicklyon (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
No Dicklyon I am not trolling by any definition. Merely asking you to clarify matter in the article cannot be considered misuse of Wikipedia process in any form. You have not yet answered my concerns, something which should be easy for an informed editor.--Damorbel (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, when you start talking about me, you're supposed to notify me. Are those broken templates an attempt to do that, or what? Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You write "you're supposed to notify me". I'm sorry if I did not follow the correct procedure and apologise for an inadvertent error but WIKI rules on this are not clear, more suited to the experienced contestants I suggest. I am aware of my inexperience in these matters, that is why I prefaced my remarks with a note saying this in my first complaint. But if you persist in identifying my contributions as misuse, as you have done on this page (which I invite you to withdraw) then it will not be my last.--Damorbel (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Issues often arise when there are only two editors in a discussion--different people have different styles of communication and tendencies etc. Having examined the talk page thread I have a few suggestions for both editors:

  • Stick to matters of content--Talk pages are not the place to discuss either editors behaviors. Take your discussions about behavior to the respective users talk page or a dispute resolution forum.
  • Wikipedia is about creating and maintaining text that is supported by reliable sources. Sometimes discussions are needed to decide about precise wording and how much text or 'weight' to give to a particular sub-topic or source(s). This is appropriate discussion for a talk page. However, talk pages are not the place for theoretical or scholarly discussions about the topic.

I think if the two of you successfully implemented these guidelines you would make more progress on the article and stay out of each others hair. If not then bring the content issue to a Third Opinion or Request For Comment forum as needed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Take your discussions about behavior to the respective users talk page or a dispute resolution forum." Searching the guidelines lead me here for dispute resolution; your reference (without any helpful link) does not assist me one bit. As for sticking to matters of content, that is why I came here. I asked Dicklyon to consider content whereupon without answering my request he made assertions about my contributions. Your response does not seem to recognise this, I am wondering why you felt it was appropriate to write as you did.--Damorbel (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like assistance in connection concerning the matter of personal abuse, such as accusations of trolling made on the talk page by an editor. Is it appropriate to discuss these matters on an RFC forum? A Third Opinion sounds as though it may be useful, personally I think accusations of trolling have no place on a talk page but I am not sure what is acceptable here.--Damorbel (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
You are correct that behavior issues should not be on an article talk page. There are actually two types of request for comment, WP:RFC for articles, and WP:RFC/U for generating comments on users. It's very true that the protocols of wikipedia when conflict occurs are very confusing, with "wp:this" and "wp:that." There's even a "wp" about that wp:creep. You're posting here did not follow the guidelines at the top of the page -- no diffs provided, and (moot point now) no notification of the other editor involved. I'd like to see diffs of the edits which prompted you to post the notice in the first place. Gerardw (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Damorbel is "stupid and pig headed"24/04/2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_body&diff=prev&oldid=285808666
Dicklyon abuses others:"Nothing here is political ...... to deny the latter and get confused and also deny the former."
25/04/2009 (Bob Armstrong)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABlack_body&action=historysubmit&diff=286119209&oldid=286117668
Dicklyon claims I am 'campaigning'31/12/2009 (campaign)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_body&diff=next&oldid=335067462
20/12/2010 (Troll claim) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_body&diff=prev&oldid=403290391
(I request revision of "Troll" claim: nothing useful)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_body&diff=next&oldid=403290391
20/12/2010 (Dicklyon: ({you are} stirring up) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_body&diff=next&oldid=403325368
20/12/2010 (Dicklyon: stop trolling)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_body&diff=next&oldid=403342729
04/01/2011 (Why give references to Dicklyon? "I haven't read the Kirchhoff")http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_body&diff=next&oldid=405765921
Thank you for your attention and time.--Damorbel (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What it's about: Damorbel is a climate denier, who tries to claim bad science to discredit even the most basic ideas of planetary science. I tried to explain the error in his pseudophysics to him here: User_talk:Damorbel#Where_you_got_it_wrong, but he wouldn't get it. I later said in Talk:Black_body#Black_body_problem: "As for the rest, I'll avoid feeding the troll" and "And I think you should stop trolling, since I already answered yes and explained on your talk page why your assertion is wrong. Kirchhoff did not make such mistakes as you do." This was in December. And finally this remark. Nothing since. Obviously, I do come up short in being able to follow my own advice, and in maintaining an assumption of good faith when dealing with certain behaviors that frustrate me. Mea culpa. Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Is that "mea culpa" as in 'in the future I'll restrict my comments to content and not contributors?' Gerardw (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Pretty much that, yes. I usually do focus on content, but when the behavior gets to be a problem, I comment on that, too. Above, Damorbel misquotes me as saying "Damorbel is 'stupid and pig headed'" when what I actually wrote was "your 'contributions' are stupid and pig-headed"; now, I agree that it's odd to apply such terms to contributions, but what I was trying to tell him is that if he would stop writing stupid stuff, things would be better all around. I spent a lot of energy explaining exactly what was wrong with what he was saying, e.g. in the section I linked on his talk page, where I was pretty patient with him, and then he'd just come back and say it again, as it he was not paying attention. Oh, well. Dicklyon (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
@Damorbel, Thanks for your post. I would ask though, that you please refrain from posting in the midst of my comments and instead post below my comments, thereby leaving my comments intact. Thank you. Also I am happy to provide the link to the Wiki Guideline on Talk Page behavior that you requested WP:TALK. This Wikiquette page is here for editors to present issues to the community and get advice on how to proceed with them. I have given my advice. You may choose to take it or ignore it. As you wish. Good luck!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
"refrain from posting in the midst of my comments" I did that???--Damorbel (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you did. Keithbob later moved your interrupting comment to a more appropriate place.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
"Yes, you did" Get it now! I'm accustomed to discussing bullet point by bullet point. Sorry! Happy to conform with the local practise. In cases with multiple points it is better to number them rather than 'bullet' them, it localises the subjects better. --Damorbel (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Damorbel-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

Citing Dicklyon #1(above) "What it's about: Damorbel is a climate denier...." This is the what I object to. This is a space to discuss Wikiquette; the contributions being complained are (should be)about 'black body', an accepted scientific term introduced by Gustav Kirchhoff; my contributions to the discussion are in connection with this; Dicklyon has, perhaps for his own reasons, decided to discuss my views on climate, an argument that, I would suggest, is firmly in the 'straw man' category. I asked Dicklyon to read Kirchhoff's paper, he freely admits he hasn't which seems classify his comments as POV and himself as unqualified for editing on the matter.
Citing Dicklyon #2(above)"what I actually wrote was "your 'contributions' are stupid and pig-headed". What kind of 'content' is this? Contributions may well be incorrect or unsuitable but for someone, who has not taken what seems to me a basic step to inform himself on the content of the article, this is mere sophistry, dressing up abuse in an attempt to avoid sanction. Observations of this sort should really lead to consideration of time in the Wiki cooler.
Citing Dicklyon #3 (above) "I usually do focus on content" I am not complaining about Dicklyon's focus on content, however poor his familiarity with the matter of the article, it his personal abuse I object to. There are plenty of opportunities to complain, in a proper manner, about misuse by other contributors; that is what I'm doing now. --Damorbel (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

PrBeacon

Orig. title: PrBeacon personal attacks and baiting

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

In the WikiManOne discussion above PrBeacon has repeatedly [23], [24], [25], [26] made unsubstantiated generalizations about B without providing any evidence.

In addition, contrary to WP:REFACTOR, PrBeacon has refactored his comments after someone responded [[27]]. Gerardw (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Personal attacks and baiting" -- Is that what you call my attempt to hold User:B accountable for his inflamatory comments? In your apparent haste to file this false report, you've given three links [28] to the same diff. And you skipped the one where I did provide evidence of User:B's willful distortion of another editor's comment elsewhere, in addition to the one he made earier in the thread. The revision I made to my own post (for clarification) did not change anything to which he responded specifically. -PrBeacon (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The title of this thread does not follow WQA guidelines above, specifically "neutral and non-judgemental." -PrBeacon (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Corrected. Gerardw (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the posts. Stop being insensitve and allow discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.254.209 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Adding strikeout is not correcting it, since the original title still appears in the TOC and edit summaries (and eventually Archived as such). You also did not remove or replace the two repeat links above, so they're misleading. By the way, instead of posting a new complaint, you could have just added your comments to earlier thread -- and/or posted a note of warning at my usertalkpage. I believe that's also a part of the WQA guidelines. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR

User DIREKTOR has donne this revert of an edit of mine with his edit summary being "Rv pro-Chetnik nonsense" which in his words, and just for unninvolved people to understand, is the same as "Rv pro-Nazi nonsense". That is intolerable. And beside, his edit-warring constitutes disruption beasically because he insists in having in the sentence the mentioning of an occupation of one country that didn´t existed yet, exemple, like saying "The occupied United States in 1439." He are the diffs:

The user made some explanation on my talk page explaining the reasons why he insists in inserting a name of a country that didn´t existed in the period events occured in 1941, but I really want to have the issue solved and the user called for his attention for actions such as the ones he made. FkpCascais (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This ([29]) also happend on this talk page just after I posted this section here. I wan´r speculate why, but anybody will probably understand why it happend. FkpCascais (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


No need to notify me Fkp, I still have the page on my watchlist. In fact you'll notice I helped you with the report earlier, when you (accidentally?) posted my entire userpage here for some strange reason :) [30].
First of all "just for unninvolved people to understand", "pro-Chetnik" is by no means the same as "pro-Nazi". I must also emphasize that User:FkpCascais (who has up to this point been defending the Chetniks in numerous historical disputes on enWiki), knows this full well.
In addition, my post clearly does NOT refer to the editor himself. I make an effort of following WP:NPA at all times. I had explained the issue in detail - for the tenth time - to User:KkpCascais on his talkpage, which is also the tenth time I have shown that the state he considers not to have existed during WWII did in fact exist (SFR Yugoslavia 1943-1992). In short this is a content dispute, not a Wikiquette issue. The user is another in a long, loong line of editors trying to remove me as an obstacle. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Concur no significant incivility. You could avoid characterizing things as pro-anything, right? Just say "reverting nonsense..." Gerardw (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed I will. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Rv nonsence" is that the advice Gerardw has to give? Is there any admin here? FkpCascais (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

WQA is intended for editors attempting to resolve disputes without administrators or admin tools. Some admins monitor the board, I think, but if you to be sure to get admin attention I'd suggest WP:ANI. (Personally I don't think the evidence presented warrants an ANI, but that's just one editor's opinion.) Gerardw (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, but just for record, your "advice" (not sure why) gives green light for that user to continue calling perfectly reasonable edits (or corrections, in this case) "nonsence", failing to provide protection against uncivil behaviour and thus giving protection to disruption. Just to clarify, the edit nature has no doubt whatsoever, the "occupation of Yugoslavia" was donne to Kingdom of Yugoslavia and not SFR Yugoslavia as direktor insists in inserting just because he wants, and the occupation occured in 1941, having in mind that SFR Yugoslavia was recognised only in 1945! So because of all this, you can understand why I have difficulties in understanding your "next time say simply Rv nonsence" advice. I´m not sure about the nature of your relationship with this user (if any) but seems to me that you jumped up a bit precipitated into this assuming wrongly the sides here. To resume my intervention here, since this user uses this strategy purpously whenever he wants to discredit an editor he edit-wars with, I will like to adress that this user direktor has been warned not to use those innadequate uncivil labeling again and to be sanctioned if happends again. Can you please provide that for me? FkpCascais (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I have no ability to impose sanctions on anyone on Wikipedia. See list of administrators. I am merely one of thousands of recently active editors. If DIREKTOR and I have crossed paths in the past, I have no recollection of the encounter; obviously you are welcome to review my edit history. By posting here, you have requested the opinion of any editor who wishes to reply. I have given you mine. Do with it as you wish. Gerardw (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
That is why I asked for an admin in first place (experience from ANI reports). That is all I am asking here because I am fed up and insulted by constant repetitive attacks of this kind from this user. FkpCascais (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Well I am an admin and I have been trying to keep the peace on various Yugoslav pages and have some broad knowledge of content issues. In this instance, Fkps edit was certainly not nonsense - merely an arguable point, albeit one that has probably been argued many times already. On the civility issue, a number of editors in this area are habitually brusque and forthright about each others edits/POV/nationality etc etc and have been over a long period of time. Those involved are all used to it by now and have thick skins; though I appreciate the point that other editors looking through the history and seeing such forthright edit summaries might assume the edit was just nationalist nonsense without checking. It would be preferable, DIREKTOR, to keep such remarks to the obvious random IP/SPA nationalist nonsense that does so frequently appear in this area rather than referring to the edits of a long standing editor in this field with whom you have a long standing, profound disagreement. You know you don't agree with Fkp. He's not going to go away. I am more concerned about the edit warring. If edit warring continues on this point I will protect the page - and not on the right version. Will Fkp and DIREKTOR now please attempt to resolve this issue on the talkpage in a manner which enables other editors to join in the discussion without being put off by aggressive argumentation.Fainites barleyscribs 11:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much Fainites. Yes, we tried to explain to one another the reasons behind the edits we defend on eachothers talk pages, and I even proposed a "diplomatic" solution of using an intermediate non-specific word for the sentence we edit-warred, but DIREKTOR simply refused it. Sounds incredible, but because of one word an intervention of a third party is necessary here. Thank you again Fainites, and I think you know how how many times I asked this to that user and he purpously ignored my requests all the time. Also, you know, and direktor is fully aware, of the meaning and provocation that such statements in this context provide, so that is why my good-faith on this issue has ended and I really needed to ask for some warning to this user on this.
I will only like to add this remark: It is not trouth that all editors in this area are often uncivil and brusque. Between the established editors, it is only a few that behave usually like this. And many other editors had complained several times regarding this. Many editors even gave up editing these articles because of the lack of admin action against such behaviour. Anyway, even if trouth that "many should be used to by now", i honestly beleave that that is no reason enough to not sanction and tolerate it all the time. Specially because of the sensitivity of the issue, it should be the other way around: no tolerance should be provided. FkpCascais (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I did say some editors Fkp.Fainites barleyscribs 23:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, my mistake, you said "a number". Apologies. FkpCascais (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Calgarykid47

