Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive105

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Crisco 1492 (Did I goof?)

This is a request for outside input on my own conduct. Over the past two days I have spoken with User:Greenwoodma, who is a researcher at the University of Sheffield where the article under discussion (General Architecture for Text Engineering, or GATE) is developed, and works with it. Our discussion, at my talk page and User talk:Greenwoodma#General Architecture for Text Engineering dealt with possible conflict of interest and my concerns about the possible copyright violations between GATE.ac.uk's CC-BY-NC-SA copyright and our CC-BY-SA copyright. User:Greenwoodma seems to have taken offense to my latest action (requesting an outside opinion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 May 6 and tagging the article for possible copyright violation). The text in question has been rewritten, but I have a nagging question: did I misstep or violate Wikiquette? Should I have contacted an admin? Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No and no, respectively. If there's any incivility, it's on the part of Greenwoodma but it's best just ignored. Gerardw (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob

Stale
 – no resolution Gerardw (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion 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 is being uncivil towards me by marking my AfD comments as 'SPA', [1] [2] [3]. It makes it very uncomfortable for me to take part in these discussions if Off2riorob is going to try to discredit me by falsely tagging me as a 'SPA'. After looking at his Page I see that he is in the habit of being very uncivil to other editors too. I want to have his edits marking me as a SPA in the AfD's be removed, and that his violations of Wikipedia:Civility be dealt with in a way that will stop his abusive behavior towards myself and other editors. Ougro (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to me to be a single-purpose account, having very few edits, most of them revolving around the same area, and diving straight into technical Wikipedia processes. So it's not incivil to label you as one. The swearing is a bit OTT but nothing too serious. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 22:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The AfD process does not seem to be very technical to me. The links to take part are right on the article's page. Am I not supposed to take part in these discussions? Why are you wanting to discourage me from becoming involved? Ougro (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't at all want to discourage you. I simply said that it is very unusual for a brand-new editor to immediately launch into deletion processes, Wikiquette alerts and so on. It often indicates some prior knowledge of Wikipedia, sometimes under another username. Perhaps none of this applies to you, but you can definitely be labelled an SPA without problem in my opinion. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 22:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like a SPA good for tagging in the AFD to me and appears related to previous discussions from yesterday - add possible sockpuppet or at least meatpuppet to the list. I am not even going to honor this with additional comments. Off2riorob (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob's dismissive response is just the type of behavior that I am trying to stop. To call me a 'sockpuppet' and 'meatpuppet' is just more of the same type of uncivil labeling that he uses to bully other editors. I don't understand how TreasuryTag has arrived at his comment that all of my edits are in the same area because they are not, and Off2riorob's attack against me is unjustifiable. I am not a brand-new editor. It has been nearly one year since my first edit, and I have now entered into an AfD for the first time. Don't make this about me. Does Wikipedia want to encourage Off2riorob to continue his bully and uncivil strategies? Ougro (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User came for all purposes today, did a few edits to some icehocky article and then edited four AFD articles that I have commented in, all in opposition to my opinion...hmmm, I tagged him at the AFD with a SPA template. He then edited my talkpage in defense of a returning Admin that was following me round yesterday and then he opens this Wikiquette - really - randomness coincidence is gone out of the ball park. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to meet the criteria for tagging SPA. How 'bout i remove the SPA tags and Ougro agrees to stay off Off2riorob's talk page, and we consider this resolved? Gerardw (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob's defense is that because he was uncivil to another editor on his talk page, and then because he was then uncivil to me in the AfDs - then I (being the editor who has spoken out against his bullying) must be a sock puppet. I hope that the editors who read Off2riorob's reply will see it as the Red Herring that he is trying to create. He wants to deflect my criticism against him back onto me. His logic is so far off the mark that it would be ridiculous if he wasn't such a bully. And where does his “randomness coincidence” comment come from? I went to Off2riorob's talk page to see what this editor who was tagging me as a SPA was all about. While reading his talk page I could not miss his foul-mouthed response to another editor, and so I made a comment to point out his uncivil-ness, as every Wiki-editor should do. It is not a “random coincidence” that Off2riorob seems to be uncivil to anyone who disagrees with him. Ougro (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  • - I stand by all my edits in this situation. I will not take anything back and I would do them again exactly the same in future. I laugh at this report. Its a sockpuppet meatpuppet attack against me. Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • mmmMMMMUUUAAAAHHHHHAAAAA!!!111!! I laugh at this forum in its entirety. I came here out of curiosity to see why it was nominated for deletion yesterday. From the sample discussion above, now I know. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Ha amusing indeed - although I have to say that I support this noticeboard, it has its uses and value in the dispute resolution process and I have been involved in and seen discussions here that were very beneficial - just that this is not one of them - as I have said I reject this report completely so there is nothing this level of dispute resolution can do, if anyone objects to my rejection of the report they have the option to escalate. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Ougro is an WP:SPA, and can't see why Off2riorob brought it up. If there is evidence of socking or meatpuppetry, WP:SPI is that way. Rd232 talk 00:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Rob, in what way is Ougro a Single Purpose Editor? Or do you mean they are Single and Purposeful? Looking for a date? Sorry, just being silly. Honestly though, Ougro has very few edits, and these seem to be scattered over films, celebrities from India, and ice hockey. Hardly convincing evidence of SPA, unless there is a Mighty Ducks SPA category. Why not just avoid saying SPA to future editors, move on, and enjoy life? -- Avanu (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


I didn't want to make this personal, but Off2riorob isn't exactly the most courteous editor ever, and makes fallacious arguments in deletion discussions. When presented with evidence or principles to the contrary, the editor is frequently combative and is unlikely to change his mind. I mean I thought I was alone, but in addition to Ougro there are at least several other editors in the past week that he's had courtesy issues with. He also deletes comments he doesn't like off his talk page, even if it's in another user's section. That's just my two cents on the matter. I try to avoid personal conflicts. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 18:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverting comments from one's own talk page is perfectly acceptable behavior, see WP:TALKO. WQA (here) is designed to address specific behaviors: if editors want to discuss the overall pattern of Off2riorob's behavior I'd recommend starting a WP:RFCC. Gerardw (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Still more bullying (best term for it) from "rob", why am I not surprised? I would agree that this isn't the place to go into Off2riorob's seemingly never ending issues with his inabilities to work well with others, and I yet again suggest that Off2riorob's overall editing behavior be subject to a complete review, which I firmly believe would result in community sanctions. However it is a serious timesink to wade through his edit history, and to be blunt, I personally could not face starting a WP:RFCC both in terms of time and revulsion. Jusdafax 20:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure the guy is a constructive editor, and otherwise I'd just blow it off, but I'm concerned if it isn't an isolated issue. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 21:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Even a cursory look into the records show the issue is anything but isolated. Indeed, Off2riorob was at this very board within the past few weeks on the exact same topic, namely his nasty habit of accusing others of being an SPA (Single Purpose Account) and then defiantly blaming others when he is asked to AGF (Assume Good Faith.) Further examination reveals years of violations of Wikipedia policy which will continue until the community has finally had enough.Jusdafax 17:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
For what its worth - the two issues are not related at all - this issue is related to the simple tagging of an account with a much used SPA template on a deletion discussion with a account that had only ever edited on four separate days over a period of more than a year. - suddenly focusing on issues out of its usual box and all of which were connected also to me and my edits. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)-
The SPA discussion is stale, Several editors have already stated their opinion. It is inappropriate to continue to make vague comments about Off2riorob prior interactions here. Please either do a WP:RFCC or drop the WP:STICK. Gerardw (talk) 20:59, 8 May 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:Damiens.rf

Stuck
 – Filer advised to read instructions before filing WQA in the future; specifically, avoid filing WQA if you want binding disciplinary measures. Ncmvocalist (talk)

This user is on a deletionist rampage, which annoys me slightly. He's wikistalking my contribs, to which I'm indifferent but which certifies his bad faith. He's also tagging my talk page in defiance of my repeated notices and demands he not bug me while on his rampage. Will somebody kindly turn this guy off? Thank you. — Xiong熊talk* 10:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's wikipedia's talk page, not yours. He's just notifying you of images for deletion. Please review instructions at top of this page for posting Wikiquette alerts. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Xiong should consider that "delete the cursed tags" and "rm another stupid fucking tag" as edit summaries are just expressing frustration but that "rm assholery" and leaving a message saying "Quit the assholery now" is a sign of an editor who needs to take a break and have a nice cup of tea - Peripitus (Talk) 11:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Xiong - I can understand why you find Damiens.rf's contributions annoying. You are handling it in the wrong way. However frustrating it gets, don't be rude to people; it makes you look bad. When you get annoyed - don't post anything - take a break. If you are polite but firm, you can stand up to people like Damiens.rf and win; remember, his contributions annoy the rest of us too. If you are rude to Damiens.rf, he/she will probably win every time.
A second tip; don't delete the notices, etc. that people place on your talk page. Occasionally clear your talk page, and put the removed comments in a sub-page called User talk:Xiong/archive1. It helps demonstrate that you show good faith, and value the comments/tags that other people put on your talk page. That can make people feel good about you. Some of the tags turn out to be useful for navigating to discussions you might want to keep an eye on or contribute to. If somebody is bugging you, it will show up clearly on your talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry; I just don't agree with any of that. I want to be left in peace. I especially don't care about any semantic juggling. I'm highly annoyed. Please, somebody switch this off at the source. Thank you. — Xiong熊talk* 20:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Flatterworld

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – ANI for admin action. Ncmvocalist (talk)

I began editing (diff) Bashar al-Assad on 7 May 2011 when, in the course of a discussion at another article, certain biographical details relating to the president surfaced that were not part of his article prior to my edit. There has since been a discussion ongoing about how best to handle the added content. Flatterworld (talk · contribs) joined the discussion here, with no valuable input other than to shoot bad-faith accusations from the hip. There is nothing necessarily uncivil about his language, but the nature of his comments undoubtedly runs counter to WP:AGF, which is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. The user's Talk page abounds with warnings against similar conduct in the past: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and the list goes on and on.

I directed the user to WP:AGF here and here, asking that he strike out the bad faith remarks. He chose to disregard my advice. It is necessary for an Admin to involve himself in guiding Flatterworld (talk · contribs) in how Wikipedia envisions healthy interactions between contributors. A 48-hour block, if such a thing can be requested here, would not be an excessive response under the circumstances, though I am open to less severe alternatives.—Biosketch (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If you think admin action is appropriate I think it's better to go to WP:ANI. This page is really for conflict resolution, although oddly, it often has the opposite effect. Funny old world. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I already left the message here and a notice on the guy's Talk page, so I'll just leave things the way they are and hopefully something constructive'll still come of it. It's a holiday and I don't intend to spend it at home dealing with this, but at least now I know for next time.—Biosketch (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing evidence of incivility on Flatterworld's part. WQA is intended for mutually respectful dialog about specific incidents, not requesting blocks. Gerardw (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Gerardw (talk · contribs). As incivility was not the issue but rather WP:AFG, I have refiled the incident at the appropriate noticeboard ([10]).—Biosketch (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Gnangarra

Resolved
 – Filer blocked for sockpuppetry; see SPI. Ncmvocalist (talk)

The following discussion 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.

I created my account three days ago, and I have been in a dispute with another user. This Gnangarra person came along and made an uncivil and rude warning. See WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL To view the incident go to: User talk:Timbracks13. I'm happy to take advice but I was really surprised by the way he jumped bown my neck and made me feel unwelcome. Timbracks13 (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

My advice is:
  • accept Gnangarra's advice.
  • stay off Timeshift9's user and talk pages.
  • every community has its norms and practices. Your account is 4 days old and I'm seeing more WP:DRAMA than editors with years of experience. Slow down and observe how things are done. Gerardw (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Please note that I've blocked Timbracks13 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing, of which this seems to have been part. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 11 May 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.

Users: Ucanlookitup, Adrian J. Hunter, Brettalan

Stale
 – Ncmvocalist (talk)

I believe these three editors have formed a Cabal. I cannot get anywhere with edits on the article for Tagged and it has become really frustrating, the tone in which my edits are received has gotten increasingly negative. I am hoping to resolve this dispute by getting some outside assistance or possibly advice on how to move forward with the article. Thank you.

Ucanlookitup Assumes bad faith of every single editor that has tried to help in last 6 months or more. Aggressively reverts any edits or flags to the article, which are clearly not vandalism. Makes snarky comments like "it don't work that way" and will revert flags without discussion [11] Uses vaguely threatening language calling my comments or edits an edit war and says things like "let's call for protection" [12].This editor fails to recognize his own bias and has not worked towards agreement.

Adrian J. Hunter Has made inappropriate comments about the subject matter, which makes me question objectivity. For example, an FAQ was created on the talk page [13] that is unwelcoming and overwhelmingly negative way to summarize. Have also noticed that the comments are increasingly negative, like with these edits: "btw it's hilarious that the Inc article complains about poor Tseng getting bombarded by emails" [14]

Brettalan Has reverted my edits at least half a dozen times. Comments on edits I have performed to similar articles like Facebook : "Also, again, the only reason Facebook doesn't have controversies in the lead is because YOU removed them."[15] This user does not welcome new input and I find it intimidating to be followed to other articles. Uses a very rude and aggressive tone with anyone who tries to make changes. [16] NCSS (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing significant incivility. Emphatic dialog is not incivil. Gerardw (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
NCSS, I am sorry you feel that way. You and a handful of other users have repeatedly tried to violate Wikipedia policy. I have repeatedly, patiently explained the relevant policies to you, and you and the others have continued to make the same changes and continued to make the same arguments that have already been fully addressed. It was only after my arguments were repeatedly ignored, and after you and others made rather harsh allegations against me and others and then refused to explain or retract those allegations, than I showed any signs of frustration.
I am particularly perplexed by your complaint about being "followed to other articles". YOU specifically brought up the other articles about social networking sites as a reason to change the content of this one. Did you expect me not to look at the articles that you were referring to? I even made a point of refraining from getting involved in the discussion on the Facebook article, precisely so you wouldn't feel that I was making it a personal issue, but evidently I was also supposed to take your argument at face value. I don't see why I should. Why should you be able to remove controversies from the lead of one article, and then use the fact that that article doesn't have controversies in the lead as a reason to remove controversies from the lead of another article on the basis of "fairness"? If you didn't want to be "followed" to the other article, you shouldn't have brought it up!
I would also point out that you and the other editors who are trying to make changes have been asked whether you have any conflict of interest, since Tagged has been known to actively try to influence its coverage here, and you have refused to answer. I think we've been rather civil in not pressing that issue.
The bottom line is that your edits are getting nowhere because they violate Wikipedia policy. It is Wikipedia policy to include notable controversies in the lead of articles. You've been repeatedly shown that the controversy in question was one of the most widely covered pieces of information about the company, which establishes it as notable. Again, I'm sorry that you feel that those of us who are enforcing that policy are forming a "cabal", but there's really nothing more to it than that this is our understanding of the policy, and no one has addressed our explanations in any substantive way. I think anyone who looks at the matter objectively will see that I've been quite patient and that if anyone is being uncivil, it is you and the other users who are throwing around accusations such as "cabal", "tendentious editing", and "stifling debate" without providing any basis for those charges. Brettalan (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing: I think Adrian's FAQ is both accurate and fair. There is certainly nothing uncivil about its tone. What, specifically, do you object to? Brettalan (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
This is the first time I've been part of a Wikipedia Cabal... Looking forward to learning the secret handshake
On a more serious note, to my knowledge, this is the first negative comment that's been made about the FAQ; I'd have thought you'd share your concerns at Talk:Tagged before complaining at this public venue. I had tried to make it welcoming – it ends by urging everyone to be civil and to be patient and kind toward new contributors. On the Tseng diff... well... I really did burst out laughing when I read that article, and I thought anyone familiar with Greg Tseng (presumably anyone watchlisting Tagged) would appreciate the irony. It seemed harmless at the time, but if it was an inappropriate thing to say, then I apologise. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You guys started a cabal and didn't invite me? I'm hurt.
NCSS - I'm sorry if my edit summaries seem snarky to you. It wasn't my intention. In fairness, though, the discussion about having the Attorney General's statement in the lede has been going on since October 2010 with the same group of editors. I doubt there is anything *new* that hasn't been said a few dozen times already. Ucanlookitup (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverted harassement?

