Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

Darkcover21 and civility

Resolved

 – Indef. blocked.

• Darkcover21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Darkcover21 is an editor who has caused problems, both with his clear problems with basic spelling and grammar, but also with ownership issues and civility - he demands the right to edit articles uninterrupted and uncontested, and when warned about making personal attacks on another editor, turned right around and posted an attack on me. I feel further action past warnings may be necessary to convince this editor of his errors. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I had to delete several spurious long term abuse reports created by Darkcover21 with respect to Blue Square Thing. Darkcover21 continued to create them after I told him that LTA was not the correct venue for his issues with Blue Square Thing. Syrthiss (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me who is thinking this, or do others also think we might competence issues with this user? If a block is desired, this is probably better at ANI (and if that's not desired, well...I'm not sure of the likelihood of us getting through to him through dialogue, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong by someone). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that by the way - I was away at the time and unable to keep track of what was going on.

With regard to Darkcover's actions, I think he needs some help coming to terms with what Wikipedia is about and how to do many of the things we do. For example, posting an AfD template on Kirkley and Talk:Kirkley without completing the AfD, questioning the notability to Lowestoft despite it's 45 references etc... I've tried very hard to assume good faith and to ignore as much as I can, but the quality of writing (and some BLP issues) makes it difficult not to revert at least some edits. His style can also be rather combative at times which doesn't help with civility.

I do appreciate that it's difficult to pick up a lot of the ins and outs in such a short time within the project. I think I've tried to be reasonable where I can be and have ignored where possible recently - I'm happy to receive feedback on anything by the way. But things are being made a bit difficult, especially by such personal attacks. --Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well to be fair to Darkcover, he did try for a while to edit collaboratively and from some talkpage posts at Lowestoft he appears to have appreciated your improvements to some of his edits. However, he really does not seem to grasp what the problem is with much of his editing. The recent personal attcks seem a bit out of character and are probably the result of frustration. competence is a concern. A mentor perhaps? Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that in the main nothing (or not very much) is malicious. I do have some concerns that Darkcover's behaviour can appear to fluctuate quite a lot at times - this may well be due to frustration and I'm probably responsible for some of that, but at the same time the competence issues surrounding many edits make it difficult. A mentor may work.

On a possibly related note, I fear these edits to Port of Lowestoft may be an issue - based on written style. I know this isn't the direct place for this, but I'd welcome an opinion on the edits. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This user Darkcover21 actions are unbelievable as well as personal attacks and should result in them being blocked from wkipedia. I will leave a note directly on there talk page. (Timesdoors (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

Seems he went completely off the rails rather than engage here. He's now been indef. blocked.Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Timesdoors is one of Darkcover's sockpuppet accounts - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Darkcover21/Archive - that account has also been blocked. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

User:TreasuryTag at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silence (Doctor Who)

• TreasuryTag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silence (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:TreasuryTag has been maintaining a level of incivility on this discussion. He started here with sarcastic scare quotes and ABF: Sarek 'forgot' to address the issue of notability and here also 'forgetting' to be responsible. Here we have a personal attack what's the matter with you? and here This really isn't rocket science. This sic is minor baiting. Back to insults: It's pathetic This seems to be his excuse: Try not making fallacious arguments thus alleviating the necessity for me to employ rhetorical devices.

The least attractive part of this is This clear personal attack on a "trophy wall" in userspace: My absolute favourite ever "keep" argument at AfD is this one – it wins for the sheer audacity of its paucity of sagacity.

Requests to stop: [1] Comments on the perceived inadquacies of other editors do not constitute deletion arguments. [2] Please stop the personal comments right now. [3] I would ask you to go one stage further and cut out the sarcasm too. [4] Please adhere to the civility policy. [5] Whether or not you choose to call them "rhetorical devices", some of your comments are personal attacks which are disruptive to the discussion. Please stop. [6] your vehemence and rhetorical devices are not helpful.

I suspect this user knows perfectly well what civility is all about and chooses to amuse himself by pushinfg the envelope. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well pardon my 'pushinf' the envelope just a little further through the postbox, but I think I have reacted to the spine-slicingly poor quality of arguments on that AfD ("Keep—They're the Big Bad of the 6th Season," – seriously?) in a not unreasonable way. I certainly do not consider any of the above-quoted material to have strayed into personal attack territory and will this not be reading or watchlisting this Wikiquette thread. ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 20:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Even Steven Moffat refers to them as such--SGCommand 21:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that the tone of Treasury's comments is pretty uncivil. However, in an attempt to just end the pointless discussion, I created a redirect at the article to point to the list of Doctor Who aliens. This completely eliminates the need to dignify any of Treasury's comments with a response and ends the argument, since notability standards are much less for pieces of articles rather than full articles. Once the aliens are determined to have a larger context within Doctor Who, they can be placed into their own article again. -- Avanu (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag knows better than to behave like this (check his block log) and isn't interested in engaging here so I don't think dispute resolution will help much. Perhaps take it to AN/I or something if he keeps it up. Bob House 884 (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that TT responds to a claim of incivility by (1) repeating the baiting complained of (1) arguing that they are entitled to be uncivil because of the stupidity of others (2) suggesting that incivility is OK if it does not constitute a personal attack. I maintain that incivility is not OK, and noone is entitled to be uncivil -- this is policy. I further suggest that TT's incivility was not a response to other users, but started the moment he opened the AFD, and that his continued incivility, after requests and this WQA, was a conscious policy to get his own way in the discussion. I also argue that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TreasuryTag/Big_box&diff=prev&oldid=425704681 this] is a clear personal attack. TT's contempt for the rest of the community, as shown in his attitude to this WQA, is regrettably equally clear. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, can we please just "Knock it off" now? Enough already, there's no need to get so damn snippy over the "keep"/"delete"/"merge" of a single web-page on the Internet. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not engage in "did not", .. "did too", .. "yo mamma" schoolyard banter. Let the AfD run it's course, accept the results, and move on. Is it really worth a time out on the naughty step to get in the last little bit of oneupmanship? (yep, that's a hint to several folks). — Ched :  ?  07:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps. Some people never give up. Guoguo12--Talk--  23:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• While I'm not calling for a block or anything like that, Treasury Tag does seem to have something of a problem with civility, even outside of this AFD. You don't have to look hard to find other edits by him that raise issues, like this one:[7] Robofish (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So what are you calling for? TT is an editor who operates at one edge of the civility WP:Gray Area. Given WP's lack of clear consensus on what is and what isn't civil, and that TT seems to be commenting on contributions, not contributors, it's unclear there's anything more to be done. Gerardw (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Assumption of bad faith

user:Hubertgrove

We've had a rather nasty little exchange where user:Hubergrove has repeatedly accused me of sockpuppetery, OR, and about anything else he can think of to prove a point I assume the entire dicussion can be fount at Talk:Battle of the Falkland Islands. I'm trying to have a discussion about the event and he insists on getting personal, I don't think the fellow understands how to have a civil discourse without getting ugly.Tirronan (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Having read the thread Hubertgrove has been slightly uncivil. But I have little sympathy with you as you appear to have ramped it up quite unnecessarily. In response to his first perfectly reasonable post you responded with "Removing cited material will land you on a blocked list rather quickly" - a totally inappropriate and inflammatory comment given the reasonable nature of the content of his post. It was always going to go downhill from there. I've just read it through a second time and you would appear to have been unnecessarily confrontational throughout the thread. In fact, Hubertgrove appears to have made fairly good points about a rather dubious source you added. DeCausa (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope this can be an end to the matter. Hubertgrove (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this editor is continuing to harrass me. The short three-para edit I made to the article - sourced from a reputable book by a primary source, verified by other primary sources, validated by an academic historian - has led to a massive wall of text conversation with user:Tirronan. I have tried to be as civil as I can but he just seems to want to confront and contradict. Hubertgrove (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Whilst there are issues of tone here, it seems to me best handled by focussing constructively on the content issue. Use either the reliable sources board or perhaps create a request for comment on the content issue. Rd232 ^talk 03:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User Snowded using "SPA" in a perjorative manner

User:Snowded continues to refer to me and other editors as SPAs and does so in a clearly perjorative manner. He has been asked to stop doing so here: [8]. His response is here: [9] (note also the dit summary). Other instances are here: [10], [11], [12]. Whilst the term is not in itself offensive it is certainly being used here to belittle editors and to further enrage an already charged situation. Sonwded has previously been asked to avoid this terminology and as I recall he agreed to do so. I object to being labelled as such, even though for the moment my interests are heavily directed towards a single issue. LevenBoy (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know all the rules governing this, but isn't it actually reasonable to say it if it's accurate? I just looked at your last 500 edits LevenBoy and I can't see any at all that aren't on the usage of the term "British Isles". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Try looking harder in the last 500, there are plenty. Also, note that I said the term in itself is not offensive but Snowded is using it deliberately to cause angst, and that is my complaint. LevenBoy (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a reach (that Snowded is, as you put it, "delberately causing angst") - in my opinion he was just being factual, eg, that your account seems to be chiefly used for the purpose of reverting deletes on British Isles. On the count thing, I think there are 6 out of your last 500 edits that are not BI-related. I haven't yet moved on to the next 500. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're counting up my edits in that way you need to get a life! LevenBoy (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You brought another user here, and are now telling people to "you need to get a life!", you should try to be more civil. Also, edit activity investigating isn't that hard or time consuming. Monty₈₄₅ 17:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The usage of "SPA" is entirely in accordance with reality as far as I'm concerned, looking through the contrib history. You add no substance to the encyclopedia, just one , long endless edit war in various articles, e.g. this. My advice would be to develop some interests outside British isles naming issues before you find this sort of report filing boomerangs back at you. Tarc (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, point taken, I'll start referring to Snowded as "The Welsh Nationalist" from now on. LevenBoy (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well you're in the right place to make obviously unpleasantly personal remarks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL! You just don't get it. Look at how Snowded uses the term. Look also at how he deliberately conflates my user name with that of LemonMonday, and otherise purposely mis-spells it, and look how he uses terminology like "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" and various other disparaging words. If you're happy with that then what's your problem with my suggestion for him? LevenBoy (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully if there is a topic ban on all British Isles Deleters and Reverters you will be able to discover the joys of true article content.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And another thing; I find it offensive, so is that not reason enough to request another editor to stop levelling it at me? LevenBoy (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No. If you find it offensive, there's an easy answer: stop behaving like an SPA (you clearly are one to date, based on your "contribs" - and no one here seems inclined to say you're not). Laughable boomerang. DeCausa (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Laughable is it? So you think it fine for one editor to call another "The SPA", "That SPA", "LemonBoy", "LevinBoy", "Tweedledee" and so on do you? Please also point out where to edit mostly on one topic is some sort of offence at Wikipedia. LevenBoy (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not an offence. You complained about being called an SPA. You are an SPA. You therefore have no complaint. End of story. (If you want to complain about other comments then you've "malformed" your initial post. DeCausa (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at LevanBoy's contributions, I would not say that he is a 100% SPA, though he certainly is British-Isles heavy, and even if an editor occassionally edits outside his/her particular area of interest, if his focus is for the most part very narrow, he pretty much is editing like an SPA, so calling him one isn't outrageous, IMO. I don't see anything here that rises to a WQA issue. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I withdraw it, but I reserve the right not to refer to Snowded by his username anymore, but as some other generalised entity. Suggestions anyone? LevenBoy (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you don't have that right. Look, it isn't okay for the other guy to make fun of your username. But you aren't going to win this battle. You come here to ask for help and your very first response was confrontational. You say, "try looking harder". Is that really the way to go about this if you want people here to help you out? Come on. Sorry, it may be unfair, but you won't get anywhere with this post because of the way you've responded and if you start referring to others in a derogatory fashion then you're going to get blocked. That's the reality of the situation.Ultimahero (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend against doing that, or you will likely find yourself the subject of one of these. I'm not saying I will report you, so don't take this as a threat, just friendly advice that Snowded would have good reason to bring a report against you, and the discussion would likely turn against you, especially since you just explicitly declared your intent to be uncivil to him right here. My advice is to redact what you just wrote and move on. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to be careful to be accurate, so I have now checked back on LevenBoy's last 1000 edits - of these, taking a generous interpretation of what might not be "BI-related", it appears that a total of 83 edits were not about the use of BI - of these, most of the remainder were about the Londonderry/Derry debate and a few about the use of BC/BCE. Of the BI ones, quite a number were BI-adds. Given that the percentage of closely BI add/delete-related edits appears to be 91.7% over 1000 edits, I think it is perfectly fair to henceforth describe LevenBoy as an "SPA", possibly even a "BI obsessed SPA", although I suppose the word "obsessed" might be seen as pejorative in some circles. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Derogatory? I don't believe I said that. I said "generalised", so please explain how it's OK for Snowded to use a generalised term to describe me, rather than do me the courtesy of using my actual username, but not for me to do likewise. LevenBoy (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not okay for either or you. I specifically said it wasn't. But you have to understand the reality of this situation. You come here with a problem and ask other to take time to look into it for you. Then your very first response is to tell someone to "look harder". Remember, you're asking for help. The least you could have done is point out other edits you've made. But no, you rudely tell the editor to do it himself, and when he does, you tell him he needs to "get a life". I'm just telling you that you cannot win this one. It may suck, but that's reality. You're actions here aren't going to be viewed as those of a person being "wrongly attacked". You have every right to keep fighting this, but you won't win. All that will happen is you may end up getting into trouble yourself. I'm not an admin, I'm just telling you the facts.Ultimahero (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it sucks. "Try looking harder in the last 500" is what I said. Holy Moses, how incivil is that? Anyway, end. If Snowded continues to refer to me in a manner I consider to be derogatory I will not refer to him using his username, and he of course has every right to bring the matter here. LevenBoy (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a major lack of civility in the context of you asking for help. But there's no point in arguing with a man who cannot hear.Ultimahero (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• - Wikipedia:Single-purpose account - its an essay but worth a read for any editor either calling other editors SPA accounts and for users that are SPA accounts or being called one. I think in your situation its just best not to take the expression in a derogatory way, you can be a SPA and be a good editor also working to improve the content in that sector. Statements regarding motives should be avoided in almost all circumstances. SPA - The term should be used descriptively and should not be read pejoratively unless a disruptive agenda is clearly established. Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, terms like this have no place in article talk space. wp:SPA is something that might need to be considered in administrative discussions, and I can even see dropping it in a note on someone's talk page to suggest they might diversify more, but the only use for it on an article talk page is to say (essentially) "This person is a fanatic and need not be listened to." It's clearly a violation of wp:CIV. incidentally, has snowded been notified of this discussion? --Ludwigs2 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

