Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive59

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – RFC's for everyone!

Filed by Edit Centric

I know I'm normally the 3O in these instances, but something has come up that requires me to file a WQA of my own here. During this WQA, I will be recusing myself from the mediation end of this page, until this one is resolved.

Earlier today, Victor9876 posted to my talk page, asking me to review comments made at Talk:Charles_Whitman by arimareiji. What I found was a clear effort by Victor9876 to present a one-sided voting process regarding article content. Please see this older copy of the page, the section labeled "For John (Jwy) and Consensus".

My reply stated my findings, and quantified each of my remarks thus. I also corrected a minor oversight which left an open blockquote tag.

In a follow-on edit, I explained my additional 3O process; here is the diff.

Subsequently, after refactoring his comments on the consensus vote presentation, Victor9876 made not only one snipe comment, not two, but three, all of which I found in bad taste and highly offensive;

• Go back to your breathing excercises and coffee.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)" introduced here

• "Oh, the 'ol "wife flipped a coin and you lost" defense. Good one Centric! Use it all the time myself!--Victor9876 (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)" introduced here

• "Then let's call in an administrator who doesn't have a wife who flips coins to resolve issues!--Victor9876 (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)" introduced here

Maybe I should have simply ignored Victor9876 when he inquired at my talk page. Still, that does NOT give him the right to direct personal attacks not only at me, but my spouse as well. I never stated that my wife "flipped a coin", that was entirely HIS insinuation. Thumbing the nose directly and indirectly at me, that's simply an extension of the behavior.

Could someone please review the discourse at the talk page, and all related comments? Again, I will step down from the 3O role here as long as this is going on. Edit Centric (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The above is a great job of recusing yourself Centric.--Victor9876 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep it up, Victor. Go right ahead. In fact, I'll answer that. Note that I am not an administrator, Victor9876. If I was, I would have the ability to block you for this behavior. Would I in this case? Absolutely not. I'm an involved party here, the recipient of your personal attacks. That would create an untenable COI, and would call my entire track record into question. So no, even in that case I would recuse myself from that role.

Once again, I am stepping away from the 3O role here at WQA, until this action reaches some kind of resolution. Edit Centric (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for invitation Centric. You mention in the second paragraph of your complaint that I asked you TODAY, to look at arima's disruptions.<bplockquote>Centric, I'm sure you followed the WQA that has been resolved - except for arima. Would you kindly look at the Whitman talk page and look at his behavior, which has been assessed as uncivil, attacks and disruptive. He is not there for purposes of advancing the article and current discussion. It appears he is there for his own agenda. Thanks.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The time stamp shows two days ago. A lot changed during that time.--Victor9876 (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Excerpt from your complaint (...If she says I'm reading something wrong, I'm open to that. In this case, it was her that came up with the "heads I win, tails you lose" analogue...} these are your words in one of your complaints. What else is analogous to "heads I win, tails you lose"? Skeet shooting? Mountain biking? I'm...perplexed to come up with a different analogy - it had to be a coin! I don't know your wife or you. I'm sure she's beautiful and the love of your life - but YOU brought her in - not me! The remark was not intended as an insult on your wife...it was a flippant reference to your judgment. That's all!--Victor9876 (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As to your "should have avoided", that is great hindsight. May I have the defense also. I should have had the hindsight to not call on you after all of your agreements with Arima in the prior WQA. But I was hoping you would review all of the issues, not the selective ones that you did, that were all in favor of Arima, even after another editor came complaining to you of the same.--Victor9876 (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I should apologise at this point for the hasty formulation of this WQA, as I was still looking at a trip out to the local "bodega" for sugar and other sundries at the time. What I neglected to say here is that, if anyone (aside from Victor9876, of course!) finds fault with my comments or assertions at Talk:Charles_Whitman, please let me know. As everyone knows, I'm open to constructive criticism. I already know what Victor9876 thinks of this whole thing, he's so much as made it abundantly clear by firing volley after volley across my bow today. To clear up the characterization that he made of his comments; "...it was a flippant reference to your judgment." No, Victor. One or two comments is being flippant. To keep it coming like free pancakes at IHOP is just being a smart-a^%. Take it from me, I know. I am one IRL! It has no place here in Wiki though, outside of the light-hearted occasional comment.

This one is a chance for someone else to take the 3O guidon, and carry it across the field. While I was out and about, I asked myself this question; "What am I looking for here, by filing this WQA?" Well, the answer to that would be an apology, primarily. I'll start this process by saying that I apologise for not delving deeper into the conversation tracks higher up on the talk page, and focusing solely on the one section. I apologise for appearing one-sided and singular-minded. I apologise for failing to convey my observations in a more neutral fashion. Edit Centric (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please! Whoever comes in to render an opinion or whatever. Behavior is created negatively sometimes from other negative behavior. The history here is an edit war between an established editor on the Charles Whitman page, and a person who came in under the guise of a 3O. Please review the history in it's entirety, not in fragments as Centric has. I did not start the war, and have actively tried to end it in all manners possible. Arima (a shortened version of his name) has been the most persistent abuser, complainer, misinterpreter, accuser, and stayed longer as a 30, than a mother-in-law with nowhere else to go. All I do is edit. I am not good at html, formatting, and understanding all of WP's policies. Some get it right away, some don't! I don't! I'm simple. But don't under estimate me. When I post to an article, I know what I'm talking about. After saying all of this, I hope Centric will realize, some of my replies were in jest, and mocking of his own remarks to me in the first WQA, and not intended to be offensive. The person who should be under a WQA is Arima. Look at the history. No complaints about me since I've been here, until he shows up. And also, look at how BMW had to stop him at the end of the first WQA, which he brought against me. Be fair, that's all I ask!--Victor9876 (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted Centric, though not necessary. I also apologize for my discretions as well. Hopefully, in the future, unless I'm thrown to the 'gators, we can work together in harmony, for the betterment of something, come what may!--Victor9876 (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That being said (typed), I'm willing to call this one resolved. (Someone else can tag it though, as I'm still in "hiatus" mode.) Victor, I have some other thoughts for you (all constructive, rest assured.) that I'll get with you on over at your talk page. Edit Centric (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Centric, while we're waiting for Arima to come in and render his complaints with broadbrand consumming vibrato - are you saying FREE pancakes at IHOP are a bad thing?! LOL!--Victor9876 (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not! My pancakes are better any day of the week! (Yea...Bisquick!) As for Arima, that can be handled under separate plain brown wrapper. Edit Centric (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Victor - right now, you are being extremely disruptive to the Wikipedia project. Your role as a community member is to work on articles, and ignore petty BS. You were asked to remain away from Arima if possible (and vice versa) - there are, after all, millions of articles. Your continued browbeating and harassment of a WQA volunteer who simply tried to help is truly offensive to the concept of community.

Victor if you think action needs to be taken against Arima, file a WP:RFC right now. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Indeed, I would expect that a joint filing on both Arima and yourself would probably be in order to sort this entire load out. What an unfortunately disappointing waste of good editing time is being used up on pettiness overall.

So please, go file an RFC, and take the high road and stay away from Arima (and I recommend also /insert/ away from /end insert/ the editors who have tried to help in an overly patient manner). (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Stale

User is repeatedly trolling at Talk:Ayn Rand. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User also has a history of abusive posts there. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Snowded already said they were taking the incivility to an admin level...what more do you want from an incivility level? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this WAS the place to go if one wanted to take this to an admin... it didn't seem like it was quite on the level to warrant a visit to ANI. I also would like to think that some informal corrective action might help with this user, i.e. something short of dropping the ban-hammer. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me check what Snowded has done with it first as multiple listings of incidents doesn't make alot of sense. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I raised behaviour by Stevewunder who hit me with the "F" word and other abuse with an admin. He looked at it yesterday but my that time the wunderkind had already been banned for a week. I think there is generic abuse (including intimidation) on all the Ayn Rand page - but that is why it is with Arbcom who (hopefully) will get round to doing something soon. --Snowded (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I was aware that ArbComm was dealing with Ayn Rand topics overall. If you have dealt only with the Stevewunder incivility, then additional incivility by DarkOne will need its own. Thanks for your input! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe this post is abusive. It is a form of sarcasm and humor that makes the point that we are all required to edit in a neutral fashion. It certainly isn't out of line given the ArbCom on the article in question. (Which, by the way, I, TallNapoleon, and Snowded are all participants in). This edit is TallNapoleon deleting the post in question, and I'm wondering if that is right. I don't think TallNapoleon should be deleting another person's talk page entries if they aren't obviously vandalism, or name calling. Perhaps someone can point me towards the rules governing that? There has been a great deal of name-calling, wikilawyering, and a flurry of ANI, RfC, RfA, calls for bans, blocks, freezes and now a Wikiquette alert that appear to me to be more about partisan bickering gone awry or manipulative attempts at intimidation. --Steve (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – this is an WP:SSP situation or stop the accusations

user hauskalainen has just levied a really ugly charge at me and other editors, claiming that we are in collusion. and the progression into this charge is jaw dropping. earlier today, he wrote:

to which i replied:

yet a short time later, he lets loose this bolus of uncivil claims:

this is, as i replied, intolerable. Anastrophe (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, Anastrophe, did you notify him that you brought this WQA? Please do so, if you wouldn't mind... Edit Centric (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(Now returning to the 3O chair, mediate ON) It's going to take me some time to research this one, I'd like the following to occur before I make any observations here;

• Anastrophe needs again to notify Hauskalainen about this WQA, so that he / she has a chance to give some input.
• I'd like to see why Hauskalainen is making these non-AGF assertions. (I personally find them a bit far-fetched at first blush, given the last few weeks of interaction betwixt SB and Anastrophe.)