Stuck
 – Frivolous waste of time; filer advised to avoid filing such WQAs and avoid unnecessary conflict with others. Ncmvocalist (talk)
Being anywhere near WQA is a bad idea for you, Mbz1, after the comments you made about me at T:TDYK. That said, Hodja's comment served no purpose other than to passive-aggressively tell me I don't understand what it means to help others, and such a comment is not going to make me more likely to agree with Hodja's comments elsewhere, as it was apparently intended to do. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Putting your unwarranted comment about me aside, I am simply trying to understand why you called more than polite comment left at your talk page a "harassment". I am trying to understand it in order to avoid "harassing" you, if I am to leave a message at your talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
WQA is not the place to have friendly conversations about how you can try harder in the future not to harass me. But since we're here, why don't you tell the nice people what you said about me a couple of hours ago? Otherwise, we may as well close. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure, as soon as you'll tell "the nice people" what you said about me, when you declined my valid DYK.
Please stop bringing DYK matter here, will you? I asked a simple question why an extremely polite message left at your talk page was removed with an edit summary "rv harassment", and I still did not get a direct response for this simple question. Instead I am getting threatened.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I said it had no reliable sources, which was true at the time. Nothing to hide there. (And no, you are not entitled to request that we refrain from discussing your own personal attacks; see WP:PETARD.) I've already explained why the comment was harassment, and claiming that I've made "threats" when my comments are immediately above and anyone can see that they are not is a weird decision. Are we done with this frivolous complaint? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, come on now, Roscelese, it is not what I was referring to, and you know that. I was referring to this comment, in which you said: that the user, who supported, my valid DYK is my buddy, and declined it again, but that's OK, I forgive you, and sure we could be done with this thread now, but I'd like to ask you to admit that removing a very polite message with an edit summary "rv harassment" was at least an overstatement. That's it, and we could forget about your conduct on my DYK nomination, and archive the thread. I mean anybody could feel irritated, and to say something wrong, but there is nothing wrong in admitting a mistake. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Are we done? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
You're doing much better. At least you stopped talking about DYK. Now, if you would not like to admit a wrong doing, maybe you would agree to tell me on what subject of harassment this message is under, and I will archive the thread as soon as you respond.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I've already explained why the comment was harassment. Are you going to come clean about your personal attacks, or are we done with this frivolous complaint? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, only I said you were doing better by stopping bringing DYK and me , here we go again. Oh, well...--Mbz1 (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see any point in this thread. Referring to the post as "harassment" doesn't seem like anything actionable. Why don't you two just close this up and move on? Dayewalker (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Not all threads here are actionable. The point of the thread was to prove that Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attacked another editor by removing their message with an edit summary "rv harassment", and to ask her to explain how the removed message is a harassment. She failed to do it. "Harassment" is not a kind of word to use the way she did. It was PA, and now it is time to archive the thread.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Users are entitled to revert comments from the talk page. While the comment "harassment" wasn't necessary, it was a comment about the edit, and was not made in a disciplinary forum such as WP:ANI. While the comment may be considered snarky it certainly doesn't rise to what I would consider a personal attack. The question I have is why were you (Mbz1) looking at the page history, anyway? There's no evidence you and Roscelese were involved in a current conversation. Based on the history of the talk pages, including this inappropriate request by Mbz1 [[17]] and the article content comment by Roscelese [[18]], I recommend you stay off each other's talk pages (except for required notifications). Note also that Misza Bot II will archive the thread when everyone has had their say. Gerardw (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Already ahead of you - I don't comment on Mbz1's talk page, though she often comments on mine. ;) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
@Gerardw, Responding the question addressed to me: I am not sure how you found my absolutely appropriate request to stop hounding my contributions made more than a month ago, and missed another appropriate request made today. And how about wp:AGF? I never look at anybody history. I saw this edit summary in my watch list.
Yeah, right Roscelese does not leave messages at my talk page, she only declines my absolutely valid DYK,deletes 70% of my bran new article, and once in a while nominates articles I wrote to be deleted.
I am voting with both my hand to stay away from user Roscelese. I only would like kindly to ask her to remove her inappropriate decline of my valid DYK nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll look at the changes that have been made since the last time I declined it, and if it is now appropriate for the main page, I will approve it. Also, what's this about you having my talk page watchlisted? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it pretty amazing and rather cynical that an editor who is one of the most aggressively derisive I've ever encountered on Wikipedia, and who thinks nothing of referring to others using extremely contemptuous terms should accuse anyone of incivility over something that the person actually involved found innocuous. The editor who was actually involved, in fact, advised the editor who filed this report not to pursue it, saying "Please take it easy." This report appears to have been filed out of pique because Roscelese has opposed some DYKs for articles written by the filer. This is an improper use of WQA: this report should not have been filed.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese has every right to edit an community page. Further review of the reporter's history (e.g. [[19]]) indicates a pattern of conflict with other editors. Additionally the notice on every page is pretty clear: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. I don't see much more to be done here. Gerardw (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Gerardw, you attacked me above with assuming a bad faith question: "The question I have is why were you (Mbz1) looking at the page history, anyway?" I responded to you, but instead of saying you were sorry, you attacked me again by bringing my block log that proves nothing. And you're telling me that Roscelese has the right to decline an absolutely valid DYK the way she declined it? Really? Are you sure you are at the right place commenting at this board?--Mbz1 (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Newish user continues to abuse other editors

Andrewedwardjudd is a newish user (~1 month, ~500 edits) who has been asked many times to be polite. He has been given leeway as a new user, but a month later, he continues to abuse other editors. I just noticed these two latest personal attacks. [20], [21]. Could someone explain to him that this behaviour is not acceptable? Many thanks. --LK (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please direct me to the rules which say it acceptable behaviour to say an edit performed by an editor is deceitful or deliberately misleading? So that you can use such rules to claim i am abusive while those who abuse me are celibrated as wonderful people? I see no such rules. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Andrewedwardjudd
Andrewedwardjudd, comments about other editors are not helpful. Please focus your discussion on the content at hand. The common WP colloquialism is comment on the content not on the contributor. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Editor BigK HeX who refuses to discuss anything with me and who earlier accused me of being another editor, accused me of obfuscating when he was muddled up about a simple issue. Lawrencekhoo the editor who has started this alert then deleted my comment referring to Bigk's 'silly behaviour', while failing to draw attention to the abuse i got from Bigk.
Lawrencekhoo and Bigk Hex tend to state a strong opinion as fact, focus on wikilawyering and will not discuss the issues other than making derisory comments about the other editors abilities to read or have the knowledge they have, and then distort the record to abuse their victims attempting to draw attention to their errors created by their strong opinions. They are fond of dismissing citations as fringe no matter how important the source. These two also appear to work in concert with other editors who have less objectionable impact on editorsAndrewedwardjudd (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
Other editor's behavior doesn't change the standards or expectations. Per WP:TPG, personal attacks on other editors may be removed from talk pages. If you have WP:DIFFs of specific attacks by BigK or LK, you could post them and we'll evaluate the situation. Gerardw (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Lawrencekhoo then deleted this comment and began this alert.

Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Concur that BigK could tone it down a bit on some of the edits. Don't see any wrongdoing LK's part.Gerardw (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not reviewed every edit nor all the talk page discussion. However the edit history [[22]] indicates not understanding the Wikipedia model. You (Andrewedwardjudd) are on the very edge of a technical violation of WP:3rr and could be deemed by some to be edit warring as it is. In any event, if you want the article to be changed, you have to achieve a WP:CONSENSUS of other editors to do so. Accusations of dishonesty and references to garbage (Talk:Fractional-reserve_banking#What_kind_of_nonsensical_baloney_is_this.3F) are not likely to be successful. It appears BigK, LK, et.al. have made good faith efforts to discuss the issues with you. There are not required to continue to do. The behavior guideline WP:IDHT and the essay WP:TE pertain. Additionally, note that references to wikilawyering are also unlikely to have positive impact on editor's perception of the situation.

Note that all that is happening right now is you're being asked to tone it down. No one is calling for you to apologize or retract anything nor are they calling for anyone to block or ban you from editing. I recommend taking a break to let tempers cool and then deciding if you wish to pursue your editing efforts. If so, polite discussion with lots of WP:RS is your best option.

I'll also note (as you are a new editor and perhaps not familiar with WQA ) that I am not an admin nor a spokesman for WP, just another volunteer editor offering his opinion. Gerardw (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Big K has never once made any good faith attempts to discuss anything with me other than claiming that whatever i have provided, which is not specifically mentioned by him, is fringe and he wants something better and his beginning comment to me was to accuse me of being another editor in disguise. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
Thank you for the well-reasoned input, User:Gerardw. You seem to have captured the meat of the possible incivility. Many of the editors are too frustrated to continue when comments such as these from Anderewedwardjudd are laced into nearly every post. BigK HeX (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Bigk you have been asked to tone it down and you still refuse to apologise for your behaviour and have never shown any attempt to discuss anything with me so cannot possibly justifiably use your defense of frustration against me. It is simply more abuse against me. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
You can cast yourself as a victim (conspicuously lacking even a shred of evidence), but it will not help you if your intent is to disregard WP policies.
If you think I made comments that need to be "toned down", feel MORE than welcome to post links to them here. I doubt that you will be able to do so, so I will exit this thread now. BigK HeX (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have already posted a few diffs of your objectionable behaviour towards me which led Gerardw to comment you should tone down your comments. Dispite that you are still making making slanderous accusations about my honesty which are entirely without foundation. Please stop making things up in an attempt to blacken my good name, it is dishonest on your part and totally unacceptable behaviour. I am only a man and if i have defended myself against your thuggery i offer no apoligies for that. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Why do you think you have the right to insult me by accusing me of being dishonest or misrepresenting something, and then threatening me, when i was earlier accused of being deliberately misleading and dishonest and then i was accused as being the abusive party after i earlier and separately had to endure three people setting themselves up as 'wonderful people' to laugh at my expensive when i sought mediation to protect myself from their behaviours and all thru this wiki alert, various people i have never heard of have crept into my life to tell me that consensus works over wptruth and other abusive slurs against my good name such as the one you just issued? How is it dishonest to describe myself as an abused person in these circumstances? Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
In the real world, if someone threatens then stabs you, you can be as pissed as you wish. On Wikipedia, you must provide diffs of threats, diffs of stabbings, gain a consensus that indeed you have been stabbed and left bleeding, etc. You either develop a thick skin, or getting upset with others regardless of provocation will cause you to be viewed as the disruptive party. This is how it works. If you can't work that way you should consider less stressful outlets for collaborative efforts. Just friendly advice, I have not reviewed any of the particulars in this case and make no conclusions. Clearly, however, you are upset. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
In the wiki world i have already provided diffs of people attacking me saying i am deliberately being misleading or dishonest. In the wiki world *you* can imply i have not and make out i am some kind of thin skinned overly upset person who has to become a bit more mature in order to deal with the normal world of Wiki. And it is amazing how many people come along here to add additional complexity and further suggestions there is something wrong with my character, or I do not provide citations, who cannot be bothered to look at the detail of this case. The main issue here is systematic editor bias and the underhand methods that are used to implement that systematic bias, where people like me undergo a character assination for no good reason whatsoever, and the abusers get off entirely free and able to exploit the system to their advantage, where ordinary people are not going to become computer geeks or wikilawyers, who cut and paste wiki policy and diffs at every opportunity, and send such warnings to talk pages. All ordinary people want to do is defend their own good name. As i already have done so here via wiki policy Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Future Perfect at Sunrise making personal attacks

Resolved
 – Advice given & taken; parties came to a compromise. Ncmvocalist (talk)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, an administrator that I've had several disagreements with in the past, recently showed up on the talk page of an article I just created Radgosc (a place). Some of FP@S initial comments were fine. However, part of the dispute is over the name of the article. One user claimed that the name "Rethra" for the place has "more than 10,000" hits on google books. If you actually look at the google book search [23] for the term, it's pretty obvious that aside the fact that a lot of these hits are to non-English sources, a very large (probably the vast majority of them) is to a medical term; "Rethra" as part of the Urethra (in fact, google books asks you when you do the search: "Did you mean: Urethra ").

I pointed this out on talk and listed several of these medical sources for illustrative purposes [24] (and yeah, ok, I cracked a Beevis and Butthead joke about creative DYK hook titles - I can't see this as being a big deal. I don't think most people would either). Future Perfect collapsed my comments and labeled them as "trolling" [25]. His edit summary stated "call me prudish, but I'm gonna be a WP:DICK here" (I think it's strange to be prudish about the word "Urethra" but put the word "Dick" in an edit summary - I don't think prudishness is the motive here). I restored my comments [26] since I sincerely believe that this is a legitimate argument - the fact that a google search for a proposed name of a place is composed largely of hits for an unrelated medical term.

Future Perfect's response was:

I'm calling a spade a spade. You were disrupting this talk page; don't do this again. You can also get this as an official adminstrative warning from me if you insist.

