Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive88

User:MarshallBagramyan

This user has constantly undone my edits without any discussion, although I have always made an effort to reach a consensus first in the talk page. Especially, in Erzurum article, you can see that he has done a number of undos without discussing: for example, 1. Finally, he has threatened to curtail my activity and he has insulted me in the talk page: 2 (the edit on 17:36, 26 June 2010). Robert Willie (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reason to believe that Robert Willie, as well as the IP he liked to edit war with 68.48.22.83 before finally registering his account, has little incentive to improve the articles he is involved in. Right off the bat, he has shown an interest to distort the reality of the Armenian Genocide and has disrupted a number of articles bordering on vandalism with his edits. He has shown an extremely well-known knowledge of Wikipedia for a new user, so great that I even filed a CU against him because his edits were highly circumspect and reminiscent of a certain editor who had only recently been banned from editing on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the edits Robert is trying to insert are highly dubious. The best analogy I can provide to those reading this is to imagine an editor who visits the Holocaust article on Wikipedia and seriously attempts to insert the claim that it did not happen. Will such an editor be persistently indulged to express such views as he tries to insert that claim even if he is being reverted by responsible editors?

If Robert Willie wants to improve the Armenian Genocide articles, I more than welcome it; but because most of edits are done with the disingenuous intention of disproving that a genocide ever took place, which no serious academic in the field supports, I'm afraid that I, nor other established editors, can turn a blind eye to that. If it was any other user, I would have been very indulgent toward them and would have helped them in every way possible to adapt to the rules, but I have seen many editors like Robert Willie come and go, as most of them have been blocked or banned for their problematic edits or have given up after seeing that they cannot change the undeniable fact that a genocide took place against Armenians over 95 years ago. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As a content-related dispute, Robert's issue is not appropriate for WQA, which deals primarily with incivility. There, in my opinion, is no evidence that Marshal Bagramyan is being uncivil. Swarm^Talk 03:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just look at my post. I am not talking about any content, I am talking about a threat which counts as incivility. MarshallBagramyan is talking about the content in his defense which is mostly not related. In sum, does the following count as incivility: "you will find that your editing activity on Wikipedia will be quickly curtailed"? I think it is, and that is what I am reporting.

MarshallBagramyan, you know that the sockpuppet case already got solved. The result: there was no sockpuppetting. Even if there was one, it would be unrelated to the incivility claim. Two wrongs doesn't make one right. Moreover, if I have done anything wrong in my posts, you would have reported me, so stop talking about the content of the post which is also unrelated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Willie (talk • contribs) 11:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should provide everyone the full context of the quote, instead of insidiously presenting it in a way where it actually does sound much worse. I said: "if [note the qualifier] you continue with this disruptive behavior and continue to vandalize them [articles] to advance your agenda, you will find that your editing activity on Wikipedia will be quickly curtailed." For that, I hardly have to do anything; the administrators will take care of all the bad apples.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What you wrote is very clear. You did not mean "stop vandalising because editors won't let you". First of all there is no vandalism, if there was one you would be the first one to report. You just didn't like what I was writing, although they were well cited, so you tried to scare me to stop editing. That's where this investigation comes in... Robert Willie (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a clear example of MarshallBagramyan trying to curtail my edit activity: my talk page. There is no basis for his claim as I have explained in the talk page. Every edit that I have made was discussed in the talk page of the Erzurum article. This is the second evidence that shows that he is trying to curtail my activity for his personal POV. Robert Willie (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jezhotwells

I hope I have posted this to the correct section, apologies if I haven’t. I actually find Wikipedia extremely difficult to use and understand. Obviously a failing on my part.

I have thought long and hard about taking this step. After much deliberation, I contacted the person who gave Jezhotwells “reviewer” status, hoping that a quiet word from him might calm the situation. However, he advised me to take the matter further Even so. I have waited another week before writing this in order to set this out as clearly as I can.

Let me first say that, in the beginning, yes, I screwed up. There were a large number of “Citation needed” tags on en.wiki.x.io/wiki/George_Müller and I removed these because the evidence was amply provided in the several references listed at the bottom of the article. I explained my reason for doing so. Another user reverted this deletion, saying he felt that the tags were needed. I reversed this and gave a lengthy explanation as to why these tags were, in my ignorant view, unnecessary. This user then instructed me to go to the talk page and we opened a dialogue on the matter.

After this stage, Jezhotwells stepped in and, even though I’d performed only two reverts, he threatened me with blocking, accused me of starting an edit war, of claiming ownership of the article and said I may have a conflict of interest. He told me to consult the Wikipedia policies on these matters. I said I had, and that I had seen nothing to change my point of view. I also pointed out that it was possible that I had misunderstood what I had read – and this, indeed, was the case. (en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Silver_Shiney#COI)

At no point have I claimed ownership of the article. I do not see how I can have a conflict of interest – I have the immense privilege of having access to material on George Muller that most people will not have access to, and I wish to share this to enrich the Wikipedia article.

Further subsequent digging on my part unearthed an article on “tendentious editing” which made the requirement for citations crystal clear to me. So, yes, I hold my hands up and admit that I was wrong to do the removals. However, I feel that, because I gave lengthy reasons for my actions, it was obvious that this was done in good faith and not out of malice. A wise man once said to me “if you don’t understand something, it’s because I haven’t explained it properly”. Had Jezhotwells taken me to one side and quietly explained the rationale for the citation tags, I would have been quite happy to toe the party line.

Talk pages have a panel at the top which states “• Be polite • Assume good faith • Avoid personal attacks • Be welcoming”

Jezhotwells has not assumed good faith on my part, he has not been polite and has not been welcoming. Now, it seems, he believes he is exempt from the need to avoid personal attacks.