In the meantime, I shall sit here, scratching my head and raising an eyebrow... Edit Centric (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

apologies, i've now alerted the user. i pirated the alert you used in the last matter that came up....Anastrophe (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone feels they're being ganged up on, then we need to have a look to see if they are. It doesn't need to be collusion to have the appearance of being ganged up on in order to limit input. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

that may be, but accusations of collusion are not to be made lightly, nor taken lightly, per WP:TAGTEAM. this is an egregious, uncivil accusation, based apparently on no evidence more substantial than 'several editors are editing and commenting'. woe be to the entire collection of wikipedia editors then, we're all in collusion. Anastrophe (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I was tired when I made that comment and went to bed shortly after. I have only just woken up and seen this report. My immediate response is to say that I did not see the reply to my first accusation from Anastrophe at 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC). But I don't think that changes my suspicion. A denial is just a denial. It does not change things much in my mind. I will be away from editing for a short while but will return to this matter in due course. Notwithstanding this Wikiquette report I will be looking formally at the behaviors of these editors to see if there is evidence of sockpuppetry or, more likely, co-ordinated editing by conneced persons, and I will be compiling evidence. The silly reaction to the insertion of the section regarding gun violence and the addition of statistics and academic research, and the silly insistence that the Assize of Arms granted a "right" has crystallized in my mind the realization that the main editors at that article have are overly zealous and extremely biased. --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Basic rule of thumb re: Sockpuppetry - you either file it @ SSP, or stop accusing. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, please do investigate it, file it, whatever. there's no sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry here. it's freaking ridiculous to be accused of this. Anastrophe (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it's up to the original complainant to either file it, or shut up about it. I'm closing this as NWQA. Let us know if he continues the accusations between now and when he files an SSP. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment This edit appears to be an actual situation of a violation of WP:SOCK, and I have already warned them of WP:CANVASsing. It's funny when those who accuse of socking turn around and sock themselves. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 07:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

All I did was log in under an alias to get independent advice on resolving a dispute from someone involved in WP Editor Assistance. A long long way from canvassing, sock puppetry, or meat puppetry or whatever else I have been accused of elsewhere. In fact I specifically asked Used:HowardBerry NOT to intervene by editing the article! How much clearer can you get?!!--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You have uninvolved, 3rd party people right here trying to assist. It was a clear canvass, and you attempted to hide your own identity, as noted in your post. You've been advised to file your SSP right now, and I await the notification that it's done. Until then, I anticipate your ceasing to accuse others of Socking when you just did it yourself. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have posted an extremely clear, concise and plainly worded warning here. And, like I said in my warning, enough with the shenanigans, Hauskalainen. Either address your concerns in the proper manner and forum, or don't address it at all. What you just engaged in was not copasetic by any measure. Edit Centric (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to post this here, knowing full well that this WQA is already closed as "Non-WQA". I want all involved to have this input. Given the latest statements made by Hauskalainen, masquerading as Slinkyworm, I'm not at all sure that an SSP would clear up any misconceptions he may be operating under, to his satisfaction. In addition, he's now directed a portion of his angst at me, accusing me of "intimidation". Hauskalainen, you seriously need to drop the conspiracy theorys and shell games, and concentrate on article improvement. If you spent your energies there, Wiki would be a much better place. Edit Centric (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

For the use of an alias to be considered as "Sock Puppetry" in Wikipedia it needs to be used for "fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes". I see none of that here. Rather it looks that Hauskalainen used an alias to seek help with the harmless intent of wanting to remain anonymous. Also, your advice to 'focus on article improvement' seems to miss the reality of the hostility level being dumped on Hauskalainen in the last couple weeks. Article improvement in such an extreme hostile editing environment can be trying. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

you've reduced WP:SOCK to only the first sentence of the policy, ignoring in your elision WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY, under which his behavior is clearly sockpuppetry. you describe hauskalainen's behavior as 'harmless', and cast him as the victim here. you see nothing uncivil or in violation of AGF in his accusations of sockpuppetry against others, while committing sockpuppetry himself. you see no hostility in hauskalainen's actions? Anastrophe (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Salty, I could not have put it better myself. I was not "masquerading" because I made it perfectly plain that I was using an alternative account to make a perfecly legitimate call for help under WP:EA. As far as the person I was talking to was concerned, I mase it easy for him to work out my main identity. The SOLE purpose of using the alternative account was to get advice without being followed around by the editors I am in dispute with. Edit Centric on the other hand has made threats to me such as " any more shenanigans, and I will personally recommend that you be blocked for disruption of not only the article(s) in question, but Wikipedia on the whole!. (The "shenanigans" he refers to was my action of using an alias to seek advice.. he calls it "Forum shopping" with a sockpuppet. My actions were perfectly legitimate. No where near sock puppetry and seeking advice is not Forum shopping!. Those threats hardly seem like they are in accord with Wiquette to me! It is because there are people willing to delete multiple times (even in breach of 3RR) that I decided to move this issue to a 3rd party for assistance with resolution. SaltyBoatr may have endless patience (because I see he is trying to press on with arguments). I on the other hand see the main issue at stake as very simple. Either the edit that was deleted was WP:SYN or it wasn't. Either it is related to the article or it isn't. A third party can help to resolve that dispute.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's clear up a few things that have gotten muddled within the "sturm und drang" over the past few days;

1. Hauskalainen issued these statements, suggesting that three other editors might be WP:SOCKS - at the tail end of this post, and again at the end of this one.
2. He makes the same assertion again in this very WQA, further up the thread; this post. There's no such thing as a "temporary reply" here. A reply is a reply.
3. Yaf brings this to my attention, which I look into with some reservations (my way of saying "Yeah, right. Hauskalainen? Why would he go and do something like that?"), as I don't possess CheckUser access. So, I have to confirm or dispel it by other means.
4. Checking this out, I note that he a) Has something against editors from the U.S., and b) thinks there is some kind of right-wing conspiracy that is "well funded, and may well have "infiltrated" wikipedia at the highest levels": Here come the black helicopters
5. I see this from Hauskalainen, confirming what I have been told, and then...
6. I issue this warning to Hauskalainen, and cc it to his doppelganger: Warned here, page has since been white-washed.
7. After some intermediate edits, he accuses me of threatening and intimidation, even going to the point of wanting me to replace the photo of myself on my own user page!: Note the edit descriptor.

Yes, I did get a bit flippant in my reply, but only because I found his insinuations of conspiracy, assertion that my pic was "clearly intended to intimidate" and his need for me to change it completely ludicrous; My reply. At this point, someone else can try dealing with this guy. All I can do right now is sit here, shaking my head in utter "confundis". Edit Centric (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No condoning bad behavior, I agree 100%. Still you single out this one user who is a WP:NOOB. Have you checked out the harsh treatment dumped on this guy (on that talk page) by several long term serial WP:CIVILITY abusers, experienced editors who should know better? This is the Wikiquette alert page right? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Use of socks: User Hauskalainen continually accused others of being socks. He was warned to file the SSP or stop. He instead created a new account and re-made the same accusations. That is a violation of socks, as it was used to evade a warning.

Even though his actions are under scrutiny, he insists on escalating this situation in front of our eyes. You must understand, first attempts at solving this issue were mild. As the user has been overly uncooperative, the escalation continues needlessly. All he had to do was stop the accusations, maybe apologize, and life would have gone on... sure, there might have been some content issues to deal with elsewhere, but the incivility portion would have been done with. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, Hauskalainen is by no means a "NOOB". He's been editing here at Wikipedia longer than I have for Christmas' sakes, and should know better than to pull the stunts that he's pulled in the last few. That's all I'm going to say on the matter, as I'm still quite done with the issue. Edit Centric (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My mistake reading Hauskalainen's contrib record, oops. Still, my mistake doesn't change my opinion that it is a mistake to focus on one challenging editor and to avert your eyes from the rampant civility abuses on that talk page would be a shame. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Already being addressed in another WQA

Would a cool headed editor be willing to drop in on Talk:Right to keep and bear arms and give some encouragement to help raise the level of civility there? Thanks in advance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See a couple of entries above ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I am disappointed in your evaluation above where you suggest that "All he had to do was stop the accusations, maybe apologize...". As if he was the only problem editor. If you look close, a territorial culture of personal attacks has festered on that article talk for a very long time. I don't condone the bad behavior of that one user which you singled out, but I do have empathy for his feelings faced with the hostile and harsh treatment he received from several long term incivil editors watching over that Wiki-turf, and I can understand his frustration dealing with the personal insults. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Closing due to thread degradation. Enough is enough.