I don't know what spade is being called a spade here. I was not disrupting the talk page - I was pointing out a very pertinent fact related to the discussion. I regard his "adminstrative warning" (sic) as a bullying tactic. There's nothing to warn me about. I have had run ins with FP@S previously and they sort of go similar. If somebody disagrees with him he reaches for the threat of "adminstrative warning" very quickly.

I very strongly object to having my comments collapsed - they are pertinent to the discussion and there's nothing disruptive about them.

More so, I consider FP@S referring to these legitimate comments as "trolling" to be extremely offensive. Calling someone a "troll" (and calling their comments "trolling" is pretty much the same thing), unless backed up with evidence or supported in some way, is very clearly a personal attack. The fact that this is an administrator making that personal attack, who should know better, only makes this worse.

I would appreciate if someone commented on this and in particular I would like to be able to restore (de-collapse) my comment, remove the offensive label "trolling", and, more importantly, be able to continue discussing an article I had created, without being bullied or threatened.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Needless escalation from three sides.Your part in this was creating a separate article on a topic already covered elsewhere and doing it as a content fork rather than a normal spin-out article based on the existing material. I don't know enough about the topic to judge whether this was objectively justified. I do not doubt that you think it was justified, and that Skapperöd thinks it wasn't. So the conflict is not surprising.
Your accusation of stalking against Skapperöd is obviously baseless. You can't expect him not to notice after this on a redirect that must be on his watchlist. One hour later he commented on the talk page of the new article.
I have no doubt that FPAS did his Google Books search correctly and discarded the junk. The stuff about urethra hits for a "Rethra" Google Books search was worth a short mention, but you tried to turn it into more profit than it's worth. FPAS is a linguist. In other words, you overplayed your hand and got the bill for it. You played to the (so far non-existent) galley. It's entirely proper for FPAS to reign that in. He could have shown a little less irritation while doing so, but this report seems to be unjustified. Hans Adler 21:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The article was less than two hours old before it got redirected - I was planning to add material from the Lutici article but never got the chance. The problem is not with Skapperod responding, but with HOW he responded.
My bringing up the Urethra point for Rethra was a response to the "more than 10,000 hits" argument. It was, and still is a perfectly legitimate thing to point out, particularly since it appears that all but a few of these hits are about the medical term (including "Slavic" in the search term, "kills" about 9850 of these 10,000 hits)
Referring to other people's comments as "trolling" is unacceptable even, or especially, if done by an administrator. I'm sure if the situation had been reversed I would be blocked already. Combined with the "administrative warning" this is a pretty clear cut case of admin bullying.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The urethra point was legitimate to point out after Skapperöd's incorrect 10,000 hits point, but it didn't need excessive insistence. Sure it would have been better if FPAS had written "unnecessarily escalating behaviour" instead of "trolling", but given that your first urethra response was directed to him, although he had nothing to do with the 10,000 hits claim and used very cautious, constructive language ("it does seem that a case for 'Rethra' might be stronger than that for any of the "Rad-" versions", my italics), I guess he just got a bit annoyed. Hans Adler 21:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm not asking for him to be desyssoped or blocked. I mostly want to restore my comments - which I still think were perfectly legitimate - and especially to remove the offensive personal attack of "trolling" and be able to edit the article and its talk page without being threatened.
I mean, come on, there's an obvious imbalance of power here in that he can "warn me" and even block me if it strikes his fancy, while I can't do the same to him. The only way that we can have a constructive, productive, and most importantly, a FAIR discussion here is if he acts solely in his capacity as a Wikipedia editor, and doesn't start waving his admin-block-button six-shooter in my face. Maybe describing it in such a way is also "over playing my hand" but that's what it looks like from where I'm standing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Before this discussion goes on it is worth remembering that Hans Adler, Future Perfect and Skapperod were involved heavily in dispute with Volunteer Marek(who edited than under different account name) before on Wiki regarding issues concerning German historiography(Schieder commission article) so there can be some scepticism regarding neutrality of those involved so far.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Hans was not involved in that dispute in a partisan role. In fact, if anything he was taking my side. I take his comments as well meant and constructive, even if I disagree with them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Apparently Fut Perf is not going to participate either way so there is little point continuing. I do agree with Hans in that it's not really worth a WQA over. To answer the question though, you could have tried just keeping it collapsed and removing the word "trolling" instead of removing the collapse altogether; if Fut Perf was not ready to accept that as a compromise, then maybe this would be worthwhile. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't have brought it up here had he not threatened me. It actually did occur to me to just remove the word "trolling" and keep it collapsed, but I wasn't about to risk getting a spurious block over such silliness. Anyway, it seems someone else undid it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the "threat" was to give an official warning. I don't think that's a genuine threat. Warning someone that they may receive a more serious warning should be taken as a helpful suggestion.   Will Beback  talk  03:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Difference is that I can't issue threats. Anyway, this: is just ridiculous. He's reverting OTHER people who are removing the insult and collapsing. It's pretty much revert warring at this point. Ncmvocalist, do you still think I could have removed the word "trolling" but kept it collapsed and not incurred some kind of vindictive wrath? Will, do you still think that this was merely a "helpful suggestion"?Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems you answered your question before I did. Marking this as resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Erikeltic

Resolved
 – Parties advised. Subject was blocked during WQA to prevent continued harassment; block has since expired. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Erikeltic's edits [27], [28], [29], [30] at User talk:Mindbunny seem unnecessarily incendiary. I attempted to engage the user at their talk page [31], [32]; they asked me not to edit there further so I am bringing it here. This editor appears to be editing in good faith: the ideal outcome from my perspective would be guidance from a few more experienced editors on things both of us could have done/can do in the future to minimize drama. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I notified Erikeltic here. VQuakr (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
VQuakr, there isn't anything unreasonable about the way you approached this. I suppose you could have left a bolded note at the top of the WQA that he needs to be notified and that you don't want to do it yourself because of his request, but views can differ on that point. Either way, no biggie. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Good thought, thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny never asked me to stay off of "his" talk page and my comments were not incendiary, but valid points that Mindbunny apparently disliked. I make no apologies for making my feelings known, nor should I. Currently the only place for the discussion of his behavior and blocks is on Mindbunny's talk page. Erikeltic (Talk) 03:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Erikeltic, you said your piece and Mindbunny removed it; that's where it should have ended. There was no good reason for you to be edit-warring on another user's talk page; if anything, it is counterproductive in feeding this type of attention seeking. And contrary to your statement, his block would not have been extended for removing your posts from his talk page - instead, you would have been blocked for this petty harassment. So apology or no apology, the bottom line is this: unless you wish to be blocked, do not unnecessarily edit Mindbunny's talk page again (as you have been within the last 24 hours). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I've read this thread only after blocking Erikeltic for 24 hours for disruption, as Erikeltic has removed all references to it from their talk page. This is at least no indication that they intend to heed the warnings they've been given here and on their talk page, and therefore I'm maintaining the block as required to prevent continued harrassment.  Sandstein  06:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Nickelbackrules1518 and Nickelback

I want to report this user, obvious devotee of Nickelback. The problem is not that he is a fan, he is just claiming ownership of the article and he disrupts any progressive edits, instead aiming to make the article look more like a fan page than a serious article. I am a serious Wikipedian and I have spent my last 7 years bleeding and working for Wikipedia. The last thing I want is this hipster Wikipedian to write to me "don't edit Nickelback if you don't know anything". I ask kindly for your help in this matter and want to point out the current messed out version of the Nickelback page and my view of better page. Once again, I didn't provoke this user to lay his crap on me, I just do what I do the best: working for better place here and trying to give the best out of me. Please I don't want an apology or a formal restriction of this user - I want people to make him stop doing what he does. What will happen otherwise? We are creating a precedent for every unexperienced devotee to start creating fan-looking bulletins and messing other people's work. Thank you for your timely attention and my best regards.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I will have to agree here with Mad Hatter. I myself have tried to talk to the user to no avail. I believe a ban is in order to show that the community has certain expectations in editing and conduct. The editor has been warned many times for many things and simply ignores all recommendations - In fact he/she does not even response to posts on their user page and simply deletes them and carries on- (this includes many 3 reverts and re-addition of uncited material over and over). Its clear an attitude adjustment is in-order. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Nickelbackrules1518 reported by User:Moxy (Result: )Moxy (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Like what Moxy said, Nickelbackrules is very unresponsive. I agree with the two of them that a ban would be needed to finally get his attention and straighten out his behavior. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 02:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I too support the above people. I've left countless reminders and tips to "Nickelbackrules" about he was doing wrong, and he almost never even acknowledged them, let alone changed. (Also, when he does respond, he has a weird habit of responding/talking on people User pages instead of their User Talk Pages. Pretty sure it's him trolling, as I've also told him that that isn't right either, yet he continued to do it.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin

An IP (67.127.100.144 (talk · contribs)) needed help because that User:Orangemarlin wasn't being civil with him and he wasn't conforming with WP:BITE 1. After, he asked me to start an WQA alert2. I warned User:OrangeMarlin about WP:BITE3. After, he said that he does not care about that4. I said that I was going to start a WQA5. It is here. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 18:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I put very little stock into the complaints of "new" editors who pop up into some of the project's most hot-button topic areas, immediately taking up a side of the debate, then head to the AN/Is, WQAs, and assorted wiki-alphabet enforcement boards like it is old hat. I have zero involvement in the pseudoscience area, but I have seen this happen quite often in Israel-Palestine and the Obama areas. Tarc (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been using Wikipedia as a source of information for well over a year but I never got the nerve to make an actual edit or comment until last week. I really had a layman's knowledge of acupuncture and was reading the entry merely out of intellectual curiosity. I made a small aesthetic fix to the page and, other than that, found it to be fairly well-written article; that is except for one portion: the lede. I didn't realize is was a hot-button area though I did see a lot of personal attacks flying about. I tried to steer clear of those when I made my first contributions to a discussion ever. I discussed only the actual words we were writing and held firm to my belief that a good lede should have better flow and be more concise than what was in place. At no point did I suggest that I am pro-acupuncture nor pro-pseudoscience. I am neither. I really don't have an opinion on acupuncture, but if anything, after reading the entire article, I'd say I'm more of a disbeliever now. I really can't believe that I've fallen into this suck-hole where I am dealing with blatant personal attacks rather than bettering the writing of the article entry. But more than that, I can't believe the fire and venom spewed by OrangeMarlin at both me and the good samaritan editors who were simply giving me (an admitted noob) a good start at Wikipedia. I'm a grown-up and can ignore OrangeMarlin's petty name-calling rather easily but I just think this was a terrible "welcome" to Wikipedia and I don't think OrangeMarlin's reprehensible behaviour should be tolerated in a place where professionals come to volunteer our time.67.127.100.144 (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of OM being incivil the IP editor. Gerardw (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP's very first edits were to an article that had just been unprotected from a borderline revert/edit-war. It is hardly surprising OM thought it necessary to comment on it, though some editors might have chosen more cautious wording. While ebe123 seems to be a well intentioned respondent to {{helpme}}, the use of wp:Twinkle to troutslap a warning template on an established editor is a gross misapplication of both those tools which must be nipped in the bud. In fact, there should probably be technical mechanisms in TW to prevent it happening inadvertently. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Being an established editor does not confer any special rights. The actions of a user should be met with equal response regardless of how experienced or inexperienced he or she is. In fact, if one of the two should benefit from leniency it is the inexperienced editor, as he or she may not be familiar with WP policies. Which get us back to the point of this particular user being rather unwelcoming towards a news user. Asinthior (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Neither WP:DTR nor WP:TR are policy. In fact, I recently saw a talk page where the regular was offended by a personal statement and told the poster they should have used a template. Gerardw (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Those two are essays. As I wrote above, all users should be treated equally. New users should be met with a more welcoming attitude. And they say there is no cabal....Asinthior (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
IMO, the incivility is not a matter worthy of invoking WP:BITE and any new editor seeing the massive discussion levels about the article ought reasonably conclude that conflict exists on the article. I suggest a cup of tea is all the IP needs at this point. Collect (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. WP:BITE is meant to prevent hostility against newcomers. Incivility is a form of hostility. If we are talking about a new editor, we cannot assume he or she knew how to behave in a discussion page where conflict is present. Again, the weight of duty falls on the experienced editor to know better than being unwelcoming towards new editors. Asinthior (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think any of you know what you are talking about. I also don't think this needs to be at WGA given that it is already being discussed on OM's talk page. Prodego talk 22:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying Tarc is mistaken? Are you saying either WP:DTR or WP:TR is policy? Gerardw (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

1. [33] - Here OrangeMarlin accuses me of edit warring. Hard to believe since it was my second edit ever on Wikipedia (and my first was of little substance, just aesthetics). Please note that I had been discussing my changes fully and even stated that I suspected my edit would be undone. [34]

2. [35] - On his talk page, I discussed my grievance with his edit summary comment. I thought I was extending a olive branch and encouraging him to discuss the substance of the article rather than continuing to get mired down in the personal squabble he and other editors had been engaged in. OrangeMarlin threw the olive branch back in my face by mischaracterizing it as a discussion about article content and shouting that he would ignore my comment. Then he deleted it.

3. [36] - I told him that it was not an issue to be discussed on the article talk page as it was more of a personal nature. I asked him not to mischaracterize me nor my point of view. Again he threw it back in my face: "Go Away NOW".

4. Next, I asked for help on how to deal with this editor. You can read that on my talk page [37]. There was mention of opening up an WQA on my behalf, but I didn't think that was warranted. The two editors helping me get started also dropped what I thought was a polite note/reminder to OrangeMarlin. OrangeMarlin did not see it that way. [38] and [39]. That second one was what really bothered me. He called me a "Pro Acupuncture POV pushing IP" and that he doesn't have patience for me. I believe I have illustrated that I am not Pro Acupuncture nor was I POV pushing. If OrangeMarlin was actually participating in the Acupuncture talk page, he would recognize this.

5. [40] - Next when more experienced editors pointed out to him that he shouldn't be treating me that way, OrangeMarlin disagreed and continued to perpetuate the defamatory characterization that I have a pseudoscientific POV. I do not and I defy him to prove otherwise by any of my actions or statements.

6. [41] - OrangeMarlin then went to the talk page of the editor trying to help me wade through this and was unforgivably rude. "I don't give one flying fucking shit about biting or not biting editors" and then accuses me of spamming 12 oncology articles. Maybe he is confusing me with someone else here. The only article I've ever edited was acupuncture and that has nothing to do with oncology.