I wrote to him at length on his talk page (en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Jezhotwells) and asked him to retract his unfortunate comments. He came back with an accusation that I was pushing a “religious” point of view. At no time have I done this, and I do not understand how he can justify this.

I said he should remember the rules of common courtesy and he responded with “You don't appear able to accept that others have different opinions about what constitutes good encyclopaedic writing, rather than god-bothering promotion. Get used to it”

He misses the point that the discussion has moved on from opinions on editing and is now about his attitude. “God-bothering” is a highly offensive term used by militant atheists to describe Christians. Not once have I alluded to, or identified myself, as a Christian, so where this insult came from goodness only knows.

As George Muller’s whole adult life was based on his faith in God and the fact that he did nothing without praying about it, it is impossible to talk about the man without mentioning God.

However, the fact that he has used this disgraceful term demonstrates a hostility towards Christianity and therefore his neutrality in editing articles to do with the church has to be questioned. Perhaps he is the one with a conflict of interest?

He removed two references, claiming they were “some sort of religious site pushing a particular POV, no evidence of it being regarded as RS, likewise #27”. Had he bothered to actually read them, he would have found that they were very valid reference points.

He inserted a “Citation needed” tag on one paragraph, which I subsequently removed, stating clearly that the cited evidence was in the following paragraph. He replaced the CN tag. I have asked him to explain why the cited evidence in the following paragraph is insufficient, but he does not answer this.

A little while ago, I tried to follow up one of the references on the article and got an “Error 404” message. Believing the link to be dead, I removed it. Jezhotwells rightly told me off for doing this, saying there was a procedure to be followed. I don’t have a problem with that, had I known this, I would have checked. Where I do have a problem, though, is that the article had a section entitled “Videos”. Jezhotwells deleted this. When challenged, he said “I remove the videos as they just appear to be a list of spam links” and, if they were indeed valid references to reinsert them under “References”. In other words, he didn’t check. So it seems it is a sin for me to remove something without checking, but it’s okay for him to do it. I told him that, as he’d removed valid information without checking, it was up to him to return it. He has not done so, but someone else has recreated the section and listed one of the video references Jezhotwells deleted. Jezhotwells has “edited” the page several times since then and has not touched this re-insertion, even though he earlier said it should be under “References”.

There appears to be no consistency in his editing decisions.

His attitude towards me and this article appears to be vindictive and bullying. I have been left with the impression from Jezhotwells that it IS Wikipedia policy to “bite the newbies”, that it’s okay to be rude to the point of being highly offensive, and that bad faith and malice should be assumed in all cases.

Tact and diplomacy are not my strong points, but I have tried hard to be polite to Jezhotwells at all times. Maybe I’ve failed. If so, I’m sorry. However, I feel sad that he has come down to making threats, false accusations and insults, and this gives Wikipedia a bad name.

Perhaps calmer heads, not involved in this dispute, can clarify things?

Thank you for your time.

Silver Shiney (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Above is an inaccurate summary of my actions. SilverShiney insists on inserting references to various cult sites, e.g. [1], [2]. This editor appears incapable of understanding what is a reliable source, despite numerous pointers at policies, insists on adding spam links to a religious video shop. etc. Ok, I got fed up with their obtuseness and snapped. I take back the god-bothering tremark. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to put the record straight, I did not insert the references Jezhotwells referred to. I did not "insist" on inserting "spam links" to a "religious video shop", neither did I actually insert the references he refers to. To state that I did is disingenuous. As I said, it was clear that I did not understand policies - it would have been nice to have had these EXPLAINED in simple language instead of being attacked. Jezhotwells' neutrality is still in doubt. He has still to address the other points. Silver Shiney (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "spam links to a religious video shop" that user:BuildArk inserted pointed to the online shop for the company that wrote and produced the film referred to. I have corrected this to point to CTA's homepage instead. Silver Shiney (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC).

Jezhotwells, with respect, Silver Shiney appears to be a relatively new and inexperienced user. Dropping automated-sounding COI and 3RR on newbies and expecting them to just "read up" on Wikipedia policy is usually not going to be successful. In fact, anything you write to them, even a short message, is going to be more helpful than a template message. Please try not to mistake inexperience with "obtuseness", as you may unintentionally WP:BITE them.

Silver, Jezhotwells has admitted that they simply got frustrated and snapped, and I hope you're able to move past this.

I'll make an offer to help user on their talk page. Regards, Swarm^Talk 04:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Swarm. Silver Shiney (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And I think WP:OWN was misused. Note the following: "There is no rule against being the primary or sole editor of an article, provided that contributions and input from fellow editors is not ignored and/or immediately disregarded. Some articles have few (or one) main contributors. Being the primary editor does not equal ownership so long as the primary editor allows views of other editors. Being the primary editor does not equal ownership if the primary editor's contributions are justified. Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of broad relevant reliable sources may have watchlisted such articles and may discuss or tailor other's edits. Provided this does not marginalise valid opinions of others, and is adequately justified, it too does not equal ownership. Often these editors can be approached and may offer assistance to editors unfamiliar with the pages." The fact that Silver Shiney was actively discussing (in great length) his/her reasons is enough to dispel this charge. Although Silver Shiney was clearly unfamiliar with WikiPedia procedures, the correct etiquette would have been to join the discussion on the talk page and educate Silver Shiney or to keep quiet. Asserting serious COI because Silver Shiney is connected to a museum about the subject matter (and it doesn't look like Silver Shiney was trying to promote the museum), making threats about being blocked and talking about "ownership," and dropping COI and 3RR on Silver Shiney's user page is a very excessive reaction to someone who is engaging in discussion on a talk page and appears open to persuasion. Vyeh (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Vyeh Silver Shiney (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Christopherfisherington

