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 discussions

Jayjg

Hello, I've been having difficulty with a user Jayjg and am seeking advice on how to resolve this. We have had several arguments regarding wiki policy as applied to a page. We've both made same ad hom. accusations. I had labeled him with wp:tagteam, wp:owner, wp:hound and of acting in bad faith. I also brought up some previous e-mails and disputes where he's been punished for demonstrating this behavior. He's accused me of breaking just about every wiki rule I think there is, many of which I feel apply to his behavior.

Many of the accusations and blame go both ways. I feel his is wrong on topics such as wp:synth and he feels I'm wrong. He followed me to wp:nor talk when I was looking for a 3rd party opinion on our dispute and answered it himself without mentioning he is involved in the conflict. I also had added a relevant comment on an unrelated page he maintains, in which he responded with a personal attack and later a border line threat "Unlike what I have done, you are now actually WP:HOUNDing me, and that better be the last time you do it."

I was particularly concerned about two things:

1. When ever I ask for other peoples opinions after he comments (he comments on all my threads), he interrupts claiming consensus already took place (when it couldn't have as the post was very new and there were people on both sides) or that his opinion matters more because he's a "more experienced editor". I've seen him do this to other people as well and I feel it makes for a hostile environment.

2. He followed me to someones personal page when I asked why they believed "aggregation was synthesis" (they had only posted "It is SYTNH.") he interrupted our conversation and accusing me of "hectoring" people which I feel crossed the line. The personal who owns the page can be free to end the conversation.

I'd like to get to the point where:

• 1. I won't be harassed when having a personal conversation on someones else page.

• 2. I would like to promote an environment where everyone has a chance to express their opinion ( meaning perhaps a week, not hours or a day) without the conversation being declared "over", wp:IDHT or done with prematurely when there is clearly not a consensus.

• 3. We can have a discussion without it turning into a wiki lawyer debate, and when wiki lawyering is necessary, we can seek unbiased outside council when we disagree.

I'm seeking dispute resolution because I don't feel we can get through this without a 3rd party. If you can let me know how we can work through it would be helpful.

Thanks, Gsonnenf (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have occasionally contributed at Talk:Circumcision, and I just reviewed current discussions there. I cannot see an issue that needs resolution here. If you have applied terms such as "tagteam" and are wondering what to do about that, just stop doing it. If you believe inappropriate terms have been directed at you, please give some precise examples because in a quick scan I cannot see it. It is standard for editors A and B to disagree at an article talk page, then for A to raise the issue at a noticeboard (you should have used WP:NORN not the policy talk page WT:No original research by the way), and for B to comment at that discussion giving their views on the background. Such behavior by B can be disruptive if they attempt to monopolize the discussion, as that discourages comment by others. I do not see that at Talk:NOR. When editing in a contentious area, editors have to be prepared for plain speaking—I cannot see anything that goes beyond that, and it is very appropriate to give links to WP:SYNTH and WP:MEDRS when appropriate (and the links do seem appropriate). I would suggest that it would be best to avoid joining really contentious discussions at this stage, such as is likely to occur at Talk:Jews. Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Jayjg does need a reminder from time to time about civility. Yesterday I failed to check history or talk before putting some "news" info into an obscure article. It turned out Jayjg had reverted earlier an person's similar entry and reverted me writing in the edit summary: (per Talk: page and WP:STALK) Assuming he's talking about me (or even if talking about the earlier editor) that just seems extremely uncivil. I said in talk Jayjg should go to the individual's talk page and tell them what the problem is, not make such accusations in edit summaries. Jayjg works on a dozen, even two dozen, articles a day, so it's not surprising since we edit often in the same Israel-Palestine area, we're going to run into each other. (Note he then did revert his reversion of my edit for further discussion - so this is ongoing.)