I am not here to get OrangeMarlin in trouble or anything. I would just like to see his behaviour put in check. Again, I am taking time out of my day (as I suspect we all are) to help improve Wikipedia. I don't appreciate this guy jumping down my neck, making me feel unwelcome before I get a chance to really show what I can do here. It is astounding if this kind of behaviour is tolerated.67.127.100.144 (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

He asked you several times to discuss the article on the article talk page, not on his talk page. Article discussions belong on article talk pages in most cases. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
[42] - That's just it. I wasn't discussing the article on his talk page. Please read for yourself. I was discussing his behaviour toward me. I am new, but I've read the talk page guidelines. What I wrote to him is exactly the kind of discussion that doesn't belong on article talk pages but rather user talk pages. At least that's how I understand the guidelines.67.127.100.144 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Might I suggest you're playing the victim just a little too hard? That perhaps sounds harsher than intended, but there's a time to let things go rather than pressing on and on and on and on, which is disruptive in its own way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Please, we ought to be more sympathetic towards the victim. The victim is not on trial. If anyone thinks there is not enough evidence to take any actions against the experienced editor, then just move for closure of this procedure without any sanctions to him or her. Do not criticize the user making a complaint as he or she has a right to do so.
Please remember WP:TINC. I know it's not a policy, but what is not only a policy but a fact is that experienced editors need to be very welcoming towards newcomers. Just the other day everyone (I guess) got a link to a report on WP that showed the site is lacking new users more than ever before. This is why that happens. An experienced editor misbehaved and other editors let it slide and turn against the newcomer. Asinthior (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It is a fact on Wiki that experienced editors who know how to attack a newcomer by saying their edits are deceitful, false, WP:TRUTH (a massive insult and attack on an editors character) or WP:Fringe have the ability to run rings around an editor who simply replies other editors adopting these tactics are confused and being silly. Groups using these underhand tactics can then ensure their own personal systematic bias or worse is maintained while even expert editors will leave wondering what on earth is going on. I cannot see how you can politely say an editors edits are obfuscation or flat out wrong (when they are obviously correct) without causing huge offence when this is endlessly repeated, but actual content is never discussed, and these very insults are used to revert edits or say why edits are not going to be allowed and the content is never discussed. On wiki however, you can politely say this. It is like an alternate reality where those who know how to play the wiki game will win. If wiki is losing editors it does not surprise me at all. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedardjudd
Sadly, it's true. The way WP works right now has created a power imbalance between inexperienced editors and self-righteous experienced editors and administrators who can enforce their point of view by accusing others of not conforming to WP policies and accordingly imposing sanctions to the former. Asinthior (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbrooks1991

Stale
 – Subject has not made any further edits since this was filed. Ncmvocalist (talk)

While talking in Talk:Fordham University about merging Fordham University traditions into Fordham University#Heritage and traditions this user personally attacked me by calling me a joker. Just a while before, his alleged companion Samv315 was asked to be nice in the same talk. I consider Mbrooks1991's that word profane, feel abused and think his act is violation of user conduct. --is nafSadh nosy? 06:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears the subject has only made 3 edits and is a relative newbie (unless he is socking)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Referring to User:Nafsadh as "this joker" is not respectful, but it cannot be profane unless User:Nafsadh regards him/herself as a sacred object or as God. Nafsadh - do you regard yourself as sacred or as God?
I think Nafsadh is over-reacting. If people annoy you, take a coffee-break. If you don't like coffee, drink a mug of vodka.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
@Toddy1, I' m non-alcoholic, my religion prohibits :-| but I can have a coffee, but I prefer tea :) You can also join me.
I'm not God, only a servant of Him. Yepp, I misused the term profane, revoking.
@Ncmvocalist, may be Mbrooks1991 and Samv315 are same guy or very related, just guessing though. Only 3 edits do not prove anything. --is nafSadh nosy? 12:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for revoking.
I don't know whether Mbrooks1991 and Samv315 are same person or not. A plausible explanation is that Samv315 knows Mbrooks1991 in real life, and has encouraged him/her to join Wikipedia. The best thing to do is to assume good faith. As you say, 3 edits do not prove anything.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Clean history

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Gerardw (talk)

If possible, could an admin clean from the history of my talk this revision? It is a nonsense attack from a vandal, notified by me on WP:AIV and indefinitely blocked as vandal-only. Thanks a lot, I hope this is the right page for this kind of requests. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 02:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not -- that type of permanent deletion request would go to Wikipedia:RFO, I think. (But I don't think the diff meets the criteria. My advice is just to revert it (as you have) and forget about it.) Gerardw (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok... Anyway, it doesn't matter. It's the right to protest: I've vandalized a vandalism ;-) . Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible hoax edits by Jonfleminghubby (talk · contribs)

Resolved
 – by indefinitely blocking Jonfleminghubby and deleting their articles. Materialscientist (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This editor appears to be here to create hoax articles. Reference the one above, I find ZERO information on it. Looking at their talk page, you will notice a lot of notices for deletions - speedy, PROD, and AFD. I do not believe that this editor is here to build an encyclopedia, but rather is treating it as a playground, so to speak.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and decisive action on this, MS.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 02:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

False and disruptive allegations at AfD

Resolved
 – Keep your cool, behave with courtesy, civility, and patience. Avanu (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) seems to have decided to assume without any basis that I nominated an article for deletion having only spent 4 seconds checking out potential sources. (I should point out that WP:NPA specifically identifies "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" as personal attacks.) I then provided a polite and detailed summary of the research I'd done before initiating the AfD, and this was met with this bizarre non-sequitur repetition of the attack from Casliber, again repeating the un-necessary and untrue allegation. The fact that he was deploying these accusations in order to mask his own WP:ITSNOTABLE response doesn't seem to me to help matters.
I have twice asked him to retract the comment(s) and he has declined, so I thought I'd seek an outside view on whether his comments in the diffs I've highlighed above were (a) appropriate, (b) constructive and (c) necessary. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 22:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

a) I don't know if they were appropriate, but they were certainly allowable and understandable in response to a contribution being characterized as "seemingly random" [[43]]
b) Probably not, but not especially destructive, either.
c) No, but that's a tautology. Wikipedia itself isn't necessary, therefore no comment on it can be considered necessary. Gerardw (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The response I called "random" was demonstratably so, having no basis in fact which Casliber could cite – I did ask him to back it up with a source, and he failed to do so. However, since it is simply untrue to say that I spent less than 5 seconds, 5 minutes, whatever, researching the article, that constitutes a personal attack in my view. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 08:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The article in question should not have been taken to AFD per the emphatic advice of WP:BEFORE that "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". Normal editing in this case might have been to merge the article with the article about the actor Brian Hall as this was his most famous role. Failure to follow this sensible advice to search for a compromise position tends to make even sweet-natured editors tetchy and so Casliber's irritation is understandable. TreasuryTag often exaggerates his case — see Keep Young and Beautiful for another recent example. Editors who cry wolf too often will tend to be ignored or disparaged. TreasuryTag should please dial down his strident zeal as this is uncivil, generating unnecessary strife such as we see here. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    I don't think we were talking about the merits of the article in question, I think we were discussing Casliber's behaviour. And I wonder why multiple editors have argued to delete the page if its position is as clear-cut as you seem to think? ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 08:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I went back and looked at the thread there. You are being agressive in your commentary, Treasury. Of course it isn't polite for people to snap at you, but you are doing your part to provoke these responses. I'm going to close this and suggest both of you work on keeping your cool, and Treasury, please remember that although you are often just on the technical side of being correct, your personality lends itself to more conflict than the average person.

  • 10:20 Casliber - My "keep" vote is on the premise that they exist
  • 10:25 Treasury - Could you maybe provide links to or ISBNs of reliable sources
  • 10:40 Casliber - Possibly within seven days
  • 10:54 Treasury - Well if you can't back up your guess...
  • 11:24 Casliber - (smart alec remark)
  • 11:39 Treasury - (touchy remark)

etc etc etc

In less than an hour's time, you were backing Casliber into a corner, despite their promise to provide references within the alloted time for an AfD discussion (7 days, aka 168 hours). Something like .5 percent of the overall time and you wanted their final responses. It is certainly a type of response that would make someone touchy. I'm closing this now. -- Avanu (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Incivility and attacks from User:Bryonmorrigan

Reposting from WP:ANI since that was not the appropriate venue and adding another diff.

I am usually civil on here, but it's editors like User:Bryonmorrigan that bring out the worst in me. There is a relatively minor dispute at David Barton (author) as to whether he should be labeled a legitimate historian or not. I'll admit I may have egged him on, but Bryonmorrigan has repeatedly made uncivil and/or POV-motivated comments on the talk page here:

  • [44] "I personally feel that he should be treated like a Holocaust Denier, but I've been able to reign in my personal feelings enough to just put, "writer, activist" instead of "flagrant propagandist liar" or something...and the Christian Nationalists making these edits should attempt to keep a similar amount of neutrality when editing."
  • [45] Says I am a POV-pusher because of the userboxes on my page when he has just as many controversial userboxes on his page.
  • [46] "his 'theories' are just as absurd and based on half-truths and deliberate distortions." May or may not be true, but he doesn't have anything to back it up.
  • [47] Says I am a "Christian nationalist" and am thereby discredited - "Finally, your own profile "outs" you as a "Christian Nationalist," so the shoe fits."
  • [48] Then, he linked to the subsection on Christian nationalism - I didn't know what it was - and said "tell me I'm wrong" that I, myself, am one. Since this was inappropriate for the article talk page, I responded on his page here saying I suppose I do agree with this Christian nationalism, but asking him not to use it to discredit me.
  • [49] After I did so, he wrote on the article talk page, "And I see now that a Right-Wing Extremist editor is going to try and delete all criticism. Charming." This is not only uncivil and uncalled for ("right wing extremist"), but flat out wrong - I have only made a handful of edits to the article, and they were either fixing words to avoid as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch), fixing references, adding a source calling him a historian, and reverting Bryonmorrigan's reversions.
  • [50] In perhaps the most outrageous instance, he compares another user to the Ku Klux Klan.

I'm not the innocent victim here, but I just felt the need to call attention to this before it goes any further. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

And as I already pointed out at the other venue:
1.) My point in regards to bringing up my own "bias" regarding Barton, and pointing out that you have just as much, was to say simply that, "If I were making a POV edit, I would have done something far more inflammatory than simply changing historian to writer, activist." You seem unable to understand this simple concept.
2.) Everyone has biases...which was my point in bringing up userboxes. The idea that anyone is dispassionate, especially regarding a controversial, Right-Wing extremist personality like Barton, is absurd.
3.) As I pointed out on the other page, the comment about the person deleting all criticism of Barton was not aimed at you, but instead was directed at Lionel, who had (moments before my comment) deleted the entire section labeled "Critics." You have already been informed of this [51], so why you would make this claim a second time is beyond me.
4.) Finally, you last comment, claiming that I compared another editor to the KKK...is hilarious. That editor tried to make the claim that he was a "registered Democrat" and therefore not a "Right-Wing Extremist," (even though his edits prove otherwise) and I pointed out that Right-Wing Extremists have existed in the Democratic Party since its inception, then used the KKK as an example of this Right-Wing Extremism. Frankly, your assertion that I compared him to the KKK is far more inflammatory and offensive than anything that you accuse me of doing, and your repeated attempts at smearing me are becoming tiresome. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Commenting about an editor is not the Wikipedia way. Just focus on contributions they make. The statement you made here, You seem unable to understand this simple concept, is itself not very civil. Gerardw (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
True. Bryon, you and I both edit a lot at Christian terrorism, where I very frequently agree with you about content decisions, and I sincerely appreciate your work at tracking down useful references. But I would actually find it easier to back you up if you steered clear of commenting personally about the editors who disagree with us. Not that you are the worst in that talk. It's (not surprisingly) a pretty heated talk page, and some pretty objectionable stuff has been directed at you. But it's still better to stick to the content and stay away from trying to characterize other editors' motivations. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Aquib american muslim

Resolved
 – See below. Ncmvocalist (talk)