I'm concerned that there may be issues of WP:OWN, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:GAME in this user's conduct at Talk:Quote mining. The user resists changes to the page frequently citing various policies despite disagreement from various editors. They also persistently fail to stay out of RfC discussions. Most editors seem to end up leaving in exasperation. I haven't notified the user as I don't wish to get involved, but feel the community should be informed of this potential issue. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 03:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well at any rate, since you brought this to WQA, you're now involved on some level. In line with this, you need to notify the user in question that you have brought this up here, and give him / her a chance to reply to this. Edit Centric (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 04:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've butted heads with Hrafn on a number of occasions, although not recently. So, I give my perspective for the benefit of all involved, including Hrafn, without making any pretense of being uninvolved. Hrafn, you style yourself as a precisionist, and as such, you consistently challenge others to make the best contributions to Wikipedia possible. On the other hand, I believe you would benefit the project more if you added additional layers of civility to your preferred style of precisionism. Most of your edit summaries are polite, but some seem like they could be worded more neutrally without losing content. Some recent examples: [12], [13]. Looking at a series of your recent talk page contributions, I see mostly civil and polite discourse, but this looks like part of an ongoing disagreement, and there's probably a bit of unnecesarily harsh language in there. To be honest, going through your contributions, it really seems to me that you've mellowed out a good bit since we butted heads, what, eight months ago? I want to encourage you to keep that up, really. The project needs people who do what you do, although the very effort of precisionism is going to invariably irritate some people. That can't be helped, but by continuing to increase your politeness and communication levels, that will be minimized to the greatest extent possible. One final bit of advice: When people rise to your standards, be sure to congratulate them. Everyone should be subject to your scrutiny once or twice, because I know the act of "defending" articles made me a much better editor. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jclemens in that Hrafn challenges users to rise their sourcing standards. Several months ago, I created this article, thinking it was the best-sourced article in the world. Now I look back, after Hrafn driving me crazy for several months, and I think all the sources are awful. However, I must also agree with OrangeDog that Hrafn is often incivil and often lawyering his positions. I would advise you, Hrafn, to continue to add Reliable Sources to articles, and so on, but work on civility, and discuss changes with the contributing user before reverting good faith edits. I too was driven mad by him, and nearly retired over it. Think about the editors, Hrafn, not just wikitext. They're people. TheAE talk/sign 07:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As shown by this section of the talk page, OrangeDog became involved through a well-meaning edit which I reverted as introducing original research and deleting properly sourced information, removing the the explanatory power of the article. While a number of editors feel that Quote mining should cover the Fallacy of quoting out of context used in various areas, almost all the sources using the term use it to refer to the creation-evolution controversy. I say almost all because I found two sources which refer to the creationist misuse being replicated in another controversy. I set great store on politeness, but it cuts both ways and editors should have the courtesy to comply with policy in finding sources to back up their proposed changes. . . dave souza, talk 09:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning that Hrafn's editing style has on occasion provoke controversy previously, as can be seen here [14], and particularly noting Catherineyronwode's statement [15]. I am not really familiar with the issues, but my recollection was that, at that time the outcome was that Hrafn voluntarily retired from editing WP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That Catherineyronwode's rant, which violated pretty much every behavioural guideline, as well as containing a fair amount of false information, and almost no accusations with even the glimmer of any basis whatsoever in policy, is discussed in a Wikiquette alert on anybody other than Catherineyronwode herself is an indictment of this forum. I will not bother to attempt to defend purported (and at worst very marginal) violations of Wikiquette detailed above, nor to document the (often more serious) Wikiquette lapses of my accusers. I will simply regard the invocation of Catherineyronwode's rant as analogous to Godwin's Law#Corollaries and usage and consider that any credible discussion is now over. Good day. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

While disputing the statement about WQA, I concur that the Catherineyronwode post is not remotely relevant to anything but Catherineyronwode. Hipocrite (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This sort of reply -- ie, 'the other guy's views are an insult to my stature' -- are hardly unique to Hrafn. In fact, the attitude is so common that, if all such statements were accepted as true, it would be safe to assume that no WP editor was anything less than perfect. If only that were true. In fact, such a stance toward all criticism, and likewise toward even suggestions that editors A, B, or C are something less than perfect, renders all hope for improvements futile. To quote Pogo, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The uniqueness of the reply does not in any way modify its veracity. In this case, it was, in fact, the man in black who did it. Catherineyronwode's long, er, thing, I remember from when she wrote it. It was neither valid nor relevant then. It is less so now. I can understand why someone, already harassed by Catherineyronwode's thing once having it brought up again in a wholly unrelated matter would determine that that the accuser had, at best, no understanding of anything going on, or, at worst, was actively attempting to disrupt the process. I suggest that if you want Hrafn to take you even remotely seriously, you not mention the Catherineyronwode thing ever again. Mentioning it demonstrates that you're not getting it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently your view is

1. Hipocrite is always right.
2. If Hipocrite should be wrong, refer to #1.

Another example of a WP:perfect editor. And how can anyone improve on such perfection? Strange, then, how with so many perfect editors WP is so messed up. By the way, if Hrafn should ever take me "seriously", or not, is entirely his own affair, and his -- apparently already perfectly correct -- views are in his own power not mine. (NB: I think it is likely that at least some points made by Catherineyronwode were valid, and it is unlikely there was no truth at all in her statement.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is WP:WQA? And you are a regular participant here? Please remain civil. Hipocrite (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You think it is a violation of WP:civil it say a user is not perfect?

You may recall that my first comment (above) was, It might be worth mentioning that Hrafn's editing style has on occasion provoke controversy previously, as can be seen here [16], and particularly noting Catherineyronwode's statement [17].

I think that is a valid point, and an important point, because it is rare to have a civility dispute brought here without there being other editing problems concerning goals and (particularly) editing methods. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

So, Cat was missing the point of MEDCAB and produced a long inaccurate screed in an effort to defend her habit of producing articles without reliable sources? That was another case where some editors apparently failed to understand that WP:V and WP:NOTE require such sources, and your assertion that it is "unlikely there was no truth at all in her statement" is an uncivil and unsourced smear. Given the elapsed time there seems to me to be no value in dragging up old badly supported allegations, but be clear that detailed diffs are needed for such a case, not mere handwaving. I strongly suggest that you strike your statements. . dave souza, talk 15:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember your complete dismissal of Catherineyronwode at the time. But, she had a point to make, and I doubt that your claims of no validity, and no truth, are correct. Perhaps you could explain why you think my saying that it is unlikely there was no truth at all in her statement is "uncivil and a smear". And please leave off the wiki-lawyering which has already verged on being WP:disrupt. I set out a general principle that no human is perfect, and you want a source showing that principle specifically applies to you, Hipocrite, and Hrafn?! But you see no need for sources that show that the same applies to Catherineyronwode and Malcolm Schosha. Remarkable. In fact, the view of a general lack of human perfection is a fundamental in Greek and Roman philosophy, as explained here. Since this is not a WP article, and since I have no intention of creating an article to demonstrate the imperfection of any particular WP user, there is no need for me to supply a source documenting individual applications and instances....even if it might be amusing to do so. That lack of perfection certainly applies to me as well as other users. The stance that "I am completely right, and you are completely wrong," is the ruin of all efforts to resolve disputes. (The approach of the Zero-sum mentality always ends disputes with unhealed old wounds, and frequently by opening new wounds.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest this section is archived as it is rapidly descending in tone and has digressed from the original complaint which required no action. Verbal chat 16:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to archiving this discussion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The point of WQA is to deal with problems of politeness and civility. Your comments about Hip are unnecessary, and would be inappropriate anywhere in Wikipedia. They're especially inappropriate here. Bringing up the Catherineyronwode issue is similarly inappropriate.