He has and the complaint arose from a discussion on the BI issue at WP:ANI - presumably that falls outside article talkspace. I don't hold myself with calling editors things like "SPA" (I was joking above) but it's a bit rich hearing this complaint from LevenBoy when he is in fact so very consistently uni-minded in his editing; what we need is less serial rehearsing of the same wearisome opinions and more objective analysis. LB isn't unfortunately helping with that and I regard his complaint here as vexatious. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If you create the impression that you're only going to go into dormancy when & only when British Isles is no longer deleted from articles, others will consider you to be a SPA. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually care whether LevenBoy is in fact an SPA. He may be, and if his behavior is/becomes problematic for some other reason then it might be useful to discuss whether he should branch out into other articles. I guess the best way to put what I'm trying to say is that SPA should always be used as policy referent, never as a descriptive noun. in other words:

N this is bad: "editor X is an SPA on this topic"

Y this is ok: "editor X focuses most of his efforts here, which may be n issue per wp:SPA"

There's nothing inherently wrong with focusing all of one's attention on a single article or topic area. If other problems crop up (such as tendentiousness) that may need to be looked at, but labeling an editor as an SPA is always rude (even when it's accurate), and always violates wp:AGF (since it implicitly presumes that the editor can/will not work in other areas). There's no sense in doing it, except that it gives one that nice, warm, churlish glow. --Ludwigs2 22:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats your view Luwigs2, but policy doesn't say that, so its just your view of what is or is not correct behaviour. In the context of an ANI discussion on a contentious issue it is not only legitimate to point out that one of the participants is an SPA, its also important to do so. Its also done frequently. If its factually correct then it is not a violation of either WP:AGF or WP:NPA. Its also legitimate to point out in that ANI discussion that LevinBoy edits in tandem with LemonMonday (now banned). If you check you will find that they produce more or less identical comments and behaviours. An ANI discussion should be looking at the general patterns of editor behaviour and if you check that discussion LevinBoy (as he does above) makes a series of general statements (several pejorative) about other editors. S/he can hardly complain if matters of fact are pointed out in any response. There is considerable sense in doing it, and dealing with disruptive editors never gives anyone a glow of any type; you are pushing AGF and NPA a bit yourself with that comment. --Snowded ^TALK 01:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No, Ludwig is right. WP:NPA "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." Making statements about the EDITOR, and not the subject at hand, is out of line. I would classify the comments as "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views." Denaar (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Platitudes about how we should all be nice to each other are great, but who is going to provide some advice for how to actually deal with the SPAs? The community needs firmer action to avoid becoming bogged down in pointless bickering. Johnuniq (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of non-SPAs bicker. this seems like a non-sequitor.--Ludwigs2 06:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Simple, simple, simple. Don't make personal attacks. The idea that it is ok to label someone's edits as wrong because the editor simply edits with a certain focus is completely against Good Faith. Why does it matter if someone chooses to restrict their focus in Wikipedia? The SPA tag is nothing but a nuisance, and those who toss it out as a defense are simply being intellectually lazy. The community doesn't need 'firmer action', just treat every edit like any other... is it a valid and helpful edit or not? Its disappointing that people think they can claim an exemption for attacking people simply because the editor chooses a specific subject area. -- Avanu (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Snowded et. al. on this one: it's not as simple as NPA. If I see one more admin noticeboard initiated/concerning LevenBoy I'm swear I'm going to scream. WP:SPADE. I just made the same accusations as Snowded recently[13] and am miraculously not named in this thread. He didn't deny it, and he didn't argue much about it. This is sour grapes and an attempt to get Snowded in hot water. LevenBoy needs to move on to other areas, as a disruptive pattern was long ago established. All that Snowded needs to do is take the higher road from now on, and the chips will fall where they may. As the "last of the Mohicans", LB should learn from where his compadres wound up and move along in a different direction so as to not follow suit. Doc talk 05:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If Snowded does take the higher road from now on, then we won't be here again for this issue. That seems like a simple task. It would also make future discussions easier. SPA is pretty much never in need of being used, so why use it? There are ways to describe such behavior without resorting to labels for people. -- Avanu (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"Liar" is a label that should be used even less, either.[14] No more "boomerang"-style LevenBoy threads, please. (Sigh) Doc talk 06:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, I'm not making any assessment of LevenBoy or Snowden or the situation here (I haven't really looked into it). I'm just saying that using SPA as a label is a counter-productive step. Wikipedia is reasonably good about not categorizing and discrediting people according to the old prejudicial standbys (i.e. race, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc.). Can we try not to make up brand, spanking new prejudicial categories to discredit people with? SPA may in some cases be a problem that needs looking into, but it is not in itself a character flaw. and yeah, 'liar' is no good either, though it too has its place on project. --Ludwigs2 06:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

All this bickering and none of it gets to the issue. Snowded is a jerk to other editors. His use of pointed terms (SPA is damn pointed even if true), filibustering, and general "I will do whatever it takes to get my POV across and you just have to deal with it since I will open more discussions than you while disregarding certain points of policy but highlighting others so there" is a major concern. The editor who started this is screwed since he probably is an SPA. But he is right. And the community will allow Snowded to continue doing it since his single goal on Wikipedia is making a point. Luckily for him it all equals what most would consider good things (not hating others for their race and so on) and no established editors will say "no, stop pushing a POV even if it is a nice POV" Have fun and we all know it isn't going away.Cptnono (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, what does calling Snowded a jerk and a POV-pusher have to do with LevenBoy's complaint about being called a SPA? You're not helping to resolve this right now. Perhaps WP:SPA should be merged with WP:DICK into a new category: "Borderline Personal Attacks". No one, including LevenBoy, is arguing that he is a SPA: just that he doesn't want to be constantly reminded of it. The remedy for that is to move on from all things BI-related. Sheesh... Doc talk 06:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Doc, maybe we should just close this thread? Once people get to the "Those damned jerks don't follow CIV and NPA" stage it's pretty hopeless - you can't usually get anywhere when people are blind to the irony of their own actions. --Ludwigs2 06:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No argument here :> Do the honors, sir If you dare - though non-admins tend to run the show on these boards nowadays anyway... ;> Doc talk 06:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes please, someone dispose of this carcass DeCausa (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You need a thick skin to deal with controversial subjects on Wikipedia. Cptnono is one of a small group of editors who attempted to force a change to the Unite Against Fascism article to conform with the far-right attempt to label it as far left when in fact it attracts cross party support. That one required patience over several months going to three separate notice boards each of which in turn supported the status quo position. Most people would have given up, which I think was the hope and I imagine the rant above is a response to my (and other's) persistence in following through wiki process. Ludwig2 - you say you haven't checked into the history on LevenBoy; you really need to. SPAs on this subject are one of the reasons the issue keeps coming to ANI and the editors are one of the most blatant cases I have seen. There comes a point, after a few years of dealing with it, that WP:SPADE applies. --Snowded ^TALK 09:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to make something perfectly crystal clear. I believe LevenBoy asked me once why I "hate" him (I could be wrong if it was him, and I can't be bothered to find the diff at the moment). I do not "hate" LevenBoy even one little bit, and I'm quite sure he's a very nice man IRL and that we would have no trouble having a good laugh over a pint at a pub over all this. I could give a crap about whether "UK&I" or "BI" is the better term, as an American with *zero* real interest in the issue. I do watch the admin boards, and I do get involved when I feel like it (whether others want me to or not). I do not want to see LevenBoy the subject/creator of another thread on them. He is not a bad person; but he simply has to move on to other subjects here. It's a HUGE wiki, and there's simply no excuse anymore for periods of dormancy followed by BI aggression. Please, LevenBoy: move onto improving the wiki in other ways. Then you will never be called a SPA again. Doc talk 10:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What a fascinating discussion. It just goes to show how some people can be easily sidetracked. I made a complaint but all that a number of respondents could do was ignore it and focus on me instead. Why? It doesn't matter what I do, how I edit, how bad I am or how good I am or even whether I'm an SPA or not. None of that has anything to do with Snowded's actions. I guess I could interpret some of the earlier responses as Calling someone an SPA is wrong, but you deserve it, so Snowded has no case to answer. What a strange way of thinking. Anyway, I think the message has got through, and I don't expect to be referred to as "the SPA" or similar again. Thank you. LevenBoy (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Its a general true LevenBoy that if you raise another editor's conduct on a forum then your own is brought into scrutiny as well. Otherwise the future is in your hands, you could cease to be an SPA. However if that does not change, and you raise issues on a talk page or forum relating to that obsession then I reserve the right to make it clear to engaged editors at the time that you are an SPA. So given the same situation at ANI which brought you here I would do exactly the same. After a couple of years of this nonsense my tolerance has run out. --Snowded ^TALK 13:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Levanboy, it is perfectly reasonable for editors considering a WQA issue to look at the actions of all involved parties, including the reporting party, and if they find that the reporting party's behavior is questionable, shift the focus to that. See WP:Boomerang which states "there is no 'immunity' for reporters." Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Any of you that think it is appropriate to label and namecall (specifically SPA, but anything), need to be taken out and flogged. This is so completely ridiculous and opposite of professional conduct. "Please, LevenBoy: move onto improving the wiki in other ways. Then you will never be called a SPA again." says our fellow editor Doc9871. Please, please forgive me for the next comment I make, but please do shut the fuck up. I know I shouldn't say such a thing to you, and if you feel the need to report me, it's justified, but really, this logic is simply insulting. Its like telling someone you'll stop calling them fat and ugly when they lose some weight and brush their hair. Its wrong regardless, and the idea that people are required to edit broadly to edit at all is simply stunning. -- Avanu (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's gonna flog me. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, when I get the inevitable complaint about the word choice above, I'm fine with you flogging me too, but understand that calling someone an SPA is almost as bad for some folks. -- Avanu (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There will be no complaint from me, if you mean a "civility" one. I know the situation far better than you do. I seem to know a lot more on how not to edit war as well. Maybe when you're unblocked for it without screeching "admin abuse", you can take your own advice in the future. Doc talk 10:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong with being an SPA, hence there is nothing inherently wrong with calling someone an SPA. I prefer not to refer to someone as an SPA; instead, if the situation warrants it, I will put the "this user has made few or no edits outside this subject" tag after the user's signature. I pretty much reserve that for users who have just recently created an account apparently for the sole purpose of editing a single article. I think I have done this twice. It absolutely meets the standard of "comment on the edits, not the editor" - all you are doing is pointing out the edits that have been made. While actually calling someone an SPA might be a little more questionable, it is still in the spirit of commenting on the edits, not the editor. You're not calling someone a troll or a POV pusher, you are simply calling attention to their edits being restricted to a narrow field, and allowing others to make the decision as to whether or not this is affecting the balance of the article. Yes, the use of SPA as a term can be abused, but so can saying "assume good faith". That doesn't mean these terms/catch phrases are inherently uncivil. however, my advice to Snowded is to use the tag I mentioned instead of calling someone an SPA, and you can avoid having to deal with one of these discussions. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec with archive so still posting). I've never seen someone called an SPA without it being in circumstances where the implication is that the edits are inherently less valuable or reliable. In theory there is nothing wrong with being an SPA but these things are not said as passing observations. They are said to call attention to the POV or stance of the SPA. Having said that - LevenBoy is an SPA. He is an SPA in an area with plenty of SPAs, and other editors who although not SPAs can be relied upon to turn up and join in with just about every exchange on the same topic. Nothing wrong in that either. Pot - kettle, kettle - pot. Or just two good faith editors with particular interests.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The admonition to never refer to an editor as an SPA is not good advice. Although "X is an SPA" has the syntax of a statement about X, it is actually a shorthand way to describe the editing behavior of X, and is neither a personal attack nor an assumption of bad faith. If we were not allowed to describe editing behavior, we would have to close some of the notice boards, and governance of Wikipedia would become nearly impossible. Being an SPA isn't even always bad. It's true that off the top of my head I can think of only one SPA that is clearly an asset to Wikipedia, but I am sure there must be are others. :) Cardamon (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This thread is absurd and needs to be closed asap. There is no WP prohibition on being an SPA and therefore to refer to an editor as an SPA if he is one (which is the case for the editor in question) is not a breach of WP:NPA etc. Move on. DeCausa (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I notice that Snowded refers to LevenBoy above as "LevinBoy". He has made the same misspelling of the user name elsewhere. It may of course be a simple mistake, but it can also be read as an attempt to insinuate something about another editor's ethno-religious background. As such, it is surely a mistake best avoided in future. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations of gaming Wiki-policies to push POV in articles