In another recent issue there was an error on my part (notifying a Wikiproject not listed on the article talk page - frankly, it didn't occur to me to look at them or that that was the best place to start; mea culpa). Rather than explain I'd overlooked doing so, as another editor later did, he insulted me for defending going to that project and told me I'd "got off easy" - see diff. So the issue of whether Jayjg uses incivility and threats of administrative sanctions to get his way on articles remains. Note that later some agreed posting to that other Wikiproject was in fact appropriate when that became part of a larger issue on Dispute resolution noticeboard and Wikiproject Feminism. So it's not even like he was 100% right in what he was threatening to sanction me for. And this is also part of an ongoing debate, at least on the main article, if not the original one. CarolMooreDC 14:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the advice on wp:norn. I was not aware this page existed. Is there a similar page for advice on wp:medrs ( I'm not too worried about the current wp:primary / wp:medrs disupte but would like to know in case another disagreement arises. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsonnenf (talk • contribs) 15:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe the only noticeboard relevant to WP:MEDRS is WP:RSN (the generic reliable sources noticeboard). FYI, links are case sensitive apart from the first character, so WP:NORN works but wp:norn does not. The link wp:medrs only works because someone made a redirect with that spelling. Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

@CarolMooreDC: The edit summary you mentioned is not a model of welcoming civility, but is it really a problem? If you have several edits reverted by the same user with a similar summary, there might be a problem, but once does not seem anything to worry about. I don't want to take the time to fully investigate The Atlanta Jewish Times but it looks like a case of unfortunate timing where someone added a section to the article, and Jayjg removed it as undue and put an explanation at talk, then 14 hours later you essentially restored the material without commenting at the talk. Since the material is an "in the news" item, you had not seen the earlier edit, and can hardly be blamed for failing to check the talk page before adding what you thought was new text. However, after Jayjg's revert, you might look at the matter from their point of view: I have no idea what the "stalking" comment referred to, but a simple denial is all that's required along with a very brief statement that you had not noticed the earlier edit. Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We really are talking about a long time modus operandi here, of which the above is just a few recent examples. But just knowing people in the community are discussing it here may be enough to change behavior for a while. It would mine if I came up here :-) CarolMooreDC 04:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Gsonnenf has not notified Jayjg of this Wikiquette assistance request. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

[1]. Nobody Ent 10:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Apart from 3 recent edits, the editing of Gsonnenf in 2012 seems quite different from the editing in 2007-2009. Logged-off edits, however, come from the same geographical area.[2][3] Mathsci (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Boomerang very very strongly applies in this situation.
• Regarding the first point 2: my talk page is an open environment, the level of aggression from Gsonnenf—of requesting explanations for clearly explained content—is confusing from an established editor. The only reason why I dismissed their hostility and did not respond was that I perceived them to be a newer editor. Jayjg's description of Gsonnenf's interactions with me on my talk page as "hectoring" accurately reflects what they made me felt, I was sufficiently offended to respond with an "asked and answered". Failing to sign posts is of course a bonus.
• Regarding the second point 2: posting hypotheticals, rather than concrete edits; posting a noticeboard issue to a policy talk page, and not a noticeboard; failing to read archives and policy; and being aggressive when corrected aren't good conduct from Gsonnenf. The proposed hypothetical is is a "perennial" way to avoid PRIMARY policy, and MEDRS is really really clear on the kind of crap encyclopaedism being pushed by Gsonnenf. Gross incompetence over fundamental policy from an established editor is incivil; as is IDHT behaviour when it is explained that their proposed approach to sources is not acceptable. This is MEDRS for goodness sake, we produced this policy because of the dodgy editing practices being proposed by Gsonnenf. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Additionally, this diff indicates a willingness to sock via IP to force a content issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to present specific examples before editors can evaluate your complaint. Also, you should not yourself violate incivility, which you say you have. When you post a request to the third party opinion noticeboard, you should mention that fact on the article's talk page. TFD (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Edits like this [4] (also Gsonnenf) do not look good at all. Mathsci (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add to this, he has been using personal attacks on me based on my my religious beliefs and where I live. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Jews&curid=1506019&diff=473273960&oldid=473271723 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs) 11:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg Personal Attacks

• Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• American_Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jayg has been using personal attacks on my religions beliefs to discredit my opinions on talk pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Jews&curid=1506019&diff=473273960&oldid=473271723 yisraeldov (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That does not seem to be a personal attack. Note that Yisraeldov resumed editing four days ago after a two year break and has not informed Jayjg of this request. Mathsci (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't remember seeing where it said that if you don't make edits every day then you are vulnerable to personal attacks ? If you read the article on personal attacks it state

"Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."