Resolved

 – User warned, image deleted. A new report can be filed if the behaviour persists. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Christopherfisherington restored a picture of what appears to be an axe-wielding monster with an erect phallus to the page orc, which I had previously removed. Christopherfisherington subsequently uploaded a picture of a poo with my username, and replaced an image on my userpage with it. While I accept it has elements of both, this isn't really acceptable as either humour or criticism. The users edits can be seen in his short edit history [[3]]. Can someone delete the image, block the account and possibly do a sockpuppet check or something? Davémon (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have warned the user. Since there were no previous warnings a block is not appropriate, but I do agree that the file should be deleted and will mark it as such now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done The file was deleted under G10 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs). If you have any further problems with the user, let us know. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into this. Davémon (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What a gutless response. Clearly this clown should have received at least a 24 hour block. 62.68.71.86 (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but it was reported here, while the admins are supposed to be reached at WP:ANI. I've let Davemon know that that's where they should be reported from now on. Swarm^Talk 16:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I would thank you not to refer to my actions helping out the user filing the report as "gutless". WP:NPA. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Bottleneck with the wp:Dispute process.

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – --Swarm^Talk 03:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In this editor's opinion the wp:Dispute process needs some assistance here. Comments? 66.102.205.40 (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"This discussion has been ongoing for OVER two weeks now and it seems unlikely to end soon." You've edited for one day. You must be psychic (or something else?)... Doc9871 (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Doc9871: As for your apparently non-wp:AGF comment about my editing for "one day" you seem utterly unaware of the fact that an IP is often randomly assigned by the hosting service each time said service is activated: dedicated fixed IP's are rare for typical internet access accounts. Also, please do not assume facts not in evidence ... I am not psychic. :) My assertions are based on the timestamps of the entries referenced and the tone of the conversation which at this point shows no sign of consensus or resolution. Setting all these issues aside the real issue is that a part of WP designed for helping to prevent escalated disputes is not working as it was intended to work (an assertion I make based on the facts that questions are going unanswered) for whatever reasons. That is what I am raising here and that is what needs to be addressed, nothing else. 66.102.198.93 (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem: People who would otherwise help users on a Wikipedia help noticeboard aren't helping out because they are getting distracted by one particular thread. The solution? Post a thread on an unrelated help noticeboard... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your solution SheffieldSteel ... If an editor's question is on content then what other Noticeboard should such a question be posted on? Respectfully it sounds a little like "Don't raise the bridge, lower the river." Is that what you are suggesting? If I am in any way misunderstanding please accept my appologies in advance and help me to understand. Thank you. 66.102.198.93 (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Imagine if this noticeboard were to become backlogged because volunteers here got distracted by this thread. Speaking of this thread, what is the Wikiquette issue that needs resolving? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've shared my opinion there, but this is not an issue for WQA (which deals with civility-related disputes, for the most part). Swarm^Talk 03:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am the OP and I am going to reverse myself and agree with Swarm's assessment. I do not typically get into many disputes and the process is a little unfamiliar. When I needed content help I tried to use the Noticeboard and became frustrated by the (perceived) lack of response. I tried to suggest on that page what I saw as a sort-of break in the discussion so that the Noticeboard could get back to helping other topics, but I was uncertain if that was right so I came here looking for "comments" because it says this is the page for help with "other difficult communications" which is what I saw as the issue. In the end the problematic discussion has cooled off, mine and other topics did get some help, and I learned a little more about using the Dispute Resolution process. My apologies if I jumped the gun or used WQA inappropriately, I did not intend in any way to misuse the system. 66.102.204.170 (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

RelHistBuff edit warring Talk:John Calvin#Image

I proposed a change in the placement of the image at the top of John Calvin article, since the lead image then didn't follow the MOS:IMAGES.

Another editor agreed but no one posted counter reasons or even a counter-opinion. After waiting for anyone who wanted to to post otherwise (about two weeks), to do so, I considered it consensus. The issue could not wait longer since User:RelHistBuff gave notice he was anxious to archive an unrelated discussions even more recent than the Talk:John Calvin#Image discussion.

Since then User:RelHistBuff has failed to give any counter reasons-- or otherwise disscus the issue-- but does keep reverting this new and discussed consensus.

His only two talking points are (1) how an unrelated discussion did not agree to this change (which is what is expected from an unrelated discussion-- different box at a different location that didn't reference the lead image) and (2) a hidden comment requesting discussion of the issue (which is of course why I did discuss the issue.) He has also has not explained why he fails to engage in a discussion on this issue, or even why he did archive parts of the discussion, etc. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 10:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous; WP:FAC had no problem with that image. Please leave FA writers to do their work in peace. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Two editors hardly constitutes consensus. Leave the image to where he's moved it to to avoid edit-warring, and encourage him/her to take part in a consensus discussion. Otherwise, you could request that a neutral editor comment on the consensus discussion (and you've clearly gotten attention here now so there's likely to be more discussion taking place soon) and build consensus. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of suggestions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution that might help. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

User:InaMaka

I am a new user to Wikipedia and I have learned a lot already. Unfortunately, I can't say my experiences to this point have been good. InaMaka has repeatedly made claims against me that are false, called me names, and accused me of being a sock which is simply not the truth. In my dealings with this individual he has never assumed good faith and as such has constantly provoked me and then used the Wikipedia rules against me when I let my anger get the best of me. Examples of this individuals continued provocations can be found on these pages: not assuming good faith, not assuming good faith, not assuming good faith and not being civil, not assuming good faith and not being civil even after I posted a fairly agreeable comment, civility again and not assuming good faith, civility, civility. Here are some examples from other editors who have had dealings with this individual recently: civility, shows disregard for good faith, not assuming good faith and civility.