There have been various troubles in the past (Aquib was disappointed by arbcom [52]) but [53] is the current problem: accusations of vandalism, sneaky vandalism, etc etc. Oh, and Changing the definition of Allahu akbar from God is greatest to God is great, as you well know, is to demean God in the eyes of those with Islamic beliefs. It is also a change you came upon by reviewing my edit history. In other words, you have been stalking me and attempting to provoke me. I imagine you are also insulting and provoking other muslims with your action as well. William M. Connolley (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Response
Dear editors: Please note these sequences of edits on William M. Connolley's talk page.
April 3, warning to Connolley regarding uncivil behavior
  • I create a new section warning the other editor. [54]
  • Followed by a clever and entertaining retort by user:Short Brigade Harvester Boris.[55]
  • And another by user:Stephan Schulz suggesting bad faith on my part. [56]
  • To both of which I respond. Notably, I ask for clarification regarding Schulz's remarks. [57]
  • Next, user:Cla68 steps in to agree WMC has been uncivil and explain the actions of Boris and Schulz. Thankfully, before I can respond to Schulz's provocation. [58].
  • Cla68 corrects a typo.[59]
  • I thank Cla68. [60]
  • Connolley shows up and deletes the portion of the exchange between Cla68 and myself, leaving the rest. [61]
  • And inserts in its place his own reply. [62]
  • At which point, the discussion proceeds as if nothing has happened. [63] [64]
  • An event I note with some dismay. [65]
May 14, warning to Connolley regarding sneaky vandalism
  • I create a new section warning the other editor. [66]
  • Followed by a blast from user:Stephan Schulz . [67]
  • And another by user:Short Brigade Harvester Boris explaining Connolley's actions. [68]
  • With a slight correction. [69]
  • To which I reply, noting the April 3 incident. [70]
  • A couple of other editors chime in expressing concern or confusion regarding the quality of my April 3 diff. [71] [72] [73]
  • Connolley steps in to delete my reply and subsequent discussion. [74]
  • Next he inserts his own reply. [75]
  • Leaving this tidied up discussion for us to see [76]
Conclusion
  1. Connolley routinely employs deceptive practices on his talk page, which is guarded by Boris and Schulz. When you challenge Connolley's actions, you are first attacked by these other two editors, then Connolley comes in to slant the discussion to his advantage by means of selective editing. This approach to discussion undermines the principles under which we operate, leading to the intimidation of other editors who wish to discuss issues on his talk page, and the eventual abandonment of attempts at discussion. It is an elaborate defense mechanism constructed in order to undermine the operation of our policies.
  2. Connolley has been sanctioned in the past,[77], and identified as the perpetrator of acts such as posting the home addresses of other editors on the Internet. He has been identified as a member of a tag team which has colluded in order to control articles. He has been confirmed as having perpetrated multiple acts on incivility.
  3. As demonstrated above, he continues to employ deceptive practices in order to attain his objectives. He has not turned over a new leaf, he has simply continued to hone his skills and turned his attention away from Climate change (where he is banned), and towards Islam.
  4. There is no presumption of good faith. For Connolley, appearances are sufficient evidence in and of themselves. Sneaky vandalism. For the matter at hand, I stand behind my statements on his talk page.[78] He needs to be banned from Wikipedia.
Aquib (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I admit that it's impossible to see my edit here as anything other than aggressively uncivil. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for my unintentional wording regarding your reply on May 14. Your response on April 3, however, speaks for itself. [79]
Aquib, there's only one conclusion here: you need to back off. Seriously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
FPS, please elaborate. -Aquib (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Spurious vandalism allegations continue [80] William M. Connolley (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I just gave him an alert on his talkpage here about that. To be fair, at least one of your postings could use a little bit more...tact though. For example, saying you don't want the template because it is green or ugly (it might be there is some special significance attached to the color and why it was selected for the template or why it appears that way, so that could be viewed as offensive, particularly if an user does not have the strongest grasp of what it is you hopefully intended by that message). Instead, if you said it's redundant due to the other template, the green adds no further value to the article, that template is unnecessary for every article in the topic, and it doesn't improve the appearance of the article (in your view), I suspect nafSadh may have responded a little more positively, even in the face of disagreement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I just have a thought, “When I'm editing some religion related article, I shall be more careful and less nosy”. I think, my fellow, William M. Connolley may think in the same way. While talking, Aquib can think about being bit less rude as well (be careful while calling some edit vandalism). Let us just be cool. All we care mostI guess is about improving WP.--is nafSadh nosy? 15:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Spurious assertions of "attacks on the Islamic religion" continue [81]. Do you think that is acceptable? Is it OK for Aquib to retreat behind the shield of "Respekt Mah Religion" every tmie someone makes an edit he doesn't like? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Explain this one, then, Connolley. After you were warned. [82]-Aquib (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I think this one is abusive edit --is nafSadh nosy? 15:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you need to grow a thicker skin. I'm sure if you politely point William to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines_and_their_adherents, he'll stick to it. I assume that you are aware that this capitalization rule is by no means universal, and that it's quite common to spell adjectives like [C|c]hristian, [B|b]uddhist, and [M|m]uslim in lower case? See WP:AGF. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Yep, as far as I could see, "Muslim" isn't a proper noun so doesn't get a capital. Which the edit summary explains, in abbreviated form. Happily, the next edit in the sequence [83] corrects me. Nafsadh: if you wondered, why didn't you ask? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
According to dictionaries in my hand (Oxford ALD 5/e, Longman DoCE 5/e etc.) Muslim is n and adj spelled as Muslim (M in caps); and they capitalize only when proper.
May be “it's quite common to spell adjectives like [C|c]hristian, [B|b]uddhist, and [M|m]uslim in lower case” but it is standard to use caps. And why shall we edit Buddhist → buddhist? not to mention: default Firefox always forces me to capitalize them
Dear, Connolley I mentioned (or asked) here.
I DEMAND THAT MY NAME IS SPELLED CORRECTLY. I CONSIDER IGNORING ENDING ‘H’ FROM MY NAME AS PROFANE. (yes I'm yelling) and prefer it to be written as nafSadh - ‘n’ in lower case and ‘S’ in cap --is nafSadh nosy? 16:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
My apologies; I've added the h I missed. In turn, I would ask you to read this William M. Connolley (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
My apologies too, Dr Connolley. I did not know that, where your come from, referring to someone by their surname only is impolite and thought that using surname only (as I did not know your title) is OK. Later, I'll try to mention you as WMC or Dr Connolley. Thanks for the ‘h’ ;-) --is nafSadh nosy? 07:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Aquib: Vandalism is the deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia by blanking of a page, or insertion of obscenities or patent nonsense. Good faith attempts to improve an article - even if wrong - should never be labeled as vandalism. Please don't make accusations of vandalism unless you're sure it qualifies. I didn't examine each diff carefully, but what I did see did not qualify as vandalism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

AQFK thank you for your comment. I agree the term vandalism does not specifically apply. My claim is the edits in question are examples of Sneaky vandalism. If you would review the edits in question, by Connelly, including this one which was executed after he was warned, I would be interested in hearing your opinion. -Aquib (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Would you care to provide a diff of the "warning"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Certainly. [84] I believe you have seen it before. -Aquib (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I saw it. Let's just say that it does not look like a warning to me, nor does it point out any problem with capitalisation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
As to whether that is a warning or not; I will let others be the judge, if you don't mind. As to the capitalization incident not being included in the warning, that incident occurred after the warning. -Aquib (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it highly uncivil to make such a fuss about the correct spelling of your own user name (which was clearly an error) and then to apparently deliberately ignore William M. Connolley's request about the use of his user name. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe if you review the discussion, you will find I have made no fuss at all over the spelling of my name. Nor am I certain what to make of the op's request. I am an American. My president is often referred to by his last name. Nor does my country bestow titles. Nor would any public figure in my country raise such a question in public discourse. Nor does this request conform to WP:MOS. -Aquib (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

While we are having this nice discussion, here is an example of what Connolley has been doing. Emptying the links out of the Hadith template. This would be funny if it weren't so sad. -Aquib (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand that he cleaned up the template by removing redundant links that all lead to the same page? This is what we do in a Wiki, editing pages to improve them. We don't always all agree which way is better - that's when we start discussing things in good faith. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you or Connelley understand there used to be articles for these hadith terminology? For instance, there was an article for Mursal hadith, and the template pointed to it. Then someone came along and redirected the article. Badly. Then Connolley came through and deleted the link because it was redundant. So now, all the information on hadith sciences in that template is lost. The clues that I followed to find this fact are lost. There is no indication it might once have pointed to a freestanding article. So all that work by all those people has been swept under the rug with a few strokes of the keyboard, when someone who actually cared about the material might have someday figured out it was originally bungled or vandalized and recovered it. That is what we do here? No. Perhaps that is what you and Connolley do here, but it is not what we do here. -Aquib (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Another example of Connolley's work on Islamic articles today. Takes Hadith of Umar's ban on hadith from 12k to 5 k. [85] Must not have been important. -Aquib (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As a case in point, that seems absolutely fine. It's a very poor article as it is with a lot of unsourced opnion and unencyclopedic phraseology ("Abu Hurayra was a very gregarious and a garrulous man"). Most of what he took out were lengthy quotes from the hadith. Quoting like that is contrary to WP:LONGQUOTE. Your objections, particularly the baseless accusations of vandalism, suggest you are not familiar enough with Wikipedia policies. DeCausa (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
You are correct on both counts. First, I should have looked at this Hadith of Umar's ban on hadith article before I listed it. It needed trimming. Second, I am not very familiar with Wikipedia policies.
On the other hand, for example, I have clearly demonstrated that Connolley edits conversations on his talk page to put himself in a better light. I have pointed out the obvious, that he decapitalized one occurrence of the word Muslim in the Muslim article. So I have proven my claims about Connolley's deceptive practices and sneaky vandalism.
Aquib (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Aquib, you've been told numerous times that your charge of "vandalism" is bogus. Continuing to make this charge is a personal attack. If I hear you using the term "sneaky vandalism" once more, you're blocked. Have I made myself clear? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Concur. Changing "Muslim" to "muslim" is wrong, but it's not vandalism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not even wrong, it's a matter of style. Wikipedia's style is to capitalize adjectives derived from the names of major religions, but that's not universal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know where you went to school, but here in the US we're taught that proper nouns are supposed to be capitalized, and judging from the articles I've read from new webs sites from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc., this seems to be universal across English-speaking cultures. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I went to school in Germany, where we capitalize all nouns and only nouns (and the first word of a sentence). However, "Muslim" in the context in question was used as an adjective, not as a noun, and hence also not as a proper noun. Hence the general rule for proper nouns did not apply. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems I have come to the end of my road here in one regard. However, I have not heard any comments on my claim of deceptive practices employed by Connolley on his talk page. -Aquib (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
WMC is entitled to delete material from his talk page whenever he wants. It is, frankly, none of your business. Also, you have been repeatedly asked to stop referring to him by his last name alone, which, in English, comes across as quite impolite. You seem to be doing it on purpose in order to provoke. Stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I was edit conflicted making much the same response. I would add that accusing a user of "deception" is a strong personal attack and wrong in this case. You've admitted that you are not familar enough with policies. IMHO this thread shows that your biggest omission is WP:Assume good faith which you should read carefully. DeCausa (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
DeCausa, you are correct again. Good Faith is the central question, as I stated in my original response. -Aquib (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Aquib: AFAIK, users are allowed a great deal of latitude in controlling their own talk pages. So, I don't think that WMC has violated any rules as far as his talk page goes. However, this isn't WP:ANI, it's WP:Wikiquette alerts (Note: I have no idea why this is appearing in bold-face. I enclosed it in square brackets so it should appear as a WikiLink.) I guess if there's something on this page Wikipedia:Etiquette, it would be within this board's remit to examine it. However, the easiest course of action is one of these two:
a) Learn to live with the fact that WMC may remove any post to his talk page that he wants.
b) Don't post to his talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
AQFK, thank you for your suggestions. They have merit. Unfortunately, it seems many, or most, of our procedures for the resolution of disputes require the use of other editor's talk pages. -Aquib (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I will now bandage my numerous wounds, and consider the possibility of an appeal. An appeal regarding the question of user conduct on talk pages, and its role in the assumption of good faith. There is an elephant in our collective living room. I am not certain whether I am prepared to bring a step ladder with me, every time I come and go, in order to climb over it - while pretending it is not there.

Aquib (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no appeal. This isn't a place to obtain sanctions/punishment against a user - see top of the page. There are other places for that such as AN/I or a RfC/U. This is a just place to get comment/input/advice from the community - not action. DeCausa (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps some might view it differently. -Aquib (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Well...they would be wrong. NW (Talk) 01:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we mark this one as resolved. I don't think it is, truely - I doubt anyone reading AAM's comment of 15:33, 17 May 2011 could - but at the same time its got about as far as it is going to go, and in particular FPAS's comment of 12:10, 17 May 2011 is adequate to resolve the immediate problem William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Incivil edit summaries from User:Varlaam

Hi,

User:Varlaam edited Meryn Cadell to describe Cadell as a woman. I reverted Varlaam's edit, citing WP:NPOV. Admittedly, I could have given a more detailed edit summary and/or explained the edit on the article talk page. Varlaam went ahead and reverted my edit, this time with an edit summary reflecting that they are editing in order to push a particular POV. After that, I went ahead and reworded the article once more to eliminate implication that Cadell was a woman before he came out publicly as a trans man. I also included an explanation on the article talk page of why, in order to be NPOV, we need to not push a particular point of view that says that trans people are the gender they were assigned at birth.

Varlaam ignored the talk page discussion and made a second revert, this time with a dismissive and hostile edit summary as well.

I'm posting here to ask for help. I would like it if User:Varlaam would discuss the conflict rather than just reverting unilaterally, but they have ignored what I felt to be a clear request to do so. From the block log, I see that this user has been blocked five times before, mostly for WP:CIVIL violations.

Thanks in advance for any advice you can give. SparsityProblem (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any significant incivility, more like edit warring. I'll watch the page for awhile and see if it continues. Gerardw (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Alphathon