How should I go about informing him? I requested that he refrain from using personal attacks and referenced him to this link. --yisraeldov (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That diff isn't a personal attack --Guerillero | My Talk 14:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

From the diff

Please accept that the view of American Jews held by a haredi Jew living in Israel will be narrow at best.

better than the personal viewpoint of any individual whose knowledge of Jewish history and culture apparently begins and ends with late 20th and early 21st century Haredi Judaism.

There are other such comments on the same page that are belittling my opinion because I am a Haradi that lives in Israel. Why is that not "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" ?14:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs)

There is nothing belittling in his comments. He simply was trying to explain that your view may not be shared by others outside of your own scope of experience. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"better than the personal viewpoint of any individual whose knowledge of Jewish history and culture apparently begins and ends with late 20th and early 21st century Haredi Judaism."

That is extremely belittling, he is assuming because of my affiliation, that my knowledge is limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs) 10:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please close this thread before it goes into an infinite do loop? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Entropy and Miszabot terminate all WQA loops. Nobody Ent 13:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I find this wikipedia snobbery very troubling. First that some one continually used my religious affiliation to belittle my opinion, and second that everyone here seems to agree with him, and no one is willing to address my comments seriously. yisraeldov (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

We're not saying we agree or disagree, just that you haven't provided evidence of personal attacks requiring sanctions. As of the time I'm writing this, I'd say that Wikipedia is barely civil but not overly polite. (The Arbitration Committee has accepted a case regarding the issue, so it's possible there may be some changes.) Each editor has to decide for themselves if this is an environment they wish to participate in or not. Nobody Ent 16:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It's good to provide a link to the Arbitration Committee case which I assume is about general civility and not this dispute, as an FYI. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 00:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement Nobody Ent 03:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying link. @Nobody Ent wrote: Each editor has to decide for themselves if this is an environment they wish to participate in or not. The problem I see is that there are a few Admins who really push the envelope on incivility, but if one were to be half as uncivil back, one would get "in trouble." (Not in this case but in other past ones involving this and other admins.) Admins really do have to live up to a higher standard of civility, and be careful of the threats (no matter how subtle) they wield when in contention with other editors on an article, or it makes other editors feel like second class citizens. This evidently has been an issue with User:Malleus Fatuorum, who is subject of the civility enforcement, in the past; though not clear from his user page if he's still an admin. CarolMooreDC 16:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Rude and non-responsive IP editor

• 8.225.186.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 74.98.249.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Battle of Monmouth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Battle of Germantown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This IP editor has been engaging in a non-responsive slow-running edit war on these articles (and is branching out to other ones). In the listed articles s/he is making inappropriate additions to infoboxes (e.g. this series of edits to Battle of Monmouth) Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. User has never responded to any civil talk page requests to discuss his edits (see talk pages of all the above), and does not appear to have ever edited a talk page. User has also recently been leaving insulting edit comments ([5], [6]) for which he has been warned.