At points I have tried to work things out with this individual, but they only lead to more insults and false accusations.Sodapaps (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sodapaps calling InaMaka uncivil may be the pot calling the kettle black--but there is little doubt in my mind that InaMaka is rude and plays the man, not the ball: see their rather silly response ("trolling") to a matter-of-fact comment of mine at User talk:InaMaka#Susan B. Anthony. I have no use for such editors and it's sad that the place seems to be full of them. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Keepcalmandcarryon

During an RfC to which I had made exactly one edit KCACO made this gratuitous attack. Stating that I abuse Wikipedia, I find this a despicable comment and would like to see him either back it up and file an RfC on me or redact and apologize. I asked the editor to redact the comment but he asserted that he had made a true statement. I initially tried to collapse the offending section of his post, but unfortunately his behavior was enabled by User:Verbal.

Keepcalmandcarryon and verbal have been notified. Unomi (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there as anything particularly gratuitous, and Unomi does have a history with that page. I'll restrict myself to the claim of enabling though. I undid Unomi's edit as it added a large green bar across the the page with the bolded, unsigned, title "gratuitous personal attacks" or some such (itself an unsigned personal attack). I undid this as, as I said in the edit summary, it was counter productive - it makes the "personal attack" stand out and can only draw attention to it. It is also modifying another editors talk page contribution without their permission (better to put a rpa tag, or ask an admin to do so). This edit was repeated, and I didn't undo it, though I still think it means many more people will see the statement about Unomi because of that - and his raising of it here. The edit also caused confusion, as until I looked into it I had assumed KCACO had collapsed the section as it was right in the middle of his comment. I think Unomi's edit should be undone for these reasons, but I'm no going to force it. TickleMeister has been very combative and rude which led to tempers fraying (see 2/0s report below) and KCACOs actions, though not excused, should be considered in this context. TL;DR version: "collapsing" had the opposite of intended effect, and allowed an unsigned personal attack/bad faith comment by Unomi to be placed instead which drew attention to both. Tit-for-tat, both shouldn't do it again. Verbal chat 19:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that Unomi didn't raise any problem with my edit with me before coming here, so until he reverted I assumed he was ok with it. Verbal chat 19:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia as a forum is, in my opinion and seemingly according to Wikipedia policy, an abuse of Wikipedia. Unomi's first edit under this username was to add a link to an article on a fringe website calling aspartame "NutraPoison". This, after an IP editor ( using similar language added links to a conspiracy theory internet video on the subject. Unomi then began to advance the theory that scientists who find no harmful effects of aspartame are conflicted and part of a Searle-funded conspiracy, much as TickleMeister and any number of similarly minded editors have done, ad nauseum, over the years, employing without exception original research, cherry-picked quotes and internet conspiracy websites. Unomi's comments at the time revealed an intense personal interest in the subject that did not in any way resemble the source-driven objectivity we expect from editors; repeatedly, Unomi used both the talk page and mainspace of aspartame-related articles to advocate a (thoroughly fringe) position. Unomi responded to guidelines-based reversions of original research and POV insertions with personal attacks and bogus (for example) noticeboard posts. At least one other editor found Unomi's behaviour quite similar to that of previous editor(s) who advanced a similar POV at aspartame-related articles.

I freely admit that Unomi has on occasion responded positively to criticism from different editors and is somewhat less combative than when he or she first adopted this username. However, Unomi's continued if now more sporadically evidenced interest in advancing fringe theories on aspartame remains an issue of some concern. It's important to note that, amidst serious incivility by another advocate of these theories, Unomi has chosen to file a WQA only against me, and on the basis of a single sentence that, whatever else one may say about it (e.g. criticising the use of the word "abuse"), accurately reflects Unomi's editing history on this subject. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't see your first edit here, as it seems apparent that it is not the one from the username you now use, so you have me at a bit of a disadvantage. As for my first edits, I have explained them numerous times here is the short version. That was back when you, OrangeMarlin, Verbal and Bullrangifer were trying to get me banned for alleged socking, due to my temerity of trying to clean up the garbled language you seemed so fond of. OrangeMarlin managed to disgrace the account he was using at the time by his insistence that a Government Accountability Office report constituted a fringe minority / politically motivated source. As soon as informal mediation was suggested you all vanished.

The basic problem is that KCACO seems to fail to read sources or denies their content and counts on other editors being too lazy to read for themselves. That was the case with the GAO87 report, and that is why he is presenting this as being problematic. To the best of my knowledge I never sought to include information from internet conspiracy websites apart from my very first edits where I had only limited insight into WP:RS. As for abuse of wikipedia, how about edit warring to include sideways smears at those you wish to oppose? On our Russell Blaylock article, insisting on including 'teaches from a Christian worldview' even though their website indicates that it pertains to their liberal arts curriculum once, twice and yet again. Or your wanton 'At least one other editor found Unomi's behaviour quite similar to that of previous editor(s) who advanced a similar POV at aspartame-related articles' that is pretty old hat and frankly it should be beneath you. If you want to open an SPI or RfC, then do it, but don't throw mud just for not having an actual case.

Please substantiate or redact the allegations you have made as a numbered list below. Unomi (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson: Past breaches of etiquette and continued incivilities

• PAST EXAMPLES OF THE USER'S INCIVILITY AND DISREGARD FOR ETIQUETTE

User talk:Mastodon96

"If you don't like it, tough."