While there doesn't seem to be that much activity on the Article page, the talk page linked above is where I am referring to. No one is disputing edits, but rather this goes into personal attacks. If I was adding my own references in, I could see where that would be valid as something I am doing wrong, but I am only trying to use these links that I put to my site as example that something did happen because I was there, not source/fact -- and I don't even exactly want them in the article either so I don't care. I have asked this editor to recently "STOP" with simply prefixing it with WP:CTDAPE. I don't want to answer all of this persons questions about what my plans are because in doing so I would both spend time and relinquish that idea prematurely. I have already personally Been Bold and made a few changes so that the attacks/outages/failures of the devices are more easily found which I'm sure will not get little if no objections over thanks to this user's help. I just feel like he may be crossing a line. Someone neutral needs to give this article a look over anyway just to help in keeping it just that. Mnemnoch (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Two editors, Alphathon and Escape Orbit, have told you on the talk page that your contributions are hard to follow. Additionally, I'm not following what you're saying above... I don't want to answer all of this persons questions about what my plans are because in doing so I would both spend time and relinquish that idea prematurely.? I don't know what that means. Furthermore, accusing another editor of WP:CTDAPE shows a lack of good faith. If there are specific statements your consider incivil, please use WP:DIFFs. My advice is to continue discussing on the talk page and use short, simple sentences. Finally, reminder that bold is good but it's only the beginning of WP:BRD -- if another editor has questions about an editors bold edits, they have an obligation to discuss before proceeding. Gerardw (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to explain what I mean by that statement. I mean that I'll come back to it at a later time, when I have time, to write out the explanations, guidelines, etc, to finish what my idea is and put it into motion. At the moment, it's a raw idea I have, I've barely begun documenting it and I just simply can't give him the answer he wants. I acknowledged his initial remarks about my idea, but then attacked me in detail for not giving him more than a 10 word reply -- What have you done before? I hope you don't mean you have "created a sorting method for X" because if you did, to put it simply, you were in violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy and would be again if you did so now. I haven't stated what I did because I don't want to. The response for this was uncalled for.
Yes, I acknowledge that some of my commentary is difficult for most to follow. It's with good intentions. When I get remarks like, Either you are making no sense or your choice of words is appalling, because what you have written is as clear as mud. as well as remarks such as, The very fact you are using your own company's blog as evidence for something that is counter to the official position and what is reported by various reliable sources (and so is likely to fall under WP:Fringe) is astounding, but to then turn round and call the PS blog "unverifiable"… there are just no words., it's very discouraging to even discuss, let alone edit an article, regardless if I enjoy the product or not.
Staying on point for both replies to this so far, I already stated I'm not trying to get my work added. I don't care about that. It was just simply used as a point to show that it did happen and I personally documented it during the event occurring.
I do hope with this clarification you can see why I feel like specifically out of WP:CTDAPE, when you interpret it read as act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles...that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles. I really don't mind contributing, and you'll see I've contributed a lot to this particular article. But the personal attacks are trying my patience and should not have ventured into professional life in any way whatsoever. Mnemnoch (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
This also falls in-line with Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely. -- This clearly has happened in this talk page when he begins to explain the nature of business. Mnemnoch (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
If you feel you have been outed in some way follow the procedure at WP:OUTING. Gerardw (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate it. Mnemnoch (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you're reading too much into what I said; none of what I said was an intended as an attack and nor is it directed at you personally - everything said is directed at your posts and/or arguments, not you.
In the first case, you were pretty ambiguous as to what you goal was, so I was just trying to say that if you were planning to assign values to something that isn't based on a source, it would be OR, and so shouldn't be on Wikipedia. (Specifically I think this would be synthesis.) I don't really care what it is you specifically plan to do, and I didn't ask for specifics, it's just that if your plan involves creating a sorting method or metric or whatever, then it's probably OR. I just don't want you to be violating policy (the policy is there for a reason).
I can see how you might think that my "clear as mud" comment was also an attack, and I apologise for how I worded it. I posted that reply at ≈5:20am (my time, UTC+1), so my writing head probably wasn't performing at its best.
With regard to the sources comment, the way you worded the bit I was replying to it made it seem as if you were discounting my argument based on the fact it was from the PS blog. That post (from the PS blog) was a reply to your post where you try to back up your interpretation by quoting your own blog, (as I said, based on your comments it seems that you were the author of the post). As such, I think pointing that out is entirely justified. Again, perhaps I worded it poorly, but my intention was for you to provide a better source for your argument, not discourage you from editing.
You certainly seem to be acting in good faith and I have no desire to drive away anyone who wants to aid Wikipedia. I am simply trying to show you that, as far as I can tell, you are mistaken, and why I think that is the case. If you can show me that you are right, I will concede, but when your only source seems to be your blog, you cannot do that.
"I already stated I'm not trying to get my work added." What you said on the talk page implied heavily that you wanted to either create an overarching article about "all" PSN outages to make them easier to find, or convert the existing one to that end. In order for this to happen, theret has to have been more than one outage, which, as far as I can tell, isn't the case. All I am asking is that you provide some evidence for your position that the 2010 thing was an outage. Otherwise, there is only one to document and so such an overview article would be pointless.
"But the personal attacks are trying my patience and should not have ventured into professional life in any way whatsoever."
I haven't once attacked you personally, and didn't venture into your professional life. The only reason your profession (not the same as your professional life) is mentioned is because you used your company's blog as a source to back up your interpretation. If I had used your profession to suggest that you were wrong, that would have been personal attack, but I didn't do that. I said that:
  • your company's blog is not a news site, be it mainstream, gaming or technology based, and isn't part of the gaming industry, so is not a valid source to back up your claims. Likewise, my site (I work in the photography industry mostly) wouldn't be either. This is neither an attack on you or your company, it is just a fact. However, if what you were talking about was web design, that might have been a valid site to quote (if it weren't yours).
  • you cannot back up your argument by quoting yourself (unless your argument is about what you said) - quoting your company blog is essentially that.
The way you linked to it to begin with was fine (although to try to use it to prove that it happened is a bit iffy) - the problem arose when you quoted the blog in order to back up your view. To put it simply, when you did that you essentially seemed to be saying "I'm right because I held the same view in the past". Even if you hadn't done that though, I use the same metric to determine what is a valid source in discussions as Wikipedia does for articles. If your source isn't any good for the article, it shouldn't be used to defend your view on the talk page (with some exceptions). If you can't find another source, maybe you're wrong.
I can understand why you might think I was attacking you, but I can assure you I was not. All I did was say you are unclear, and point out that your argument for the 2010 "outage" was flawed and not backed up by the evidence, neither of which is a personal attack. Perhaps if I hadn't replied at 5:20am I would have worded it better, and I accept that both "appalling" and "clear as mud" may not be the most neutral words to have used, for which I apologise.
You might want to read WP:NPA#WHATIS before proceeding, as that outlines what is considered a personal attack, which, as far as I can tell, I have not done. The only thing I can possibly think of is "outing", but WP:OUTING clearly states that it does not apply because you voluntarily posted the info on your user page (I wasn't outing the info merely talking about it). Likewise, if someone were to mention that I am Scottish or am from Elgin, that wouldn't be outing, since I have freely posted the info on my user page.
Incidentally, this is the third reply I have tried to make to this - both previous times I was met with an edit conflict, so had to re-jig my reply to fit the new text. As such, if I seem to be referencing something that I haven't said or am a little incoherent please don't hesitate to point it out (not that you should anyway).
Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid the Corporation's nature of business other than "technology" has not ever been released on Wikipedia until you documented it. I release that and only that on my talk page as of today but I'm sorry to say anything beyond "technology", be it a term, phrase, et al., is strictly confidential unless you are a client. You taking reliance upon anything that's written on the website is at your own risk, as stated in the Terms of Use for even getting on the website...and then it continues as most of the unbridled commentary I have received from Alphathon does.
I asked you a question in the beginning of our dialogue that you never answered. "Should I create a sandbox for references and point to that when in discussion instead?" If you didn't understand me, you could have asked. Instead, I receive seemingly extremely critical remarks towards statements I've made in the same manner you've done them on this very page, nitpicking what I've said and wasting time on minute details, now yourself bordering on WP:TLDR. I've had enough. This is not about what any subject, context, dialogue is about, it's about the etiquette. Mnemnoch (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
"I'm afraid the Corporation's nature of business other than "technology" has not ever been released on Wikipedia until you documented it."
Perhaps, but stating info about a company is in no way the same as outing of personal info, especially when that info is "what the company does". At a stretch it could be considered private company data, but that is certainly not the same thing as personal info. Incidentally, would you consider it outing if someone posted it on a Wikipedia article about the company (with your website as the source) or someone was talking about the company independently of you (i.e. you were not involved in the conversation)? Apart from anything else, the way in which I used it had nothing to do with you personally - I was using it to show that the site couldn't be considered reliable source for what you were claiming. If you really care about it that much though I'm willing to remove it regardless of "outing" status (see below).
"I asked you a question in the beginning of our dialogue that you never answered. "Should I create a sandbox for references and point to that when in discussion instead?""
I do not recall seeing that, so I may have missed it/skimmed over it/whatever. Maybe I was busy at the time, I don't know. In all likelihood I skimmed over it and only replied to what I felt was important at the time, but forgot about it later. Looking at it now though I don't think it would have made a difference. If you wanted to do so you could have done, you didn't need my permission. Likewise you could have simply posted links on the talk page - where they were doesn't really matter.
"Instead, I receive seemingly extremely critical remarks towards statements I've made in the same manner you've done them on this very page, nitpicking what I've said and wasting time on minute details,"
Sorry, but I like to be thorough and I would hardly call what I have said nitpicking. Also, being critical is a vital part of Wikipedia and life in general - without it things become biased and false info creeps in. Being critical of someone's posts does not constitute an attack and certainly not a personal one (not that your post says that, but to me that appears to be what your issue is - you are seeing me as being "overly critical" and are reading that as attacks towards you. If I have misinterpreted the situation I apologise). If I were critical for the sake of it, then maybe I could understand it, but as far as I'm concerned everything I said was valid criticism.
"…now yourself bordering on WP:TLDR"
OK, just to clarify, when I used it before, I was more meaning that what you posted was so dense that it was hard to read; I simply used that as short hand as it is a pretty similar idea. I understand that my post is long, but I had a lot to say.
"This is not about what any subject, context, dialogue is about, it's about the etiquette."
If you are going to accuse me of personal attacks and trying to drive you off Wikipedia, then I will defend myself, and I'm not going to leave out stuff just to make the post shorter.
Anyway, I have no personal quarrel with you. I think you are wrong regarding the interpretation of the "ApocalyPS3", and I don't think it is appropriate to quote your own blog as evidence, but neither of those things means I want to attack you personally in anyway, or attack your company. Likewise, concern of possible OR following the vague description of your "plan" is concern about the "plan" itself and in no way reflects upon you. The closest I got to a personal attack as far as I can tell was using slightly exaggeratory words, which is pretty far removed from an attack, personal or otherwise. "Either you are making no sense or your choice of words is appalling, because what you have written is as clear as mud" could easily be changed to, for example, "Either what you are saying doesn't make sense or you really aren't explaining it very well, because what you have written is really not very clear" and it would mean exactly the same thing. If I had been more awake at the time I'd probably have written something more along those lines. Everything in that sentence is a statement about what you posted, nothing more, and certainly does not comment about you as a person.
In your post below, you say "Please remove [the statement about the company's "nature"]. And the tone you use in even bringing [the statement about the company's "nature"] up is considered as if it is an attack."
It is considered by whom to be an attack? From what I have read certainly not Wikipedia, so I would assume you mean yourself. Nothing in there was attacking to either you or your company. The worst things said in there were "astounding" and "… there are just no words", both of which merely indicate disbelief. If you feel it is an attack, then that is you prerogative, but it certainly wasn't intended that way, and I see no reason why it would or should be considered as such. If you really want me to remove the statement about what your company does, then I will regardless of its "outing" status" - it doesn't really matter that much - but how would you have me re-word it such that it was still relevant?
There's probably something I've missed, but it'll have to wait - it's far too late.
Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Network outage -- This is the same link, the very same one, that the PlayStation Network article leads off of when it says "offline". Please read it before trying to dig any more holes in my logic. Mnemnoch (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
WQA isn't really the place to continue the content discussion. That's best kept at the article talk page. Gerardw (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, if simply posting the nature of the company you work for is considered outing when you yourself link to your company's website (which states what the company does) on you user page, then rest assured it was unintentional. Also, I only ever mentioned your company's "nature" (can't think of a better word) in relation to using your links as sources. As such, even if this is considered outing, it would likely covered by either "Unless unintentional and non-malicious" or "once individuals have identified themselves, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums" as outlined at WP:OUTING. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Please remove it. And the tone you use in even bringing it up is considered as if it is an attack. Mnemnoch (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Replied to in above post. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Not much to add rather than to confirm that I have found it difficult to follow Mnemnoch's line of reasoning in discussions, to the extent that I often do not know what he is proposing, and what he is complaining about. The chief problem is his habit of heatedly jumping off in three directions at once, rather than address the subject in hand. I have absolutely no doubt of the good faith of all editors involved in the recent discussions, although ideas may differ, and disagree strongly anyone is being disruptive. But if Mnemnoch could calm down and focus his discussion on one subject at a time it would be less confusing to all. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Why are you even here EscapeOrbit? I didn't notify you. Mnemnoch (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
[[86]] Gerardw (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I've said more than enough here. I don't want this user talking to me anymore. It's clear that he is combative and has absolutely no regard for his tone towards others. He's beyond annoying me now and I'm not reading everything he has to say because I don't want to, it's too long and I have better things to work on. I bring this attention to the matter of the Wikiquette alerts section because I was following guidelines. Regardless of what I say, he's going to pick apart whatever I say and convolute it to a point where even I don't understand. Why bother? Please escalate this to an Admin. Mnemnoch (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I have yet to see any evidence of wrongdoing on Alphathon's part, and they've been more than cooperative in discussing the issue and apologizing for any poor word choices. Posting your company info on your user page User:Mnemnoch#About_Me and calling a reference to it OUTING is unreasonable. If you wish to escalate this to WP:ANI, you can, but I don't think it will be received well there. Gerardw (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This is mainly for the record, since Mnemnoch has clearly stated that he doesn't intned to read what I write. Any discussion where one party is unwilling to listen to another is doomed to failure.
Mnemnoch has made several serious allegations against me, namely WP:CTDAPE, WP:NPA and WP:OUTING which are completely unsubstantiated. This could be construed as a personal attack on me by Mnemnoch† and this seemingly has far more basis than his allegations. However, I believe that Mnemnoch is acting in good faith and is not intentionally attacking me, but simply misunderstands what constitutes a personal attack and outing (I'm not sure about CTDAPE though, since it hasn't really been discussed at length).
Mnemnoch seems to be offended by me being critical of his posts, which while not unusual and totally their prerogative, is an essential part of both Wikipedia and life in general and certainly does not constitute an attack. I have apologised for any poorly chosen words that may have been misconstrued as attacks or even if they are considered rude, and as a show of good faith I have agreed to remove the company's "nature" if Mnemnoch is willing to discuss how to do so effectively (or even if I can figure it out on my own), regardless of its "outing" status.
I really don't know what else I can say, so I wish you all well (Mnemnoch included) and hope no one else falls foul of something like this in the future (from anyone, not just Mnemnoch).
^† per WP:NPA#WHATIS, quote: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence."
Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Al-Andalusi

We have a dispute at Avicennism about whether the article should be redirected or not. The problems are similar to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Aquib_american_muslim and indeed partly stem from the same Jagged85 issues. In particular there are the same spurious claims of vandalism [87] and we also have good-faith attempts to discuss the issues on the talk page dismissed as "ranting" [88].

I have notified Al-A of the problems [89] but judging by [90], a happy response is unlikely. There is also some canvassing [91] and a bad-faith attempt to mislead (you'll see that the redirect is indeed open for discussion, contrary to Al-A's claims).

William M. Connolley (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

ps: in the light of the previous report on AAM, some somewhat surreal comments by him [92] might be worth scrutiny William M. Connolley (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks by Mbz1

Stuck
 – See comments below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1 and I edit in some of the same areas, including DYK and (formerly, before she was topic-banned) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Today, as part of a run through DYK, I reviewed and declined an article she had created and nominated. Some changes were thereafter made to the article, but I did not think that they had corrected the problems I had noticed previously, and so, explaining my reasoning, I again declined the nomination. What followed was a vitriolic personal attack, a selection from which is "...user:Roscelese who is very much involved with me over content dispute, who hates me personally, who is now angrier than ever with me because her bad faith AfD of my other article is failing desperately..."

This is only the latest in a string of attacks on me by this user. A limited selection:

Mbz1's personal attacks on other users were a large part of what led to her topic ban, so she's clearly aware of Wikipedia's NPA policy if she wasn't before. This latest comment, as well as a frivolous WQA report she filed after I declined her DYK, show that it is a continuing problem.