You said that you are unfamiliar with the issue. If so, then why bring it up? Hrafn runs afoul of a lot of editors because he asks for sources for questionable statements, and if none are added in the next several months, he often removes the content he sees as dubious. That has provoked conflict. In response to Madman's complaints last year, Hrafn agreed to try to be more civil. After that issue had gone stale, Catherineyronwode and Firefly started a campaign against Hrafn in which the main complaint was that he was applying policy, but which maintained a constant drumbeat of harassment. In response to that, he quit for a while. I assume you acted in good faith when you dredged up this issue, and that it isn't your intention to propagate old attacks and harassment. But that's what you have done. If you choose to dredge up old issues, it's really your responsibility to ensure that you understand what you are dredging up. The onus is on you to not further harass an editor.

To begin with, OrangeDog's accusation against Hrafn consists of allegations revolve around

• WP:OWN, which in a nutshell says: You do not own articles (nor templates and other features of Wikipedia). If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so.
• WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT which says: In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error
• WP:GAME which says: Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of communal consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden.

In support of this OD cited no diffs, but said

1. resists changes to the page frequently citing various policies despite disagreement from various editors
2. They also persistently fail to stay out of RfC discussions

To look at the second issue first, User:Arimareiji posted an RFC on the page on Jan 31. Hrafn replied saying that the RFC misrepresented the situation. A brief exchange ensured. On Feb 2, Arimareiji modified the RFC. Hrafn expressed continued unhappiness with the wording. There was no further input until OrangeDog commented on Feb 18, saying that involved parties shouldn't be so heavily involved in the RFC.

Apart from the fact that the discussion between Arimareiji and Hrafn was about how the RFC should be presented, neither of them edited the RFC after OD's comment. So complaining about "persistently fail to stay out of RfC discussions" is puzzling to say that least. Should involved editors refrain from commenting on how an RFC is framed? How is it "persistent"? How is it "discussions"?

The first complaint is more interesting. The complaint is that Hrafn "resists changes"..."citing various policies", and that he is doing that "despite disagreement from [other] editors". Why is it against Wikiquette to cite policy? What other grounds do you have? Not to mention that OrangeDog's main issue with the article is a discussion over NOR with Dave Souza.

Last year, when the issue was raised, Hrafn said that he would try to be more polite. If Malcolm wants to dredge up a complaint that pre-dates that statement, the onus is clearly on his to show that Hrafn has broken his pledge. Malcolm: what evidence is there that Hrafn failed to improve his behaviour? If he hasn't, what basis do you have for bringing up his old behaviour? Your failure to "do your homework" isn't an excuse. You really owe Hrafn an apology.

Honestly, there's nothing to see here except perhaps that Malcolm owes Hrafn and Hip apologies for his thoughtlessness (to Hrafn) and rudeness (to Hip). Guettarda (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, of course I am sorry if they are upset by what I wrote. I said what I did because I think it is important, and I do not think I made any incorrect or abusive statements; but I recognize that that other users can honestly see things very differently from me. I would be happy if you, Dave Souza, and Hipocrite would be willing to concede a similar courtesy to Catherineyronwode, and other users who have complained of Hrafn's editing. But I do not expect that to happen. My whole point has been that humans are never perfect, and as one consequence of that fact about human nature, truth in these civility and editing disputes is virtually never entirely on one side. If you think my making that point violates WP:civil, I am sure you will pursue it further. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcom, you were hinting that users thought they were perfect, which is why it raised hackles. No need to go on about it, I'm only saying. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that they, rather clearly, have said the truth was on one side only, their side. If there was any willingness to concede any value at all to the complaints of others, I missed that. I would have liked seeing that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

While I'm sure I'm just as imperfect as Malcolm, dragging up old arguments and saying that you're "not really familiar with the issues" but it is "unlikely there was no truth at all in her statement" is classic smear technique. As Guettarda has pointed out, Hrafn gave an undertaking to improve his etiquette, and the few diffs presented here show improvement, if not the perfection of gentility Malcolm might consider ideal. What I have noticed is that this section relates to an article where I disagreed with OrangeDog's attempt to introduce information lacking sources showing relevance to the topic of the article. Since OrangeDog has not provided diffs showing any substantial etiquette issue, the original issue appears to be resolved and this should now be archived. . dave souza, talk 18:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A "classic smear technique"? Rather, I think you may be attempting to smear me, by suggesting that my criticism is totally without value, and ascribing nothing but bad faith to my intent. Just why do you think Hrafn is above criticism? You certainly do not think that about me, or Catherineyronwode; and you do not hesitate to imply that my views are worthless and are "smears." I understand when other users make a point that is critical of me, but worry when their negative evaluation of me is presented as the only possible valid view, and by a complete denial of my worth. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

<ec> You state that you're uninformed about an issue, but still feel that you can validly bring it up as an attack on another editor. Not good practice. I've made no comment on your other activities, I did some detailed investigation of the assertions presented by Catherineyronwode and found that those I checked out were based on blatant falsehoods, which I charitably assumed were due to incompetence rather than being deliberate lies: see my statement in this section as of 15:09, 14 September 2008. This is not in any way a statement that either party is all good or all bad, it does call the assertions into question. Now, have you diffs to back up your assertions in detail, or are you just making unjustified allegations in, of all places, WQA? It's already been stated that you owe Hrafn and Hip apologies, and you'd certainly go up in my esteem if you give such apologies unreservedly. . dave souza, talk 19:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with Dave souza that this discussion could be archived at this point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Dave souza, in this whole discussion I made two points, one of them rather secondary

1. Hrafn has a history of creating dissention by his approach to editing. That is the secondary point, and a response to the claims that Hrafn does no wrong.
2. Because of the unavoidable imperfections of human nature, trying to classify one side in an argument as good and the other as bad, is a distortion the real nature of a situation in which one side is seldom (if ever) completely all good, or all bad.

Contrary to your accusation, I do not consider Hrafn to be a bad WP user. Rather the contrary, I suppose he is a good editor. What I have been trying to get is some slight concession that different users can honestly see things very differently without one of them being bad and the other good. I can consider both Hrafn and Catherineyronwode as having many dgood qualities as editors. I really do not understand why it is so difficult to concede that point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've conceded that no-one's perfect, please read what I've written with care. However, you've not conceded that you're dragging up an old case with no evidence that it has any merit. Trust me, it hasn't. Catherineyronwode doubtless did excellent work in some areas, but these assertions were not good. I'm sure you've raised this in good faith on the assumption that you didn't have to check the validity of those assertions, but that's not a good way of achieving harmony and I really don't understand why you're so unwilling to let it go. Of course I fully agree with the value of courtesy from all parties, but the much-needed task of asking that information is properly supported by sources is commonly met with dissension and sometimes a degree of bluntness is appropriate. So, I hope you'll agree that it's nice to be nice, and will apologise for harassing Hrafn, doubtless with the best of intentions, and for being rather rude to Hipocrite. I shall of course continue to urge everyone to be on their best behaviour, at the same time as accepting that no-one's perfect. . dave souza, talk 20:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I included the link, pointing out that this user has a history of highly controversial editing methods. In the context of a complaint on this Wikiquette alerts board, and with a series of defenses of his methods tending to suggest that he just about perfect; there should be no big deal about such a link. In fact it was Hrafn's defenders who chose to dwell on that link, and make a big deal about it. Without that, it would have been nothing more than what I intended it to be, an example that there are some WP users who do not think he is perfect. There was no need for me to supply supporting sources for my central point, which never anything other than a call to keep in mind that the right may be weighted to one side or the other, but is almost never completely on just one side. I think that is a point obvious without sources. If my giving that link upset Hrafn and some of his supporters, I am sorry. My intent was not to indite him for anything beyond the imperfection shared by all humanity. As for my defense of Catherineyronwode, I have no intention to abandon to unbalanced attacks an intelligent editor, who has contributed much that is good to WP, and who is one of the few WP users who is notable enough to have her own article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

So you've been wasting our time to tell us that Hrafn's just as imperfect sa we all are, though I didn't notice anyone claiming that he's a saint, and are still clinging to the idea that Catherineyronwode produced a competent complaint? Doubtless she has other virtues, but careful analysis of evidence was not evident in the nonsense she produced. The only reason she's even been discussed here was because you introduced links to her dodgy "evidence". Seriously, let it go. And so to bed, goodnight all. . . dave souza, talk 21:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wasting your time?! I made a very few simple and (I think) obvious statements, and a bunch of other editors reacted like it was Battle of Thermopylae. And, as is clear from reading the comments above, your concern about criticisms of users did not extend beyond concern for criticism of one single user. About me, and Catherineyronwode, you said some things that were WP:NPA. Your calling the link to the mediation case "evidence" is bullshit. This is a Wikiquette discussion, not an arbitration case. I can that a more informal approach here if I choose to, which I do. If you think I have violated any WP rule by doing that, link this discussion to AN/I, and I will finish this argument with you there. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, I said enough. I archived this WQA because this convo track was getting nowhere rapidly. It's O V E R. Time to move on. Any further disruption or incivility like above will only further exacerbate things, and may result in your being blocked. Edit Centric (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Party filing complaint has been blocked indefinitely for disruption after continuing a series of disruptive behaviors here. John Carter (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue is explained in great detail in my talk page.