Resolved

 – comment withdrawn Gerardw (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

First off, I should preface this by saying there are no flaring tempers or serious fireworks here (my apologies to any drama-junkies). I am having some difficulty communicating with another editor, and I was hoping uninvolved folks here could help us whack our way out of the weed patch we seem to be in. Here is the situation as I see it, and where I hope you can help:

An uninvolved editor drove by and tossed this into a discussion on edit warring, claiming I have been "using the rules to POV the article (a common tactic that works due to poorly written rules)". Besides being false and insulting, his comments were a violation of both WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I left a note on his talk page simply indicating that I was disappointed -- I didn't use templates or boilerplates, etc., because I recognized him as an experienced editor with whom I have conversed several times in the past, so I kept it informal. He responded that his comments were not personal attacks; that his comments were accurate; and furthermore, that I was the one doing the personal attacking by questioning his comments about me(!). You can see the whole surreal discussion here. I am requesting that volunteers at this board help clarify for both of us the following:

(1) Does accusing another editor of gaming Wiki-policy or pushing a POV in articles, or both, constitute a violation of WP:AGF or WP:NPA policies?

(2) Does my raising the issue on his talk page of his comments about me, and my characterizing of his comments as personal attacks against me, constitute a personal attack by me against him?

(3) Can you (and this may be out of the bounds of this venue) see a way to discover the reasoning behind, or motivation for, his attacks upon me? I've asked him to back up his attacks by showing me (or providing examples showing) what has led him to feel that way, but to no avail. If there is a problem that I can help address, I have to know what it is first.

I anticipate we may be collaborating on editing controversial articles in the future, and I'd rather have any misperceptions cleared out before that. All constructive input is welcome, and thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)0

I'm the other editor. The first diff provided by Xenophrenic is both the text in question and also sums up my opinion which was developed carefully and cautiously and after many months of observation and interaction, and was said to try to encourage a change. BTW I did not use the stronger word "gaming"; there is a difference between "using" and "gaming". Both the wording and my intentions were limited to behavior, and not the person. I view and treat people who I have disagreements with (including Xenophrenic) as fellow human beings first and potential future friends; this does not deter me from nicely but directly making statements and giving opinions about the situation at hand, which is completely separate (in my mind) from talking about the individual. A thorough, careful reading of the discussion at the 2nd diff provided by Xenophrenic would also be very informative. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, my responses to your three questions are as follows:

(1) This question is disengenuous. You mis-characterise what North8000 has said and then ask us to judge his comments based on your mis-characterisation. This is known in the logic racket as a straw man argument and is a logical fallacy. North8000 has not accused you of gaming wiki-policy. Secondly, by your actions, you do appear to have been pushing POV in an article and so the (mild) criticism North8000 made is thus entirely valid. It is not a personal attack to discuss the nature of your edits. North8000 said nothing about you personally, only about your edits, which is completely within both the letter and the spirit of the rules here.

(2) First part of the question - No, second part - Yes.

(3) Completely irrelevant. North8000 has not been attacking you, you have over-reacted to entirely appropriate actions by another editor and seem unable or unwilling to understand what North8000 is actually saying to you. This is your problem not his and has nothing to do with this board (WQA). I recommend you leave this issue (and the article in question) alone for a few days or so, then go back and carefully re-read what North8000 has said to you, with an open mind and allowing for the possibility that you might not be correct in your interpretation of what he is saying. If you cannot do that then I strongly suggest you stay away completely from the article in question and other similar topics. There's plenty of other work to do on Wikipedia, this little part of it will survive without your attention. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Nick Thorne. Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my questions ... I think. Honestly, and please don't take this the wrong way, my first impression is that I may have just read some responses to someone else's post, and not mine. I'll explain why in a minute. I would like to address the issues you raised in your responses to questions 1 and 2, but that would not be productive until we first clear up an apparent misunderstanding expressed in the 3rd part of your response. You have stated that I "seem unable or unwilling to understand what North8000 is actually saying to you." If I can gently direct your attention to my opening paragraph, you'll discover that my inability to understand what North8000 is saying is the very reason why I am here (and my being here indicates a definite willingness to understand). I would like to reiterate what North8000 said above: A thorough, careful reading of the discussion at the link I provided would be very informative.

I am of open mind, and allowing for all possibilities, when I ask here for third-party interpretation of what North8000 is saying about me. If I need to reiterate that to you again, please let me know. If we can agree to a mutual understanding of this small but important point, we can hopefully move on to achieving a productive resolution to this situation. Moving on to your other points:

• In (1), you accused me of being disingenuous, and said I mis-characterized what North8000 said. Huh? I humbly ask you to consider this possible (obvious) alternative: I actually quoted him for you. QUOTED exactly, not mis-characterized. That quote included his words "using the rules to POV the article", which equates to "gaming the Wikipedia policies" in my mind. If you think I misunderstood North's accusation, then simply say so, but do not accuse me of intentionally being disingenuous or intentionally mis-characterizing ... that is uncalled for. Please also note that I referred to North's accusation of "gaming" as just that, several times, during our lengthy conversations, and he didn't once dispute it (he even defended it) until I brought it here in public, where it might be judged.
• In (1), you assert "by your actions, you do appear to have been pushing POV in an article". Hey, that sounds a lot like what North8000 has accused, so I am going to ask you the same thing I asked of him: Please show me where. North8000 declined to do so. If you are just parroting North8000, without actually checking into it, then please say so now. If you have seen actual evidence to back that accusation, then please present it here, for the good of all. I'll warn you now that I thoroughly believe you are wrong, and I will defend myself, but I also want you to know that I am not claiming to be perfect; if you can give me a reasonable explanation and substantiation for your accusation, then maybe there will be opportunity for self-improvement.
• In (1), you claim, "North8000 said nothing about you personally, only about your edits, which is completely within both the letter and the spirit of the rules here." I'm going to cut&paste exactly what he said here, just so we're all on the same page:

I don't know the situation at the article in question but have been engaged in gentle friendly arm wrestling with Xenophrenic with similar issues for months at a similar article, where "astroturfing" has been a hot topic. (Tea Party movement) But since it usually involving them using the rules to POV the article (a common tactic that works due to poorly written rules) there probably aren't any explicit wp:violations (except IMO one 1RR vio. that I didn't report) because I am more interested in building a consensus to fix that mess of an article.

Please explain to all of us how his accusation about me "using the rules to POV an article" can be confused with only talking about my edits?!? North8000 never once mentioned an edit. Sorry Nick, but I must call bullshit. He clearly said I was using the rules to push my POV, which frankly is a flat out unsubstantiated lie; and is a comment about an editor and not his edits; and is therefore a personal attack in violation of WP:NPA. Please correct me if I am wrong, after you have read what he posted.

• In (3), twice, you refer to "the article in question", suggesting that I "leave it alone" for a few days, or "stay away" from it completely. News flash: I have made just 1 edit (and just a gnomish-revert of a deletion, at that) to that article in the past two weeks, and only a couple edits during the past month; I haven't frequented that article in a long while. Assuming good faith, I'll assume you just mistakenly misplaced your suggestions, intended for a different editor and different issue, here. My issue is about the inappropriateness of one editor making comments about another editor, and how best to clear the air around that issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, IMHO you are now doing a similar thing to Nick Thorne as you did to me. People are trying to give sincere feedback....why not accept at least a tiny bit of it? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Similar, North? I am doing exactly what I did on your talk page: attempting to clear out these stumbling blocks that are hampering our communications, as well as the misperceptions creating these obstacles. But, judging by the initial responses given here, I'm doing a piss-poor job of defining those obstacles. As such, and I take the blame for this, I'm getting "sincere feedback" that isn't applicable to the issues I'm trying to get resolved. Instead, I'm getting inapplicable boilerplate responses like "leave it alone for a few days, then see if I interpret what you said differently", advice more suitable for editors involved in heated, intractable arguments. Or "try reporting him to AN/I", which is what you do when seeking disciplinary action, not clearer communications and understanding between two otherwise collegial editors. Garbage In, Garbage Out, I suppose.

North, while you and I tend to disagree more than we agree in most discussions, I've generally found your comments to be quite civil. That is why I said on your talk page that I was disappointed, after you posted on a public noticeboard that I use the rules to POV an article. Yes, you did accuse me of gaming the rules (please save your wikilawyering about how you only said using, since "using the rules" to violate policy is the very definition of gaming the policies). No amount of uninformed bobbleheads nodding in unison with you will change that fact, so let's move beyond that.

Your comment was not about an edit (or edits), but was about my personal behavior, intent or motivation: "to POV the article". That is not only a violation of WP:NPA, but your lack of evidence to support your accusation places it in the never acceptable category. This, too, is also a fact, so let's move beyond that. The bottom line is you feel (after 6 months of observing my edits, you say), that I am trying to "POV" an article, and I insist that I am not. We have had our disagreements on content, presentation, weight, etc., but rest assured that my goal is a NPOV-compliant article. In my effort to understand how you have developed this incorrect opinion of malice on my part, I have asked you for evidence that I could review, and you balked. When I push you for specific examples, they are not forthcoming (and it appears that you are preemptively setting up a defense against any further requests that you produce evidence to back up your accusations; very clever). I see this as a source of future problems if we are going to collaborate on cleaning up what we both agree is a mess of an article, so what would you suggest? What "sincere feedback" would you offer, North? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, I am not the least bit interested in getting involved in this sort of a discussion with you. It is blindingly apparent that you fail to recognise that you might be at fault in any way. Fine. I don't care. If you really think North8000 has done the wrong thing, try reporting him to AN/I. However, a word of caution, you are likely to end up hoisted on your own petard if you try. I'm done with you here - don't expect any sort of reply from me to anything else you might say in this thread. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, Nick, and that relieves me of the need to find the right polite words to specifically request that you not involve yourself further. Thank you for your time. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the edits in question when first posted; my assessment is/was essentially the same as Nick Thorne's. Gerardw (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. Needlesss to say, I strongly disagree with Nick's assessment. Unlike Nick's position, my position is accompanied by supporting evidence and reasoning. When I asked Nick for the same, he abruptly decided he no longer wanted to participate in the discussion. That kind of response tells me all I need to know about the quality of his assessment. His assessment appeared to me to be of the "shoot from the hip" kind, perhaps based on preconceived misperceptions, and with little research into the matter.