I'd like to have Mbz1 cautioned against personal attacks and reminded to assume good faith. I understand that it's disappointing to have a DYK declined, or to have someone disagree with you in a particularly contentious topic area, but it's something plenty of users experience and somehow manage to avoid going nuclear on other users. Fewer personal attacks make Wikipedia a safer environment for everyone.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

While the content above is reasonable, this isn't the best place. WQA (which admittedly we do a poor job of explaining) is best suited to peaceable, mutually agreeable resolution of specific incidents between editors. You (Rosecelese) could draw up a WP:RFCU using the available information. And you certainly have every right to respond to comments about you. However, my advice would be to totally ignore all invalid statements (and refrain from long back and forth threads, as above). Personally, I find it to be far less work and aggravation. Gerardw (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Mbz1's antics are far, far past the point where the largely-ineffective WQA process could be of any use. RfC/U is pretty much a necessity by now. Tarc (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
What can I tell? This entire page, Wikiquette alerts, should be deleted as only inflaming unnecessary passions, and RFCU do not serve any purpose except creating battlegrounds. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
This is actually quite unbelievable.The user retaliated to my post above by filing a bogus request with the differences taken from more than a months, and with some that have been already used against me in AE case.
Than a user, who is involved with me adds "stuck" for this bogus request that was clearly made in retaliation.
It would have been even funny, if it were not so sad, but of course it my bad. I forgot who frequents such boards.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Unless you already know it, WP:RFC/U is an ugly ritual when people through dirt on each other and make irresponsible statements to collect materials for a future arbitration. My best advice for everyone: do not file RFC/U requests and do not comment at such requests. If someone filed such request about you, make a short statement admitting your fault (there is always your fault if someone submitted such request), promise to improve, and indeed improve your behavior. However, never even mention other users in your response. That's the key.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Mbz1, which tag would you like put on the alert? Gerardw (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to put the tag that the filer is warned against failing WQA in order to retaliate. It is the only tag that belongs to this bogus request. After all this board name include the word "alerts". "Alerts" should be filed about something that is happening now, and not about something that happened more than a month ago! It is very sad that nobody sees how sickening this request is.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
That some people do not share your personal definition of "involvement", or indeed "sickening" is not entirely unpredictable. This dispute was stuck because there has been no resolution, and until now, nobody mentioned anything about the diffs being stale up until you actually responded. Using your words, some might say that you're too "involved" to be remotely impartial on your roles in these disputes, that you should make a greater effort to appreciate what others have been trying to tell you, and avoid engaging in the behavior that others find so "sickening" (to the point that people aren't willing to attempt to resolve your disputes in the early steps in DR). Maybe...just maybe...you should take the hint. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
For the record, no, this wasn't retaliatory; after gently warning the user against making personal attacks at the time she made this one, I suggested dealing with it in the report above since we were already at WQA, but since she declined to do so, I filed my own report. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • ncmvocalist , your closure of this request that was made with the only purpose to retaliate, that was made from the differences collected from more than a month ago with some of them that were used at AE request against me already is disgusting! Your restoring of your first disgusting closure is even more so. You are not the right user to comment on this board. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    • It appears the filer has responded to your assumption of bad faith; that you exacerbate the concern by continuing with this rhetoric is exactly why this is a wikiquette issue, and it leaves this to go one way or another way - stuck or stale. Even though your comments remain unsubstantiated (specifically, no diffs to support: (1) that the only purpose of this thread was to retaliate, (2) the evidence was already used at AE, and (3) that the closure was not in accordance with the other comments int his thread), I tend to think stale is more appropriate in light of the status of the diffs. But you can certainly convince enough users that stuck is more appropriate by being more disruptive so that the filer can escalate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
      Only an user, who completely lost a self respect could have requested the differences to prove that this request was made in retaliation, especially after that very user frivolously closed this request.
      But let's forget about retaliation for a moment and about the same differences that were used against me in AE thread. Let's look at this request as at independent request that is not connected to this request. The user who filed this request is not new to this board. She knows what Wikiquette alerts are for. Isn't this a "Frivolous waste of time" to file a request with the differences taken from more than a month ago? Would you,ncmvocalist, close this request the way you did, if it was not filed against me? Not to say that the user (ncmvocalist) who is involved with me should not have closed any of the request concerning me at all.
      I could only repeat what I said: Your closure of both requests this one and that one is disgusting.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
      • No, I would have made the same closing if another user was involved. I don't consider this WQA a mere frivolous time because this was 4 days ago (where similar unwarranted allegations were made) and has been cited at the beginning of this WQA. Other diffs from March are merely showing a pattern of behavior over an extended period of time which you apparently fail to acknowledge as problematic. Your continued failure to produce evidence to substantiate your allegations (in line with my most recent comment in this thread) and your continued use of this inappropriate rhetoric seems to be an indication that this dispute is ongoing, with further unwarranted allegations likely to be made in the future. Consequently, in line with my previous comment, I have marked this as stuck and should the filer encounter any further behavior of the nature cited in this thread, the parties know which step of dispute resolution to escalate to as this venue is clearly unable to address it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
        So you see your purpose here as houndindg an editor contributions that were not even reported here by the filer, take them out of content, and bring them to justify your disgusting closure? Guess what you did not hound my contributions good enough. For example you've missed on this one, in which I myself removed my statement you are not happy about. Disgusting!--Mbz1 (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
        People don't get a pat on the back for removing personal attacks that they should not have made in the first place, sorry. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1's last set of inappropriate allegations/remarks here @ 14:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC) included: "So you see your purpose here as houndindg an editor contributions that were not even reported here by the filer, take them out of content, and bring them to justify your disgusting closure? Guess what you did not hound my contributions good enough...Disgusting!" Had Mbz1 absorbed what was written in this WQA, she may have avoided furthering the concerns about her conduct/interactions, as the contributions were reported by the filer from the third line of the complaint onwards here @ 03:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC): "What followed was a vitriolic personal attack...." Ncmvocalist (talk)

I apologized to Ncmvocalist for mistakenly accusing him of hounding my contributions. I did not see the difference user:Roscelese presented outside of the list, but my opinion about closing of this WQA and WQA the same stays the same: Both wqa itself and its closing are disgusting:
  1. WQA was clearly filed as retaliation. No reasonable person could deny this fact.
  2. All but one differences are more than a month old, with some of them that were used against me in AE case.user:Roscelese is well aware about this because she commented on this AE case.
  3. The only new difference presented here was removed by me before this post was made, and should not have been reported here.
  4. user:Roscelese is being disingenuousness, when she claims I made DYK comment in response to her second decline of my absolutely valid hook. I made my comment because of the way she declined it. In her decline she made an absolutely unwarranted and absolutely false accusation:"Oh look, one of Mbz1's buddies pops up again to approve a severely flawed article. Fancy that.".BTW the article was not "severely flawed". As a matter of fact it was not "flawed" at all.
And here's the difference between user:Roscelese and me. When I realised Ncmvocalist did not hound my contributions, I apologized to the user.user:Roscelese not only never apologized, but she removed a more than polite message, in which the editor explained to her why they are not my "buddy" with edit summary "rv harassment", and then she reported me on WQA. Disgusting!--Mbz1 (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The real difference is that what Roscelese stated was not untrue. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Incivil conduct by William M. Connolley's Racial remarks

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – discuss content at talk page Gerardw (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.


Connolley seems to reverting all of my hard work even if it is right. He is not contributing rather inputung WP:RSN which is not a reliable source. Currently my reverted amazon book isnt in Quran and science. I dont want to edit war.please look at the logic behind this revert

Allegations against Connolley

i) Racial Remarks againt me - "... I suspect he isn't an native speaker" [93]

ii) Connolley has been sanctioned in the past,[94], and identified as the perpetrator of acts such as posting the home addresses of other editors on the Internet. He has been identified as a member of a tag team which has colluded in order to control articles. He has been confirmed as having perpetrated multiple acts on incivility. As demonstrated above, he continues to employ deceptive practices in order to attain his objectives. He has not changed his behaivior, he has continued to sharpened his skills and turned his attention away from Climate change (where he is banned), and towards Islam. This proves that he doenst have good faith. I recommend him to be banned from Islam related articles.

As we would all agree it takes lot of hard work and time to research and produce an article. Please add your remarks regarding my concern. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

While WMC has had some difficulties here, I just don't see his wondering if English is your first language as an insult in any way. Perhaps in reviewing your sentence structure and syntax he simply wondered if a language other than English was your native tongue? I don't wish to put words in anyone's mouth, I'm simply suggesting one possible rationale here. I'm sorry, but I simply don't see anything worthy of sanction here. Perhaps it would be best to discuss any changes on the article talk page(s) and attempt to find a consensus for any proposed changes. That is the first step in resolving any disputes in what should and should not be changed on an article. I seriously doubt in reading the thread that any slight or insult was intended here. Best of luck in your future endeavors. — Ched :  ?  03:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Ched. The problem is that it is a delicate issue. If he says he can't understand you because of how you're typing, then that could be offensive to people who don't speak English very well, and really are trying their best (I actually don't know if you do, so that might be you). It's hard to bring up, really. Maybe it could have been mentioned in a little better way, but not much. It's a difficult situation. I would say to try talking to him, and see if you can resolve it on Talk pages. If it escalates, bring it back here.
Homo Logica (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
(i) Language ≠ race. Conflating the two is not helpful at all.
(ii) Seriously? WMC has been "identified as the perpetrator of acts such as posting the home addresses of other editors on the Internet"? By Arbcom even? (You are not saying this explicitly, but it's implied by the link that you are providing.) I could find no proof of this very serious accusation anywhere in the Arbcom case to which you linked. To quote WP:NPA#WHATIS: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." If this wasn't a lie, I expect to see a proof for this claim.
In general, see WP:BOOMERANG. Hans Adler 04:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Whatever WMC may or may not have done in the past, he has no case to answer here. As for the edits you are trying to insert you really need to read and understand WP:RS, because it does not seem that you have a very good grip of the principle here. Had I been following the article in question I would have reverted you for the same reasons WMC did. It does not matter how much work you put into it, it does not matter what you think is "right", on Wikipedia we only care what the sources say. - Nick Thorne talk 05:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the various replies. I'd just add that I haven't got a clue what identified as the perpetrator of acts such as posting the home addresses of other editors on the Internet is supposed to mean (I understand the accusation, of course, but not why anyone would think I would be guilty of it). If any o you folk who have posted in this section would care to address the section above, that would be useful William M. Connolley (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Absurd as it may seem, I think this will become the standard denialist interpretation of pointing to the SEPP tax form (that showed the NIPCC report to be written by SEPP) which contained Singer's address. Of course, as far as I know, Singer is not a Wikipedia editor, and the document is in the public domain anyways, but them's the breaks.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Tauhidaerospace tries hard but I believe needs mentoring. He uses talk pages but then, even though several editors have explained our policies and guidelines to him, ignores them and continues to revert/insert text that doesn't meet our guidelines and policies. Unfortunately sooner or later if this continues I think he will end up blocked, indeed I may end up requesting a block for editwarring if no other solutions presents itself - perhaps an RfC? He doesn't understand that he needs to get consensus, not just post to article and editor's talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I should add that I count at least 6 editors reverting him. If he doesn't agree to abide by consensus and not to insert text without consensus, I will report him. Dougweller (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
So, we have 7 editors edit-warring? Is that ideal conduct? If you report Tauhidaerospace, please be sure to report any other prolific edit warriors.
Also, if this goes to ANI, I'd like to be notified of the discussion on my talk page. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
If you could stop trouble-making, that would be good. And learning what edit-warring is would help you too William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Note also that T persists in rewriting the article talk page (e.g. [95]) despite requests for him to stop William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


I have tagged the edit by differentiating its materials kept and added in the talk page. my greater concern is for the creditibility of wikidepidia; the reason is For example when an atheist have his first glance at Qur'an and Science and Science and the Bible. the difference he would notice is that the Bible and science after 5 pages of doesnt even have Criticism for consistence section while the Qur'an and science does. This would however does not meet WP:NPOV. Every one is not an expert in every field. Maybe a wiki project can be started. My intention is to improve an article which is relatively already very small thus improving Wikipedia creditability. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, the point of this page is to discuss etiquette issues, not to continue content disputes. I suggest that you take the content dispute back to the article talk page or at the WP:NPOV/N. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not just a content issue. The reverted edit that T complains about was inserting a copyvio. Compare it to this August 2000 source (which itself reads as a copy of an even earlier source, either misidentified or now offline). Edit warring to insert a copyvio against general consensus may be beyond wikiquette, but it certainly is not just a content dispute.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It's definitely not a WQA issue. The consensus seems to be no evidence of significant protocol violation by WMC. Can this be closed? Gerardw (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think we can close it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:19, 24 May 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.

Incivil edit summary by User:Tbhotch

Following his reassessment of the Pawn Stars article, I tried to start a discussion with User:Tbhotch on his Talk Page, asking him in what way he felt the article did not reasonably cover the topic, or contains obvious omissions or inaccuracies.

I questioned or disagreed with his rationale, pointing out inconsistencies with other articles that he pointed to for comparison, and that some of his assertions about the Pawn Stars article were untrue as a question of fact. He reversed his reassessment, but with the following incivil edit summary: "Because harassing admin (yes YOU) apparently won't stop this". If someone could politely remind Tbhotch of both WP:CIV and WP:EDITSUM, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Why did you start the discussion on his talk page instead of the article page? Gerardw (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
(I have notified User:Tbhotch of this discussion.) Gerardw has a point. Starting the discussion at Talk:Pawn Stars would have prevented Tbhotch from simply removing your posts. Anyway, the simplest way to resolve this, Nightscream, is to let Tbhotch's minor incivility go and ask a different reviewer to provide their opinion on the article. If I were you, I would try Wikipedia:Peer review. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I told him I'm done, I told him, "if disagree with my assessment go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Nevada/Assessment", and the only thing he did was go again to my talkpage again and continue with the same. The reason I used that pointy summary was to stop his harass. I'm not going to follow this. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 19:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
And you shouldn't follow it. It's trivial and ridiculous to bring it here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Generally speaking, just not replying is a very good way to end someone's posting on your talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardw (talk • contribs) 19:54, 24 May 2011

Incivil insult by User:Cyperuspapyrus

Could you take some action regarding this incivil insults?--Oleola (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea, that's over the top. Left warning on user's talk page. Gerardw (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Blofeld