User:Calgarykid47 has begun insulting and making false accusations against users who dare to change or correct anything that he has decided on his own to be definitive. Shows no interest in working with people to achieve consensus. Examples include deeming the edits of others "garbage" or "idiocy." Also falsely accuses others of "agenda-driven editing." NJZombie (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please notify user of WQA and provide diffs (see Help:Diff). Gerardw (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are the requested diffs....

Not that offensive. Nobody has told him that his language and behaviour in some situations are not warrented. Feel that the nominator has too much involvement and has to be fair. Only message is this sarcastic comment from nominator. And it is not helpful nor does it encourage good behviiour nor help resolve a situation. Quote from Clagerykid page by nominator "No hurt feelings here. You're the one who gets bent out of shape and makes personal attacks when somebody dares to change or correct your edits. Congrats on finally wording the Michael Cole info in a way that makes sense though". Feels like we have an on going war between body Zombie and Calgery. Action against both. General slap. Behave. Both as bad winding up bullying etc. Pack it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.254.209 (talk • contribs)
Not a matter of HOW offensive the particular words are. Incivility is incivility. I don't deny my one response but if you had dug a little further, you'd also have seen that I attempted to come to a fair compromise on the Kevin Nash article which was ignored and yet the uncivil attitude continues toward all editors and not just me. So do we encourage it by saying nothing at all and just let it escalate towards outright nastiness? Also, not true that nobody has told him his behavior is unwarranted. His response to anybody telling him ANYTHING is to dismiss it or delete it from his talk page. There's no war whatsoever. Just looking for assistance in letting this guy know that there are ways to make a point and changes on here without being nasty to other users.NJZombie (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I've read his talk page. Nothing apart from your sarcastic comment. And you can also be done for incivlity for winding up. I suggest that you both leave each other alone and allow the situation to cool off. Whilst Calgery gains some skills —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.254.209 (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that you stop removing other peoples' statements from this page and start signing your "anonymous" comments as well.NJZombie (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you stop making false accusations. Nothing from you on Nash's page making a proposal. In fact I'm requesting that you should be banned. For being in civial. Since lieing is under that—Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.254.209 (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

2.102.254.209, here and here you remove another user's comments. Don't act like you didn't. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Not my comments but yes, he did remove Galbarm's comments.NJZombie (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the accusation, but I was simply striving for the facts to be presented in both articles. Not until a recent Twitter announcement was it known that Nash was signed with WWE: Zombie and others proceeded to drive the claim that he was already signed. At that point, Nash had only said that he expected to sign. Nash was also clearly employed by WWE until 2004, not 2003. Must you appear on television to be an employee? Were road agents and executives never WWE employees? On Michael Cole, I again pushed for the facts. Zombie reverted again and again, before finally claiming that my edit wasn't well-written enough. Why not just correct in then instead of reverting to misinformation? I merely got pissed off because articles were being persistently reverted to misinformation. As for the Tom Petty review, it was, indeed, fan crap. Where's the debate? Calgarykid47 (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
In fact, I'll be the bigger man here and apologise for some of my edit summaries. I could have been nicer. But I stand by my motives for the edits: factual articles. Calgarykid47 (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The complaint here is strictly based on the lack of civility in your edit summaries which started before you and I ever crossed paths, and not whether your edits were factual or not. The summary is not for you to bash the edits or others or for name calling. It's to state what you changed and the reason for your edit. Your outspoken opinion doesn't even play into it. You claim to apologize yet continue to bait and taunt on my talk page. Ego never played into it. One's ego doesn't not have to be hurt to know that being civil to each other is the proper way to do things. The fact that you keep bringing it up certainly shows intent hurt though. It wasn't even a change directed at me that caused me to file the report. It was the "idiocy" comment toward somebody else. That's just not how it's handled. NJZombie (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The complaint here is strictly based on the lack of civility in your edit summaries which started before you and I ever crossed paths, and not whether your edits were factual or not. The summary is not for you to bash the edits or others or for name calling. It's to state what you changed and the reason for your edit. Your outspoken opinion doesn't even play into it. You claim to apologize yet continue to bait and taunt on my talk page. Ego never played into it. Your bad attitude has always been the issue. NJZombie (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I apologised after doing that. Again, I strive for factual articles, and fully justfied this with my previous comments. Don't play the "strictly based on the lack of civility in your edit summaries" because it works for you: I admit to having had a bad attitude at times, but your repeated reverts to blatant misinformation on the Nash and Cole articles is there for all too see, and evoked much of my hostility. Anyway, I apologised for my tone in previous edit summaries: if you want, you too can begin working towards entirely factual articles. Calgarykid47 (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Not playing at anything. This whole page deals with civility, not factual edits. Whether you were wrong or right in your edits, you attitude is what led to this. As I said, you DID apologize but only moments after baiting me with more ego comments on my own talk page. No reason to play the victim. Your hostility existed in this edit summary before you and I ever said a word to each other. In fact, the actual edit is much more indicative of vandalism than anything constructive.
After five years of editing and creating articles here, I have a pretty decent reputation with my fellow editors here and don't need to resort to insults to make a point. If I feel passionate enough about something that is changed, I got to its discussion page to gain consensus. After two months here, you've managed to rub people the wrong way.NJZombie (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Pull rank all you want. You can be a god here if you like... whatever makes you happy. I admitted that I showed poor attitude in my edit summaries and will be nicer in future: what's left to say? This is boring. Calgarykid47 (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Participation in a WQA is voluntary. Gerardw (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but the nominator is simply here to bury me and paint himself as a victim. As previously noted by another user, he left a sneering comment for me on my talk. I think I admitted to showing a poor attitude, and said that intend never to do so again. So that should be pretty much it, but Zombie seems intend on driving this thing till the fuel runs empty. Calgarykid47 (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
No, YOU'RE the one that keeps painting me as a victim. I've already stated that it was your attitude in general that caused me to bring it here. Doesn't matter if it's aimed at me or anybody else. If anybody is playing the victim, it's you. It's not like I came on here and asked to have you banned. All I did was make a point. You need to keep coming back with one liners and comments to indicate that you're above the rules that most other users seem to be able to accept. You keep bringing up how you've apologized but continue to leave comments like "Yeah. We're friends now, don't forget this." on my talk page. Doesn't come across as the behavior of somebody who feels that it "should be pretty much it." You're burying yourself and certainly don't seem to need my help in doing so. As far as my single comment goes, I also admitted my fault. The difference is, I didn't continue to do so. As of yesterday, I felt I had made my final comment on this but YOU continue to drag me be back into it by insisting that I have some personal vendetta against you in particular. It's not the case no matter how much you feel that it is.NJZombie (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh whatever. Calgarykid47 (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

His response to anybody telling him ANYTHING is to dismiss it or delete it from his talk page. Removing warnings/comments from other users is acceptable behavior, see WP:UP#CMT. Gerardw (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

My point in saying that had nothing to do with whether he was allowed to remove things from his talk page. It was in response to somebody implying that nobody has indicated that his behavior was unwarranted. My point that anything ANYBODY writes to him is ignored, dismissed as "garbage" and promptly deleted. NJZombie (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Roberta Lee

Can someone take a look at the talk page to this article (currently at AFD) and see if I'm missing something? tedder (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


User Biruitorul

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – discuss at AFD

Gerardw (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Biruitorul has recently concentrated on a series of articles I have posted quite some time ago requesting their deletion.

The articles in question are: this one, this one, this one, this one and this one.

The controversy started in the first article which presented some data on a leader of the anti-communist student movement in Romania. The problem is related to the notability. It concerns the fact that I expressed the view the first criterion for notability of a person should be the achievements of that person, and not only the extent of coverage which should come second. I still think that this matter should be discussed. First of all, when we are talking about opponents against totalitarian or oppressive regimes, except for some publicized cases, most of the persons who were active are not very much mentioned. This is valid especially for the persons who were active before the intenet age, such as the freedom fighters agains colonialism or the anticommunist movements in the Soviet dominated countries (as is the case under discussion) but is also the case for people involved in more recent events such as the uprising in the Tianamen Square or the recent uprisings in Northern Africa. Using the number of Google hits as criterion, we get to the results that a fairly obscure rapper is more notable than an opponent of totalitarian repression. Persons such as Natalee Holloway or her presumptive killer Joran van der Sloot are considered to have greater achievements than soldiers who were killed in action in Iraq or Afghanistan. If we would accept both, Wikipedia would be balanced. But if we accept only articles about Natalee Holloway who has not had an encyclopedic achievement and reject the others, we are transforming Wikipedia in a tabloid. Characters of anime films have the right to an article: dead heroes who sacrificed their life on the battlefield or who opposed oppression are not, because there are not enough articles about them. I do not think that considering people who realy had a contribution to events are expendable while people whose only merit is to have caught the attention of the mass media should be remembered. I do not think that this was the intention of the founders of Wikipedia and also not that this is the image which an encyclopedia should project. If there is insufficient information an article could be labeled for lack of references and not for lack of notability of the person. And unfortunately, in cases such as the article in discussion, the automatic use of the policy opens the door to persons who are in denial of certain facts – in this case the existence of an active opposition to communism in Romania – to eliminate at least some of the articles who deal with the matter.

This might have been an isolated matter if Biruitorul had not continued to single out other articles which I have posted in many cases presenting incorrect arguments. In the case of Victor Filotti he indicates that a secretary general of a ministry was a low rank civil servant, though, at least till 1947, secretary general was a leadership role, equivalent to today’s deputy minister, which would justify the notability of the person. In the case of Eugenia Filotti, who was a known Romanian painter, Biruitorul does not take into account that her work is exposed in several museums of Romania, among which the Municipal Museum of Bucharest, the second as importance in Romania’s capital. A group of experts considered her to be notable enough for the museum to spend money to acquire her work. And any Google search can prove that some of her paintings are present at the best art auctions in Romania.

In the cases of Ion Filotti and Liviu Filotti, Biruitorul considers that their work does not justify an article. But their work is not much better or much worse than the work of Manuel Blum, also an engineering professor whose article is not challenged – and I took the example just at random. I would also like to point out that the Liviu Filotti is not worse than any of the other alumni of the Pierre and Marie University which are posted on Wikipedia, such as Thomas Ebbesen, Nassif Ghoussoub, Artur Ávila, Jean Serra or Ahmad Motamedi. What I have difficulties understanding is why the others are OK and this one is not. And does this not indicate that there is a bias in the deletion proposals? If we consider Romanian academics, look at Sorin Adam Matei. It is tagged for lack of Notability for nearly one year, however it was not proposed for deletion neither by Biruitorul nor by anybody else. Does this not raise any flags: other articles which raise questions are just tagged for lack of notability, giving time for the articles to be ammended. In the case of the discussed articles, Biruitorul rushs into tagging them for deletion. Is there no reason of concern for this difference on how the articles are tagged?