You shared Nick's assessment when you reviewed the first posted edits, but in light of subsequent clarification, can you at least allow that a reasonable person can read an accusation of "using the rules" to violate policy (in this case, WP:NPOV) as equal to "Gaming wiki-policy" — considering one is the verbatim definition of the other (See this and this)? Can you see how an editor might take offense at such an accusation regardless of how it is worded, and seek to discover what provoked it so that the misunderstanding could be cleared up? Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, I noticed that in the "complaint department" instructions on your user page, for people accusing you of not following wp:agf, you say that they are right, because you have overall opted out of following wp:agf, yet one of your two accusations was that I was not following wp:agf. I think that there is a middle ground. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That is an incomplete reading of what I actually say on my user page, North. You forgot the part: "I will still interact with proper civility and respect, as required, but be advised that I have left all assumptions about your intentions at the door where they belong." I'm saying that I will automatically assume neither noble intent nor malice. You have attributed, without evidence, malice ("using the rules to POV the article") to my efforts here at Wikipedia, which is against the word and spirit of WP:AGF. AGF warns us: "It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith", which is why we are here. Do you have any suggestions as to how we can amicably resolve this? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I was speaking about you having conflicting views of the status of wp:agf itself, and I think that what I said accurately summarized that. North8000 (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No conflict at all. The guideline says "don't assume bad intentions; do assume good intentions". My application is: don't make assumptions at all, act only on real evidence. I fail to see where you have complied with either application. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you accept what 3 people have said, that what I said is low key and OK to say, and not worded or intended to be anything more than that, then there is no relations issue to resolve. If you accept what three people have said regarding some aspects of your work at the article, even better, but such is not necessary to move on to amicably or better. Either way, I'm willing to set our sights higher than being amicable, towards being friends. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, but I will gladly meet you more than halfway in the interest of resolving this episode and putting it behind us. As such:

- I most certainly agree that your comment was low key (or "mild", as Nick said) considering the scale extends to cover racial, sexist, religious comments ... and even threats of physical harm or death. If it were serious, I would have redacted it myself.

- As for what is "OK to say", I always welcome legitimate criticism, and in that regard you can be as vocal and pointed as you wish - I actually have very thick skin - but please do me the courtesy of substantiating your criticism. Especially when there is such a wide disconnect between what you claim my motivations are and what I know my motivations are.

- Regarding what 3 people have said about my work on the article -- the "you are pushing a POV"; the less strong "you appear to have been pushing a POV"; and the vague "me too" -- I accept that you have expressed that opinion. I have also expressed that you are incorrect, and have tried to explore why you have developed that impression of my motivations. Just because I indicate you are wrong doesn't mean we can't discover a different way for me to do things so that you aren't left with that incorrect impression. The ability to work toward a resolution of these kinds of disagreements would seem to me to be a cornerstone of any friendship. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

North8000, would you be willing to strike out the comment "using the rules to POV the article (a common tactic that works due to poorly written rules)"? Gerardw (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes; my basis would be that the choice of words was too rough for the discussed behavior. Could be unilateral, but doing it as a part of a bilateral arrangement would provide more benefit out of all of this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Unilateral would provide a nice olive branch, so I'd appreciate it you'd go ahead and strike out the comment. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It is done. Added the comment "It was taken as being overly harsh which means that it was overly harsh". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Gerardw (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Would this be a violation of AGF?

Resolved

 – text removed. Gerardw (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I found this commented into an article:

<!-- This is just a start. Just working on an outline. There is much to be said. It is important to get this well written and well sourced before it gets published because anti-creationists will attack it fiercely once it is. They will twist the following otherwise excellent WP policies to cut the article to pieces, turn it into nonsense or a caricature and call for immediate deletion: Fringe. Not notable. Unreliable sources. POV. And many others. Anything and everything to rid Wikipedia of any article that explains what creationism really is. -->

Outside of this, I haven't seen the editor in question do anything inappropriate. Just wanted to get some feedback. BelloWello (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The author of that seems to be gearing himself up to a siege mentality for a fight that hasn't even happened yet, which isn't a good sign for what is to come, but hasn't discussed specific editors. I don't believe in warning someone for apparently probable future assumption of bad faith, as that would be assumption of bad faith in itself. We'll see where this goes, but I don't see any reason for action now. Mmyers1976 (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I see that as a somewhat bitter but fairly accurate representation of what happens on creationism-related articles. More of a realistic 'gird your loins' mentality than a siege mentality; creationism articles have unhealthy atmospheres and one should not walk into them unprepared. You know what they say: it's only paranoia if they're not out to get you. --Ludwigs2 06:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you." It's from Catch-22 by Joseph Heller. I've seen the mentality from astrology believers on astrology articles, too, especially regarding the use of the label "pseudoscience." Since Wikipedia is a secular entity in a secular world based on scientific empiricism, true-believers of things like astrology and creationism are going to find that Wikipedia isn't going to allow such belief systems to be reported as fact or plausible alternatives to science. Mmyers1976 (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not 'secular', it's 'neutral'. Wikipedia is not based on 'scientific empiricism', it's based on 'sourcing and scholarship'. and the assertion that the project exists in a 'secular world' is - so far as I can tell - completely unsupported by any evidence, empirical or otherwise. You're right about he Heller quote, though. --Ludwigs2 15:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

sec·u·lar   /ˈsɛkyələr/ Show Spelled

[sek-yuh-ler] Show IPA

–adjective

1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.

2. not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred): secular music.

there is the religious realm, and there is everything else. Anything not in the religious realm is in the secular realm. I didn't say Wikipedia was based on scientific empiricism, I said it exists in a secular world (you could show me Wikipedia's religious affiliation to prove me wrong), and in that world our knowledge of the world is based on scientific empiricism. But hey, you can parse words all day long if you like. I don't see how it's particularly constructive, but you can do it. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not really the right place to discuss this (we can take it up elsewhere if you like), but again, wikipedia is neutral, not secular. 'secular' refers to a particular and limited domain of human understanding and a particular belief structure, and Wikipedia does not give preference to particular perspectives.

This reminds me of conversations I have with people who are confused about agnosticism. religious adherents think agnostics are atheists; atheists think agnostics are wishy-washy; agnostics disregard both atheists and religious adherents as people whose beliefs get in the way of common sense and reason. wikipedia is agnostic, not atheist. --Ludwigs2 17:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the editors I've interacted with or read on talk pages seem to hold the same position as Mmers1976. It appears that to them neutral means secular and secular means neutral. The idea that secular and neutral are not the same thing is incomprehensible. It would be nice if there were a WP policy that would spell out the difference.

Neutral means void of religion, which would generally imply secular... I say this as a Christian. BelloWello (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, it's same distinction as that between atheist and agnostic. neutral means 'not preferring any side'; secular specifically excludes religious perspectives. secular and neutral may overlap in a lot of areas, but there are clearly areas in which being secular precludes being neutral. --Ludwigs2 21:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The non-religious perspective is inherently religion-neutral, due to it's detachment from any of them. That is secular. BelloWello (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it's really not the same distinction as atheist vs agnostic in any way whatsoever. You can actually study religion in a secular way. Historians and religious anthropologists study religion in a secular way, as distinct from theologians, who study it in a religious way. Theologians can study the history of their church and its interactions with other churches, but they do so from a viewpoint in favor of their religion. Religious anthropologists and historians study religious institutions and history in a very neutral way, without focusing on which religion is "correct" in spiritual matters, and instead focus on religions as human institutions, the secular aspect of religion, and that, obviously, is what we strive for here when writing articles on religious matters. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has entries on religions and religious views. If Wikipedia as an entity is secular then it it couldn't have articles on religious issues. (At least considering the definition that has been provided of what secularism is, namely, "pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred".) Wikipedia is not about pushing any particular religious view or the viewpoint of a skeptic either. It's about presenting the facts based on good scholarship. Any article dealing with these topics should not be presented as "the right view vs the wrong view" because that would be biased. Creationism shouldn't be presented in an article as being the correct view or an incorrect view. It should simply be presented in a manner that accurately describes it and explains who its advocates are, backed up with reliable sources. It shouldn't be discussed in a "good" or "bad" way.Ultimahero (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I also don't think the "agnosticism" analogy really works because agnostics aren't neutral any more than a Christian, or any other adherent to a particular religious group. Every individual has presuppositions and assumptions that they make about the world. We all interpret the world and the things we see according to the our presuppositions, and therefore it's not accurate to say that any one viewpoint is "neutral".Ultimahero (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

All that being said, I agree with Mmyers1976's original point. The mindset does seem confrontational but they haven't actually done anything or called out anyone specific. I don't see how they can really be warned of something they haven't done. Maybe just keep an eye on them and see what happens.Ultimahero (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Which article? Gerardw (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah context would be helpful here, could someone indicate which article this WQA relates to? Bob House 884 (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Guoguo12, for pinging me. It is in the lead of Wikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church/Creationism in Seventh-day Adventism, but the user that created it has now created a second version of this at User:8een4Tfor/test which does not contain the comment the concerned me. BelloWello (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. The author of the statement in question is User:8een4Tfor, whom I've notified of this discussion. Also, this discussion should not be used to discuss the definition of secularity and Wikipedia's position. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Rupertlt

Resolved

 – user leaving WP Gerardw (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Rupertlt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Automobile Club de l'Ouest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User made numerous edits to the Automobile Club de l'Ouest article, which I have on my watchlist. I made a few edits following him to address his addition of a See Also section that I felt was not in line with the MOS and somewhat redundant. Following this, Rupertlt started a topic on the talk page claiming that I was doing a disservice to history by removing the links, specifically the 1955 Le Mans disaster. After trying to address his concerns and tell him that my edits were related to Wikipedia policy, he claimed I was "keen to suppress" information on the disaster. I reminded him of WP:AGF and to not assume that just because something is not in an article, that it somehow does not exist.

This was followed by claiming I was a rules freak and an idiot. Again, followed by a reminder of WP:AGF. Eventually followed by accusations of attempting to "scare people away from my turf" and finally claiming I am a member of the Automobile Club de l'Ouest myself and that I have an "agenda". After informing him that someone from Pennsylvania would probably not be a member of a French automobile club, he responded that I was a Pennsylvania hick.

At this point I warned him that his continued insults would not be allowed to continue and that further insults would be brought to administrative attention. This was promptly followed by calling me a "star-spangled micromanager" and claiming I should never look at the article again. And that brings us here.

I have attempted to be helpful in explaining myself to this editor, to provide links to relevant Wikipedia policies to explain my edits and also to offer assistance to him (he was looking for translations of German Wikipedia articles, I gave him relevant links). The³5₉ (Talk) 19:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

wow, that talk page went from 0 to ugly in no time flat. I suspect it's high-tension transferred from some other page, because it doesn't seem like the kind of topic that would normally inspire this kind of barrage. I'm inclined to give rupert the benefit of the doubt on that point - he's obviously not behaving nicely, but I don't think it's personal or intentional - so let's ask him nicely to calm things down a bit and restart the discussion, see what he has to say. If he's willing, I'm sure the two of you can reach a compromise fairly quickly; otherwise let's at least try to find out what's going on. --Ludwigs2 19:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not personal? Pennsylvania hick seems pretty personal to me. Gerardw (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It is nothing to do with another page. I've never had an issue with anyone else. It is the classic Wikipedia problem of a prolific contributor being micro-managed by somebody who is heavy-handed and not constructive - his style is to ridicule any suggestions. He is a young guy with a lot to learn about man-management. He is the type that will destroy Wikipedia, if unchecked. Read the page and the thread. I've done the heavy lifting and provided all the citations - being sniped at from the sidelines is too much. I accept that there is blame on both sides. It is fair to say that I'm already half way out the door - if you don't want me back now is your opportunity. --Rupertlt (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

hmmm... the never had an issue with anyone else bit sits oddly with the classic Wikipedia problem bit - I'm not sure how you would recognize such a classic problem if you've never experienced it. But be that as it may, my sense here is that the359 really was just doing random cleanup. Maybe it was constructive, maybe not, but you took it much more personally than was necessary. You both have valid points, and I suspect if you had talked about it nicely the links would have eventually been restored (they may not be perfect under MOS, but they don't harm anything, and they are not worth getting fluffed over). It just all got out of hand, and I'm trying to see if it can get reined back in.