User:Ian.thomson/MeVsXians

"During the four years I've been here, around a half dozen non-Christian users with persecution complexes have accused me of religious zealotry."

User talk:Rev. Michael S. Margolin

"The only religious bias here is your goddamned persecution complex."

--NOTE this comment is made on another users talk page, extending verbal abuse site-wide. The username Ian.thomson was never used in a discussion between Blackson and Michael S. Margolin.

User talk:Rev. Michael S. Margolin

"How many times do I have to explain that I do not give a flying fuck"

User talk:CreativeSoul7981

"You are a sad, paranoid person who needs to realize that a Wikipedia editor is supposed to leave their identity at the door when they see something in an article they disagree with. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)"

User talk:Goose8032

Just because Ross lunsford exists does not mean we care

Quit creating pages about people noone cares about

User talk:Monsterhead150

Wikipedia is not for crap that you just made up

User talk:Tdsok

Just because your band exists does not mean anyone cares

• ONGOING EXAMPLES OF INCIVILITY

User talk:Blackson

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hail Satan (book)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hail Satan (book)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackson (talk • contribs)

I'll admit that I have been frustrated by the influx of ignorant sheeple you lied to on facebook, who completely ignore the actual reason the article about your book is being deleted no matter how many times any of the regular editors explain it. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

One could argue that the only slight violation of WP:NPA is the part about being a "sad, paranoid person", but even that is questionable. If you're trying to establish a pattern of behaviour, then WP:RFC/U is the place - but I don't see it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Cherry picking and out of context, really honest, Blackson.

"If you don't like it, tough."

Pointing out WP:FREESPEECH and WP:NOTABILITY to a user after he edited someone else's userpage without permission, leaving a rant about religious persecution. I could have just given him a vandalism warning instead.

"During the four years I've been here, around a half dozen non-Christian users with persecution complexes have accused me of religious zealotry."

Which is astoundingly low, considering how active I am on here. I've had people call my Christianity into question more often because they didn't like the site's guidelines.

"The only religious bias here is your goddamned persecution complex."

--NOTE this comment is made on another users talk page, extending verbal abuse site-wide. The username Ian.thomson was never used in a discussion between Blackson and Michael S. Margolin.

You didn't mention me by name, but you were lying about me. You've only created one article, I tagged it for an AfD discussion, and you canvassed all the Satanist Wikipedians with a message about this bullshit:

have written an article for the book Hail Satan which is a collection of Satanic poetry. A christian user on Wikipedia seems upset and zealous in his efforts to have the article deleted. He has accused the article of vanity, whereas the article reads unbiased. The user in question also argues notability, yet the traffic log for the article since May shows over 1,000 visits. The article has also been accused of lacking sources, yet since this accusation proper sources have been added. The behavioral pattern however is arbitrary meaning when vanity is addressed and leveled - notability is argued, when notability is addressed and leveled - sources are argued. On the surface this seems less to do with an encyclopedic article's pertinence to Satanism and the Occult and rather the concern of christian users on Wikipedia to silence modern representations of Satanism in literature

Notice that Rev. Michael S. Margolin isn't coming to your defense, because you lied to him about the situation. You have been extremely dishonest.

"How many times do I have to explain that I do not give a flying fuck"

You're dishonestly taking this out of context, Blackson, the full quote is "How many times do I have to explain that I do not give a flying fuck what religion or lack thereof an editor follows, I'm just trying to keep articles in the guidelines?"

"You are a sad, paranoid person who needs to realize that a Wikipedia editor is supposed to leave their identity at the door when they see something in an article they disagree with. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)"

This issue has been resolved for over six months. CreativeSoul accused me of stalking her over pages I keep on my watchlist. We don't have a problem with each other now. Also, CreativeSoul is a fairly devout Christian, Blackson, just so you realize that your accusations of religious bias on my part are complete bullshit.

Just because Ross lunsford exists does not mean we care

Quit creating pages about people noone cares about

User bordered on vandalism in attempts to turn this into facebook. And just because something exists does not mean we care.

Wikipedia is not for crap that you just made up

It isn't.

Just because your band exists does not mean anyone cares

That's true.

Honestly, I hope you bring up a request for comment, because that will only draw more attention to your dishonesty. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

IP User 173.3.85.24

This concerns a dispute in Talk:The Pirate Bay (Controversial edits should be discussed on talk page section) Mainly, I would like a review of my own behavior in the context of Wikipedia guidelines. As a fairly new editor who is still learning the ropes, I am questioning whether I handled this well, and am wondering how I can do a better job the next time I run into this sort of situation. Guy Macon 14:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I presume this is the second part of the thread? (In the first part you stated that, to prevent edit warring, you'd reverted back to a pre-edit war version and were inviting everyone to discuss - all looks good to me). In the second part you attempted to counsel an IP about WP:CIVIL and WP:ENGVAR, without, sadly, a great deal of success. When it became clear that the IP wanted to be confrontational, you disengaged. I'm not seeing anything you could have done much better, to best honest. Apologies about the IP, they're not all like that, but you did your best. TFOWR 19:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User: 69.86.66.128

69.86.66.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The above IP editor has made a number of uncivil personal attacks on Talk:Albert Einstein against me (user:Quasihuman) and user:DVdm. This is part of a discussion on the section of Einstein's mistakes, in which my only contributions have been to say that the items in the section should be properly referenced. The IP has made several contributions to the talk page on this and other issues which have been constructive and civil, and the uncivil remarks have only started within the last few days, however, I find the insulting remarks to be particularly offensive and would like them to be withdrawn from the record and apologized for by the IP.