The last article proposed for deletion is the tree of the Filotti family. He specifically indicates that according to him trees should be presented only for royalty or for boyar (aristocratic) families. This limitation is nowhere stated in Wikipedia policies and would be wrong. Maybe genealogy is not one of the fields which is of interest for Biruitorul, but, at present, there is a growing concern about genealogies , which Wikipedia should not ignore. The article presents a bibliography, which justifies the source of the information, which is based on printed books. Biruitorul does not like one of these references. However the first one is written by a respected Romanian genealogist. And they have been published by the publishing house of the Museum of History of the City of Brăila, which is also concerned with historic research. What is strange in this matter is that while there are many other trees in wikipedia, Biruitorul singles out only this one for deletion.

What all this shows is that while the articles which Biruitorul has proposed for deletion are similar as far as notability is concerned with other articles dealing with the same type of people, Biruitorul has concentrated on the articles which I have posted, systematically requesting their deletion, often based on incorrect arguments. I consider that concentrating the proposals for deletion on my articles, in many cases based on a superficial analysis and on incorrect statements is a form of harassment which should stop. Afil (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I would surmise that Biruitorul happened upon one of the articles, and upon questioning its notability also looked at articles on other family members that were linked to it. I'm can understand you feeling slighted in regards to the deletion of articles you have created, but at first glance there does not seem to be any animosity or bad-faith behind the nominations, thus no need to come top WQA over this. I'm looking at the Filotti family article now, and honestly I can see other problematic articles, e.g. Sava Dumitrescu, Radu Dudescu. the Wikipedia really isn't the place to lay out what seems to be a personal family tree. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The articles mentioned may be problematic. However, Radu Dudescu was one of the important Romanian architects of the 20th century and has designed many important landmarks. In order to preserve his heritage, some buildings have been restored and are considered national monuments. His notability has been acknowledged by the Romanian authorities and a street in Bucharest has been named after him. Sava Dumitrescu has been the rector of one of the most important Medical Universities in Romania. Maybe the articles do not reflect these achievements, but the persons are hardly not notable. Afil (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
WQA is not the best place to discuss the merits of the deletion nomination; editors discussing that probably won't see your comments here. In any event, good faith nominations of articles for deletion isn't incivil. Gerardw (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biruitorul

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Duplicate of above. Do not file again, please. Tarc (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closing the discussion does not solve the problem in any way and I don't see why it is closed when no conclusion has been reached. My complaint is related to unjustified harassment. I was advised to discuss this in Wikiquette alerts. Where is the good faith when my articles are treated differently than all the other similar articles? The issue raised is a discrimination not the reasons for deleting a certain article. What I have tried to show is that my articles are singled out for deletion when other similar articles are not. What I have tried to show is that other articles are first tagged for lack of notability before being proposed for deletion, which my articles are not. I have presented some examples to prove this. Harassment and discrimination are uncivil, singeling out a certain wikipedian for action is uncivil. Afil (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I can only devote my attention to a small fraction of the 3.5 million articles on Wikipedia. Why have I chosen to nominate for deletion a succession of articles created by you? No reason in particular, nor do I need one. It's purely a technical matter and not a personal one. Given that all these nominations have ended in deletion, neither is it in breach of any Wikipedia policies. Furthermore, I will continue these nominations at the pace of around one per week, until we have been rid of these articles on non-notable figures. That may not be to your liking, but neither is there anything in particular you can do about it, except try to demonstrate notability, either through valid argumentation at AfD (i.e., not "why is this being singled out?") or through addition of reliable independent sources. Frivolous complaints about "harassment" and "discrimination" won't do any good. - Biruitorul Talk 22:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
You are missing the point. You come up with reasons which other wikipedians believe, even if they are not true. For instance, the issue of the role of the secretary general in Romanian government. The issue that books published by reliable genealogists are not acceptable documentation. Why you tag the articles immediatelty for deletion in stead of first tagging them for lack of notability as usually done. There have been very few discussions on the proposed deletions and none has really discussed the matter.
I am still attempting to have a reasonable discussion with you, though it seems to be hopeless. The complaints are not frivolous. Of course you cannot read all 3.5 million articles. But when you concentrate only on my articles and ignore all the others which are similar, then I must have lots of doubts about your honesty and good faith. Most of the articles I have quoted are in the same groups as the articles you have proposed for deletion, and you can hardly have missed them. Afil (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't work that way; an editor reviewing a proposed deletion is going to look at the evidence themselves, not rely on any claims Biruitorul makes. It is good that you asked for your help regarding your concerns, this is absolutely the right place for it. However, three other editors have indicated to you Biruitorul's behaviors is not considered incivility by the norms of Wikipedia. I don't think your efforts are well spent pursuing this. I understand your frustration, I had a photo deleted off an article I created because of some glitch in the permission process, but being happy on Wikipedia requires accepting consensus, or finding ways to convince others of your point of view. In the current case, that means making your case at AFD, not impugning the motives of another editor. Gerardw (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bobthefish2

Bobthefish2 has made many comments that are a breach of Wikiquette. He repeatedly assumes bad faith or refuses to accept others are editing in it. Also, whilst discussing various issues he has dropped in nasty comments on several occasions. See for example his latest one cracking a joke about the UK's financial position.

He managed to convince Oda Mari that there was no point in taking part in the discussion. When I asked Bob to apologise so that we could get Oda back on board, he refused to(bad diff fixed by User:Magog the Ogre) and then demanded an apology from me for something he said I told him some time ago.

He pretends he's being funny, but even when I ask him to stop he carries on. Having called me a "good little Brit", he then proceded to make a joke about why it might be bad to be British. He then capped it off by posting a completely unfunny picture of Europe circa 1914 that had no relation to his unpleasant attitude. Bob isn't ignorant or an editor with a poor grasph of English, he knows what he is doing.

Qwyrxian has raised the issue on Bob's talk page, but he insists he is not doing anything wrong.

There are other examples if you have a look at Bob's editing history on the talk pages, but I don't have time to do a trawl. I think that it's clear enough that Bobneeds to be told that he needs to stop prodding away at editors he doesn't agree with. He is disrupting the disucssion concerning some very controversial topics, and I would like some independent comments on his behaviour. John Smith's (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at all the diffs provided and although there are some hints at sarcasm etc. I don't see any misbehavior (so far) that would rise to the level of Incivility. What I do see is a lot of bad faith between editors and a lot of discussion about editor behavior on the article talk page; both of which are inappropriate for all parties concerned. That said, I'd like to hear how other uninvolved editors see the situation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be better if BobTheFish refrained from making comments about editor's background and editor's in general. Gerardw (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Poorly done, my dear User:John Smith's. You forgot to invite some of your friends over to join in on the complain. Here, let me help you: (1)(2). Now, I will sit back and hear what others have to complain before joining in. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Bob, you can invite anyone you like to join the discussion. But your messages on their talk pages were interesting. What does the fact you're "Chinese" have to do with anything? Are you implying you're a victim of racism or something? John Smith's (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
My dear British friend, you are reading into this too much. While the race card is a favourite in American politics, I am a Canadian. However, you can add race-baiting to your list of complaints on me if you are offended by this.
I invited your friends over because I didn't want you to be accused of WP:CANVASS. After all, you only invited our dear friends User:Oda Mari and User:Qwyrxian over. You see, I am just trying to help. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
You referred to yourself as Chinese on their talk pages, not Canadian. And I deliberately didn't inform Tenmei because you two have the most disagreements. If you want to hear what he has to say, if he has anything further to say, that's your choice. John Smith's (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm coming here in response to an oddly worded request presented in the third-person on my talk page by Bobthefish2. I'm glad you are seeking the opinion of non-involved (i.e., biased) editors, Bob. That said, John is correct; the anti-British comments you are making are an entirely inappropriate form of nationality-baiting (as opposed to race-baiting, as you didn't insult white people). The statements are not funny, and it stretches credibility to think you were doing anything other than insulting his nationality. Please stop; I know you're frustrated, but that is not an excuse. They are personal attacks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Baiting by Bobthefish2. Pure and simple. Based on nationality for some unknown reason and all in this so frightfully clever, lightly amused tone. Why not give it a rest Bob? Fainites barleyscribs 00:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 takes editors with different view for disprutive editors. His attitude has been always uncivil. He was warned here in October for the first time. But he hasn't changed. See these. [31] and [32]. And this is not the only one case. I was taught it was more contemptible to talk ill about people behind their back than to directly call people names. Furthermore, Bobthefish2's problem is not only his Wikiquette. IMHO, this thread should be moved to ANI. Oda Mari (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Since User:Qwyrxian promised to present a wall of diff's to support User:John Smith's allegations against me within the next 12 hours, I will wait until then. I hope others will make their complaints before that time too so that I can deal with everything at one go. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll start pulling up what I can find now. Since this case is open here, I'll present the diffs here rather than on Bobthefish2's talk page like I had earlier stated I would. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, this is easily the least enjoyable thing I've ever done on Wikipedia, and I barely got started. I went to the beginning of Bobthefish2's contribution history, and looked through diff by diff for uncivil edits. After getting through just the first 250 edits, and looking only at talk page comments, I already have 18 diffs showing uncivil attitudes, and that only brings me from 5 October until 18 October (with one extra from this month). Some of them are small, but they show an overall battleground mentality, an assumption of bad faith on the part of people whom he disagrees with, and use of inappropriate language. I'm tired, and I feel like this work has very little to do with improving the actual encyclopedia. I'm going to post these now; if anyone needs more, I can keep going, but maybe this is enough to start to show the problem. I also want to point out that I think one of the worst examples was already provided by John Smith in paragraph 2 of his OP, in that his incivility went so far (implying that the arguments of other editors are absurd and not worth listening to) that it caused another editor to refuse to participate.
Extended content

The first indication I can find of the problem to come is from 5 October. Here, Bobthefish2 assumes bad faith on the part of John Smith, and assuming a battleground mentality, by implying that John Smith has a predilection to edit warring.

On 6 October, Bobthefish2 wrote this. I think this comment is a key starting point, as it shows that, within 2 days of starting to edit Senkaku Islands, Bobthefish2 had already decided that the article was being unfairly imbalanced by POV editors on the Japanese side. Though he was making controversial changes to the article, he assumes the reversions are being done to preserve pro-Japanese stance. Much later, on 7 February, Bobthefish2 stated, “:I feel it is important to realize there are times when cooperation is impossible. The sarcastic attitude I have for these other editors is a sign that I have come to such a realization.” We can see that, starting with confrontations in early October, and leading up through the current month, Bobthefish2 came to develop the belief that the “pro-Japanese” editors were intentionally violating WP:NPOV, and that therefore this justifies his “sarcastic” and uncivil attitude towards those editors. This behavior grew worse and worse, to the point where it actively interfered with our ability to make positive progress on the page. I will attempt to list some of the points along the way where Bobthefish2’s was uncivil.

  1. 6 October: ““Nevermind, John Smith is the one who made the change. What a surprise!'”' Inappropriate sarcasm.
  2. 6 October In response to a comment from John Smith, Bobthefish2 implies that John Smith is a “bad editor” because he only looks for problems in edits that disagree with his own viewpoint, thus indirectly accusing John Smith of POV pushing.
  3. 7 October: implies that other editors are “blindly reverting”, thus assuming bad faith.
  4. 7 October: In Bobthefish’s opinion, the facts of the islands are abundantly clear (they are, at best, disputed, and, more likely, China’s), and he interprets edits which do not conform with that POV as Japanese POV pushing. He states, “Now, I do understand pro-Japanese editors may desperately want to somehow convince people that those islands should belong to Japan, but misrepresenting information on wikipedia is generally not the right or ethical way of achieving this end.” In other words, while he is obviously editing neutrally, those adding Japanese information or reverting Chinese information are attempting to subvert the goals of Wikipedia merely to influence readers.
  5. 10 October: By this time, Bobthefish2 has come to call edits which he doesn’t agree with “sabotage.”
  6. 12 October When others follow standard editing procedure (BRD), they’re breaking common sense, but when Bob acquiesces to that procedure, he considers himself a “gentleman”.
  7. 14 October. Edits with whom Bobthefish2 agrees (the naming of the article) are “thinly veiled POV pushing,” despite them being backed up by both policy and reliable sources.
  8. 14 October. Says that “his discussion will not go anywhere if one group of people decide to consistently ignore and misread contents that do not serve their POV” instead of either considering that my claims (to which he was responding) were good faith comments on editing practices.
  9. 14 October. Admits to adding information to the article not to improve it, but to test the reactions of other editors. Claims that they are lazy in altering things that are wrong that match their POV, and ferociously contest other issues. Adds that a double standard is clearly being applied to the article.
  10. 15 October “some editors have been relentlessly sabotaging the contents I added.” By this point, I think we can see that Bobthefish2 has crossed over to pure battleground mode.
  11. 15 October: “some editors will guard the current pro-Japanese tilt with their teeth.”
  12. 15 October. Speaking to User:San9663, Bobthefish2 calls other editors “蘿蔔頭”, which Google translate says means, “Turnip head”.
  13. 16 October. Here he calls those he’s arguing with of being “trolls”. More importantly, this is the first time he openly explores the idea of getting an admin to ban them from the pages. User: Chzz then removed this and the previous comment as a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL; Bobthefish2 readded them without the Chinese words (keeping the accusations of trolling, however).
  14. 17 October Bobthefish2 insists that a number of his arguments are “unambiguously valid.” This is an editor stuck in the belief that he is absolutely, undeniably right. Either one of two things are correct—either Bobthefish2 isn’t unambiguously right, or all of the other editors who disagree with him, including myself, must be biased POV warriors. Also, note that he calls his opponents “vandals” (although later at WP:ANI he is instructed and understands that that word has a specific WP meaning and doesn’t imply here; he says he won’t use that word again).
  15. 18 October: “A good solution would be to simply ban those who have been maliciously removing edits of others.”