Believe me, I have my own 'spit&hiss' moments over wikipedia - it happens. The question is whether you can recognize it as a moment, get past it, and get on with life. --Ludwigs2 21:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've read about it in the newspapers - they say you've been losing contributors due to folk getting hacked off.

I am very odd - 160 on the Kirton test - I'm an ideas man, he is a process man - it never was going to work. I've been tying to cope with this all my life, it is not a case of getting over it. All I want to do is sit quietly contributing - if you want to turn it into a job I retired to get away from that. I don't want to rehash the arguments but repeated deletes do get wearisome when the content is self-evidently relevant. --Rupertlt (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Best not to believe everything you read in the papers.

look, what would be nice here is if you acknowledged that you went a bit off the deep end, apologized in a 'no-fault' sort of way, and then went back to the discussion without the ad hominem rhetoric and tried to reach a compromise. I'm happy to help with that if you like, but you do have to recognize that on a collaborative encyclopedia you are occasionally going to run into disagreements with other editors; one cannot 'quietly contribute' forever in a vacuum. A small amount of acceptance of others is pretty much obligatory. It doesn't have to be extensive - there are a lot of wikignomes around, and they are great editors - but everyone needs to interface a little. --Ludwigs2 22:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask, what is "young guy who needs to learn about man-management" meant to imply? Are you assuming my age, and somehow this has something to do with being a man? Is this another slight of some sort? I'd already think a claim of saying I'd destroy Wikipedia is a bit out of line. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for any offence that I may have caused. I rest my case. There is no way back. Please remove my name from the system. Over and out. --Rupertlt (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the folks who can make that happen monitor WQA, Wikipedia:Vanish#Vanishing_from_Wikipedia documents how to make such a request. Gerardw (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I know this says resolved, but did he really leave Wikipedia? I'm not sure how changing his user name is in fact leaving and/or retiring. If he edits under the new name, shouldn't these civility issues continue to be addressed? The³5₉ (Talk) 19:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I guess name changing is part of the vanishing policy. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

We should just drop the WP:STICK. If the user is incivil under a new name, the issues can be addressed then. Gerardw (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to vanish. I changed my user name in the hope that my previous contributions would no longer identify me personally. Not sure if this is the case. One small residual point - this error needs fixing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1939_24_Hours_of_Le_Mans RGDS RLT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.22.217 (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo

User:Kintetsubuffalo has a long-standing habit of writing abusive and disrespectful comments about other users in edit summaries to Kintetsubuffalo's own talk page when Kintetsubuffalo deletes their comments from the page. This is the most recent instance; sometimes they are much worse. This one is newbie-biting. I first became aware of this several years ago when I requested Kintetsubuffalo's opinion about an article that Kintetsubuffalo and I had both done some edits on. It was on a topic on which I have professional expertise and Kintetsubuffalo does not, and I respectfully requested Kintetsubuffalo's opinion on a part that we had both edited. Kintetsubuffalo deleted my inquiry with an edit summary that said "deleting the putz edits".

Kintetsubuffalo's talk page has a notice at the top declaring user talk pages their own private playground to do exactly as they wish. But Wikipedia user pages and user talk pages cannot be considered the user's private property. If, for example, a user were using the page to conduct e-commerce, I suspect that would not be allowed. Also, Wikipedia's civility norms apply to user talk pages; that is certainly a constraint on the user's right to do "exactly as [they] wish".

Kintetsubuffalo has been warned against newbie-biting before. The practice described above has continued for years.

Kintetsubuffalo's notice at the top of the user talk page cannot supersede Wikipedia's civility policies. We should consider whether Kintetsubuffalo should be required to delete or emend some parts of that notice lest users, especially newbies, be misled about policies.

Warning Kintetsubuffalo against newbie-biting and other incivility has failed. Could someone more familiar than I am with customary usages suggest the next step after such a failure? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

While kintetsubuffalo is technically incorrect about his talk page -- it's not his, it's the wikipedia community's -- in the context of the point they are making, it doesn't concern me very much. (I've left a note on the new user's talk page answering the question he asked kintetsubuffalo.) Gerardw (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Can't really see that the edit summary is much to get excited about. DeCausa (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Xeworlebi

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

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

• part of Xeworlebi's talk page history relevant to this discussion

• Jumping the shark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• part of the article history relevant to this discussion

At Jumping the shark, I made an imho completely non-controversial formatting edit, by removing the period from the caption (which is not a grammatically complete sentence and therefore doesn't end in a period). This same rationale I intuitively based my edit on is also recorded in the MOS at MOS:FULLSTOP, as a quick investigation revealed.

Xeworlebi reverted without rationale, to which I responded in kind (of which I'm not proud, and I'm aware that my own conduct was not flawless, but far from Xeworlebi's transgressions, I maintain).

Then another editor repeated Xeworlebi's erroneous revert, I restored the correct version, this time noting my rationale.

However, in spite of my presented rationale, Xeworlebi reverted yet again, without presenting any rationale of his own.

This time, I decided to clear things up with him before letting this ridiculous edit war about nothing escalate further.

I presented my rationale to him and asked him to revert his own last revert at the article.

Instead of responding, he removed my comment with the edit summary: "Nonsense."

This prompted me to perform the edit myself, seeing as Xeworlebi simply refused to accept or respond to the simple and straightforward reasoning I had presented to him.

I also asked him (via edit summary comment) whether his dismissal of my comment as "nonsense" would consequentially also mean that he would keep reverting at the article (he didn't, showing that he had in fact accepted the rationale as actually making sense).

In response to my question (and this is the really tacky part of Xeworlebi's behavior imho), he slapped me with a 3RR warning, which is spurious to say the very least, coming from the editor who first reverted based on his lack of grammatical knowledge (instead of e.g. contacting me at the IP talk page), then contradicted himself by aggressively removing my comment as "nonsense" while at the same time accepting the rationale presented to him.

I'm posting this here in the hope that Xeworlebi will consider his behavior. It's not a "biggie", but intentionally escalating a conflict out of (what appears to be) spite and without even trying to present a counter-rationale is imho not compatible with civil, cooperative behavior. --87.79.213.248 (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's clear that as a matter of politeness, Xeworlebi (talk · contribs) should have engaged in discussion with you (and also held off from over-use of automated tools in an editing dispute), but nevertheless, you should not have entered into an edit-war at all. You should have started a talkpage discussion once your change was reverted – you seem to be quite experienced, so I'm sure you would have had no difficulty in doing this. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 17:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In my perception, I didn't enter an "edit war", I merely insisted on what I knew was a correct edit. Also, while you are right about BRD, my experience at Xeworlebi's talk page proves that there is a behavioral problem on Xeworlebi's part which goes beyond any arguably suboptimal aspects of my own editing. Those behavioral problems are what I am trying to address here. Anyway, thank you for the feedback. --87.79.213.248 (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, please consider that I disengaged from editing the article, instead presenting my rationale to Xeworlebi. He did accept it (as demonstrated by the fact that he did not keep reverting), but he refused to revert his own revert like I had asked him to, apparently trying to bait me into a 3RR violation. That is intentionally bad conduct several orders of magnitude above anything I did wrong, I am sure that it warrants a bit of discussion here, which will hopefully help Xeworlebi consider his behavior. --87.79.213.248 (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In my perception, I didn't enter an "edit war" – you are wrong and that is all there is to it: an edit-war is defined as "editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly overriding each other's contributions." That is precisely what happened in this case. I merely insisted on what I knew was a correct edit – you should not have "insisted" without entering into a discussion. You shouldn't have reverted even once without explanation and you shouldn't have reverted multiple editors without pondering to think, "Am I sure I'm right? I know, I'll start a talkpage discussion to clarify."
I agree that Xeworlebi's conduct hasn't been exemplary, but personally, I think yours was worse. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 17:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"repeatedly overriding each other's contributions" -- Xeworlebi's (and Onorem's) "contribution" consisted of reverting a simple, correct formatting edit. Again: I'm the first to admit that my own behavior wasn't flawless, but your sole focus on criticizing me is a tad irritiating. Do you not see what I mean about Xeworlebi's behavior? He kept reverting after he was presented the proper rationale. He removed my comment as "nonsense", refusing to admit that he was wrong. Instead, he slapped me with a 3RR warning instead of correctly reverting his own last revert at the article. --87.79.213.248 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, consider that we wouldn't be here if Xeworlebi had simply inquired about my edit at the IP talk page instead of acting on his lack of grammar knowledge and his unwarranted and ultimately incorrect assumption that my edit was wrong. --87.79.213.248 (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Listen, if I break into my neighbour's house to steal his silver, and he shoots me, then it's absolutely true that he's behaved badly, but if I hadn't been doing something I shouldn't have been to start with, none of it would have happened. You are solely responsible for kicking up this mess. If you find me pointing this out "a tad irritating" then you should read WP:BOOMERANG to be prepared for the next time you complain about someone else's actions. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 18:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, the irritating aspect is your apparent focus on criticizing exclusively my errors. Don't get me wrong: I'm thankful for the feedback and I even agree. But one does not explain or justify the other. I am ready to acknowledge and listen to any constructive feedback as to my editing and behavior. But I do expect the same from everyone else. --213.196.215.213 (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I know what you said. You said it. I acknowledged this above. I read what you wrote, completely neutrally, and have come to the conclusion that you were more in the wrong. If you find that sort of criticism irritating then you perhaps shouldn't be working on a collaborative project such as this. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 18:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Mate, this is not about who is "more" in the wrong. I just felt that addressing this issue at Xeworlebi's talk page was not possible, seeing how he removed my first comment. However, I maintain that my main transgression was laziness. Entering an edit summary, even just "MOS:FULLSTOP" appeared entirely disproportionate to this single-character edit. My bad. Then I re-reverted, that was pure impatience with the mindless and incorrect revert. Shouldn't have done it, did it anyway. Not proud of it, but it's also not an excuse for what followed. Blindly reverting instead of asking? Aggressively removing a neutrally worded explanation at his talk page as nonsense? Handing out a 3RR template after he had learned that his (needless to say) well-intentioned revert happened to be incorrect? And why the heck is it that any established editor is not required to know the Manual of Style, or at least to know to consult it when they're in doubt? Why is it ok to blindly revert an edit like this in the first place, when you know that you could first consult the MOS (or your fellow editor) on this? You almost make it sound like I was applying an incorrect edit to the article, and that Xeworlebi's revert was justified. It wasn't, not at all. He clearly lacked the knowledge, and he failed to look it up or ask about it. That's just wrong, and it has nothing to do with me or anything of my doing. --213.196.215.213 (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Kinda blowing this entire ting out of proportion are we? You made an edit I reverted it, another editor reverted you yet you keep reverting and edit warring, since another editor also reverted your edit a discussion should've been on the article talk page and not about singling me out. I removed your message because I had absolutely zero interest for such a silly discussion, and I stopped reverting because I didn't have any interest in an edit war. You made 3 reverts which warrants a 3RR warning. Also do not mistake not wanting to edit war for acceptance, there's also no need for the personal attacks on my grammar knowledge.. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

My "attack on your grammar knowledge" is the factually correct statement that your grammar knowledge was insufficient for you to have recognized my edit as correct. More importantly, are you saying that you regard your own conduct in this whole situation as perfect? --87.79.213.248 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

IP editor, you reverted a reversion without discussion on the article talk page and additionally used an offensive to some phrase "Jesus H Christ" in your edit summary. You were edit warring. Xeworlebi has let your last edit stand. Gerardw (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It takes two to war. Bob House 884 (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. You're the first one to even acknowledge that. Gerardw: The only interesting thing about your comment is that you do not even acknowledge any wrongdoing on Xeworlebi's part, at all. It appears you haven't even read my comments and the arguments I have provided here. You assume in your comment that I am not aware of any of what you are saying and/or that any of it is an "excuse" of some kind for Xeworlebi's behavior -- none of which is true. I admit my portion, Xeworlebi does not admit his. He (and you and TreasuryTag) insists that the only one who did anything wrong was me, or at least that my suboptimal approach is an excuse or explanation for Xeworlebi's behavior. It's not. Also, the edit summary "Jesus H. Christ, guys, stop reverting" obviously denotes mild general distress. Your interpretation of it as "offensive" is ludicrously aggressive and it betrays your non-neutrality in the matter. You're not even pretending to look at this in a neutral way, you're just auto-bashing the IP editor. --87.78.236.194 (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I was clearly wrong with my revert. I did not look at the edit carefully enough. Not trying to pass the blame, but would suggest to the IP that an edit summary early on would have at least caused me to look more closely. Sorry for any frustration. --Onorem♠Dil 00:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No harm done. Shit happens. I didn't use an edit summary, you reverted without looking. But, in stark contrast to Xeworlebi, you did not

• keep reverting after being informed of the proper rationale behind the original edit. You didn't
• aggressively remove a polite explanatory comment from your user talk page as "Nonsense". You didn't
• stubbornly refuse to revert your erroneous revert, and you didn't slap me with a 3RR warning.