He has been trolling me on Masonic conspiracy theories, leaving off-topic and provocative comments.

He responded to a WP:ANI complaint that I filed, going so far as to include an immature stoner joke.

He followed me to a page I was working on and then deleted links, causing me to react in a way to get me blocked for 2 weeks.

He filed a WP:WQA complaint for that matter, which had been "resolved" 30 minutes earlier, and then summarily deleted it, not wishing for anyone to comment. The rationale for the admin action seemed to almost exactly mirror the complaint, which seems rather peculiar.

His WP:WQA contained, among other things, false and defamatory statements, observations based on false inferences and details of activity unrelated to him.

No reasonable person in my situation would have been delighted. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In other words, I'm guessing that the WQA that has already been filed never got resolved then? Also, and understand that I'm BIG on "taking the onus for one's modus", no one can cause you to react, the way you react to a situation is your choice. (Trust me, I've done some pretty bone-headed things!)

If this has been (or is being) addressed at WQA and ANI already, then that is where this should be placed. Edit Centric (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy goes against provocation. SarekOfVulcan had no good reason to do what he did, given the situation.

SarekOfVulcan deleted the WQA. Bwilkins claims that he restored SarekOfVulcan's change to the article, undeleted WQA, then marked it as resolved. It was then archived shortly thereafter. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This thread is prompting me to un-watchlist this forum. Unbelievable. Tan | 39 05:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking through some of this briefly, I'm already seeing the following;

• The User:Ukufwakfgr account is only 1 month old, which means that you may be new to Wikipedia.
• All edits from this account are consistent with being an "SPA", or Single-purpose Account, in that you're edits are all on three "highly contentious" articles.
• User account Ukufwakfgr has been blocked twice for disruptive editing, personal attacks and harassment since it was created.

I'm seeing a track record here, one that needs to be departed from with a sense of urgency, Ukufwakfgr. Might I suggest taking a break from the three articles that you seem to be focused on, and moving over to another area of Wiki for a while, thereby disengaging from the situation as a whole? Edit Centric (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That editor now has a break. Blocked indefinitely for disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess that answers that. Thanks, Toddst. Edit Centric (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Issue already addressed by editor.

Can anybody let this user that this edit summary is not helpful or needed? Thank you, --Tom 14:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I see you've already done that in 2 places ... what more can we do? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope for world peace :) Seriously, since this user thinks I am a troll, I thought an admin or dis-interested party would be better to advise. Anyways, I hear ya, --Tom 15:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Stale

There has been a long pattern of COI and disruption on the part of this editor and I'd like some additional eyes on this as I have now been accused of "purely direct personal abuse". See these discussions in roughly chronological order:

• User_talk:Scripturalreasoning#Beyond_conflict_of_interest where my alleged abuse took place in this edit
• A long painful thread on ANI about this editor where some admins were generally frustrated and may have transgressed decorum when referring to this editor.
• Now the accusations against me User_talk:Toddst1#Personal_Attacks including my "improper" direction to the discussion on ANI

I think we have a problem here. Toddst1 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: While the other admins' behavior has been discussed ad nauseum on ANI, I'd like to focus on Scripturalreasoning's edits please. We got pretty far afield and lost track of the original issue there. Toddst1 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • To paraphrase Larry Sanger, it's time to show him the door. PhilKnight (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's going to take me a bit to get "up to speed" on this one, but I'll look at it, since I wasn't involved in the original AN/I... Edit Centric (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Wow! After bouncing around the Wiki awhile, opening some more windows (I can do that though, see my userpage!) and getting a feel for the sitch-ee-ashun, I've got to agree with Toddst1, in that there is clear evidence of COI on the part of User:Scripturalreasoning, and no apparent "direct personal abuse" on Toddst1's part. Now I could get into that whole ballywick of other editors' comments at ANI, but like Toddst1 said, it's been discussed ad nauseum already.

Scriptural Reasoning, I'm not about to sit here and pontificate, proselytize or do the "WWJD" angle. Yes, I have "faith", but this is not the venue for proselytizing. This is an on-line encyclopedia. As such, and as an editor that has been here for as long as you have, you should know that we have guidelines and policies. We have these for a reason.

In addition, your issuance of a template warning is perfectly fine "according to Hoyle", but would have been better addressed in a venue such as this one, if you believed you indeed had been slighted. Addressing this in the manner that you did looks like nothing beyond possible posturing and Wiki-lawyering, and tends to ring hollow.

When Toddst1 directed you to the ANI in progress, he was doing exactly that. It was not his intention to deliberately direct you to a page where others were telling you to "F- off", as you assert. Nothing of the sort! Again, we're not going to get into the behaviours of other editors at the ANI, that has been dealt with. This WQA is not about them. It's about possible disruption to Wikipedia. Edit Centric (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – referred to ANI based on history and disruptions.

There's an ongoing issue between User:Lomcevak, User:Fetler and occasionally User:Levret, primarily over edits and assumed ownership of the Natascha Engel article. There have been accusations of sock puppetry, uncivil communications, revert wars, and much more too extensive to explain here. The bulk of their related communications are at User talk:Lomcevak as User:Fetler has removed Lomcevak's comments from their talk page. Pretzels^Talk! 17:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not against the rules for a user to remove / clear comments from their talk page, I personally keep all my interactions archived for future review if necessary. Lemme look at this one... Edit Centric (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretzels, did you notify the other users that you had filed this WQA? In my preliminaries, I'm already not liking what I'm seeing in yours and Lomcevak's edits to Fetler's talk page. I'll address it here once everyone's been adequately notified and is able to review what needs addressed. Edit Centric (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that the other two editors have been notified, I will address these items that are troubling;

• Lomcevak's reverting of Fetler's talk page can be considered vandalism, as it is interfering with that user's maintenance of their own talk page. Warning to Lomcevak - Stop, don't do that. Whatever is going on at the article(s), needs to remain a constructive, content-centered discussion there. Your continued interference with Fetler's talk page will get you blocked. It's uncivil, it's rude, and it's imposing your will on another editor's own talk space. Not kosher.
• Pretzels, Fetler is perfectly within his sphere to revert, delete and otherwise maintain his talk page. Warning to Pretzels - Same as addressed to Lomcevak.

Now that that tidbit has been cleared up, I don't see, looking through the talk page at the article, any overt references to ownership being made by anyone. I could have missed something, if there is a specific diff, by all means reference it. I will say this though, articles here at Wikipedia do not belong to anyone in particular. By submitting content to Wikipedia, you grant Wikipedia the rights to that content. Edit Centric (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• User_talk:Lomcevak#You_just_don.27t_get_it_do_you_.28ACCOUNTABILITY_that_is.29:_.3F_Sockpuppetry contains questionably inappropriate remarks towards Fetler
• This history listing has the edits in question, by Fetler, Lomcevak and anonymous IPs (as Lomcevak noted, from Fetler's university)

Pretzels^Talk! 19:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Lomcevak to come and explain what's going on, but in the meantime, I'm seeing that the SPI was already put to bed, so we're not going to go there. At this point, I would strongly counsel all editors involved to try to maintain civility and NPOV in this situation and any edits that are performed. (No snipe comments in the edit descriptors, either.) Edit Centric (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• I believe I have supplied all relevant references, taking a great deal of time to do this. The problems start when User:Fetler simply wishes to redact relevant information, submitted to his page in good faith when responding to his concerns. When such responses don't appear to fit his (postmodern) 'narrative' then they simple go down the memory hole. It may be legit. but where's the 'good faith?' I like you let all stand, 'warts 'n all' for all to see.

• I didn't presume 'ownership,' as alleged by Fetler, in fact, you have examined all the history of this matter ... I went into some detail as to how to 'constructively' engage without pissing-off all the rest of the previous contributors ... of which there were many before me. And thus you found no presumption of ownership. However, I was concerned for 'quality assurance!'

• Fetler was the first to revert to abuse ... in his allegations of my 'assumed' ('assumptions' make an 'ass' out of you and me) ownership and likening me to a 'screaming infant' ... (together with chucking toys out of my pram?) ... and where it was his behavior that seemed to exhibit exactly this syndrome when he came to realize, finally, that the changes he wanted could not be, willy-nilly, made to Engel's article.

• That is he couldn't assume ... ownership.

• After being very patient with this guy, at this I went closer to the edge ... but noted in my response that I was holding wiki standards in mind.

• Of course, Fetler redacts all of this from his records, such that interested parties have so much more a headache in piecing the 'true picture' together ... leaving him basking in the satisfaction of a conflation job 'well-done' and a nod in the direction of, 'I make up the truth' ... Mandelsonian (March/April 99 - I was Mandy's first victim by John Booth written for: Journalist - bi-monthly organ of the National Union of Journalists ) postmodernism.