I don't know how to get through to Bobthefish2 that even if disagrees with people, he shouldn't be accusing them of bad faith editing, calling them names, or seeing the solution as banning those whom he disagrees with. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless he agrees here to tone it down you'll probably have to open an RFC/U. Gerardw (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be my turn now. Let me start a new sub-section Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Bob has now called me "unstable" and also referred to "wackos" that he deals with on a regular basis. Not that he named names with the latter remark, but if he doesn't point to anyone in particular that sort of supports the idea that he throws labels at anyone he has a strong disagreement with. If this is how he defends himself I don't think we need to hear anything else. Does anyone want to open a RFC/U? John Smith's (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've pointed out in my address to User:John Smith's accusations, he tends to find problems to anything. I called him "unstable" for a reason... just read. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bobthefish2's turn

Foreword: Until now, I deliberately minimized my involvement with this Wikiquette to allow my accusers to throw all that they can at me and for me to observe how low they can get. There is no doubt you'll all have a terrible impression of me at the moment and think:

Oh gosh... this User:Bobthefish2 guy is such a buffoon who attacks anyone who disagrees with him

There is also nothing wrong with having such an impression because the context has been conveniently withheld by my accusers. After all, with the right use of the right sound bites, it is possible to piece together any picture of anyone. And of course, what I'll do next is to provide all of you some context of what actually happened. Unfortunately, this is going to be a wall of text because there are 5 months worth of events to summarize.

Background

The articles of relevance in this case are Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute.

Senkaku Islands

Senkaku Islands

The Senkaku Islands a set of Islands that are being fought over by China and Japan. They were originally part of a client state of China. In late 19th century, they were annexed by Japan. After Japan lost WWII, they were handed to the U.S.. And finally, the U.S. gave them to Japan in 1970 through a treaty. China did not recognize the hand over by citing violation of San Francisco Treaty signed by victorious allied power in WWII. There is a whole bunch of complicated details involved that I am not going through here, but most countries in the world (including the U.S., ironically), refused to take a official position on the dispute.

Senkaku Islands articles

Articles of Senkaku Islands

Not surprisingly, opinions of these articles are heavily contested. Culturally Chinese editors and culturally Japanese editors often disagree with each other. There are many generations of editors. User:John Smith's, User:Oda Mari, User:Qwyrxian, myself, and two others are technically the latest generation of regular editors who participate in the talk page.

In terms of cultural division, I am culturally Chinese and the rest are culturally Japanese. With that said, it doesn't mean everyone POV-pushes along their cultural allegiance. For example, User:Qwyrxian generally strives for WP:NPOV and I believe myself to be holding onto that ideal as well. However, it is also naive to assume everyone is a paladin and does not POV-push especially when there are personal interests involved. In any case, my subsequent topics will dwell on this a bit more and provide some evidence for me to suggest such a sinful possibility - Again everyone in WP likes to pretend nobody POV-pushes.

Content Disputes

Given the controversial nature of the topic, there are naturally many disagreements associated with the editorial process on various types of materials related to the Senkaku Islands articles. I am going to briefly summarize the two that are most relevant to this circumstance, which will justify my bad faith assumptions.

Dispute on Inaccurate use of a Primary Source

The gist of it is that there is an article X that says "B" and I noticed a sentence in the article that said "Article X said B" and an accompanying figure with caption that says "Article X said B (C)". I brought this issue up in October 2010 and went over this in a few massive threads (1)(2)with User:John Smith's, User:Qwyrxian, and User:Oda Mari. Eventually, I wrapped the issue up with this thread and User:Oda Mari conceded that the figure caption was wrong and B != C (which in turn also agreed X didn't say C). User:John Smith's and User:Qwyrxian abstained from giving an opinion but were active.

Then 3 months later, I tried to remove the improper materials was instantly reverted by User:Oda Mari and User:John Smith's. I was slapped with a warning and also asked to start a discussion on this. Since I considered the issue resolved and the matter of concern is basic common sense, I have ample reason to see this as WP:DISRUPT.

Anyhow, discussions on the matter were restarted. User:Qwyrxian and non-regulars sided with me. The rest refused. A mediation was called and it was also flat-out denied.

Dispute on Protests

This examples deals with anti-Chinese protests in Japan in response to a squabble between the Chinese and Japanese over the islands. I added some textual details about them, among which, was a note about Swastika-wearing Japanese and proclamations about developing nuclear weapons by a Japanese politician (all had reliable sources). Almost immediately, it was reverted by User:Oda Mari who made a big deal about it. She asserted the protesters never wore swastikas and that the politician who commented on nuclear weapons is a big bser.

However, she and others flat-out refused/ignored any requests of providing reliable sources to provide her arguments in the thread (just check that thread). Anyhow, I eventually decided not to press the issue because it's not something of high priority. But I believe this serves as a good counter-example of how my accusers (such as User:John Smith's and User:Oda Mari) can be some nifty double standards on issues.

So again, this reinforces the notion that there is some editors are POV-pushers and that it is not always possible to assume good faith.

Accusations against User:Bobthefish2

Now that I've provided some prominent examples of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, I will consider all accusations of my bad faith assumptions to be addressed. If not, the following text will provide even more justification.

As for the rest of the delicious accusations made towards me, let's go at it one-by-one shall we?

User:John Smith's Gentlemanly Accusations

For his part, my dear friend User:John Smith's has accused me of calling him a "good little brit", "referencing unfunny comics", "bullying Oda Mari", "refusing to apologize", "asking for an apology", and "making fun of Britain's financial crisis".

While it may be ungallant of me to say so, but I am afraid our dear friend User:John Smith's a bit unstable. The "good little brit" incident occurred in the midst of some rather nasty witch-hunt he issued on me.

It started when a user User:STSC was frustrated about his edits being repeatedly reverted. Since I don't like people to edit-war or him getting into trouble, I asked him not to edit-war. Additionally, I expressed to him an intention to request for articles to be locked because of the amount of WP:DISRUPT I'd been seeing.

Then somehow, our dear friend User:John Smith's started a thread accusing me of edit-warring because of that post and slapped me with a warning User_talk:Bobthefish2#Stop_edit-warring. Later on, he complained to our friendly admin User:Magog the Ogre that I was planning to start an edit-war.

In that edit-war thread, what basically happened was that User:John Smith's was very unrelentingly accusing me of edit-warring and impossible to cooperate with. After I got tired of his ludicrous tirade, I basically asked him to be "a good little brit" and buzz off (which is what he's crying about). Later on, User:Qwyrxian intervened and asked us to be good little boys. Following that spirit, I posted a humourous comic to light up the atmosphere, which User:John Smith's found to be a "unfunny comic" (obviously, he finds insults in everything).

Regardless of this, the pages were in fact locked by an admin later on due to edit-warring between User:Qwyrxian and User:Phoenix7777 (another regular). And somehow, User:John Smith's and cohorts still managed to spin it into some conspiracy masterminded by me.

I consider the part about "bullying Oda Mari" to be an awkward victimization tactic. As I've shown before, I had little reason to assume good faith on either User:John Smith's and User:Oda Mari. Since there's also an immense degree of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing going on at that point, I felt it's necessary to issue a soft warning on continual violations (and which I didn't aim directly at anyone).

In short, think of it this way: Suppose Sarah Palin is appointed to the Senate and the liberal senator Harry Reid didn't assume good faith on her. What'd you think if she just walks out of a session by citing lack of good faith from Harry Reid? In my case, I'd assume she's just making excuses for herself because she practically has nothing to add to help her position. But of course, there'd still be a bunch of people (especially republicans) crying for Harry's head in this hypothetical scenario.

With that said, apology from me is out of question. But out of jest, I asked him to apologize for ungallant edit-war accusations but I knew he's not the type to capitulate.

Finally, the "making fun of Britain's financial crisis" is simply a harmless jest. In this time of century, almost every major country of concern is suffering from economic downturn. This includes, my home country Canada, our friendly American neighbours, the all-powerful Germany, and the communist China. It's true that I also made a convenient pun on John Smith (which means everyday man or John Doe), but that's because I was talking about Britain and Gibraltar's territorial issues.

Anyhow, I think the problem with User:John Smith's is that he does a lot of WP:DISRUPTive editing and manages to assume a lot of bad faith from editors trying to do quality control on his edits. To cap it all, he also has very little sense of humour, easily agitated, and loves starting witch-hunts on people. Even with the edit-war matter aside, one can see how he was accusing me of pulling a race-card in my first response to the thread - Apparently, labeling myself as a Chinese editor is a victimization tactic (then I guess he feels victimized when I labelled him as my British friend).

Given his own gross violations, I am surprised that he'd actually want to pull a Wikiquette alert on me.

User:Oda Mari's Heart-Melting Complaints

User:Oda Mari actually didn't have much to say. She said I was warned here to assume good faith. If one actually reads the contents of the diff, one may find it sound more like an arrogant attempt at intimidation. I didn't take that seriously because I had done much more collaborative editing than either User:Oda Mari and User:John Smith's. I've also offered to cooperate with them in the past but that was flatly refused. So really, what can I really do?

User:Oda Mari's second accusation is related to me of talking behind other people's back. Apparently, she found the act of doing so to be rude. Well, I don't know. I believe most of the audience here have commented on other users in their absence (i.e. in talk pages). This is a part of WP. However, I do agree I could've used a less intense word than "idiots", but then again I did not specifically refer that to anyone. While some may suggest I could be pointing to User:John Smith's, it could just as well be the random IP's that pop in and stubbornly write irrelevant stuff in non-English.

Now, I don't really have anything new to say about User:Oda Mari since she doesn't participant much. Just to repeat myself, my description in the dispute section showed why I thought it's reasonable not to assume good faith from her. I also showed she had a willingness to block corrections to matters that were well discussed to be inaccurately portrayed. Again, since she previously expressed her agreement to the existence of the said logical fallacies, it can only be assumed that she was intentionally trying to be obstructive in order to keep inaccurate information on the page. To top it all, she slapped me with a warning for inappropriate management of content. Yes, good reason not to assume good faith from her.

User:Qwyrxian's Vindictive Inquisition

I am just going to copy over User:Qwyrxian's list.

User:Qwyrxian's implied accusation that User:Bobthefish2 does not tolerate disagreement:

Extended content
  1. 7 October: implies that other editors are “blindly reverting”, thus assuming bad faith.
  2. 7 October: In Bobthefish’s opinion, the facts of the islands are abundantly clear (they are, at best, disputed, and, more likely, China’s), and he interprets edits which do not conform with that POV as Japanese POV pushing. He states, “Now, I do understand pro-Japanese editors may desperately want to somehow convince people that those islands should belong to Japan, but misrepresenting information on wikipedia is generally not the right or ethical way of achieving this end.” In other words, while he is obviously editing neutrally, those adding Japanese information or reverting Chinese information are attempting to subvert the goals of Wikipedia merely to influence readers.
  3. 10 October: By this time, Bobthefish2 has come to call edits which he doesn’t agree with “sabotage.”
  4. 15 October “some editors have been relentlessly sabotaging the contents I added.” By this point, I think we can see that Bobthefish2 has crossed over to pure battleground mode.
  5. 17 October Bobthefish2 insists that a number of his arguments are “unambiguously valid.” This is an editor stuck in the belief that he is absolutely, undeniably right. Either one of two things are correct—either Bobthefish2 isn’t unambiguously right, or all of the other editors who disagree with him, including myself, must be biased POV warriors. Also, note that he calls his opponents “vandals” (although later at WP:ANI he is instructed and understands that that word has a specific WP meaning and doesn’t imply here; he says he won’t use that word again).
  6. 16 October. Here he calls those he’s arguing with of being “trolls”. More importantly, this is the first time he openly explores the idea of getting an admin to ban them from the pages. User: Chzz then removed this and the previous comment as a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL; Bobthefish2 readded them without the Chinese words (keeping the accusations of trolling, however).
  7. 18 October: “A good solution would be to simply ban those who have been maliciously removing edits of others.”