In a word: You didn't behave like a big child with a hurt ego. You simply assumed that the established editor is probably right, which in this particular case is not true, but we all know that it often is. --87.78.236.194 (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• This has moved on from being a potential beneficial thread. The IP-hopping editor which opened it has now resorted to personal attacks such as, "big child with a hurt ego," in resentment that they have themselves been placed under scrutiny. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 13:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yet again: I have no problem whatsoever with my editing being scrutinized. I do have a problem with Xeworlebi's behavior and editing not being scrutinized. Also, I did not make any personal attack whatsoever. I was describing aspects of Xeworlebi's behavior; I did not comment on him as a person and/or editor, I solely criticized his behavior. Same difference as that between attacking someone as a "troll" and simply describing an edit as "trolling". Two completely different things. Also, Treasury Tag, you appear to be holding the fact that I have a dynamic IP address against me. Why? --87.78.236.194 (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

  If you refuse to accept why I have chosen to criticise your behaviour then I have no interest in continuing this discussion with you. To everyone else: can we stop humouring this person and move along? I don't see anything constructive coming out of this thread. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 14:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• You're very welcome to leave this discussion. But on the off-chance that you are at all willing to actually look at the facts, let me reiterate:

• Xeworlebi reverted after being informed of the proper rationale behind the original edit.
• He removed my explanatory comment from his user talk page as "Nonsense".
• He refused to revert his own erroneous revert after learning that it was, in fact, erroneous.
• Instead, he slapped me with a 3RR warning.

And you appear to have no problem whatsoever with any of that. --87.78.236.194 (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

TT's very first response was It's clear that as a matter of politeness, Xeworlebi (talk · contribs) should have engaged in discussion with you..., so I disagree with your interpretation. You have requested other editors to look at the situation. Some have given their opinions. You can accept them or not. While I have nothing further to contribute I do support continued discussion by yourself and any other editors who wishes to participate. [[15]]. Attacking and making accusations who disagree with you is also less than ideal civility, but like Xeworlobi's behavior, well below the threshold which, in my opinion, warrants further action or discussion. Gerardw (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read the above bulleted list of what Xeworlebi chose to do instead of engaging in discussion with me. --87.78.236.194 (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is, if you had chosen to follow the rules instead of revert-warring, none of this would have happened at all. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 15:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You're arguing completely beside the point, and you're doing so in a very aggressive and single-minded manner. Maybe it's time for you to disengage from this discussion. --87.78.236.194 (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you perhaps explain to me how my comment above is "beside the point"? (I know it's not aggressive, so I'm not going to show you up by expecting you to explain that part.) ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 15:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As myself and others are also starting to note, your style of arguing in this discussion (and, looking at your talk page, in general) is quite aggressive (as in: calling me arrogant, claiming I don't acknowledge that my own editing was problematic). "Beside the point" means that you are still arguing from the angle that my own suboptimal editing explains and/or excuses any of Xeworlebi's behavior. It does not. But you think it does. So you're arguing completely beside the point. --87.78.236.194 (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You are still arguing from the angle that my own suboptimal editing explains and/or excuses any of Xeworlebi's behavior. I am not doing that at all. If you read my very first comment, I pointed out that Xeworlebi was out of line. However (and please read this very carefully) I am saying that your suboptimal editing prompted Xeworlebi's conduct. If you had stuck to the rules, then Xeworlebi would not have acted as they did. In a sense, your rule-breaking provoked Xeworlebi into being curt. I agree that they shouldn't have risen to the bait and given into temptation, but nor should you have provided that temptation. Clear? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 17:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• I am not doing that at all.
• If you had stuck to the rules, then Xeworlebi would not have acted as they did. In a sense, your rule-breaking provoked Xeworlebi into being curt.
• You are contradicting yourself. --213.196.195.192 (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

  As you wish. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 08:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• TT, the one who should heed the advice at WP:IDHT (which you have now quoted twice to me in this thread) is you. Seriously, please let it go. You don't seem to understand the issue at hand, and you are not helping at all. --87.79.215.57 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

  OK. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 12:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Treasury Tag is going way over the top here. The IP could have handled it better and it takes two to edit-war. But there is absolutely no excuse for Xeworlebi's behaviour, who is clearly the one mainly at fault. Treasury Tag's persistance above seems to be out of irritation because his comments have not been accepted in full by the IP. DeCausa (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. If the IP hadn't engaged in an edit-war, none of this would have happened. I am not irritated that the IP is too arrogant to accept criticism; that's their probblem. Meanwhile, since Xeworlebi has indicated that they aren't reading this thread, I fail to see the point in continuing. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 14:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You appear very irritated. Why make the personal attack of calling him "arrogant"? The grounds for him being "arrogant" is that he doesn't accept your point of view. As far as Xeworlebi is concerned, who knows whether he's reading it or not. I for one think this needs to go on because you've filled up the thread with your strident opinion and a broader view from the community needs to be heard. DeCausa (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

TT, just for the record, I don't mind being called "arrogant". I do mind your counterfactual claim that I am unwilling to accept criticism. --87.78.236.194 (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I made the above comment when the above exchange was only about a third of the way through! Since then TT has illustrated my comment further by continuing his rather bizarre pursuit of this. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. TT's conduct in this thread suggests he's the very last person who should be opining on Wikiquette. DeCausa (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I would point out that I'm not the only person who thinks that if the IP hadn't chosen to enter into a revert-war then none of the ensuing drama would have happened, so it's clearly not as 'bizarre' as you make out. Plus, it's an objective fact. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 08:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, if there is a reason why this thread is becoming acrimonious, it is largely in part due to your excessive participation. Please cease and let others talk to the parties if necessary. Will add further comments in the AN posting you made. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

TT, this is not ANI. This is WQA. Maybe you are simply confusing venues. We are not here to start some sort of kangaroo court on anyone. Just trying to address some specific behavioral issues, for the benefit of a cooperative environment on Wikipedia. You constantly seem to worry about "guilt" and "greater guilt", placing the blame for one editor's behavior on another editor etc. But that is not what this thread and this page are about.

DeCausa is imho spot-on, with the addition that I don't think it's only your conduct, but even more importantly your apparent limited understanding of what WQA is for which renders you thoroughly unsuitable as a mediator of any kind. All you have accomplished here is to derail what could have been a simple and straightforward discussion about specific behavior, entirely without mutual accusations or any of that. --87.79.215.57 (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Anon, I extend that same request to you: please cease (and if you respect this request, there is no need to respond to this). Usually there's no need to do so to involved parties, let alone filers, but due to the excessive participation above, you've said more than enough in this thread for others to ascertain what your position is and what you would like to see. I'd suggest that the only time you should respond further is if you are directly asked specific questions and/or to indicate the moment you consider this sufficiently resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think persons on both sides of this did things that are wrong or rude. I don't agree with TT's implied logic (if I read it correctly) in dismissing the IP's complaint which is that "if "A" didn't happen then "B" wouldn't have happened therefore "B" is OK." Sometimes "A" justifies "B" (IMHO not this case) but "A" merely being in the chain of events that led to "B" IMHO does not. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with North8000. Suboptimal handling all around (see also my comments in the AN linked below by Gerardw). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard § Acrimonious_Wikiquette_alert

Gerardw (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Trouts all round. Full Stop. No good can come of discussing this any further; so let's just take it as a reminder of the value of all sides communicating properly, even over apparently trivial things, and leave it there. Rd232 ^talk 22:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rememberway and civility

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

I'm trying to resolve an issue of apparent stalking (of me) by this user [16]. But all I get back is incivility Now piss off, and stop making stupid edits [17]. This isn't the first time [18]. I suggested he might redact; this was met with further incivility No, just FUCK OFF [19] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: didn't take the notification too well [20] William M. Connolley (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I just came here to post this, but it seems you beat me to it. Rememberway's attitude to a range of editors, over some time, has not lived up to the standards of civility to others that are expected, and indeed required. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The context is that William Connolley has been revert warring my edits out of hand on multiple articles for (often) dubious reasons. For example in Butterfly effect [21] [22] (and then to add insult to injury when I gave up on trying to fix the article I undid all my contributions to the article and somebody else reverted me doing that, reintroduced part of my edit and said he was agreeing with William Connolley!. The whole thing was just a horrible, horrible experience. Since then he's been reverting me in lots of other places as well with medium-grade harassment everywhere, including in history of the internal combustion engine which I happened to have in my watchlist, I simply noticed that he'd made a common mistake and made a revert of one edit (out of 3), but he reverted the correction out of hand and then accused me of stalking.Rememberway (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The other context that you might like to consider is that he's just scorched earth an entire 130k article down to 3k. (See list of historic inventions). Him and a few others, including Andy Dingley above, have removed 9 years of work by other editors for what don't seem to me, and several other editors very good reasons at all. I think that the fact that they're being (what some people may regard as) being reckless or even stupid about doing this may have influenced me in swearing at him.Rememberway (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

list of historic inventions is its own problem (will other editors please familiarise themselves with the backstory before taking Rememberway's comments here at face value). Some long-term POV-pushing by another editor has left the article in a right mess. Almost none of it is clearly acceptable for immediate re-use, and it will take lots of co-operative work by many editors to get it back again. Wasting their time addressing claims like this is far from helpful. Your actions on that article, a repeated mindless re-addition of the bulk unchecked content, are IMHO a failure of either competence to understand the serious problem here (I'm cutting you some slack here, as I guess you're a teenager), or else seriously disruptive. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to make the warning

Resolved

 – Filer's participation on the blocked subject's talk page has not been helpful; filer is advised to cease and let it go. Ncmvocalist (talk)

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

Could someone please warn him and any other appropriate actions based on this? In it, he uses "no-good as an adjective to describe a respected administrator while insinuating that Kuru and I are somehow corrupt. Thanks. I don't know how to template someone for incivility so I haven't done so. Will notify him momentarily. BelloWello (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As this is at least the fourth report you've filed on Fountainviewkid recently, I'd advise you to just drop it and stop posting on his talk page. Blocked users are usually given some leeway to vent on their talk pages, and if Kuru finds it offensive, he'd file a report himself. Dayewalker (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but his response to my good faith attempt to find consensus for when he comes off block doesn't give me a warm glowing feeling. It starts off (edit above) "I've already posted what I wanted to.." while accusing me of edit warring. That's doesn't give me much hope that there will be much WP:CIVIL discussion when he comes off the block rather than edit warring. Either way, this is off topic and thank you for your comment, Dayewalker. BelloWello (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest you stay off Fountainviewkid talk page. Continued posting there is more likely to escalate things than improver them ; posting a warning about a username is use since 2008 strikes me as petty. Gerardw (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