Diffs: [4] pervious edit was undone by user:HumphreyW and subsequently reinstated by the IP: [5]. [6]

For the record, my contributions to the discussion: [7][8][9][10][11]

Thanks for your time, Quasihuman (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Your suggested role is to discuss the issue directly with the user - even using warning templates about violations of WP:NPA before bringing it here. An anonymous editor thinks he can hide behind such anonymity and mouth off - likely very different in person, or should they actually register for an account. I see no signs on his talkpage about any discussion, other than the WQA notice. Can I ask why not? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have discussed this with the user on the talk page of the article, I asked him here to strike out his comments (which at that stage amounted to calling people dipshits and telling people to bugger off), in response to this, he accused me of being mentally handicapped, and I asked him here to apologize for that. I was not aware that it was necessary to discuss this on his talk page, and was not inclined to do that given that IP's are prone to being changed & fears that he might not receive the message. Quasihuman (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: the user has continued to make insulting remarks, and has now changed his IP to 75.24.127.154. [here] is his most recent response on Talk:Albert Einstein. I have tried to solve this on his talk page (the old one), but have received no response, probably because he has changed his IP, the reason I did not go there in the first place. Anyway, another editor has removed the relevant posts and my replies (athough I predict some edit warring over this), which was one of my demands, and I see no prospect of the IP apologizing, so I think it would be best to withdraw this alert.

It might have been helpful had an uninvolved editor here explained to the IP that personal attacks are against the basic principals of Wikipedia, unfortunately this did not happen, and I was effectively asked to deal with this on my own. As a relatively new editor (this was my first major dispute) this leaves the impression that Wikipedia is not interested in protecting good faith editors against personal attacks, and not interested in helping (relatively) new editors deal with hostile elements. Quasihuman (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional note: I've just realized that the IP made a very helpful reply on this page. For those interested, here is the edit. Perhaps a block is in order? (yes, I realize how ineffective that would be) Anyway, the IP has made it clear in that and the previous edit that he is no longer willing to edit constructively. Quasihuman (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

User:OpenFuture

Stuck

 – Editors have found little to suggest a personal attack. Those who do see this as a personal attack appear to be bringing a prior animus to bear on their interpretation, which itself smacks of WP:BATTLE by other means. So: no clear WP:NPA violation, not really an issue for WP:WQA. Eusebeus (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

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

User:OpenFuture takes a battleground approach and has been extremely argumentative, made abusive comments to other editors and abuses the use of warnings and warning templates. Below are some examples of recent abuses. This type of discussion does not promote improvement of articles.

Personal attacks at Talk:List of wars between democracies

• 1. I'm sorry, you make no sense. 13:21, 14 December 2009

• 1. Please read what I write before you answer it. 03:16, 18 June 2010

• 1. And we are also required to follow policy, which you are consistently breaking. And you are also repeating everything both here and on my talk page, which is unnecessary and annoying. Please cool down. 03:16, 18 June 2010

• 1. Well, I'm sorry to say, you are as usual utterly wrong. 03:04, 18 June 2010

• 1. Your constant attempts of inventing your own Wikipedia policies are getting a bit annoying, to be honest. 13:45, 18 June 2010

• 1. Your arguments are now getting more and more personal, and having less and less contact with reality. That is not a constructive way forward. 07:19, 20 June 2010

• 1. Finally something from you that is at least borderline, and at least meaningful to discuss.... 03:20, 19 June 2010

• 1. ...unless you have some sort of agenda. 04:02, 21 June 2010

• 1. You have no sources that support your assertion, and you know it. You are out of line, refusing to engage in constructive debate, and you do not understand the issues. 10:23, 21 June 2010

• 1. Is this complicated for you to understand? 10:23, 21 June 2010

• 1. You are on a crusade against windmills. 17:54, 21 June 2010

• 1. I'm finding it increasingly hard to WP:AGF in your case, as you say one thing, and then do something else. 6:46, 23 June 2010

• 1. Yet you apparently pretend that there is scientific consensus to claim the Boer wars was wars between democracies, when clearly, there is no such consensus. 24 June 2010

• 1. ...and you know that. So stop claiming such nonsense as above. 17:51, 24 June 2010

• 1. Talking to you is like talking to a wall. 21:37, 24 June 2010

• 1. Then of course, your willingness to misinterpret sources doesn't exactly work to your benefit. 05:58, 29 June 2010

Abuse of warning templates at User talk:Pmanderson#June 2010

• 1. Your revert is still against the consensus, as I previously explained. As such it is vandalism, and you simply reverting instead of engaging in discussion is edit warring. You are violating Wikipedia policy. Please stop. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• 1. Stop edit warring. You know you are wrong, none of your sources support the statement and one of the contradicts it. If you continue like this, you will sooner or later be blocked. It's not a constructive way forward. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• 1. Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:List of wars between democracies. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ref: [12] --OpenFuture (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• 1. You know that the sources does not support your addition of the Boer wars, yet you persist, despite repeated notifications and explanations. Continue and you will get yourself blocked. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• 1. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• 1. [3RR template] OpenFuture (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• 1. Hiding your warnings is considered bad form, but allowed. But note that the warning itself doesn't go away just because you remove it from your talk page. It's still valid. You make changes against both consensus, and against your own statements, and whose sources contradict your edits. If you continue like this you *will* get blocked. Try to engage in discussion and consensus building instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• 1. Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:List of wars between democracies. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes

• 1. You are, to be blunt, lying to yourself to avoid admitting that you were wrong. 10:24, 3 July 2010

• 1. I think you need to stop throwing stones in glass houses. You are after all the one that insults everyone who does not agree with you.... 20:59, 3 July 2010