• An authentic New Labour stance, strategy and tactical deployment.

• Congratulations, Fetler ... you look to me as though you're positioning yourself for a 'safe-seat,' 'some where' ... (maybe even Natascha's ?: I just merely ask the question? ... LOL)

• You couldn't do much worse (than she has done) and been more worthless (than she has been - union relations [ask the bus drivers, btw., if she has a clue] with 'them' at the 'coal face' on everything) ... 'Cummon down (one) Fetler...' LOL ... ROTFL ...

....yield to us your gracious and infinite experience ...

• Cummon, Natascha ... how about all that ACA you need to rake in right now ... will you ever come clean ? No, you won't. Oh, by the way ... you are a LIAR ... when you say you respond to everything to that your constituents ask.

Lomcevak (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Edit Centric

Please be a 'bit' more sensitive, yourself.

Please don't use phrases like 'not kosher' to me (or to anybody else for that matter). You have no idea of what my (or their) ethnic background is ... and to use it (the phrase) in this sense, as, I have frequently heard it, as a throw-away/insulting remark for 'slavishly going by (Jewish) Law (Torah from YHWH - Yahweh - to Moses)' seems to me to be simply 'gratuitous.' It may be well-intentioned, as a 'not for goyim (how do gentiles like that ?) only' Howard Stern understressing ...

....but you didn't need to use it, here, as far as I can see.

P.P.S. Natascha Engel ... it's not stopping ... there's more to come ... and remember I said, 'It's all about ACCOUNTABILITY.'

We 'WILL' hold you to account ... though my democratic rights.

Lomcevak (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Alright Lomcevak, that's quite enough. We're getting nowhere fast here, and you seriously need to reign it in. As for my use of the word "kosher", I DO apologize if you found it distressing in any way, shape or form. (Chill, my daughter-in-law is Jewish, and I am highly "Israel-supportive", just know that.)
Still, does not give you carte blanche to go on the warpath that you did above. FYI, Wikipedia is NOT a Democracy, so I really don't know what you're trying to accomplish by the wording above, referring to "holding someone to account through your Democratic rights". By bringing your political diatribes here, you are this close to being blocked. You've been warned about civility, now please dial it in. Edit Centric (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit Centric, do you now see what I've had to deal with? Lomcevak comes out with streams of sheer nonsense, peppering his insults and claims with jibberish about New Labour and the the Member of Parliament of the constituency he resides in. It's tiring reading his nonsense on my talk page so I tend to delete it after he's hit a certain amount of jibberish. He appears to be someone with an extreme grudge towards his MP and the current British government, and he turned against me because I'm close friends with one of his MP's caseworkers. I've got a feeling he's going to indefinitely go on and on and on despite being told not to. Fetler (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not if he wants to keep editing here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, not a democracy, and not the place to champion a particular political stance or doctrine. It's an on-line encyclopedia, dependent upon the collaborative efforts of many editors around the world. Granted, we're going to have our differences in the things that we hold near and dear, but we cannot allow these to interfere with or disrupt the constructive editing and building of the project. Hence the reason I say that, if Lomcevak continues down this road, he / she will be blocked for disruption and incivility, of this I have no doubt. Lomcevak, do you really want to ride that train?

I just wish more people would read what I say here, and take the advice that I dispense to heart;

• Remember that, when you point the finger, you have three pointing back at you!
• You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
• If you don't have anything positive to say about a person, don't say it at all.

Now, let's move forward y'all. Edit Centric (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Resolved between editors - good on ya!

Colonel Warden's contributions to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gail_Trimble display an increasing level of unnecessary and disruptive antagonism. First [18] s/he asserts that policy "is being misunderstood and misapplied", quite mild in itself but slanted towards the contributor rather than the contribution. Then [19] implies that the AFD and its support is "an attack" on the subject (and in context an accusation of sexism). Then [20] , in reply to me, "If you actually read WP:OSE" is just rude. Finally [21] accuses me of being an SPA (falsely as it happens). I have asked on the user talk page not to be so aggressive [22]. Anna Rundell (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to be rude, Ms. Rundell, but you have edited wikipedia for only two days. On your first day of editing, you were already linking to policies and procedures, and using piped links. While I agree that telling someone to "actually read" x is slightly rude, so is dissembling about one's identity. What other accounts have you used to edit? Hipocrite (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I previously used my real name and must respectfully decline to reveal it. Anna Rundell (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And your prior involvement with CW? Hipocrite (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see your reason for asking, sorry to be slow on the uptake and am happy to disclose that we had two disagreements in the three years I have been an editor. Funnily enough they were both over incivility in an AFD. Anna Rundell (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ms. Rundell, what would you like editors too do in this case? I would be interested in hearing Colonel_Warden's opinion on this matter. Ikip (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite simply to signify to CW their disapproval of what I regard as an overly aggressive style of argumentation, or, alternatively, to tell me I'm being hypersensitive. Anna Rundell (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have removed the word actually which may have been taken as provocative. My purpose is to resolve the substantive issue of the AFD, not to engage in side arguments over the form of words used. I consider the language of User:Anna Rundell and others in the AFD to be mildly uncivil - sarcasm, condescension, etc - but such minor friction should be borne in the spirit of WP:AGF. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• I am willing to apologise to anyone who found my comments upsetting (although no-one has said so to me). CW, would you be willing to apologise too? Anna Rundell (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• I am naturally sorry if my words should cause hard feelings as it is not my intention to give offence or seem ill-mannered. The difficulty at AFD is to find the right words with which to vigorously rebut the opposing arguments while remaining polite and sparing the feelings of those who hold those arguments dear. I bear no ill-will to User:Anna Rundell, whatever may have passed between us before, and am willing to start afresh. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, CW, for that — I gladly accept and in return apologise for any ill-feeling I have caused. Let's start over and regard this as closed. Anna Rundell (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

1 - I awarded two Barnstars to myself. I know that sounds a little conceited but I did it because I know for a fact of the existence of a sock but I haven't nailed down who the puppetmaster is yet and I think I can flush them out -- I'll spare you the details of how. This relates to an ongoing abuse of socks in an article for which several have already been banned but a few remain.

2 - When adding these Barnstars I accidently had a leftover clipboard of their names that pasted into the Barnstars so it appeared they were awarding them. User Black Kite removed these, which I appreciate.

3 - I replaced them, editing out the errant userIDs so it looks as though no one except me gave me the Barnstars. User Black Kite removed these and left an aggressive message.

4 - At this point it may be early to make this complaint but User: Black Kite is an admin and has been engaged in aggressive warnings against me on instigation of several problem editors which I have tried to explain to him on his Talk page and provide him with perspective and background of the situation. He has ignored and not replied to my comments but continues to leave threats and insults on my Talk Page.

I make this wikiquette alert because my final note on his Talk page was to wit: Unless you are able to give me the courtesy of replying to the message I left on your Talk page which provided you more background on the situation in which you've allowed yourself to be manipulated into (clearly without taking the time to investigate the full facts of this situation), I would appreciate you leaving no more messages on my Talk page. The Talk page is a forum for dialog, not a forum for one-way berating which is what you are using it for; a reply from you is neither required nor desired.

Given his provocative, shoot-first method of handling user interaction to this point I feel it is necessary to make this alert at an earlier-than-user stage because his anger management issues may lead to an unjustified block against me by him.

Thanks and apologies for the Drama. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now that that is fixed...what is it that you are trying to accomplish by bringing this to WQA? I noted that you have not notified Black Kite that you brought this here, which is customary.

I will not opine as to my own feelings on the self-awarding of Barnstars, save for to say that it is;

• NOT the spirit of what the Barnstar is for, and
• NOT the method to address concerns of WP:SOCK. There is a correct process for this, I highly suggest that you use it. Edit Centric (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(1) I've just informed Black Kite; I had a personal errand to quickly attend to before I could finish inputting my informational; (2) the socking in question is part of a coordinated attack done as part of a marketing campaign for a radio station that a simple checkuser has been able to decipher and requires a special methodological and investigative approach -- that's not germane to the point, though, the ultimate question is - is it a P&P violation to award oneself a Barnstar (regardless of the underlying reason or rationale)? If it is not, what is the justification for editing a Userpage other than ones own and for making threats to ban a user? Ones personal offense to something on a userpage is not an underlying enabler for editing or blocking. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right in that Black Kite was out of line in editing the said content from your user page. Black Kite, whatever your own personal proclivities are regarding the administering and application of Barnstars, there are better ways to address this, rather than taking the "heavy-hand" approach.

NP, awarding yourself a Barnstar is again, not what Barnstars are meant for, and your doing so for the reasons that you did is, in and of it's self, a Wikiquette violation. I'm quite surprised that Black Kite did not bring this here, had they done so I would be issuing this same counsel.