The first IP is a shared academic address, the second may well be personal, based on editing patterns. User may also be a known offender; I don't know how to go about diagnosing that. Magic♪piano 18:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Magicpiano. I believe the editor is someone's sock and the behavior is unacceptable. He is willing to call people idiots in edit summaries but has made no effort to communicate on either his user talk pages or the article talk pages although numerous editors have tried to get him to do precisely that. He is also using these IPs:

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

I've seen his edits back to October and he has been edit-warring ever since albeit slowly. I believe that a non-sock, Wiki newbie would either have been conversing on a talk page by now or would have been asking for an admin by now because their edits didn't stick. Not him...he just keeps pushing his edits back again and insulting other editors.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Also

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

All the ips are near Pittsburgh, editing the same parts of the same articles. They don't overlap in time. Except the schoolip, they stop during school hours. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Rude/Uncooperative Editor

• Peter92542007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ang Mo Kio MRT Station‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Caldecott MRT Station‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stadium MRT Station‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paya Lebar MRT Station‎‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bukit Panjang LRT/MRT Station‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor in question has so far refused to participate (despite being invited to) in the discussion to state his reasons for the edit reversions. A consensus was reached the the discussion regarding the future of the articles mentioned due to WP:NOT. Editor left this message on my talkpage - Don't use WP:NOTGUIDE be the reason, if you can do it, why don't you use this reason to edit for all Singapore MRT stations, if you can't, you're the silly rubbish! and on his edit summaries in the above mentioned articles - Rubbish Planenut, don't think you are correct, don't do any rubbish delete!- Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 16:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Lecen bad faith personal attacks

• Lecen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paraguayan War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I made a comment on Paraguayan War as it is usually known as the War of the Triple Alliance in English, Paraguayan War tends to be a minority term used predominantly in Brazil - though it does feature in English language histories of Brazil. User:Lecen has been needlessly hostile to innocent comments eg [7], today after a politely worded notice that per WP:TPG he should not refactor other's comments [8] he reverts with the comment "Removed bullshit" and posted this rant on my talk page [9] with threats, bad faith attacks and apparently "I should learn my place". I haven't participated in any of the bad faith attacks in the move discussion, I have so far per WP:AGF written his comments off to a misunderstanding but this is too much. Can someone independent please remind him that per WP:TPG he should not refactor talk page discussions and that WP:CIVIL is not optional. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC) [10] His response to the WQA note required per guideliens "removed more bullshit". Wee Curry Monster talk 18:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

These are recurring issues with Lecen, across many articles and pages, aimed at anyone who disagrees with him on any number of issues, articles, or content areas. Unless the folks who frequent WP:WQA are able to do something about this (which I doubt they can or will, because they haven't dealt with Lecen in past reports here), I point out that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lecen is a red link. By the way, as a result of my post here (a page I follow), Lecen has suggested that I "might try to kill him". [11] I don't know how such hystrionic language relates to no legal threats or whatever policies we have that cover such things (do we have a "no threat of death threat" policy?), but oh my ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

A discussion has been started at ANI about Lecen's bizarre posts about Sandy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am going to begin my comment here in support of Wee Curry Monster for the way Lecen has been treating him these past few days. While Lecen has also made a series of aggressive comments and accusations towards me, I will address these (and other issues) below this message. WCM has kept his cool, been objective, and yet has received as much (if not even more) personal attacks from Lecen than even myself. Why? All due to a simple discussion over an article's title. If Lecen gets so combative over a mere title, one can only imagine how he may get in more serious matters. Sandy provides a bigger record on this editor than even I knew about.

Regarding my relationship with WCM. As can be seen in Talk:Falkland Islands, I am not WCM's "friend" (which is what Lecen aggressively indicates in WCM's talk page: [12]). I do have to admit that this whole discussion has changed my view on WCM, towards the positive, but that still does not make us "friends" by any definition of the word (If a barrel fell on my head, I am sure WCM would not really care at all). Actually, I get the feeling that WCM really does not like me very much (particularly my writing style), and at this time is probably wondering why we're on the "same side" of a discussion (technically, I am arguing from one position while he argues from another, though ultimately both converge in a single conclusion which is that in favor of moving the "Paraguayan War" to "War of the Triple Alliance"). Having stated that, here are some other points regarding Lecen's behavior ([13]):