BelloWello initiated the conflict with Fountain with this unnecessary insult: [23]. The same warning for incivility that Bello is requesting, he defiantly removed from his own talk page here. Users should be wary of filing complaints on noticeboards ad infinitum when their own hands are dirty. Lionel (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Need help with a problematic user

diff: [24] I need help of an admin with regard to a user who is insisting on deleting cited material without any due process just because he/she does not like the material. He/She has already deleted material on more than one occasion and is using strong language to scare me away and thus leaving the article at his mercy also accusing me wrongly. I do not want to punish him/her just wanted to instill some sense in his/her rhetorics which are not sensible. He/She has failed to provide any source for his/her claim. Thanking in advance for the much appreciated help. Here is the talk page URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iranian_Space_Agency#Man_on_moon --Irooniqermez (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, and administrator named Fainites is already involved in this matter, and may have some input into this issue. In fact, the said administrator has already noted both on my talk page[25] and the article discussion page, that I have not committed any acts of vandalism. The Scythian 22:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)WP:BOOMERANG. Having read the talk page I would say you, Irooniqermez, are pretty close to being blocked. You accused Scythian of vandalism which quite clearly he is not guilty of. The points made by Scythian are perfectly reasonable. Your response is not. You have indeed been extremely uncivil and aggressive eg "go away swallowing your pride. You lied up there on multiple occasions. You tried to "form" public opinion by falsifying my source name". On the underlying content issue, the stance and questions raised by Scythian and Fainites (who is an administrator) are perfectly sound. DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So sources do not matter? And all I said is correct. He falsified my source name. I invite everyone to go and read the talk page.--Irooniqermez (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "sources," as you did not even wish to discuss how we might resolve this issue. This is about your uncivil behavior, threats, accusations, and outright bullying. Anyone reading through this articles discussion page, or my own talk page, would see the nonsense I've had to put up with. The Scythian 04:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Scythgian77 deleted "Iran plans to put a man on the moon by 2025". which was sourced to CBS news,[26] with the notation "No Iranian source is used to back up this claim." This shows a lack of understanding or disregard of the policy of reliable sources. CBS news is a reliable source and we may only challenge its accuracy by finding another reliable source that contradicts it. This appears however to be a content dispute and Irooniquermez should follow the procedures in WP:DR to resolve the dispute. TFD (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

TFD, it would appear you didn't read through the discussion page, or my own talk page. I recommend doing so, if you could spare the time. The content dispute would easily be solved, if a basic civil discussion were allowed to take place. Irooniquermez has no interest in doing so. He in fact "ordered" me to not even partake any discussion on the article's talk page. That is what this is about. "Wikibullying." The Scythian 04:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Irooniqermez brought this to WQA and my suggestion is to get a third opinion, set up an RfC or go to the RS noticeboard. The claim is reliably sourced and would normally be accepted. Usually when rs are wrong they publish a retraction or other sources publish an alternative opinion. But that is a content dispute. TFD (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it has been referenced in western sources, usually from a third person in an article. My argument is that this should be noted at the very least, since there appears to be no official Iranian report on the matter. The Iranian government publishes endless English speaking articles everyday, pandering to various technical accomplishments. Strangely, no Iranian source making such a claim seems to be available. That was my argument. How that jumps to me being a liar, vandal and racist is beyond me. The Scythian 06:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin at acupuncture

Stuck

 – No response from subject; both parties advised to review their postings; filer advised to (1) continue working through content issues at the talk page, and (2) utilize AN3, article RfC, or RfC/U, as appropriate, should issues persist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a somewhat surreal problem with Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) over at the acupuncture page. Please consider the following set of responses:

• [27] I note that a simple number (in this case "95 serious adverse effects") is meaningless without a sample size baseline (e.g. per year, per thousand people, per...?), and make a comparison to the later documented serious side effects of aspirin
• [28] Orange Marlin replies with 'Strawman. False dichotomy'.
• I ask for clarification of that and another editor agrees with my point [29], [30] (bottom)
• [31] Orangemarlin repeats his previous comment, with an even pithier edit summary, and then adds "it's all there, I try not to be as verbose as others" as an explanation [32]
• I ask OM again for an explanation of what he means [33]
• he responds TLDR to a 45 word post [34]
• I ask him (in disbelief) whether he just TLDRed a 45 word post [35]
• OM responds by saying that question was a personal attack [36]

I'm not even addressing his darn-near-close-to-edit-warring attitude in article space (I haven't edited the article in a while, so others are bearing the brunt of that; I expect they will weigh in), but his behavior in talk simply fails minimal expectations of rational discourse - I can't make heads or tails of it, and it's interfering with the discussion. Can someone give his some constructive feedback on proper talk page behavior, please? --Ludwigs2 04:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin notified. --Ludwigs2 04:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

heavens - his response to notification [37]. It's possible this needs to go to ANI or arbitration enforcement (under the pseudoscience ruling) rather than wikiquette. If that's the opinion here, I'll do that. --Ludwigs2 05:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwigs2 -- quite possibly a good idea. This behavior isn't accidental. It's toxic to collaboration, and from all appearances, is meant to be. Sanctions are needed, so whatever venue can result in them is good. I'd incline to try the Arb/pseudoscience forum, because this behavior is not new among self-identified defenders of scientific purity. --Middle 8 (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've had very similar interactions with OM. He seems to be of the opinion that he is a defender against pseudoscientific views and can therefore dismiss others who disagree with him, often quite flippantly. I'll just note that while Ludwigs is not known for always keeping his cool, tu quoque arguments are fallacies, and not a great way to improve things around here. There are many great scientifically-minded editors who do not respond to disagreements this way, towards serious editors or towards obvious Fringe advocates. We don't equivocate between Fringe and Mainstream views but we do require civility towards all editors. If someone is in the wrong, other editors should take the time to explain that--it's not sufficient just to disagree--after all, one person's POV pushing is often another's attempt at neutrality, and it's rarely helpful to use sarcastic quips to resolve that situation. If editors persistently disrupt articles by seeking discussion of obvious points, there are noticeboards, admin tools, RfCs, or Arbitration to deal with it. --Ocaasi ^c 05:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

lol - well, I may not be noted for keeping my cool, but I'm trying to do better, and I don't think anything I did here rises beyond calm and measured. Just trying to have a discussion. --Ludwigs2 05:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That was only in response to a comment made by OM in his edit summary after he removed the note you left on his talk page. It suggested you could not make points about other editors regarding civility issues. I don't think you did anything in this case either, but to be honest, I didn't look, and one editor's behaviors have nothing to do with the other's. Ocaasi ^c 07:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Middle 8 (talk) weighing in: I agree with Ludwigs2 that "surreal" is a good description of OrangeMarlin's recent edits at acupuncture. I made a couple of edits that should be noncontroversial, and OrangeMarlin has repeatedly reverted them with nothing other than trivial, baiting-type one-liners on the talk page.

• First example: I tagged a statement in the lead with {{clarify}}. My concern was straightforward and explained on the talk page[38], which per WP:TAGGING justifies keeping a tag until discussion has run its course. Orangemarlin removed the tag twice without any talk page discussion[39][40]. What followed from OM was a series of one-line, baiting-type posts (see end of section here), culminating in Orangemarlin writing "TLDR" in response to a 45-word post from Ludwigs2. When Ludwigs2 pointed this out, Orangemarlin suggested Ludwigs2 was violating WP:NPA. This is blatant trolling, and IMO just an effort to make the the editors he does it to go away. And again he's removed the tag[41] without discussion (and whitewashed the details and misrepresented the source, but those are more content issues).

• Second example: I updated a review from 2004 with one from 2008 (source). The topic was the same; the source the same (and among the best MEDRS); the conclusions had shifted in a more positive direction; and my summary was accurate (detailed diff; talk page section). Orangemarlin again reverted, falsely claming that he'd actually discussed the issue: the edit summary says "Reverting highly POV edits per talk page discussion"[42], and his entire talk page contribution is this: "WP:TLDR. Article fixed <--Appropriate amount of verbiage required to respond to such comments."[43] Again, this is flagrant disregard for WP:DR. All it does is make it a pain in the ass for me to edit, which I suspect is the intention (sorry, but I don't AGF with editors who have a history of this behavior).

I expect some editors to use an "end justifies the means" defense for OrangeMarlin, just as we've seen in the past for editors who claim to be upholding WP's scientific purity. And I expect Orangemarlin to wonder why editors criticizing him are such whiners with no sense of humor. But that's no excuse for patently absurd, baiting, non-engaging editing. And it's painfully ironic that a supposedly scientific-minded editor would play so fast and loose with logic and facts. OrangeMarlin's recent edits at acupuncture have been hostile, arrogant, sloppy, baiting, un-collaborative, all to a surreal degree. He's an established editor who ought to know better, which is the opposite of an extenuating circumstance. I suggest preventive topic bans of escalating duration to minimize disruption and perhaps give him time to cool off. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that some of what I wrote is redundant with Ludwigs2, and will fix that when we go to another venue. If I have time, I'll fix it here. I trust it's clear enough for now. --Middle 8 (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place for that (see banner at top). You need to go to AN/I for that. DeCausa (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm still hoping for some feedback here - I'll take it to ANI (or elsewhere) if none is forthcoming. -- (unsigned comment by Ludwigs2 at 7:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC) [44])

The is a page for actual behaviour complaints. The level of material provided as evidence does not rise to that level by several hundred feet. I suggest a cop of tea is all that is needed here, and not any pile-on of trivial complaints. I'm sorry, did you just sufggest that my two sentence (45 word) comment was too long for you to read comfortably? and think we can all safely ignore that last foray into argument-by-sarcasm. Do you have anything that's more relevant to the topic, or would you like to talk about me some more are just as bad as any of OM's posts. Collect (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

actually, no, they are not. They are productive comments designed either to get OM to clarify something he said or move past some senseless comment he made. but thanks. --Ludwigs2 16:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Clue: Do not argue with editors bringing neutral comments to a discussion. Your definition of "productive" may not coincide with the opinions of others thereon. Collect (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I see double standards here by L2. OM's quiet removal of L2's notification [45] gets the comment "heavens" from L2, above, as something shocking. But when R tells me No, just FUCK OFF then L2 is far more restrained: it might be nice if you laid off the 'fuck off' line a bit. I understand that you're upset [46]. So more consistency and less hypocrisy is required: perhaps L2 should show some of the "understanding" he has for R, to OM? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It seems to me that OM is choosing not to engage in serious discussion on the Acupuncture talk page, which does warrant both the edit warring notice placed on his talk page and the other editor's reverting their edits. I also concur with Collect that Ludwigs responses are tending to escalate, rather than de-escalate the situation. If Ludwigs2, Middle8, et. al. can manage not to respond to OM's baiting, then it becomes clear they are making good faith efforts to discuss the situation. On the other hand, if they respond to OMs snarky comments with snarky comments of their own, it makes the picture far more muddled for additional editors reviewing the situation. My recommendations are:

• Continue editing the article and making good faith efforts on the talk page. If OM taunts, baits, or refuses to discuss, do not respond in kind. If he continues to revert edits, take him to 3rr /edit warring.
• (Optionally) If others feel there isn't clear consensus on the editings, article RFC might be appropriate.
• (Optionally) If others feel there is a long time pattern of similar behavior on OM, a user RFC could be initiated. Gerardw (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like many editors are engaged in serious discussion and its not infrequent on pseudo-science issues to find similar situations with a small group of enthusiasts facing a cynic (trying to be neutral here and probably failing). I just put the article back to what appears to be a stable position and suggest the editors talk. This is not a situation where demonisation of OM is appropriate --Snowded ^TALK 17:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree on what's present on the talk page. Your last sentence is a tautology: there are no situations in WP when demonisation of an editor is appropriate. Its presence is suggest of a lack of WP:AGF. Is that your intent? Gerardw (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see above we have at least one editor who thinks that OM is the cause of problems and has said so clearly. The way to handle an edit war is to discuss and agree consensus on the talk page, and leave the prior position in place while they do so. --Snowded ^TALK 18:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That's often appropriate, but not when dealing with an editor whose modus operandi is precisely to abuse this kind of reaction. Here is how it works:

Put an article where some editors you don't like are editing on your watchlist so you don't forget about it. Every once in a while, when it appears on your watchlist several times in a row, that's a sign that some work is going on there. Open the article's history (no need to look at the article itself) and look for some bigger edit by one of the "bad" editors. Revert back to before that. Or even better, revert back to a version from several weeks ago. Put the code of a random content-related policy page in the edit summary. Make sure to leave only very short, essentially meaningless comments on the talk page. The goal is to keep the "bad" editors occupied with explaining there edits. They cannot spend too much on this, because every hour that they spend explaining is an hour less of "bad" edits. Do not read what they write because that would be a waste of time. Should the "bad" editors ever get the impression that you have understood one of the things they said, they would have one thing less to repeat. You want them to repeat themselves because it's stressful for them and makes them look silly.