Response: I don't claim to be a highly-acclaimed editor like User:Qwyrxian here (not a sarcastic comment), but I consider myself to be a reasonable WP editor who very often makes a correct call on various WP issues. While I doubt anyone has the time or interest to look through my contribution history, I'd say that the editorial calls I made are seldom wrong barring some early cases of mis-understanding in WP policies.

With that said, I am confident in my ability to tell apart what's sabotage/WP:DISRUPT and what's not. If I see something that's clearly wrong being added or something that's clearly right being changed/removed and all without reasonable rationale, then what else would I see this as? While it's true that my perception could've been flawed, the matters I am/was dealing with are also not rocket science.

Anyhow, the page got locked in the end because of edit-warring. Not surprisingly, editors whom I labelled with "vandal" (a term I misused due to its special WP meaning) or "sabotage" were heavily involved. And of course, I do/did find it helpful if they were topic-blocked for these reasons.

Coincidentally, the page was locked after User:Qwyrxian's last diff/sound-bite. So what he cited was my actions at a time when edit-war was rampant (i.e. POV-pushing and bad-faith editing did in fact exist).

User:Qwyrxian's accusation of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality:

Extended content
  1. 15 October: “some editors will guard the current pro-Japanese tilt with their teeth.”
  2. 15 October “some editors have been relentlessly sabotaging the contents I added.” By this point, I think we can see that Bobthefish2 has crossed over to pure battleground mode.

Response: I contest this as battleground mentality. My principle is that I define my position based on principle instead of the positions of others. It's true that I view the roster of regular editors as being divided between two opinion blocs - one consisted almost entirely of Japanese citizens and one consisted of mostly culturally Chinese editors. While others would no doubt to accuse me of pulling the race card, I am/was simply stating the obvious - Opinions on almost all subjects were divided along those lines (much like bipartisanship in the U.S. Senate).

The first quote is part of a response on a greater issue or the "article naming issue" that is/was a passion of User:Qwyrxian that will recur later on. As it turns out, the issue was raised for many times in the past (RFC's and etc) and opinions were almost always divided across cultural lines with the rationales raised often being ridiculous. In this circumstance, I was simply raising a pessimistic note, which for the most part, is well-founded.

The second quote was address above, but I listed it here as well for completeness sake. But again, there was a great deal of edit-warring at that time and the page was eventually locked. I was simply documenting an observation that was true for the most part.

User:Qwyrxian's correct criticisms:

Extended content
  1. 12 October When others follow standard editing procedure (BRD), they’re breaking common sense, but when Bob acquiesces to that procedure, he considers himself a “gentleman”.
  2. 15 October. Speaking to User:San9663, Bobthefish2 calls other editors “蘿蔔頭”, which Google translate says means, “Turnip head”.

Response: For the most part, he is right on these issues. They occurred at a time when I joined WP for approximately 1 month. For the first quote, I didn't know BRD was a standard. Since it was requested during a time when most of my edits were shut out by an edit-war, I interpreted it as part of that. The second quote occurred at a time when I thought an user-talk could be treated as a personal space. They were newbie mistakes, but you can chastise them however you like.

User:Qwyrxian's accusation of unproductive edits:

Extended content
  1. 14 October. Admits to adding information to the article not to improve it, but to test the reactions of other editors. Claims that they are lazy in altering things that are wrong that match their POV, and ferociously contest other issues. Adds that a double standard is clearly being applied to the article.

Response: This is part of the "Protest" dispute I outlined above. User:Qwyrxian was right that I threw this matter in to test the reaction of other editors.

On the other hand, he's wrong to claim that the matter itself does not improve the article. Of all the elements that can legitimately be added to this dispute article, there are ones that provide impressions of various involved parties (Chinese, U.S., and Japan) and there are ones do not. What I did was I simply took a relevant matter that intrinsically portrayed one of the parties in a negative light and introduced it to see how various editors would react. Regardless of the curiosity I harboured for my fellow editors, the content I introduced was very relevant and complementary to what others had added before.

This is simply analogous to adding references to new U.S. friendly fire incidents in the Iraq War article - relevant but might attract die-hard nationalists' attention to remove. But unfortunately, our American friend User:Qwyrxian was bent on portraying this as some sort of nefarious intent on my part.

User:Qwyrxian's other accusations:

They generally fall into the category of assuming bad faith. Since I've addressed that plenty, I am not going to respond to those unless otherwise requested.

User:Qwyrxian's very own violations of his civility standards:

I am not going to go through User:Qwyrxian's massive editorial history, but I will name a few examples where he committed civility violations that he accused me of committing:

Extended content
Example Quote Comments
1 ...I will not support discussion of the name of the article unless compelled to do so by formal mediation practices (and, if forced to, will come down very forcefully that the naming issue has already been solved by policy, guidelines, and consensus, and that raising it again is unacceptable POV-pushing and forum-shopping)... Threatened to accuse me of of unacceptable POV-pushing and forum-shopping if I decide to contest his favourite issue on "article naming". Of course, I didn't really care about his threat and my response to him was that his statistical analysis was flawed.
2 ...I can only assume that you are being intentionally disruptive. This disruption is unacceptable. This sound-bite is an example of User:Qwyrxian assuming bad faith and calling an user disagreeing with him disruptive. Of course, if one read the entire diff and know the entire context, he might realize what User:Qwyrxian did was actually appropriate - The subject he was addressing was actually doing WP:DISRUPTive edit and that subject in question was also one I regularly assume bad faith on. A more imaginative writer can possibly do a better job than me in demonizing this quote, but I hope you can the drift.
3 ...I just need to call you out--yours is the attitude that is exactly what I labeled on ANI as borderline disruptive--and thus I think your attitude on the talk pages is nearly as deserving of a "ban" as the editors relentlessly reverting. You basically stated that you've already made up your mind that it's "obvious" that the names are equal and we need a dual name... But you seem to be saying that it doesn't really matter what other results we find, because you've already made up your mind. ... your bringing up of red herrings (like the number of speakers of Chinese, or the impossible to measure "impact factor") are those activities that I described as not strictly against the rules, but not helpful, either; This is taken in the midst of a civil conversation between User:Qwyrxian and myself. At one point he assumed bad faith and insulted my objectivity. He also was dismissive on a point about "impact factor", which is actually important in practice. In short, that's another example of him committing what he accused me of doing.

}

With that said, I haven't been comprehensive with my search. I might've found a lot more had I searched enough, but 3 is a good number to stop at. If he's convinced of something and has met relentless resistance, the odds are he'd consider something to be WP:DISRUPT and starts assuming bad faith. Now, is there a reason why his assessments has to be right and mine to be driven by WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? Well, he does seem very passionate and intolerant towards disagreements on his favourite issues, given what I presented.

Anyhow, my point is that much of what he accused me of doing are violations he had committed as well. He might've been elaborate in his descriptions and used a less flamboyant language than I did, but in the end, it's the same idea. And given some degree of wiki-WP:LAWYER, a great many things can somehow be turned into WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BAIT violations.

Final Words

In my dealings with the editors in Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute, I'd say there is a great deal of bad faith and incivility going on. While my comments are not necessarily very polite, the culture of the page made it a norm. User:John Smith's and User:Qwyrxian are reputable editors who know full well what WP:CIVIL is about (being the accusers) but had not said a word about the general lack of civility of everyone involved (including accusers themselves) until they decided to single me out for some lynching. So personally, I view this Wikiquette alert as little more than a directed attack (in User:Qwyrxian's case, it amounts to character assassination).

Now, is there something I can improve on? Well, I can of course refine my language use and refrain from using strong words. I can also perhaps be more alert about how not to step on the nerves of others, but given the opportunistic nature of my fellow editors in the pages, it can be hard. Even now, someone's complaining to an admin that I am somehow baiting or have conspired to have pages locked.

I do hope you guys realize that I am dealing with crows... crows that deserve much more of your scrutiny