As for the WP:SOCK issue, it is not under your purview to assume the role of investigator with this, we have people for that. Let them do their job. If you have concerns, bring them to the proper venue for this. In the meantime, I suggest that you remove the barnstars from your userpage. I cannot insist that you do so, it's your userpage. However, if you can indeed understand the point here, you will do the honorable thing and remove them. Edit Centric (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is reasonable counsel and I will cease any investigative efforts and remove the Barnstars from my page. Thank you. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No, he's not "absolutely right". The original barnstars were giving the impression that they had been awarded by users whom this persistently disruptive user had been in conflict with. Restoring them without the names was just yet another WP:POINT violation by user who specialises in such things, and to claim that I was "heavy handed" in removing them is inaccurate. A detailed review of the user's previous edits (here is the latest one, not to mention the ones on my talk page which you suggested I ignore) might go some way to explaining why such "heavy handed" actions were correct. This is effectively a SPA account who wants, for some personal reason, to have the article Luke Burbank deleted, removing information from the article and inserting unsourced BLP violations ([23]), and has gone as far as AFDing an article on a "more popular" radio show so that it "prove" Burbank's non-notability. Not to mention persistent spurious allegations, mostly of wikistalking, against editors who are merely trying to point out his failure to adhere to policy. If it had been any random, non-disruptive user you would be completely correct. In this case, you're not. Black Kite 10:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) First of all Black Kite, why perpetuate the drama here, when this was actually getting somewhere? Second of all, I do not appreciate the tone of your edit descriptor, unarchiving this WQA ("unarchive (what the hell?)") Please unruffle. Progress was being made here, despite NP's follow-on's at your talk page, which I immediately took umbrage with, and let NP know this. These other issues that you mentioned are valid points, but need vetted out in the appropriate venue. Do you see what we're trying to accomplish here?
FOR THE RECORD, I was not referring to your initial removal of the Barnstar content from the page, I was referring to THIS content removal edit that you made to NP's user page. Yes, I found this approach heavy-handed. Yes, I have reservations regarding your usage of your Admin status in doing this, but Yes, I could see your reason(s) for doing it.
That I was "inaccurate" is a subjective opinion, and you are certainly entitled to opine in that fashion. IMHO, it would have again been more apropos to bring it here and have it vetted out to begin with, as this particular thing was more a breach of solid etiquette than anything else that might have contributed to it. It was dealt with, the user removed it, EOS.
Black Kite, Golbez, Arxiloxos AND Notabilitypatrol - continuing the drama is one thing, and perhaps there are other issues that need addressed. But to continue it on my talk page is a no-go, it's not appreciated, is a blatant "toss-aside" of WP:CIVIL, especially in light of what we're trying to get done here in WQA. We're all on the same side here, please see that. All I am trying to accomplish is to be the "buffer" betwixt y'all, and further the processes that we all should be espousing; good edits, sense of community, and cooperation. I would appreciate yours in this instance. Edit Centric (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, now things are clearing up a bit. NP, we were making such good progress here, and then this, this and this from you, after you were shown a great deal of consideration in this WQA. I will now deliver my standard line in these instances; enough with the shenanigans. Noone said anything about being "censured". I never made a "ruling", and I certainly never said "abuse of power". What I said was the approach was "heavy-handed", in my opinion.

Again, FOR THE RECORD, I do not "preside" over any "tribunal" or "judging" process here, that is NOT what WQA is. It is not the Scopes trial, not the Spanish Inquisition, and CERTAINLY not AN/I or ARBCOM. Edit Centric (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it again, this is a disruptive user (as you are beginning to see) bringing spurious WQA alerts (I see he's brought a similar one against User:Geni. This one was opened at 3.43am my time and closed at 6.35am my time, giving me no time to point out this fact (hence the "what the hell?" comment). I'm going to archive this again now, as I've made my point.

Resolved

 – User filing has been indef'ed - disruptive editing

User:Geni, an admin, has threatened to block me over my erroneous use of a plural form instead of a singular form. I find this rude and a violation of AGF.

Background - In a very heated discussion I paranthetically reference a death threat made against me by a position-supporter, to wit: "the same fan club who have left death threats on userpages of those who disagree with them and engaged in mass vandalism of the article, I will add".

I meant left out an "A" and added an "S" --- this was a freely admitted error on my part and was not intentional. I was simply trying to type without self-reference because I didn't want to make the discussion about me.

Geni - Geni stated "Please do not accuse other users of making death threats (such as here) without presenting evidence. If you continue to disrupt wikipedia in this manner or through misrepresenting other people such as falsely claiming they have awarded you barnstars I will block you."

I replied to Geni and said the death threat against me was well documented in the logs and had resulted in a warning against the editor in question. I said I thought she was making a blocking threat without full investigation of the facts.

Instead of apologizing for her oversight and jumping to conclusions, she replied and said: "the same fan club who have left death threats on userpages of those who disagree with them and engaged in mass vandalism of the article, I will add" fan club means you are blameing a group rather than a single editor. Still as long as it doesn't happen again I think we can let the matter rest

To which I replied: Are you kidding me? That's your beef? GOOD GRIEF! You thought it would be a collaborative, proactive, polite thing to do to threaten to block me because I erroneously used a plural instead of a singular when referencing a documented and factual statement?

It's my fault - I have no problem admitting it. I did use a plural when I should have used a singular. I made a mistake. If you want to block me over a typo then go right ahead. Unbelievable.

Wikipedia can not exist as a collaborative environment when admins make drive-by banning threats willy nilly without fully investigating situations, then try to cover up their dereliction by claiming their block threat was for the user erroneously using a plural form word instead of a singular form word. This is trite, petty, incompetent and typifies the characteristics of bullying.

Geni is a WIKIPEDIA ADMIN, not the WIKIPEDIA KING. She should act in a tempered, reasonable way - seeking to discover facts and make reasoned judgments after hearing all sides of an issue - not wildly swing around an axe.

I am absolutely appalled and aghast at this abuse of power.

Notabilitypatrol (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You have not notified this user either. Please correct the deficiencies with these two WQAs at this time, before we can continue. You may borrow my standard form of notice, found in some of my previous edits. Edit Centric (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My standard WQA notice can now be found here. Edit Centric (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(1) I've just informed Geni; I had a personal errand to quickly attend to before I could finish inputting my informational; Notabilitypatrol (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just re-read the original threat made against me and this has caused me anguish in light of User:Geni's flippant attitude regarding it and attempts to make me at fault. It's like telling a rape victim it's her fault for dressing provocatively. At this time all I would like is an apology from User:Geni and a guarantee that I will not be blocked in retribution for filing this alert.Notabilitypatrol (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

While the admin action may not have been the best, statments from yourself such as the ones you quoted here aren't generally in line with WP:CIVIL. A polite request to the admin, rather than yelling at him, is more likely to work out in your favor. Also, comparing his actions to that of harrassing rape victims is an insult to rape victims everywhere. Rape is much more serious than Wikipedia. Themfromspace (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And death is more serious than either wikipedia or rape. The question at hand is that I received a death threat left on my userpage (substantiated / editor warned) and was threatened with blocking for having the gall of bringing it up. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Agreed. The rape reference is highly inflamatory, also when you notify or post to a user, NP, you do this on their talk page, NOT their user page. What you've been doing over at Geni's page could be construed as vandalizing their user page, and is not kosher by any measure of the word. (Want to take a moment to fix these issues?) At this point, you're rapidly compounding your own problems. If it was me, I would STOP, take a moment and think, then go back and do whatever strike-throughs, moving of content and mea culpas that are needed to fix your end of the snafu. Trust me, from a 3-O pov, you are very culpable in this ongoing situation. Edit Centric (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize - I posted to her User page in error and meant to post to her Talk page. I have corrected this problem. Also, a clarification - Gina has NOT threatened to rape me and I am not accusing her of that. I was simply analogizing her behavior in this very serious matter of further victimizing me for being the object of a death threat, something that was terrifying and humiliating and beyond my control. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That's definitely a beginning. To be perfectly honest, I found your analogue highly distressing, as I also am involved IRL in counseling with this topic. Regarding the alleged threat to your safety, it's all in the way that you address it. First, you have to put things here in their proper perspective; does this person likely know just who you are IRL and where you live? What's the likelihood of that? Then, approaching it from that mindset, you go to WP:ANI and address it concisely and politely, citing the appropriate diffs and edits that contain the threat, veiled or overt. An admin will address it accordingly. Edit Centric (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It was addressed and to my satisfaction. My only issue with Gina is being threatened with blocking for acknowledging it happened; though, frankly, I suspect she did not have the full details. When I appraised her of the full details she changed and said her threat to block me was over the misuse of a plural instead of a singular, which is AGF typo by any objective definition. Had she simply apologized for presumptive block threatening and acknowledged she had not investigated before swinging the axe none of this would ever have happened. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Granted and ack'ed. Geni - maybe a less agressive tack was called for here, and that is my recommendation for the future. NP - you've shown me here this evening that you're a very reasonable person, in that you've taken my suggestions and run with them. I'll tell you the same thing I tell my kids IRL; "I'm not about to tell you to do anything that's going to hurt you or get you in trouble". The same goes for WQA and Wikipedia. I would be remiss in my duties here if I did so.