Unfortunately this method is pretty effective. Hans Adler 20:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that OM's reactions to the attempts to discuss the "95" figure were unhelpful and it is hard to believe that they were intended to be otherwise. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Guymacon editing other editors' talk page comments

Resolved

 – user has agreed not to edit reporter's comments Gerardw (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Guymacon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd_nomination) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd_nomination)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Guymacon insists on editing other editors' talk page comments, claiming that because he believes he is allowed, that's all there is to it. I reverted his first edits and explained on his talk page that such edits are discouraged. Rather than discuss to resolve first, he simply reverted me. I reverted again, pointing out that just because you think you may do something does not make it a good idea; I would like my comments left alone. Guymacon now warns that if I don't self-revert to install his changes to my comments, he intends to report me. I find this to be inappropriately bullying. Msnicki (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Not all that is allowed is wise. If editor X requests editor Y not edit their comments, editor Y should not be editing the comments. Gerardw (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Not all that is allowed is unwise. The formatting errors made it look as if some votes and some comments had more weight than others. That's worth fixing. Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not good etiquette to edit another editor's comments, even to correct spelling etc. It is doubly bad form to do so after that editor has asked others to refrain from such actions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't edit anyone's comments. I fixed the formatting after checking Wikipedia policy to make sure that doing so was allowed. Msnicki isn't asking me to refrain from fixing formatting errors in his posts. He is demanding (and going as far as 2RR to enforce his demands) that I not fix any formatting errors on any posts. That shows WP:OWNERSHIP in my opinion. Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:TALKO, as you cited, fixing indentation levels is specifically acceptable. While I agree that he should have left your "delete" uncapitalized, I don't see anything here that actually requires a WQA. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree about the capitalization, and of course would have put it back the way it was if the person who wrote it wanted it uncapitalized. The other edits were purely according to policy, improved the readability of the page, and removed a potential problem of some votes and some comments appearing to have more weight. Guy Macon (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:TALKO specifically says But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. While I concur that there was no problem with the initial edit, once Msnicki protested, Guymacon should have stopped. Gerardw (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I did exercise caution, and in fact I reviewed the policy before making my edit to make sure it was allowed. The "objection" was based upon a claim that I was violating policy, followed by ignoring me when I quoted the exact policy that allows it. Guy Macon (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The "delete" he changed was Tedickey's, not mine; Guymacon has edited several editors' remarks at once. On mine, he's deleted the bullets. The tipping point prompting my report was the threat that if if I didn't install his changes to my comments, that he intended to report me. Not only do I object to his changing my comments, I also don't believe I should be subject to intimidation with threats he intends to report me. Msnicki (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A good faith offer to resolve a dispute exactly the way Wikipedia's policies say to resolve disputes is not a threat. You are assuming bad faith where there is none. If we were to apply your false standard, this page would qualify as "intimidation with threats." That's not how Wikipedia works. Dispute resolution (of which Wikiquette alerts are a part) are an attempt to bring editors who disagree together. You should never feel threatened by dispute resolution. In particular you should not be threatened by WP:ASSIST, the specific step that I suggested. Did you even read WP:ASSIST? Doesn't seem too threatening to me. Guy Macon (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The above accusations, if true, would indeed describe a very disruptive editor. They are not, however, based in reality. No comments were edited. No spelling was corrected. The edits consisted of formatting only, and fully conform to Wikipedia policies.

The first edit consisted of changing

• Keep
  
• Keep
  
• Keep
  
• delete
  
• Keep
  
• Keep
  
• Keep
  

to

• Keep
  
• Keep
  
• Keep
  
• Delete
  
• Keep
  
• Keep
  
• Keep
  

This edit clearly meets the criteria set forth in WP:TPO: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments [are] Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read..." Having the one delete vote be in italics while all the keep votes are in bold looks a lot like hiding the delete vote and thus stacking the consensus. Making all the votes equally visible is a clear case of "Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read."

The other edit consisted of correcting the misuse of * from

• Keep

• Comment1

• Comment2

• Comment3

• Comment4

to

• Keep

Comment1

Comment2

Comment3

Comment4

That's it. That's the sum total of the "editing other editors' talk page comments" Msnicki is complaining about.

Removing bullets is specifically allowed by WP:TPO: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls..."

Also note that many of the comments were correctly formatted, so there was a consistency issue that made it look like the comments with the bullets had more weight.

Re: "Rather than discuss to resolve first, he simply reverted me" Again, not true. First I answered his objections on my talk page { Diff ) then reverted with an edit comment explaining "Edits are specifically allowed under WP:TPO See discussion at User talk:Guymacon." in the edit comment.

Msnicki then reverted again, putting him at 2RR and me at 1RR

Finally, he is now characterizing my good-faith efforts to resolve this conflict according to Wikipedia guidelines for dispute resolution (See User talk:Guymacon) as "inappropriate bullying."

TL:DR: Description of wrongdoing factually incorrect. Edits were formatting only. Edits were specifically allowed under WP:TPO. Msnicki is at 2RR and calls good-faith attempts to resolve issues through dispute resolution "bullying." Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Are we to believe that the lack of bullets on the page would so confuse a reviewing editor they would misinterpret the page? As noted, WP:TPO says formatting fixes okay, but is also says you shouldn't do it the other editor objects. You standardize the formatting. (Cool). He objected. (peevish, perhaps, but whatever). You reformatted anyway. (Uncool). Gerardw (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I am wrong, but as I interpret the policy, I should honor a "don't change my comments" objection, but it's OK to ignore a "don't change anybody's comments" objection, especially when linked with a claim of an imagined policy against doing so and a refusal to discuss the actual policy. Again, I may be wrong; I admit that I am a bit annoyed at being called a bully and accused of violating policy when I have done my level best to follow every Wikipedia policy to the letter. Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." I don't see that this is a case where ignoring the request is warranted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am confused. I agree with I should honor a "don't change my comments" objection, but it's OK to ignore a "don't change anybody's comments" objection but doesn't this [[47]] a revert of Msnicki's revert of his own comments? Gerardw (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The correction of bad formatting overall included correction of Msnicki's bad formatting. That was an oversight based upon my false assumption that, once Wikipedia policy was explained to Msnicki, he would have no objections. At that time he had not expressed anything resembling an objection to having his own misuse of the bullet character removed. All his objections were based upon a policy that he made up claiming that any changes to the formatting of any other editors comments are forbidden. I assumed that once the actual policy was explained to him he would have no objections. Now that I see that he is sticking to his objection despite it not being based upon any Wikipedia policy, I will of course leave whatever formatting he chooses for his own posts alone, while ignoring his attempts to speak for everyone else. Guy Macon (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble reconciling your insistence that you were attempting "good faith efforts to resolve this conflict" with the 3 minutes elapsed between your "explanation" on your talk page and your revert. You already knew I wasn't happy; if you actually cared about me going along once you'd "explained" it, I think you'd have waited more than 3 minutes. The AfD won't close for a whole week; that's plenty of time. Immediately reverting is what you do when you don't care what the other person thinks. You also wouldn't have carried on like the aggrieved party complaining that I should have templated you to alert you to my revert because the template text is so much better than what I wrote (apparently oblivious that the text I used is from a template!), all the while behaving as if that sort of nicety is unnecessary when you do these things. I think if you had really had any good faith interest in resolving the conflict, your initial answer would have been simply, "Sorry. I apologize." Instead, you escalated. Msnicki (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood Wikipedia Policy and reverted based upon that misunderstanding. I quoted what the actual policy is and reverted your revert. That should have resolved the conflict. Instead, you reverted again, knowing that it was against policy and "reported" me. Please note that I left the page in the state you prefer, not in the state I prefer, even though you knew that your revert was against policy. I was, as I always try to do, following Wikipedia policy by leaving the page in the state it was before the conflict while discussing the conflict. I am the one who is following the rules here. You are the one who is breaking them. Guy Macon (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Changing other peoples edits on trivial grounds is apt to upset them, and GM should know that -- if not, he has just discovered it. It's the digital equivalent of getting into someone's personal space. If it was so important to the readability of the discussion, someone else could have made the changes. Carrying on after being asked to desist shows bad faith in my view. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you think that the policy concerning what an editor is and isn't allowed to change on a talk page is wrong, feel free to suggest changes to that policy. Please don't make up new policies and then accuse other editors of bad faith for not following your new policies. Guy Macon (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not talking about the minutiae of talk page policy, I'm talking about civil behaviour, which is a policy too. Your appeal seems to be to WP:TPO, which begins with the statement It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. You have indeed irritated another user, and that user has said so. You chose to make trivial and unnecessary changes to another user's edits after being asked not to do so, and that is uncivil. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Guy Macon reformatted a page, including other editor's comments, in accordance with current talk page guidelines. Guy Macon has agreed not to reformat Msnicki's comments, and additionally explained his reasoning in performing the revert. This is good. It is time to drop the WP:STICK Gerardw (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So much for dropping the stick. Now he likes bullets. Lots of them. Begin here. Msnicki (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not civil [[48]]. I don't have any problem with Guy Macon's response to it. My advice is to let it go.Gerardw (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you're right. He deserves an apology. I'll try to do better. Msnicki (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; I think we are done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Mathsci disruptive editing on AN/I

Resolved

 – Avanu (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm trying to put a very simple request into the AN/I and despite my attempts to request that Mathsci allow admins to review it without off-topic commentary, he is continually adding comments that do not directly relate to my request. I politely went to his page to discuss this, to which he responded by summarily deleting the text each time with no response to me. Because this is a situation that already needs a careful touch, I am trying to focus on Admin questions and comments, not on past issues or unrelated issues.

I also tried to simply close the thread to forget it and move the request elsewhere, which Mathsci promptly reverted. Since I was the requestor, I would assume I could withdraw the request? Is this mistaken? I don't want to continue a disruptive, unproductive situation, so I am bringing this here. Please help. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a lame request by a user who is involved in the hyphenation dispute on Mexican-American War. He has repeatedly tried to remove any comments I placed on ANI concerning his request. These were comments by a neutral editor who has never been involved in en-dash/hyphen disputes or moves. Avanu is an involved editor who seems not to be editing in a calm way. He has repeatedly left messages on my talk page instead of responding on WP:ANI, where he exercised WP:OWN. When politely requested to provide diffs to back up his proposals, his response was to archive the request as off-topic. Aavanu is editing disruptively and his forum-shopping here is a further example of that. Mathsci (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Mathsci doesn't appear to be doing anything particularly disruptive, although Avanu's continual disruptive attempts to archive Mathsci's comments have lead to Mathsci engaging in a slightly childish game of WP:LASTWORD. Avanu, stop. Mathsci, stop. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 09:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This does in deed look like forum-shopping, and [49] for example looks like excessive OWNership at ANI. If thare is any behavioural problem it looks to be coming from Avanu, and ANI is likely to handle it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not 'forum shopping'. I put a simple request, directed exactly at Admins, because according to the AN/I page that is the proper location for it. I am an 'involved' editor *only* in the sense that I am asking for dispute resolution. I don't care which way the editors at Mex-Am War decide their discussion. Immediately after I put my request in, Mathsci pops in and references an old discussion and tries to merge my request with another thread at AN/I.

I asked him to stop, and he wouldn't.

I went to his page to try and discuss it politely, he wouldn't.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do if an editor won't even make an effort to discuss things, so after 4 times of this, I brought it here. I *just* have a simple request for an admin. From my perspective, Mathsci is making a complicated situation harder and is stubbornly refusing to simply discuss things and explain his/her position on this. -- Avanu (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm done with the Mex-Am Article. I've been trying to work for patiently for months with the parties there on both sides to work it out via consensus, and if I'm just going to end up bitten in silly debates, I'm not going to stick my neck out with it. Mathsci, I still don't know what your issue is with people posting on your Talk page but dismissive statements like "enough Avanu" aren't really helpful for me to understand or realize what you want here. -- Avanu (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Avanu was named by Sandstein as one of six editors involved in the hyphen / en-dash dispute. [50] It can only help administrators unfamiliar with the dispute, of which Avanu gave no details, to have a link to one of the previous discussions. My first response to Avanu politely requested him in my edit summary not to post on my talk page. [51] That request does not seem to have registered with him. Mathsci (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I have consistently been a neutral party in this, and Sandstein's thread was not only openly hostile, but several editors asked him to leave me *specifically* out of it. I've been trying hard to encourage solutions, and I was practically begging you to just let this AN/I request stand on its own so it could be looked at by neutral and uninvolved admins. Your first response might not have been as dismissive as later ones, but I came to your Talk page so I could try and understand your insistence on adding distracting comments at the AN/I. Finally, I was ready to give up and you wouldn't even let me do that. I feel very much like I am being held hostage by a person who won't let me have peace and a neutral discussion. -- Avanu (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying hard to encourage solutions. Too hard, perhaps. Maybe you should just drop the entire thing, including this WQA? I was ready to give up. Then do so. Stop posting here, stop posting on ANI. Actually do what you're claiming. And don't reply to this William M. Connolley (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)