• 1. As usual, your "facts" are pure fantasy. 05:45, 4 July 2010

• 1. Calling Campuchea "communist only by name" is a purely pro-communist rationalization. It's an excuse used to defend belief in communism.... 05:38, 4 July 2010

• 1. FYI: TFD has been warned for this personal attack, but he removed that warning from his talk page (which is his right). Just so nobody warns him again. ;) 07:15, 4 July 2010

TFD (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD is angry because he was proven wrong (by both me and others) in a recent debate, and has as a result taken to personal attacks. He started the whole discussion by implying that anyone that doesn't agree with him are racist and anti-semites, and has repeatedly accused me of being a neoconservative. He has claimed that I only read what validates my opinions and called me intolerant. I today warned him for these last personal attacks, and apparently this prompted this Wikiquette alert. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm. First off, full disclosure, I have had issues with OpenFuture myself, and so am involved, but having said that, this is a startling and reasonably serious list (imo) of which I was unaware. I could wish you had included actual diffs to put this in context, but it may be that this material merits you reporting this to ANI, including diffs. I'd be interested in other opinions however, including a reply from OpenFuture. The whole point of this board, after all, is to work stuff out so it doesn't have to escalate upwards. Jusdafax 09:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Jusdafax often expresses his support of the conspiracy theorists on 9/11 conspiracy theory talk pages, although he rarely contributes to the argument. This support is sometimes expressed by him abusing others, and I have been a target. In return, I ignore him. It's notable that even though he requests diffs from TFD, he doesn't provide any himself to his supposed "issues" with me. To my knowledge we have never had a debate, and I have never said anything against him. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, it would be helpful if you would explain the edits I have listed and I question the accusations you have made against me for which you have provided no examples. Jusdafax, you can follow the links to see the context. I could provide individual differences and will if this goes to ANI, but in the meantime you should be able to find the edits on the pages referenced. TFD (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are all self-explanatory, and in all cases completely correct. The same goes for everything I said about you.

You however, may want to explain why you think warning people when they break Wikipedia policy is a reason for a Wikiquette alert. It seems to me that you are trying to waste peoples time and energy by litigious behavior, so that we have to spend time on your attacks and games instead of improving the articles. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Woah there - Let's get this straight right now, this is not about me and my actions elsewhere. I correctly noted I am involved, however you want to define it and call it abuse. That point should be moot. This is about your current noted issues above, and your attempt to deflect attention to me, and your complete lack of response to the lengthy list of your questionable comments, should be noted by all parties concerned. Jusdafax 11:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I just replied to your claims that you have "issues" with me, and gave that claim context. If you don't want your behavior to be scrutinized, it's probably better to not get involved in Wikiquette discussions. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of that whole list of supposed "personal attacks" only the next to last one, the "Talking to you is like talking to a wall" strikes me as potentially a personal attack, and even then it could be just something said in a heat of an argument. Maybe the very last one, depending on the circumstances. I think here, as often, TFD is confusing "criticism" with "personal attacks". There's a difference and in fact, Wikipedia needs criticism for it to function and have a certain amount of quality control, given that it consists of user generated content. Telling a person "you're wrong", which what most of these are a variation on, is not a personal attack. It may not be constructive, and without anything to back it up can be considered tendentious and rightly ignored when forming consensus, but it is not a personal attack. I haven't looked at the "abuse of templates" allegation.radek (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree tfd has brought a sockpuppet case (dismissed), soapboxing(anyone who has a different pov than his is guilty) topic ban(12 hour), and a community ban(dismissed) against me in the span of a month. imho, tfd pushing his pov by harassing others. i have stopped editing libertarianism page to avoid having to defend his accusations. i suggest we explore ways to persuade tfd to focus on the material, and less on editors. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

An administrator blocked you for 12 hours for reverting 5 times within 24 hours, continuing even after being warned and another editor declined your appeal.[13] No one has made a complaint about you for soapboxing although you have received warnings from User:MCB[14] and User:Carolmooredc,[15] and User:RepublicanJacobite and Zhang He warned you for disruptive editing.[16][17] I requested a checkuser on your account because you displayed a similar editing pattern to a banned editor who had created numerous sockpuppets to edit the same article as you[18] and requested a ban because of a pattern of disruptive editing.[19] In fact you continue to participate in the Libertarianism discussion page.[20] Do you have any comments on OpenFuture's edits, the majority of which are from a discussion with another editor in which I was not involved? TFD (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting how you try to turn this discussion into something about Darkstars behavior. How is that relevant for this issue? Are everyone who doesn't agree with you vandals, in your opinion? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was Darkstar1st who brought up his interactions with me, and I have provided links so that people may consider that dispute on its merits. None of this has anything to do with the issues before us. And I have never called you or Darkstar1st vandals, so could you please strike that from your comment. TFD (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he brought up your behavior, which is relevant as you posted this alert. He is claiming that you in general accuse people baselessly, and that it's therefore is not just me. So your behavior is relevant here. The question is, how is *his* behavior relevant? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

tfd, would you consider a voluntary moratorium of you reporting other editors for 1 week? i have been in wp 3 times longer than you and have yet to report anyone. imho, you have spent too much time on conflict, and not enough on sources, adding new material, or identifying unsourced material. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not the claims against OpenFuture are valid may be determined by examining his edits which I listed above. Most of the edits reported there were not directed at me and so far OpenFuture has made no reponse to them. If anyone wants to examine the validity of issues that I and other editors brought up with Darkstar1st, I have provided links to them. If Darkstar1st would like to re-examine my disputes with him over his edit history, then I suggest he begin a new thread on that issue. In the meantime, if he wishes to contribute to this discussion thread, could he please provide reasons why the edits by OpenFuture do not represent personal attacks. TFD (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I repeat: There is nothing for me to explain. It is obvious, even out of context, that most quotes above does not represent any abuse. You however need to explain why warning people who repeatedly break Wikipedia policy would warrant a Wikiquette alert. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Some observations re: Openfuture's listed comments

Since the subject of the complaint feels there is "nothing to explain", and since I respectfully disagree, I have added a numbering system to the three pages that these quotes are drawn from, and give my own views on ten of his acknowledged comments on the first page cited. I should add that I have no idea what the dispute is actually over, again because that is a moot point no matter who is "right".