• Accusations of canvassing and sockpupetry: One user made use of sock puppets in the RM discussion, and for some reason he now swings it at everyone involved on the matter. I made a post at Jimbo Wales' page, and I even took the time to present my defense from his accusation, and yet he continues to accuse me (and everyone else) of canvassing.
• Xenophobia: I am from Peru, and he is from Brazil. For some reason he thinks that I have something against him because he is Brazilian and I am Peruvian. He also seems to think that WCM and all the other non-Brazilian editors have something against him due to his nationality. Note that I am not accusing him of xenophobia (despite his actions do show some signs of that), but rather he is accusing me of it.
• Bullying and WP:DIVA: Lecen constantly reminds everyone of his "FA and GA articles", tries to impose his apparent "veteran" status on Brazil-related articles, and thinks he can use such tactics to force other users to agree with him. To me that is clear bullying. He also uses diva behavior, threatening to leave the project (to his "friends") if things don't go his way.

More exist, but it's beyond the point. I personally have nothing against Lecen and find his contributions to be fantastic. Perhaps because of his profession (lawyer) he thinks that it's good to always be on a "battleground" when it comes to topics close to them. I don't know. What I do know is that his "friends" here in Wikipedia, instead of guiding him on the right direction (ie, calm him down), either fuel his position or let him continue this aggressive behavior. I wouldn't call them friends, hence the quotation marks, and I do believe that they are as much a part to this behavioral problem as Lecen. Sadly, I don't think WQA is meant for a wide-range "counseling" situation. I hope this problem can be resolved in a peaceful manner. Note: I was writing this when the ANI situation came up; for the sake of expressing my opinion, which may or may not be relevant to the matter at this time, I am publishing it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a good summary. Lecen is incapable of taking on board reasonable criticism of his articles and has alienated many reviewers as a result. His responses to those who have had the temerity to oppose one of his FACs ought to have dealt with well before now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've reviewed Lecen's work, and got into a battleground-esque fight over source quality. I've reviewed Lecen's work and had a comfortable and friendly discussion over content and historiography. Lecen is a valuable editor, working in an area of the encyclopaedia that needs more valuable editors. Many editors need to reduce their levels of combativeness, I wish we could do this better. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Sadowski personal attack

After a disputed edit on Lincoln Capri, he called me an idiot & suggested I read the source. I had not only read the source, I relied on it for the disputed information. He followed with two further insults suggesting I was incompetent to edit on the subject, since the source was wrong & he knew better. He also left an edit summary calling me immature. Notice, I didn't start with the insults, the original edits were both gf & sourced, & the deletions were unsourced & contrary to the sourced material. I don't need this crap from him. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

He's also messing around with your talk page, restoring comments you deleted, an action which is against WP:TALK guidelines. I see WP:DICKish behavior by Sadowski. Wikipedia is not the place for abusive editors who think they know more than the sources. Binksternet (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Subject of this thread has been notified. Binksternet (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I do in fact believe that Trekphiler is totally unqualified to be editing the Lincoln pages. Trekphiler does not display any common sense knowledge of the features or styling that was current during the periods in question. On the other hand I do not have a copy of Flory. But if Flory contradicts these facts then Flory is clearly wrong. One merely needs to consult other sources such as the Standard Catalogs of American Cars or sales brochures or data books or even more simply the actual cars built (such as the one in my garage). Sadowski (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I also want to remind people that the abusive conduct is not mine. I have not called Trekphiler an "asshole" and I have not called him a "moron". These are purely his word choices.Sadowski (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadowski, you are in no position to say who is qualified to edit an article - you do NOT own the article, regardless of how much expertise you think you might have. You have been warned about such behaviour before and, again, it is totally unacceptable. Both of you are equally at fault, probably need your heads banged together for a while, and probably need administrator intervention. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 09:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Just an update. I have obtained copies of Flory's books. Flory is in complete agreement with the sales brochures and with Kowalke. This does not at all surprise me. I was quite sure that Trekphiler had not actually read Flory (either that or he has serious trouble with reading comprehension). For example, Flory clearly states that AC was introduced as an option in 1955 on page 664 of the relevant volume ("available" does not mean standard). The bottom of page 664 also lists it in a table cearly labeled "Major Options". The problem is thus not with the sources. The problem is with people citing sources they either have not read or cannot comprehend. It is simply wrong to state that a source says something it does not. Unfortunately in my opinion this is a very common occurence at Wikipedia.Sadowski (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how content is an issue on this board. This is about how editors treat each other. You called Trekphiler an idiot. He called you an asshole (I don't much care who started it). Sounds like you both need to cool it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and Trekphiler also called me a "moron". But evidently despite being a moron I am actually able to comprehend the sources I cite. If the issue is treatment then the question is why did Trekphiler feel it was necessary to undo the positive changes done by the anonymous editor when that editor mostly correctly cited those changes and Trekphiler's reversals were clearly incorrectly cited? Moreover he has a history of routinely undoing positive additions that are easily cited (or more recently, which were correctly cited) and ironically agree with the single source he has demonstrably incorrectly cited. Is that considered Civil Behavior?