Some interesting edit summaries from Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) after he removed notability tags inserted by two independent editors from an article about a random pub in Montevideo. [96][97] [98]. I think this user needs to be reminded about some of our basic policies.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Before you get off on your civil high horse Mr. Maunus, when you make fucktarded responses like this and this and your comment "from my viewpoint your crusade to indiscrimimnately include all information in the world in the encyclopedia degrades wikipedia and does nothing to improve it." then it is clear that you are the one in need of a reminder of our policies. To assume good faith and to work with people in a spirit of collaboration. The way you addressed the article came down to nothing but bullying. I haven't even had two minutes to expand these articles without you slopping tags over them or two minutes to improve them before you taking them to AFD. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You will find that people will be more liklely to give you the benefit of the doubt and leeway in article creation if you adress them respectfully. It is pretty funny that you are reacting like that to me turning your own comment against you (except without expletives).·Maunus·ƛ· 17:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
One of our basic policies Maunus is that when you start a thread about another editor here at WQA you are to inform them that you have done so. You may also want to take a look at WP:FORUMSHOPPING. MarnetteD | Talk 16:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I have notified him at my own talkpage - where we were engaged in conversation. And what is your point with forum shopping? I have not posted about this in other fora - I have mentioned it to himself on his talkpage where I was told to "fuck off". He is now again calling me a "fucktard" in a Wikiquette Alert thread... This does not make sense.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I told you to "F off" of berating me with civil messages on my talk page. Also I have not directly called you a "fucktard". Rather I am saying that your behaviour of not even giving editors a chance to improve articles they create or salvage others before slopping tags and AFDs on them is against the spirit of wikipedia and fucktarded behaviour. You seem to lazily plague the website adding a plethora of tags without actually doing anything to fix problems you see yourself. Marjan Bojadziev I think meets WP:ACADEMIC and is a notable economist. If you think wikipedia is worse off and you are going to berate me for thinking we should have better coverage of countries like Macedonia and Uruguay then that's your problem. You bullied me into getting your own way over an article I create on a landmark of Montevideo by using another editors notability concern as a reason for why it should be deleted outright. I move the page to attempt writing a more productive article summary and you AFD it before i even have a chance to improve. You may think that I degrade wikipedia with the work I do on here but very few would agree with you in terms of overall article work, see User:Dr. Blofeld/DYK, even if some of my work is questionable in terms of its obscurity. I virtually always write articles which are covered in multiple reliable sources and which some may find interesting to read about. The pub perhaps is more suited to coverage in Irish Uruguayans but I resent your remarks that every bit of my work I do for wikipedia is degrading this website. Your response and treatment of me deserves this kind of response and its absolutely completely pointless in bringing this here. If you make such nasty comments and persist with your tagging multiple times and have nothing better to do than slop tags over articles you run into then other editors are not going to be very happy with you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Reply to M. First, your talk page reads that you will file one not that you have. Those are two different things and that post was made before you WQA post. The policy at the top of the WQA page reads "Notify the reported user(s). Place a short and polite statement on their talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved. You may wish to use the template {{subst:WQA-notice}} on a user's talk page". Thus, you needed to inform Blofeld that you had started the thread. As to the shopping you have a thread at WQA and an AFD going on at the same time that can be construed as FS. MarnetteD | Talk 18:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
In the course of a conversation between the two on Maunus' talk page, he said "I have filed a Wikiquette alert about your personal attacks". Whether or not a pretty little template was used on Blofeld's talk page is irrelevant. Hell, Dr. Blofeld commented in this WQA before you ever did, so it is safe to say that the message was received. As for forum-shopping... Facepalm Facepalm AfD is to dispute articles, while WQA is user conduct. Not the same. Honestly, if I were ever to file a WQA on someone, I'd be more tempted to do so over this wiki-lawyered semantic masturbation, as it is far more aggravating and disrespectful than Blofeld dropping a few f-bombs. Tarc (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say that you both need to step back for a moment, and review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.

Manus - I believe that Dr. Blofeld it objecting to WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and you not giving his articles a WP:CHANCE. Whether he is correct or not, is not a matter for WQA. This is his concern. It's a valid concern, and can be addressed in kinder ways, certainly.

Blofeld - You definitely need a review of CIVIL. Remember, Manus did whatever he did for the good of Wikipedia. He did not do it to attack you. Even had he not, it would not warrant the kind of responses that you have made here. Please remember not to make it WP:PERSONAL.

For both of you, over editing concerns, I would suggest Mediation. Remember that it isn't about winning. This is about coming to a consensus. That means concessions, and that means working together, civilly.

Homo Logica (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"This is about coming to a consensus. That means concessions, and that means working together, civilly." LOL. Do you really think comments like "from my viewpoint your crusade to indiscrimimnately include all information in the world in the encyclopedia degrades wikipedia and does nothing to improve it." and persistent tag wanking of articles and then AFDing them when somebody tries to prove them wrong and make an effort to improve them is working together and being civil? All the "Meditation" in the world is not going to prevent me from being indignant of an editor who acts like this on wikipedia. I can think of plenty of nasty things I could say about Maanus personally but I refrained from doing so. I have merely called his mindless often careless tagging of multiple articles as pointless, doing nothing to actually solve the problem, and therefore a "fucktarded operation". If people started working together and assumed good faith and he had contacted me civilly on my talk page saying I'm not sure this one is notable then we could have discussed it" then it would have been a lot more productive. But I see he has a dangerous habitat of tagging articles without doing any research.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I made the comment to both of you, not just to you, since you are having trouble working together. It's easy to be civil when the person is being civil to you as well. Takes more effort to show restraint when the person is not being civil. And yes, you have not been civil. Is it understandable? Absolutely. I might have been uncivil myself, in such situation (though, not with such colourful language :-P). However, from his perspective, his response is understandable as well. In similar circumstances, you or I may have responded in a similar way (though, not with such colourful language :-P).
That said, if I understand correctly, you're objecting to his not following WP:BEFORE. That is an understandable and valid concern. I'm saying you could have brought his attention to it in a kinder manner.
Homo Logica (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I had initially refrained from saying anything at all and being "uncivil" even though my initial reaction was to respond in regards to the pub article. It was only until I saw his careless tagging of Marjan Bojadziev without actually looking into it that I made a comment and started off a "civil" rant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs) 14:54, 25 May 2011

Yes. At that point, a kindly worded message on his Talk page, reminding him of WP:BEFORE, would have been the best response. Remember to focus on the issue, not the poster.
Homo Logica (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, what led you to the Marjan_Bojadziev article in the first place? Gerardw (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent pages patrolling lead me to both of the pages in question. I edited Marjan Bojadziev before Dr. Blofeld did so in this case it was him who followed my contribution history after having been bothered by my tagging of Shannon Irish Pub. He then obviously followed me to the Marjan Bojadziev article where he reverted my tags using an expletive about ftarded recent page patrollers. This was before we had had any other exchange. When I arrived at Marjan Bojadziev the article was a copy paste of his CV obviously made by someone from his University in Skopje - it didn't even assert notability and I could have chosen to delete it per A7 which I didn't because I thought there might still be a possibility that someone could save it if I prodded it instead. Dr. Blofeld has worked on it all day now and it is quite a bit better although I still think that the notability is questionable - for example his academic appointment doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC, and he doesn't seem to have any publications. I think the fact that he lead the chamber of commerce may show notability, but that is for the AfD to find out. In any case my tagging was not "careless" copypasting a CV and passing it for an article is. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't see anything wrong with the AFDs. With new pages backlogged a month it's not unreasonable -- if we don't have the resources to patrol pages once we don't have the resources to delete them twice. I'll note that patrolling from the back of the log would give folks less reasons to complain -- if an article is still insufficiently sourced since April it's probably not gonna be without some external stimulus. While Dr. Blofeld's responses are, in my opinion, incivil they're probably in the WP:Gray Area such that not much can done about it. Gerardw (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
"fuck off fucktard" is a grey area...·Maunus·ƛ· 02:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I never once said "fuck off fucktard" or even literally "fuck off". Its not my style. I saw that you had sloppily added tags on other articles which are within requirements but you couldn't be bothered to at least cleanup it up yourself and were content for it to be deleted. I said what sort of a f'tarded patrol is this that you had got into the habit of tagging articles without researching them for notability. Then you turned up on my talk page with an incivil rant and I simply reverted you and told you literlly to "F off" and you got the message. That was all it was and anything I've dished out at you implying you are lazy or an a-hole has been fully returned my way with interest by what you said about me only contributing junk to wikipedia and calling me an asshole at the AFD. If you want to avoid this sort of thing in future then don't add notability tags twice to start class articles when the editors just spent time working with it. Approach the editor first and indicate you believe it is not notable. My biggest disappointment in you Maunus is that you clearly have a lot of potential to contribute to a specialist subject part of wkipedia on Mesoamerican languages which is greatly needed. You may very well be busy but I wish you would salvage your precious time on here contributing what content you can and avoiding patrolling other articles and kicking up a stink. Wikipedia contains masses of junk, seriously bad content like Pancakes! and List of Power Rangers episodes which people vote to keep, ther eis little we can do about it if they contains multiple sources. . We are not a paper encyclopedia and the coverage of some areas is extremely detailed. If we can have 100 articles on restaurants and bars in Manhattan why can't we have an article about one pub in Montevideo? Above all I try to address systematic bias and rarely venture into topics which are not traditional encyclopedic subjects. Only I think some hotels and restaurants in each city are notable. If you look how extremely detailed wikipedia is in parts for certain areas of Anglo countries and US TV series, then I don't see why it is junk to try to build a comprehensive coverage of a capital city in Latin America. Macedonian economists and Uruguyan cusine might not be encyclopic to you bu they meet content requirements. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The burden is on the editor creating the article. If they don't want to put the effort in, they can just add them to the list at WP:AFC. Whether you use "fuck off" or "f off" doesn't really make very much difference. If you disagree with the AFD just say so on the AFD page. Additionally, nothing another editor does or says changes the expected standards of behavior. Gerardw (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Milowent

I entered a discussion on the AfD for Pig Slaughter. User has been aggressive, insulting, and made patently false accusations with no evidence.

His first comment was prior to mine, upon another user deleting his account. Diff: [99]

He remained out of the discussion for a while after that. His next contribution was to accuse me of WP:SOCK with no evidence. I removed the comment from the page per WP:PERSONAL. Diff: [100]

I posted a message on his talk page, telling him that I did not appreciate the unfounded accusation. I will admit that I was not very polite in the message. Diff: [101]

He responded by stating it was justified since I was being extremely uncivil in the discussion on the AfD. When I said that was not sufficient reason, and asked for an example, he stated that he did not need to give one. Diff: [102]

This was especially confusing, given his previous statement on another user's talk page. Diff: [103]

His next comment made an attempt to veil his attack on me, and criticised me for citings policies, guidelines, and essays. Diff: [104]

I asked him again, on his talk page, to please refrain from making personal attacks, and asked him to review WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL, and that if he could not stop, I would have to escalate the issue. I also attempted to allay his concerns regarding policies, with the hope that he would stop. Diff: [105]

This seemed to be it for a while. He made constructive, and civil comments on the AfD [106], [107]

However, my hopes were dashed by the most recent edit [108] seemed to drop all pretext of civility.

I could not go to WP:RfC/U since nobody else seems to have asked him to stop, and it certainly is not severe enough for WP:ANI.

My hope here is to help him realize that such behaviour is unacceptable on Wikipedia, or failing that, to escalate the issue to WP:RfC/U.

Homo Logica (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Sigh. HL's own incivility is the only cause of my comments, but in the interest of avoiding wiki-drama, I will refrain from any further discussion regarding HL's comments on that AfD. I would appreciate knowing HL's prior account name, however.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
As I have stated before, I have not had any previous accounts. Continuing to accuse me of WP:SOCK while stating that you will be civil and assume good faith, is problematic, at best.
Homo Logica (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Milowent should drop the sock accusations, implicit or explicit. On the other hand, in a single delete discussion, HL's replies to Joy, Carrite, Dreamfocus, and Qrsdogg (and maybe more) strike me as unnecessarily snippy; additionally I find repeated references to an insignificant essay tendentious. I'd suggest dialing it down. Gerardw (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD's are often become fairly contentious, but this isn't one that I expected to provoke such emotion. Since this is the first AfD HL has participated in, it's understandable if he/she doesn't know all the unwritten rules. It's generally good form on AfD to make a clear argument and then find something else to do, particularly if tempers are running high at the time. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify that I am not emotional over the AfD. I was mildly upset by repeated unfounded accusations, as well as continued insults, implicit and explicit, which was why I took all of my comments about the matter off the page. It simply wasn't the place.

To Gerardw, can you elaborate on snippy, please? If I was uncivil, I would absolutely like to know what I was doing so I can avoid it in the future. As for calling an essay insignificant, I would say that's a subjective value judgement. It has been put up for MfD, specifically because one of the users disliked it being cited, and while people may disagree with the purpose, very few call it insignificant. The reason it was repeated, was because it was my suggestion for the article, and since people were responding to me as though I were advocating a different position, it felt very relevant to explain my position, and point them to the essay explaining it in greater detail.

To Qrsdogg, my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that an AfD is very much like a Talk page. People discuss back and forth, to come to the best solution for the article. Much like how Joy and Dream repeatedly responded to the sock, to attempt to address the concerns. Just as both discussed with me, within the AfD, to attempt to address the concerns.

Homo Logica (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're basically correct. AfD's are supposed to be an open discussion rather than a vote. Discussion is good, but at times it can degenerate into people repeating the same things over and over again, often becoming less civil as time goes by. So while it is usually good to discuss things (sometimes discuss things at length), it is sometimes best to just walk away. Here's a good example of an AfD that turned into an avoidable "battleground" type arguement. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Requested samples:
And please, don't try to make this into a WP:POINT. It isn't about WP:WINNING.
But, as I stated, that's just for my suggestion that you to spend some time away from the page.
Fix it.
Joy, please refrain from making this personal …. As for how big the problem is, I would refer you to my complete breakdown of the  WP:UNDUE and WP:ORIGINAL of the sections, above.

That, and the repeated posting of rebuttal statements, especially when the significant consensus was keep. Gerardw (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I will try to be more careful in the future. The first comment was mostly about the edit summary "Two can play at this game", which seemed to be going down the route of trying to "win". I was probably unnecessarily terse, though, in all of them. I'll try to mind it.
I would also like to point out that Milowent has been continuing to attack people on the AfD, and related talk pages. [109] [110] [111].
It is quite evident that what Milowent has gotten from this response is that his actions are acceptable.
Homo Logica (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps my "two can play at this game" edit summary was unwise, I could see how you got the wrong impression from that. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not that Milowent's actions are ideal, it's that WP is not a police state and minor incivilities are best dealt with by ignoring them or walking away. Yes, some of his responses were snarky, but not sufficiently egregious that any action is warranted. Gerardw (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
So, to be clear (and not meant as a criticism, just trying to understand the position), his 9 explicitly incivil and insulting comments [112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119] (and the one on here) related to a single AfD, are not significant enough to warrant a warning template on his page about his behaviour?
Homo Logica (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I think, reading through this, that there's no disagreement with you that Milowent shouldn't continue implicitly/explicitly suggesting you're a sock without acting on that accusation. It's tiresome and inappropriate. I, personally, don't see a need for a warning template, nor do I really understand what that achieves. This isn't Congress, and official "censure" doesn't have tangible effect (if it even does in Congress).

I suggest that you re-review the comments above that you deem "explicitly incivil and insulting" as several of them are clearly neither. Further, you should be careful with your AfD contributions as noted previously, to avoid the appearance of trying to shout down a clearly developing consensus. Also, your repeated suggestions in the AfD that people "calm down :-)" when they were not, in any way, acting un-calm might also be construed by some as being...well, if not uncivil, then certainly rather obnoxious. Dream Focus makes a very valid point on these "calm down :-)" suggestions on your talk page. I think the relevant essay is WP:KETTLE. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 12:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive105&oldid=1252129154"