The Rest of Discussion

Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2, Pretty much everything you're writing seems to be "a request for mediation of longterm, ongoing conflicts between parties." - which is outside the jurisdiction of this page. I'm not sure the best place for it, so maybe someone else can point you in the right direction. I think there has been a good job to point out where you aren't being civil. It doesn't matter how wrong, convoluted, or just plain rude the other party is - you can't react to it by being sarcastic or insulting. Even if you're up against someone who is a pushing a point of view, the proper response isn't to insult them. Denaar (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Denaar, if you single out the behaviour of anyone in a fierce dispute and blot out the actions of others, it is going to be look ugly regardless. By adopting this tactic, it's actually quite easy to conduct character assassination on just about anyone. From the looks of it, much of the accusations belong in the domain of bad faith. Assumptions of bad faiths are not necessarily especially if bad faith exists. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Stop me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that you won't change your behaviour if you think the editor in question deserves to be treated the way you treat them? John Smith's (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd try to be civil to even bad faith editors, but my patience can wear thin when it comes to persistently disruptive editors. I understand some WP editors feel any editor (no matter how bad and stubborn they are) must be treated with the utmost saintly respect but it is a standard that's hard to adhere when one is dealing with wackos on a regular basis (a purely hypothetical scenario without pointing figures at anyone). Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Bobthefish, there is no easy way to deal with tendentious editing but it can be done. Certainly your much cleverer than thou and "dear friend" sarcasm and little tricks like calling them wacko's whilst pretending not to is not the way to go. I'm sure you don't need to be pointed to WP:DR, or reminded that ultimately, arbitration is the final option. Fainites barleyscribs 22:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I've toyed around with the options of ArbCom/ANI and discussed such possibilities with User:Qwyrxian. Since he assumes a lot of good faith on editors I don't trust (to a degree I consider to be very irrational), I am basically on my own. With that said, I am definitely planning something but User:John Smith's struck first, which is why we are here. In a sense, it is actually good, since it forces me to organize some evidence against him and cohorts.
Whether or not, something is a more clever than thou sarcasm is really a subjective matter. And of course, I tend to reserve my colourful language usage for relatively hostile exchanges... such as being accused of edit-warring or slapped with some ill-considered warnings. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know whether your concerns about tendentious editing are substantial or not. This is wikiquette. However, your current mode of discourse is not going to help you pursue dispute resolution on the main issue. As for it being subjective - aren't we all? Including those who no doubt you wish to influence when pursuing dispute resolution. Fainites barleyscribs 23:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Etiquette is all relative to surrounding. In fact, your persistent label of my sarcasm as oh so clever is a sarcasm of its own. Do I care? Not really, but don't you agree this contradicts your little lecture of my sinful use of sarcasms.
In the end, these minute uses of sarcasms are a minor aspect of the overall editorial process. WP:DR may not necessarily my style of language use, but the main determinants would likely be the amount of WP:TENDENTIOUS in existence. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I repeat the accusations I gave on my talk page: I think this is all a very silly form of handling the issue. It's not that hard to disagree with each other without it devolving into this constant tattling to the admin that "he said something mean, he isn't editing in good faith", etc. I don't understand why you both can't quit poking at each other and get back to consensus building. Enough accusations of not having good faith and the like. My suggestion to Bob: stop being sarcastic, please (even if it's funny; you can be funny, but not sarcastic funny, even with Polandball). My suggestion to John Smith: have a thick skin and discuss the issue, and forget how snippy Bob is. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually care about being poked nor was I the one who called an Wikiquette. However, I do want to shake my head a little when you suggested we should focus on consensus building. Again, it's based on everyone has good faith. In case you didn't know, a WP:Mediation was attempted and some people flat out refused to let it happen.
I also find it a bit of a shame that nobody has yet commented on how User:John Smith's made this vast right-winged conspiracy theory of some alleged edit-warring on my part. I don't know, I guess that's not a WP:CIVIL violation. Or have I erred in letting the accuser getting all the pity before stepping in? Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: I could not agree more that everyone just needs to quit it (other editors on the page, probably including me, have other problems they need to stop, but that's for another place). But, isn't the whole point of WQA to say to someone "Hey, you're not being nice. This type of behavior isn't acceptable, so please stop?" I mean, this isn't an RFC/U, it's not a request to ban, block, or topic ban him. It's a way of getting people who are uninvolved to look at Bobthefish2's edits and say, "Yeah, that's an ugly mess over at those articles, but your incivility isn't helping things." And, in my opinion, the point at which he really crossed the line wasn't in the nationalist/ethnic jabs (although "turnip heads" was pretty harsh), but when it became clear that his incivility was driving other editors away from even commenting on proposals. This, to me, is why we have WP:CIVIL—it's not just to engender some sort of abstract politeness-for-politeness sake, but it's so that people who don't want to have to snip or be snipped at can still provide useful interaction. I don't want anything to come out of this other than for Bobthefish2 to dial back the sarcasm, pointed comments, and general assumption of bad faith. I want him to keep editing on the topic. I want him to keep pointing out, where appropriate, when someone appears to be pushing a POV at the expense of article integrity. But I want him to do it in a way that makes collaboration possible, rather than contributing to the overall battleground that are these articles. 00:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs)
I consider it very naive to assume I've driven away other users (as in User:Oda Mari) with my assumption of bad faith. I mean... I don't really want to lose patience with you, but somehow I suspect you don't read my posts that address the issues.
At the same time, it is as if you do not realize how other people railed at you. I don't know, I found User:Tenmei's walls of rhetorics and User:Phoenix7777's direct insults of your various abilities to be gruesome violations of WP:CIVIL. But somehow, you managed to think that's nothing and proceeded to call me the menace of it all.
But if you really want to convince others that I don't tolerate disagreements and like to bully away others, you can try. I've already addressed the bully part above (which you somehow probably refused to read). I will deal with your ridiculous slander of my intolerance of disagreements later. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Did I say you don't tolerate disagreement? I can't find that comment above; if I implied that, my apologies. What I'm trying to say is that you consistently characterize most disagreements as examples of bad faith, POV pushing actions by editors on the other side. Sometimes you're right; sometimes you're not. The problem is that you keep defaulting to this negative stance, and that when you respond to what you see as bad editing by others, you do it through incivility (not always, just often enough that it's become a problem). You yourself summed this up in your statement on my talk page linked above that said, "“I feel it is important to realize there are times when cooperation is impossible." Also, note that I didn't call you the menace of it all, and that previously (on my talk page? On Elen of the Road's? I don't recall), I clearly pointed out that your incivility is only one of the problems. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
One more thing: the fact that you don't even realize that you're doing it here, in this WQA report, is where the problem lies. Calling any of us "dear friends" is obviously sarcastic. Calling Oda Mari's complaints "heart-melting" trivializes them. Calling my listing of diffs a "vindictive inquisition" mischaracterizes the whole process, when 1) you yourself asked me to do so on your talk page a few days ago, and 2) the whole way we show problems is through the use of diffs, rather than through general, vague accusations. I can't tell if you simply don't recognize that you're being uncivil in a way that makes discussion difficult, or if you know but think your incivility is justified due to "context". Either way, it's still a problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Would it be too much to ask all of the editors involved to go their separate ways for a while? Maybe just find other articles to edit and let other people fill in for a while on the ones that have been in the middle of this contention. Bob seems to have an AWFUL LOT to say about things, and one thing I haven't seen is a spirit of apology in his words. So rather than re-hash a bunch of stuff, maybe it would be simplest if all the parties just went to other articles for a while. What do you think? -- Avanu (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
@Avanu: Suppose you were in a hostile exchange with 4 other people and one of them filed a complaint against you for being hostile. Would you feel it is appropriate to apologize to others for being hostile? Of course, it is not a mutual apology type of thing and completely one-sided.
Yes, I might feel it is appropriate to apologize, because it might help move things back to a place where everyone could contribute peaceably. That, and the suggestion that everyone take a cooling off period, would give each of you the chance to contribute without this hanging over the situation. -- Avanu (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah ok. What if you don't have good faith on any of them? Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Now, please do note that I haven't really finished writing. I will probably wait till tomorrow to get back to it and maybe I will write a bit of reflection on myself and others' roles in this.
@Qwyrxian: I suppose we may have a fair bit of miscommunication going on in this etiquette issue. For whatever reason, what I thought was clear did not get through to you. To make it clear, I did not ask you to provide the diff's. If my memory serves, I said:
You are not obliged to elaborate on your accusations regarding my behaviour. In turn, I don't feel obliged to take this issue seriously when I don't find the arguments to be convincing
and I felt the statement was fair since only presented me with a large block of ambiguous complaints and flatly refused to respond to my reply.
I use the adjective "vindictive" because I felt what you did was some pretty damn vicious character assassination. Perhaps that was not your intention, but the interpretation of the diffs and your other commentaries of me does largely suggest I am some sort of bigot who condemns all forms of disagreements, indiscriminately assumes bad faith, and never ever thinks I am wrong.
While I agree with you that this is a colossal waste of time, I have done my part in address this issue privately with you in a much simpler manner. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is going to address your content concerns here Bob. As for your mode of addressing others - it is apparent you don't see the problem that others do. Wikiquette is here to provide low level dispute resolution by opinion and advice. If you don't accept others opinions as having any validity and are not prepared to accept any advice then no doubt this issue will appear again later in another forum.Fainites barleyscribs 11:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Have to agree with Fainities 100%. Although I haven't seen the entire exchange, its pretty obvious that one of the larger factors involved is the way that you (Bob) are approaching the situation. You say "Bob's turn" and then devote more space to your 'turn' than everyone else combined by a factor of 2 or 3, while simultaneously coming off with an air of superiority. Even if you are 'right', which I'm willing to concede as a small possibility, I have a feeling that you could have defused the entire situation with a very small and sincere apology for your own behavior. Sometimes it doesn't matter if we're right, other people want to be able to *feel* that they have respect in an exchange. You seem to offer very little. -- Avanu (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Concur. Gerardw (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Conversely, I'd argue that you don't see the problem I am facing too. First of all, I've never said I retained a saintly attitude towards everyone or I am infallible or whatever (as someone else had accused me of). However, I've never seen a single criticism directed to the attitude of any of my accusers. I believe in such a discussion, both the accused and accusers should be assessed equally in order for the process to be fair. I don't know about you, but it's very hard to force a one-sided apology from an accused when his accusers are major contributors to the perceived problem. A more sincere way of going with this Wikiquette is to expand its scope to all the accusers involved... then maybe this will have a chance of working.
And of course, you can most certainly find my confident or dismissive tone to be annoying. It's true that squirming victims gain the most sympathy, but I refuse to resort to such tactics.
Finally, I am not sure how I can defend myself any other way. For all intents and purposes, a lot of these are sound-bites. I guess I shouldn't address any of them? Or maybe you are just looking for one simple "OMG I AM SO SORRY. EVERYTHING IS TRUE. PLEASE LYNCH ME." to get this over with? I am sorry for being sarcastic here, but I hope you see why I sense some serious problem in how this is being handled. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
These are merely suggestions that are intended to help detoxify the situation. If all of you take a cooling off period, then maybe in a few weeks or months, everyone can come back with a cool head and better willingness to work together, or maybe simply find other interests. If you (Bob) wanted to apologize, rather than the hyperbolic "I'm 100% wrong", a simple apology along the line of "I regret that I may have offended, and I am sincerely sorry for any actions that might have been percieved badly. This was not my intent. Again my regrets, Bob." There's really no excuse to be sarcastic or hyperbolic in the response, and if that's all we're going to get, I'm not sure this forum is going to provide value to you. -- Avanu (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do not feel a need to apologize to my accusers. If forcing an apology out of me is the goal of this, then I don't think this is going to work. However, if your purpose is to increase the level of etiquette between editors involved, then you may want to consider critiquing others involved as well. Suppose anyone find my stance to be completely unreasonable, then he is welcomed to direct this to a RFCU or ANI. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I would say what we are looking for is a change in future behavior. Just continue editing but do so in a manner consistent with the community standards. They apply all the time. An editor is responsible for they post regardless of what other editors do. Gerardw (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I am aware of your cautionary about WP:CIVIL and will give it a more in-depth read in the near future. Although I consider my actions to be largely within standards, I will try to be more careful about striking the nerves of others (although in User:John Smith's case, it can be hard). I hope that's fair enough.
Now, on a different sort of business. Since our goal here is to be helpful in attenuating the mutual behaviour of editors, I'd like to have this RFCU expanded to include User:John Smith's as the subject of examination. I'd be willing to consider giving collaborative editing with him a second chance if the business on his part is sorted out. I'd leave User:Qwyrxian off the hook because he and I had no qualms other than this matter. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
This isn't an RFCU. You could also try RFC on content. Fainites barleyscribs 17:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok. But now that I've finished posting my part of the story, I'd like some comments regarding the allegations of bad faith, intolerance to disagreements, and intimidation of other editors. There were enough comments about my sarcasm, but these are much more serious accusations. My impression is that if I don't settle these once and for all, other users will use it against me in the future and say: Oh, User:Bobthefish2 was warned for assuming bad faith, blindly labeling disagreements as sabotage, and intimidating others. Thanks. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
If you follow through on your comment "I will try to be more careful about striking the nerves of others", then things will probably be a lot better. Much of the 'substance' of this complaint really seems to stem from a bit of 'putting on airs' by you, Bob. When you communicate with someone from another nation, you learn their language. When it is here on Wikipedia, there is language that makes editors more successful in working with one another, and language that doesn't. You sound like a person who has no problem grasping complex concepts and situations, and it really appears you have a tremendous amount to offer others here. Just understand that others are being put off by some of the ways you are approaching situations, and even if you haven't intended any insult or fault, it is still causing you and them problems because it gets in the way of success. Your effort is appreciated, and thank you for participating in the process. -- Avanu (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I see a tactful and diplomatic response. Even though I still disagree with some of the specific accusations in the above discussion, I will accept the recommendation of being more aware where the line of WP:CIVIL is drawn. With that said, I believe the purpose of this WQA is exhausted.

By the way, there is an upcoming RFC/U on a related person dealing with a related matter. Would you be willing to participate? Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

User:GiacomoReturned

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
In an attempt to stave of the obvious potential for drama I'm pre-emptively closing this & will drop a note on Giano's page about collegial editing. Bottom line; no block is going to come of this --Errant (chat!) 14:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

In looking over a deltion discussion an editor who had uploaded an image started making personal attacks against an the editor who had made the nom. First it was subtle (see dif) but than started to become explicit after the uploader made what read like an "own" comment and the nom responded with a link to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. (see dif). GiacomoReturned started adding attack comments in the edit summary as well (see dif) and than continued when another editor voiced a "delete" opinion (see dif) calling both editors "ignorant morons." It continued in this edit when GiacomoReturned makes the claim that they have given "Wikipedia the best coverage on the internet" and that the editor with the "delete" opinion is an ignorant, stupid little admin who has not the remotest idea what you are talking about. The uploader than added the image to two subpages in their user space and posted (see dif) that you now take yourselves back to Facebook or IRC or wherever it is you chatter when not mindlessly chattering here. I issued a personal warning to the user on their talk page and they responded with more of the same (see dif). In looking over the current talk page I found other comments that come across as acts of incivility including a reply to the notification of the deletion discussion (see dif) and a reply to another editor where the uploader calls editor/s at Wikimedia Commons "mental retard" and editors/admins at Wikipedia "idiotic little twits" (see dif). Everyone can have a bad day however this seems a bit over the top and for someone who has been around for several years. It should also be noted I am now getting "messages" on my talk page from editors defending the personal attacks. Useful essay. Civility and AGF policies. is informing me to "redact your entry in a civil and friendly manner" and Strange, for an editor of 3 years standing informs me that it "may be for the best if you did not involve yourself further" and to "conduct yourself more appropriately, if you intend to continue commenting on this matter." (Edit: And not I have been threatened with a block) Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Hoo-boy. Search through the WP:ANI archives, and you'll see that for all intents and purposes, Giano has become (or some believe, anyways) pretty much immune to civility enforcement attempts. Good luck. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • If this would be any other user, I'd block him or at least give him a very stern warning that you can't run around and call people idiots, morons and retards. But Giano? Nope, not gonna happen. --Conti|✉ 14:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is somewhat unfortunate because that sort of attitude should never be given a free pass. There is, however, no sensible or established way of explaining to Giano that being nasty is or rude is unacceptable; it's been tried over and over. Plus, of course, a shocking number of people are fans enough to try and justify such vitriol :s I've no issue with the argument "he's a good contributor", and certainly any attempts to "get rid" would be silly, but surely one of these wiki-friends is able to have a quiet word about manners and maturity. --Errant (chat!) 14:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Anjuvarnam

The user and what I suspect are his IP sockpuppets have been engaged in a series of personal attacks (see here, here and here) that primarily consist of racial and religious slurs over disagreements on the addition of content to the article. Attempts to engage this user civilly has invited more attacks of similar nature. - Bob K | Talk 14:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Judaispriest