By the way I am cool. I'm so cool that unlike some people I'm eager to talk this through without erasing all evidence of the discussion. Sadowski (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Abusive editor

• AceD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

I am being publically accused by this editor on the talk page of "meatpuppetry", and I have done nothing of the kind. This editor is now threatening me as follows: "Any further attempts to tamper with this page through a mendacious and systematic process will result in me submitting yet another easily proven entry on your to an administrator and a resulting permanent ban."

After spending a considerable amount of time researching and finding proper citations, and working with other (more reasonable) editors trying to improve the article, it seems we had reached a consensus - only to be completely reverted by this editor. Based upon past discussions with him, it appears he has a COI, and has consistently attempted to remove or disrupt any negative information on the agency.

As an editor with a couple hundred edits to my credit, Wiki doesn't pay us enough to have to endure this kind of abuse.

Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a contentious article, and Computer Guy 2 was blocked for sockpuppetry on January 14, 2012, for 3 days. Computer Guy 2 also reported AceD at WP:SPI, and the closing admin note stated, in part: "I do think this is an attempt on Computer Guy 2's part to try to deal with an edit war through alternative means." ([14]).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was blocked - for stupidity in trying to change my identity. In all fairness, you should have pointed out that AceD was warned for Edit Warring against this editor and warned for using multiple accounts in August, 2011. Nevertheless, Bbb23, I thought we worked together pretty well to hammer out a reasonable section - which has now been deleted. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the link to the SPI report has the "warning" you refer to, but it's a bit more innocuous than that. HelloAnnyong said only that he warned AceD about being sure to log in and that he thought that AceD's edit was accidental while logged out. As for you and me, quite honestly, I found you difficult to work "with", but certainly not enough to complain about your conduct. The section in the article you're referring to is messy, and I haven't paid a lot of attention to what's going on since I did a bit of work on the article, mainly because I felt that to do so I'd have to go through it line by line, source by source, and I haven't had the time. However, at a glance, it looked like it wasn't the entire section that was at issue, but that numbered list of agents. To the extent that AceD is trying to eliminate the list and incorporate it into the text, I would - and normally Wikipedia also would - favor that kind of presentation. In any event, this report you've brought is more about the comments made by AceD than by the content war that triggered them, and I must say that his comments are a bit over the top - it's not clear to me that either of you is handling the article neutrally, or each other in a collaborative and respectful fashion. Both of you have a singular interest in the article and in related articles, which often doesn't bode well for neutral editing or calm tempers.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the referenced warning, I simply repeated the heading posted by HelloAnnyong on AceD's Talk Page, "Warning on multiple accounts". Just for the record, there is no "content war" on my part. I simply posted current, cited and verified information, along with other editors, directly pertaining to the heading and removed unverified material. Months ago, when it was clear that no progress was being made in discussion with AceD, I just dropped it and walked away. Since then, I've given considerable thought to this whole process, and personally resolved to be a better editor by not responding to flame-baiting, goading, personal attacks and other forms of incivility. While I do have a narrow spectrum of interest, it certainly isn't singular, and I've posted to a number of articles. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)