I'm feeling that we're close to resolution here, which is a very beautiful thing! Edit Centric (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome, NP. It's my way of giving back to WP for the vast amount of info that they have provided me over the years. (My drill sergeants used to say "Don't thank me, thank your recruiter." Don't thank me, thank Jimbo Wales. :-) Edit Centric (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Referred to ANI and blocked for 72 hours

User TungstenCarbide has engaged in several personal attacks since he/she arrived (such as this and this), and has now vandalized two user pages here and here. The last edit, along with being vandalism, is also another inappropriate (albeit cleverly formatted) personal attack. This user has made constructive edits, and can, I believe, make good contributions in the future, but this type of behavior has to stop now. I imagine that warnings posted by me would not have any positive effect, so I hope that an admin can talk to him/her and help prevent similar actions in the future. Otebig (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

He needs to read over WP:CIVIL a few times. Even his User Page contains offensive language that contributes to a hostile atmosphere. Themfromspace (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Themfromspace. I suggest kindly asking him to read it by leaving him a message on his talk page. Has anyone even informed him of his abuse? Papercutbiology♫ (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You all should pull your heads out of your asses and acknowledge that we are here to write an encyclopedia, not be polite to each other. If someone does something stupid, they should be told that they did something stupid. Please go read my user page, and then go fuck yourselves, morons. TungstenCarbide (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

TungstenCarbide, understand that you can (and will) get blocked from editing if you continue to disrespect other editors in this manner. Themfromspace (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

TungstenCarbide is right about the issue. The first sentence of the -stan article is a horrible, horrible mess. Unbelievable that there are editors who fail to grasp this, and that they reverted TC's good-faith, useful attempts at improvement. TC's user page, while it uses strong language, should be kept. TC should not call other editors morons or exhort them to do impossible things to their anatomy.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Also, since no one can keep all the different Afghan, Tajik etc. -stans straight, how about we rename them all collectively to a name we all know and love: Stan Getz. <--- apologies to Jay Leno, who was first with Jenniferanistan!

The dispute appears to be over a simple WP:MOS issue. Putting pronunciations and foreign-alphabet spellings in a parenthesis in the first sentence is the standard, so TC isn't even right about the issue, never mind that being right is no excuse for the WP:CIVIL violation we've seen here. That 16:04 comment (on WQA no less!) merits an immediate block if WP:CIVIL is to mean anything. THF (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's see what the relevant paragraph in WP:Lead section actually says:

Usage in first sentence

I repeat:

1. can be followed
2. "one or two alternative names in parentheses"
3. "not mandatory"

And here is the first sentence as of today:

I challenge anyone to read that aloud with a straight face and not get his tongue tied up in a knot necessitating medical intervention.

I repeat again: "one or two alternative names in parentheses", and "not mandatory".--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I agree with TC's assertions about the sentence in question. His behavior, however, has nothing to do with that and is completely inappropriate. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As this user has responded entirely inappropriately to non-admin users advising him about his behavior, I have brought this issue to ANI here. I suggest closing this thread as informal third-party opinion obviously does not get through to this user. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – user warned regarding incivility

• 94.192.38.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This static IP editor is extraordinarily uncivil [24] [25] [26] [27], engages in personal attacks,[28][29] and doesn't seem to care.[30] THF (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

[31] Yes he is impolite, and a relatively new user with (apparently) strong opinions. Collect (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me have a chance to respond.

THF kicks up a stink and goes crying wolf, yet again. I am so sick of this guy cherry picking my old edits to frame me as a bad guy and people falling for it. He follows me around and reverts or fiddles with my edits in a way that is obviously intended to irritate and wind up. He doesn't conduct himself with a shred of good etiquette and is frankly the most unpleasant wikipedian i've had the misfortune of interacting with.

As for Collect's comment... I was requesting for that outrageous and slanderous lie that was inserted to be removed from the article, how exactly is that having strong opinions, or have you got your wires mixed up? 94.192.38.247 (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This WQA was filed due to your past incivility, and you have received a warning regarding it. I will say that two wrongs don't make a right", if you are so tired of it, then take the high ground, and stop the incivility on your part. Take the wind out of their sails. I shouldn't have to tell you this, you seem like a mature person to me from what you've written. So please, take this advice and run with it. As for this WQA, it is now marked archived. Please do not modify it further. Thank you. Edit Centric (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, 94.192 asked me to investigate a particular page as a neutral editor; I discovered he had been removing identically reliably sourced content from a variety of pages, and was one of several editors who acted to restore the content, to which he responded by lashing out and by complaining about "Jewish editors" elsewhere. THF (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE - If this gets unarchived again just to perpetuate the argument and drama, I will take this entire issue to ANI for further action. Let it be. Edit Centric (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User filing has been blocked 24h - edit warring / disruption.

I have a question, is this guy some sort of moderator? he seems to act like one. I don't know if this is the right place to post this but I would like to make a formal complaint against him if he is. We just recently had a dispute centering around the validity of using a certain term to describe a particular event. He kept over turning my edit and called it a POV even though anyone that is even somewhat familiar with the law could see he was wrong. Anyway posting on his talk page to reason with him I opened up a discussion in hopes of reaching some sort of mutual understanding. Instead of participating in the actual discussion the guy repeated what he had just said, refusing to meet my argument with anything but what to me seemed ignorance. I then started posting sources and even used wikipedia's own definition for the word (which itself might not be a reliable source but should be seen as one since it was supported by other reliable sources). He responded very quickly something that should have been impossible if he had actually checked up on all the sources that was linked to wikipedia's own definition of the word. Still claiming that it was just my POV, he ignored my sources and continued writing his mantra "it's just your POV." Naturally he never told me what kind of sources exactly he would find acceptable so I wrote another reply to ask him what he wanted. But as I tried posting -- Farix had deleted the whole conversation from his talkboard!

I am new on wikipedia but I can't believe this is an acceptable practice, especially if the person in question is a moderator. If he refuses to discuss my edit and continuous to edit it -- and then tell me I shouldn't edit it with providing a reliable source... then tells me my sources aren't reliable (without checking them all) then refuses to tell me what sources he would find reliable... As a normal user and an editor, how can I even make my case heard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thronedrei (talk • contribs) 02:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As a note, Farix did not "delete" the entire conversation, he moved it to the article's talk page as Thronedrei is well aware of as he has continued to participate in the discussion. Farix also properly followed dispute resolution procedures and neutrally requested additional views from the Anime/Manga project. I as the first to respond and I agreed with Farix that calling a character's actions "murder" without it actually being called such with in the series was a non-neutral term and Thronedrei's personal interpretation. Thronedrei dismissed both views and has engaged in edit warring on the article (a report is currently open on his violating 3RR at the edit warring noticeboard).[32] I don't think Farix has done anything incivil here, other than maybe expressing mild frustration at Thronedrei's refusal to even seem to acknowledge why his attempts to "prove" he is right is still original research. Removing the discussion from his talk page is within his rights per WP:USER and he clearly noted in his edit summary that he was moving the discussion to the article talk page (which he did). Thronedrei is the one who seems to acting incivility, in his completely dismissal of disagreeing views, edit warring, and claims that those who disagree with him engaged in vandalism by removing his edit (whom he calls "you people").[33][34]-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that it's taken me a bit to get to this one, had some housekeeping tasks to accomplish. But that being done, on to the meat of it.

Thronedrei, everything that I'm seeing so far indicates that Collectonian is correct in his assessment of the situation. As you noted above, you seem to be new to Wikipedia, and have gotten off to a rough start. It's not uncommon for new editors to first apply WP:BOLD and just "go for it!" However what you have to keep in mind is that there are many more guidelines and policies that govern what we do in our collaborative efforts here, Thronedrei. I would highly suggest that you read the following sections closely, before continuing any editing. They will get you much further down the road to being a positive force in Wiki;

• Maintaining Civility
• The Bold, Revert and Discuss Cycle
• No Personal Attacks
• No Edit Warring
• The Three Revert Rule
• Tendentious Editing / "I Didn't Hear That"

Above all, keep in mind that we work together on articles. No one person owns an article here, it's again a collaborative effort that keeps Wiki working. Edit Centric (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Can this be closed now, it seems like a content issue and not really civility? --neon white talk 07:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it, neon, no worries :-) Edit Centric (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)