A legitimate discussion regarding content at Talk:Led Zeppelin#Album Sales has degenerated into bullying and name-calling, primarily by Judaispriest, which is making any meaningful discussion about the article impossible. This recent edit is an example of this user's behavior. Piriczki (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Not initiated by me, of course, as you all can see. It's between three involved parties: Me, LedRush and Revan ltrl. Revan Itrl was the first one who started being uncivil and did personal attacks on me and LedRush. My comments were just a response of his repetitive swearing. Judaispriest (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Piriczki is only telling one side of the story, mainly because Revan Itrl was his only ally in the discussion. Judaispriest (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

And he's still busy swearing on LedRush's talk page here. Judaispriest (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The first attacking sentence on me and LedRush by Revan, "You're both barking from some small corner of shame". Before this, I did not write anything objectionable to him. Revan is being uncivil from day one. Judaispriest (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that personal attacks and uncivility was started by Revan, I, as a new wikipedia editor, has recently read all the relevant policies. I will try my level best to ignore uncivility and personal attacks by other users, while being patient and assuming good faith. Thank you very much. Judaispriest (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope this issue has been sorted out here. Judaispriest (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

While several editors on that thread are pushing the boundaries of civility, this post today by Jadaispriest ":-P While you, as we all know, are you a filthy cave troll... A complete waste of oxygen" is a clear personal attack and violates WP:NPA. I would recommend that you all take a breather for a few days and then go to WP:RFC/A or here [33] and get some outside input from the community to resolve the content issue.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
While inappropriate, it doesn't seem that much worse than the preceeding since I strongly doubt you have anything that even resembles a life out there. [[34]]. Concur that all parties should racket down the rhetoric. Gerardw (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, this is interesting. Did someone forget which sockpuppet they were supposed to be using? Piriczki (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

One second. Let me clarify, before you make further allegations. I've known this editor Judaispriest for quite a while (I met him on some music forums). He wrote to me about the situation and asked for advice. I wrote him a reply, and instead of sending him on the IM application, I mistakenly added the text there with my account. I apologize for any inconvenience, and if such a thing violates any wikipedia policy. I'm a retired (and hopefully respected) editor. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I had asked for Scieberking's help to handle this situation. He's my fellow member on a forum. Judaispriest (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this sraight. Because you happen to know him online from some other web site, your computer was somehow logged in under his account at wikipedia.org? Let me guess, you're also roommates. Checkuser please! Piriczki (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that seems to be the logic behind it. It's not impressive - death wishes one second and then this. Revan (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I would interpret the lack of responses as a confirmation of your assumption's accuracy, Piriczki. Revan (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, just saw that Judaistpriest is blocked. Isn't this resolved then? Nicely done busting them, Pirizcki. Revan (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Behaviour by 24.11.186.64

User has engaged in long-term, constant disruptive behaviour across different Wikipedia articles. His/her efforts are summarized below:

  • Engages in personal attacks at other editors and article subjects. Has a firm belief that anyone who disagrees with him is a moron. (1), (2), (3, (4)
  • Makes disruptive edits such as changing the suspect name in a bombing from Mossad to Hezbollah (4), blanking a 'global warming' section (5) and removing a 'fringe' tag clearly marked 'do not remove' (6)
  • Perhaps most disturbingly, believes that Wikipedia is run by the CIA (7), (8), that Wikipedia lies and white-washes articles (9), (10), (11), that Wikipedia is a propaganda tool (12) and that a 'cabal' of POV-pushing editors control the 9/11 and Global Warming articles (13), (14)

Multiple warnings have been left on the user's talk page. I also believe, from reviewing all of this user's edits, that this is a static IP and not a dynamic one as stated by the box atop his user page. This is my first foray into dispute resolution, so if this is beyond the scope of the WQA process I apologize. I know that this is not the process to ask for sanctions, but if this user wants to explain or correct his or her behaviour, that would be wonderful. Otherwise, at least I have made it public knowledge and someone more experienced than me can decide if it is appropriate to submit this for mediation/arbitration/ANI/what-have-you.

Cheers,
DubiousIrony yell 10:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
There is certainly an appearance of uniformity about the nature and style of his edits. Darkwind put the notice on his talkpage. I'll ask him about it. Fainites barleyscribs 11:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The IP in question is assigned to Comcast. The naming scheme of its reverse DNS name matches that used for Comcast's cable Internet customers. To the best of my knowledge, Comcast does not offer static IP addressing; technically speaking, this is a dynamic IP. The issue is that, due to the nature of cable Internet connections, a "dynamic" IP assigned to a cable modem may last several years before reassignment, depending on how reliable the equipment is in that customer's local area. Regardless, the WQA process can still be followed, and you might also want to look at reporting the IP at WP:ABUSE if there's any history of recurring blatant vandalism. --Darkwind (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Fainites and Darkwind. If, according to your records, it is a dynamic IP then its probable (as you said) that the customer just has a semi-permanent dynamic IP owing to a stable connection/really long lease time. Back to the matter at hand though, it seems what we have here is a user who is a firm believer in conspiracy/fringe theories (or as he would call them the truth) being forced to operate within the guidelines of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE in an online encyclopedia. There is most definitely a way the user can meaningfully contribute to the project, it just depends on whether he is willing to recognize that he has to play by the rules. DubiousIrony yell 14:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with the personal attacks element of your complaint. If his conduct continues you should escalate and move for a block. Figureofnine (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

user:Trust Is All You Need‎

The user persist in restoring a dubious unreferenced statement. I have run into him for the first time and was baffled by his vitriolic comment in my user page. User_talk:Lovok_Sovok#Legacy. Since there was no gradual escalation of conflict, I believe this is something inherently wrong in this user's attitude to other editors and editing, so I think he must be warned by someone respectable and with power. Lovok Sovok (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I just referenced the claim with a reliable source, a book actually... Next time don't remove information you don't like. --TIAYN (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I have been watching the reverted by TIAYN with some interest. I don't see it in the source. Instead it states that "fewer and fewer Soviet citizens took its revolutionary and messianic doctrines seriously." He also called me a liar over here [35] and here. 24.184.232.19 (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
TIAYN, "it's okay that you're an idiot" is a personal attack. You need to observe WP:NPA. The other issues raised by Lovok Sovok are not really pertinent to this board. Figureofnine (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Like -- falsely -- calling someone a liar? 24.184.232.19 (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep. Figureofnine (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
What a collegial environment. 24.184.232.19 (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • information Administrator note I've just blocked the IP and TIAYN for violation of the 3 revert rule. Bringing this here just strikes me as kids continuing an argument in front of their parents, and trying to show how bad the other one was, with no interest in resolving anything. I don't see much else to do after the block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Phoenix7777

I've decided to file a Wikiquette on User:Phoenix7777.

To keep it short, we both edit in a Chinese-Japanese territorial dispute page (Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute). On a recent issue regarding a NPOV violation complaint I raised, I find User:Phoenix7777's behaviour to be unacceptable and disruptive. Since he is still a relatively new user, I believe a Wikiquette is a good place to start, despite the fact the he was already reprimanded for edit-warring in a previous ANI and another WQA.

For more background about the NPOV matter, see the thread we started in the NPOV noticeboard.

[36] - To start out, Phoenix7777 and another user User:Qwyrxian got the article Senkaku Islands dispute locked through edit-warring [37] over a citation added by Phoenix. In response, Phoenix accused him in the talk page that Qwyrxian's actions "impairs his reputation" and that he was abusing some hypothetical privileges. I believe Qwyrxian was actually trying to do BRD, which Phoenix did not accept.
[38][39] - Later in the dispute, I was accused of not responding to a post. Phoenix said I'd be construed as a liar if I didn't respond. He also implied I was a "loser of the discussion" and that I didn't "deserve any tolerance".
[40] - Implied I was a pro-Chinese editor (I was the only regular Chinese editor) when I was simply raising an NPOV issue
[41] - Accused Qwyrxian of short-sightedness and questionable reading comprehension ability. Also labelled him as a "Chinese editor's spokesperson". The "Chinese editor" was no doubt myself, since again, I was the only Chinese editor who was regularly involved
[42] - Labelled my deletion of POV materials to be "disruptive editing"
[43] - Just recently, he played a part in forcing an admin to lock the other Senkaku Islands page as well. While he chastised others of edit-warring, he also participated in it.

It'd be nice if I can get some input on how to deal with him.

— Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Colonel Warden

Stuck
 – Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) will very probably end up facing sanction at arbcom, where this filing can be added to editor's lengthy dossier of regrettable engagement. Eusebeus (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Colonel Warden accused me of “butchery’’, and misrepresented my good faith and meticulously edit summarized edits. He refuses to apologize, instead inserting false and MEDRS violating content and edit warring. In doing so, and refusing to respond, he changed the entire outcome of the discussion, which thereafter centered not on the clear WP:CONTENTFORK violation in the article, but on attacks on me. No “keep” vote after his “butchery” comments suggested any content that was not already in the article to merge to, but Colonel Warden’s revert to NRS and NMEDRS content created the false impression that there was. Here is the exchange. He tendentiously refused to respond to me.

*Speedy Keep WP:AFD states emphatically, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". The nominator should please not bring every bold edit he wishes to make to AFD. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Colonel Warden, per WP:CONTENTFORK, what specific content should be in acupuncture point, and not be in acupuncture. Provide it and I will change my vote to "keep", but if you cannot, you should reconsider your vote per WP:CONTENTFORK. (An ad homonym comment on my own edits is irrelevant to consideration.) PPdd (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Colonel Warden, your comment is completely nonresponsive to the 2 reasons stated above to redirect. WP:MEDRS is every bit as important as WP:BLP when it comes to WP:BURDEN, and trying to circumvent consensus on a delete by NRS or NMEDRS at acupuncture, by simply copying ans pasting to acupuncture point, as clearly happened by identical sentences, violates not only MEDRS and RS, but CONSENSUS. Also see my reply to Anthonycole above, and Nageh below. Please apologize for your personal attack calling me a "butcher", as it is uncivil and violates WP:Etiquette. PPdd (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the appropriate section of Acupuncture. No point in saying the same stuff twice. Colonal Warden, per PPdd, if the appropriate section at Acupuncture becomes too big, then is the time to create a sub-article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This article has existed for 7 years and was quite substantial until recently. PPdd has butchered most of the content and now seeks to delete its history while it is a mutilated state. He seems to believe that cut/paste copies are acceptable in such cases but they are not. I shall now revert this butchery so that editors may fully understand what is being proposed here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Would you watch your tone please? PPdd is a serious, neutral, good-faith editor. Restoring unsourced and poorly sourced biomedical claims in any article is grossly irresponsible. If you think any of the deleted content should be in the encyclopedia, the onus is on you to provide appropriate sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)}}

His accusations caused a huge amount of negative remarks from others, and extensive talk page discussions attacking me. Ultimately two of the attacking editors apologized, one changed their vote to merge and redirect, and another said they wanted to stay out of the fray, which was all caused by Colonel Warden. PPdd (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. I see differing views as to content, but no personal attack that warrants a posting on this page. I'll take a look at the page and comment elsewhere perhaps on the substantive points at issue, but see no actionable complaint appropriate for this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I thought that accusing me "butchery" would be considered an etiquette violation. PPdd (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
"Butchery" is a comment on your contribution, not on you. And being a butcher is perfectly honorable, so there's no implied slur there, right? Enjoy your new snow tonight. And don't expect everyone's etiquette to be quite as nice as yours, when you're provoking them. Dicklyon (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
@Ppdd: Once again, you are demonstrating an unsuitably thin skin. You seem to think that you can go to an article and remove most of its content because the sources (in your view) do not satisfy MEDRS, and then everyone discussing the matter must not use terms like "butchery" to describe the edits. Yes, we know that ideally all editing and commentary would be emotionless, but it is quite reasonable for an editor to use the term "butchery" in relation to the savage cuts—you were not personally insulted. Yes, the editor should not use that term, but this noticeboard should not be used to discuss trivia like this. I see no effort at User talk:Colonel Warden to discuss this issue. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
UNSUITABLY THIN SKIN???!!!??!????... ... "hwooOP, 10, 9, 8, ..., 3,2,1WHOOSH..." ...wait, I mean, thin skin? My skin may be so tranparent you can see my bones (except my spine... I am spineless), but it is thickly transparent. And am not "unsuitably" so. In fact, I am very well "suited", since if not for my suit, you would be able to see right through my transparent skin and through me. Although my status as a bum has left it a little threadbare. Note ironically that the only truly MEDRS content I left in the acupuncture point article pretains to hypersensitivity, which is also in the acupuncture article, as per my contentfork declaratoin. LOL :) PPdd (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
And furthermore, my first attempt at posting at this page ended up with Nageh on my helpful editors list on my personal page, and my second attempt ended up with Bobthefish commenting "What a strange Wikiquette conversation", and Dicklyon winning by conspiring with the national weather service to set me up with an expectation that there could be a snowball fight in silicon valley. So this being my third strike, I am out, and as a sore loser I don't want to play here anymore... :) PPdd (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Status quo. If you haven't dealt with the Colonel before, you'll quickly learn that this is his MO. I can assure you that there is no point in trying to reason with CW, and his predictably rude comments are best left ignored. He says the same thing at nearly every AfD he visits, and most experienced editors have learned to simply skip over his votes. Take my advice and leave it alone. Taking the bait will only end up being a waste of your own time. —SW— squeal 00:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd have to agree with SW. This is a timesink, and WQA is the wrong forum for it in any case, so suggest closure. Jusdafax 00:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Italic text
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Off2riorob

Stuck
 – no consensus

Gerardw (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

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

This is related to a discussion taking place on my talk page about my participation and User:Off2riorob's participation at Talk:John W. Bryant. The substantive issues surrounding the discussion on the article page are not the topic of this post.

I am concerned that User:Off2riorob has repeatedly accused me on my talk page of having a conflict of interest with respect to the article in question.

This started when User:Off2riorob made a comment that assumed I was a Mormon from the Utah/Nevada/Oregon area: [44]

My response: [45]

Then User:Off2riorob asked if I denied then having a conflict of interest and suggested that I did: [46] Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My response, where I explicitly denied having a COI: [47]

The User:Off2riorob said I should stand up for my COI, since my denial was "clearly ridiculous": [48]

My response, where I suggested User:Off2riorob might be confusing me with another user involved at the article talk page: [49]

In response, User:Off2riorob again accuses me of having COI: [50]

My response: [51]

I feel it is not acceptable to repeatedly accuse a user of a COI when they have responded directly to a COI accusation in the negative multiple times. If User:Off2riorob thinks he has some sort of evidence that I have a COI, then he should pursue the problem by getting assistance of other editors. Just to reaffirm, I am not a Mormon from Utah/Nevada/Oregon (I am a Canadian who currently lives in New Zealand) and I have no COI in the subject matter being discussed. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

discussion

If this is a case of a passer by I will eat my hat, this is a content dispurte and as such I am still going to deal with it as such. Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Just because a user is in a content dispute does not mean they have a COI with respect to that topic. There is an important distinction. Info is at WP:COI. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
some obscure mormon person that is barely notable and user:goodolfactory has been repeated attempting to add that he is guilty of incest and than after tat was disputed that he was a drug dealing homo gang banger, this is a content dispute and as such I am still going to deal with it as such. But the assertion that goodolfactory ins a passer by is hilarious. The user has added his desired disputed addition and I still have BLP issues with it and am still interested to deal with this in that direction. Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This post is about your COI accusations, not about the substantive dispute. I also don't think using the phrase "drug dealing homo gang banger" is a very good idea. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, I never said you had a WP:COI just that you were clearly so involved in the issue as to be unable to deal with it in a WP:NPOV manner, your assertion of being a passer by is beyond believable. This is what you wanted to add, you were reverted when you added the incest claim - more than once after you replaced it, passer by, Off2riorob (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This comment clearly alleged a COI (because being a Mormon and/or being a Mormon from Utah/Nevada/Oregon could constitute a COI) and the discussion went from there. The phrase "passer by" was never made by me at all. (Your facts on the substantive issue are murky and not quite right, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.) If you didn't intend on alleging a COI, then a simple, "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to accuse you of a COI" could be appropriate, after which I would say something like, "That's all right; I think what you meant was just not how it came across." Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • - you should be ashamed - you are an administrator and look at you here, squealing about your POV being resisted by someone attempting to protect a low notable living person from your extreme weakly claimed additions. Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)}
    • This "squealing" is about your repeated accusations on my page, and that's all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I find this "squealing admin" comment incredibly rude. I wouldn't consider the act of following standard WP:DR procedure to be "squealing". Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You added the incest claim, it was resisted and removed , you replaced it again in this edit with the summary, "looks fine to me and I DO have the book" - some obscure book. , you repeatedly added this statement "He was sealed within many families, and "soon it was opened up so that sex, even incest, could be with almost anyone, anytime" it was resisted and objected to. You are also the main author on the article by far. No one accused you of a WP:COI but I object to you claiming you are not involved and as such, insisting repeatedly to add BLP violating content and then bringing the issue here when challenged as though it is someone who is simply attempting to protect a living person of low notability from such additions that is at fault, give over. Off2riorob (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Once again I see Off2riorob on my watchlist, this time on the Wikiquette alerts. The original issue aside (which I know nothing about) I feel it is clear Off2 is, once again, unable to edit and comment within the bounds of WP:CIVIL. First off, sure I have prior issues with this editor. But I feel the long, long record is clear, and even here in the exchanges just on this page we see someone who is in repeated violation of WP:BATTLE. It seems to me after years of observation that we have a problematic, combative troublemaker who lives for the endless drama he creates, over and over. May I suggest that the tolerance of the community has its limits? Jusdafax 00:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Sounds a bit dramatic, I hope that isn't the sort of comment that would provoke Rob into an uncivil response. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
        • No, Its not worthy of even a comment, this user Justafax has attacked me at every opportunity since I won a simple content dispute with them on Carl Rove almost two years ago, he belittles himself by his inability to get over it. I am not even going to respond to such comments. Off2riorob (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
          • I actually agree with Jusdafax. CycloneGU (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
          • I should add to that it has nothing to do with this page, but just because of a recent dispute we have over a creation of a Pending Changes poll that he should not be behind the creation of. CycloneGU (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
            • Off2riorob wrote: "... since I won a simple content dispute with them... " The emphasis on winning vs. losing pretty much sums up the attitude well, I'm thinking. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) - Heres another one - user CycloneGU currently in discussion and notified of this thread by user justafax on his talkpage and in a completely separate dispute with me over at pending protection, I have a right to discuss and defend my positions at multiple locations without wiki process attempts to restrict me. Off2riorob (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually I care less about winning or losing, I have the added benefit of not being involved in the issues I edit at all apart from the protection of our living subjects in regards to policy as regards WP:BLP . Off2riorob (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This is not a discussion of whether you have a right to defend yourself. I have not attempted to hinder this. This is a discussion more on your behaviour in cases of conflict on the site and your treatment in general of other editors. To be honest, if you had answered my query instead of just deleting my posts from your talk page - which are temporarily posted on mine and will be removed when the discussion has run its course, and I have yet to decide whether they will be archived - then I would have not carried on any discussion on my page in the first place.
Further, I can add to the behaviour topic. You took offense when people questioned the legitimacy of your poll six or seven months ago - the very poll you attempted to recreate. This suggests an unwillingness to work with the community and instead try to push your own agenda whenever you see fit. CycloneGU (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the problems on multiple fronts you are faced with which you highlight illustrates that there are some things that could change in your editing behaviour? Occasionally at least, it is possible that you are wrong and others users are correct. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am making further observations on this user based on my own communications with him this evening (and others). It seems this user, in response to this Wikiquette alert on this page, is trying to clear any controversial discussions from his talk page in the hopes that anyone reviewing him will not check his history. I previously had a set of posts on his page related to a poll he attempted to create that he really had no business creating; they are now on my talk page temporarily and will be removed later, hopefully after he replies to me as he has promised he will. Chzz had a post on his talk page as well, and that post was immediately deleted and copied to Chzz's talk page instead (causing confusion on my part because I thought he was complaining about me using a link from a talkback post; it seems Chzz actually used that link in his post and the reply was not properly indented, and I have apologized for my misunderstanding in that situation on my talk page). If the discussion that started this entire section was on his talk page, I do not doubt it would also have been quickly deleted.

It seems this user has a difficult time accepting any form of criticism. I have nothing against the user and make an effort still to work with him, but he is being extremely standoffish and says he is watching pages and will reply appropriately, but then does not respond. He wants everyone offering any form of criticism to simply go away.

I am honouring at this time his request not to post on his talk page; however, I have no way to know if he actually is doing as he says and reading the posts that are posted off of his page, or ever intends to reply. It will be his choice whether to be civil or whether to keep walls up. CycloneGU (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Jack sent this in case it's needed

Demiurge1000

I too have had recent concerns with the user deleting my comments from his page—personally, I don't have a huge issue with this as far as it is limited to my comments on his page, but it sounds to me that this is a practice applied to critical posts from any user, and I do see that as a bit of a problem, and even moreso when it is combined with the other issues mentioned on this page already. All of this combined may make the issues involving User:Off2riorob beyond the scope of "Wikiquette". Perhaps we need to start a thread at WP:ANI to get some wider community input on the various issues of concern. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a question here. If this particular item was posted by Good Olfactory and it is regarding Off2riorob, is the proper procedure that GoodOl makes the claim, Off2 responds, and then outsiders/bystanders/non-interested parties try to help and offer advice? I'm simply asking because at the moment it looks like a lot of back and forth between GoodOl and Off2 rather than the rest of us trying to help defuse the situation and help create a peaceful resolution. Your thoughts? -- Avanu (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd be quite happy to stop commenting, especially if someone has some suggestions of what to do. I didn't intend for the substantive issues to spill over here, and I tried hard to make it clear that my posting was not about that, but they were brought up nonetheless. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree with Avanu. Rob can be a little abrasive at times, but this seems to be because he takes WP:BLP very, very seriously (I haven't checked if the person the above dispute is about is dead, if so it's unusual) and to be honest I see the above discussion so far as being partly based on past content disagreements rather than a serious history of problems. I don't see an AN/I discussion going anywhere useful, personally. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. I consider this to be disruptive editing. In Talk:John_W._Bryant, he relentlessly claimed non-notability even after User:Good Olfactory provided some WP:RS. To me, that's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TENDENTIOUS. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The existence of reliable sources does not in itself prove notability, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. It seems a bit of a leap to get from disagreements about notability (even "relentless" disagreements) to serious breaches of policy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
You are right, but the issue is that he didn't even comment on those sources in the talk page. My threshold for WP:TENDENTIOUS is generally around 2-3 rounds of circular arguments plus a few WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I am not sure about others. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

On occasion, I've seen recommendations for people not to remove anything from their talkpage apart from outright trolling and attacks. Instead, they're advised to just let the archiving take care of it. However, per WP:BLANKING, it is acceptable for people to remove most content from their own talk pages, and removing an item implies having read it. Do we really want to be going down the road of "wikiquette-enforcement" of a particular editor not doing so? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with the above user. In that context, he must have read it, and already has posted on a couple of talk pages as I indicated in "reply". I indicated in one of my posts to him that he's free to do as he wants on his own talk page, we can't tell him our posts have to stay there (he deleted that one too). CycloneGU (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Argh. I just read every single edit on the article talk page. O2RR's sole interest here has been to follow WP:BLP. He made no improper statements on the article talk page that I can find, and I scoured it. There is a genuine content dispute - based primarily on whether a specific single source should be used for exceedingly contentious claims. O2RR seems not to be the primary editor on the article by a long shot, so all of this is, at best, a non-issue. In short - time to get some rest. BTW, some of the side comments not directly related to the issue GO presented seem like sniping more than comments on the issue presented. GO - I do not think O2RR's comments were dramatically uncivil. Collect (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, not dramatically uncivil. This appears to be a content dispute. Figureofnine (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
My concerns were not with any of the comments on the article talk page. I don't know how I could have made that any clearer. My sole concern were the accusations on my talk page. The comments on my talk page were related to the content dispute, but I'm more concerned about his repeated assumption of bad faith and/or assumption of a conflict of interest and failure to accept my word that I had no conflict of interest. If his comments there are OK, that's fine, I just need to dramatically lower my expectations of civility and trust, I guess. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Good Olfactory has a point here. Repeating accusations of COI that cannot be substantiated by wider reference to an editor's contribution history is a passive-aggressive attack against an editor's integrity and credibility and, as such, User:Off2riorob should desist immediately from further engagement of this kind. Stick to a discussion of content and keep it civil. Barring some additional substantive engagement with the underlying WQA issue here, I will close this shortly since further discussion seems unproductive. Eusebeus (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with the last two comments. This is merely one more episode on this user's lengthy record of conflict, which seems an endless timesink for other editors, and discourages those editors who value civility and good faith. To those who defend or minimize the subjects ongoing issues: My concerns for a while now regarding Off2's are that we have a social version of Gresham's Law in that the bad drive out the good. After 11 blocks in the past two years, this user has become adept at, in my view, gaming the system so that his incivility and questionable acts are always just to the side of serious actions. This is the wrong forum for a lengthy examination of the mechanics of said gaming, so given the clearly intractable nature of the subject, I support closure as well. Jusdafax 00:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive99&oldid=1142555640"