From the above listed - Talk:List of wars between democracies

• 1 - "You make no sense" - A patent violation of WP:NPA, at least as I intrepret "Comment on the content, not on the contributor."
  

• 2 - I see it as a violation of WP:AGF to assume someone has not read your remarks and just replied anyway.
  

• 4 - "...you are as usual utterly wrong." Violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.
  

• 7 - "Finally something from you that is at least borderline, and at least meaningful to discuss... " Violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.
  

• 8 - "...unless you have some sort of agenda." Vio of WP:AGF
  

• 9 - "...you do not understand the issues." Vio of WP:NPA when taken with the next comment...
  

• 10 - "Is this complicated for you to understand?" A deliberate insult, clear vio of WP:NPA.
  

• 11 - "You are on a crusade against windmills" I assume a reference to Don Quixote, and as such an insult and vio of WP:NPA, however literate.
  

• 15 - "Talking to you is like talking to a wall." Clear violation as I see it of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.
  

• 16 - "Then of course, your willingness to misinterpret sources doesn't exactly work to your benefit." Vio of WP:AGF.
  

Now, I again point out that the purpose of this page is to de-escalate situations like this one, and always remember the provisions of WP:BATTLE. In light of all this, I have a simple proposal:

Openfuture both apologizes to TFD, and states they will make a stronger effort to be civil in the heat of discussion. TFD in turn accepts the apology and vows to likewise make extra efforts to edit with collaboration in mind, drops the matter, and we all move on.

Wikipedians don't have to agree on content issues; we do have to get along. Hoping this is agreeable to all, Jusdafax 05:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

the purpose of this page is to de-escalate situations like this one - Yet you do all you can to escalate it. As usual all you do is try to start a flamewar. And as usual, the best way to deal with you is ignore you, which I will go back to doing again. I think that's the best way to deal with TFD as well, and probably what I should have done with this Wikiquette alert as well. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your above comment sure seems to be a plain violation of WP:AGF at the least. Jusdafax 06:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you have good faith, in that you want to improve Wikipedia. It's just your choice methods of doing so which I do not agree with. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"you make no sense" this quote being the source of an official wp complaint is rather weak imho. when did wp editors become so sensitive? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. "You make no sense" is not a personal attack; the editor clearly didn't think you were making sense; that's just honesty. In fact, most of what you apparently consider to be personal attacks are the sort of thing you're going to have to get used to if you want to collaborate with other users. Other editors don't have to agree with you, and bringing a discussion to WP:WQA when the basis of the issue involves comments like "You make no sense" or "you do not understand the issues" is just ridiculous and certainly isn't going to help to improve communication between the two of you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't it be "Your edits make no sense" instead? Even if you disagree completely, I think you have to take it in context with the rest. What about the other nine I point out? Focusing on just this one you disagree with is a bit unbalanced, as I see it. Jusdafax 13:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• • I'm not going to produce individual responses for every point; they are, almost without exclusion, completely blown out of proportion. Picking holes in every statement and saying everything is an AGF vio isn't helping the situation at all, and some of the "personal attacks" are just ludicrous. The very worst ones are at most incivil ("Finally something from you that is at least borderline, and at least meaningful to discuss..." and "talking to you is like talking to a wall"), and I don't see a single statement which I would consider a personal attack if it was directed at me in a heated discussion; at the most, the user needs to be reminded to keep discussions polite and constructive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"'You are on a crusade against windmills' I assume a reference to Don Quixote, and as such an insult and vio of WP:NPA, however literate". You are shooting yourself in the foot with this one, I think. This is a personal attack? God help us all... Doc9871 (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict @ Giftiger) We will have to agree to disagree, then. I also feel OpenFuture's comments to me here like "As usual all you do is try to start a flamewar" merit consideration, in context of my attempt (now clearly rejected by OpenFuture) to bring this matter to a quick close. I take it you have no objections to such commentary, if directed at you? (@ Doc) I find the comment questionable, and taken with the others, in my view illustrates an ongoing series of belittling comments, and hardly close to polite. Jusdafax 14:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It may not be polite, but it's hardly a personal attack. "You're a total asshole" - that's a personal attack. Alluding to chasing windmills just isn't. You're a good editor, and your skin will "thicken". Cheers... :> Doc9871 (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple of comments:

• "Finally something from you that is at least borderline, and at least meaningful to discuss..." - That's said to Pmanderson, who would onto a list of wars between democracies add things that are either not wars or not between democracies. That comment was when he finally added something that was borderline and worth discussing, and not an obvious case of two authoritarian states fighting. Now tell me how that is a personal attack or even uncivil?

• "talking to you is like talking to a wall" - Well, if somebody ignores everything you say, isn't it? Pmanderson added to the same list above, conflicts based on a book that lists was between electoral states. I pointed out *repeatedly* that electoral states are not the same thing as democracies. Cuba is an electoral state. So was apartheid south africa. Neither is a democracy. So that book can not be used as a source in a list of wars between democracies. Despite this Pmanderson continues to use the book as a source. He answers me in the debate, then completely ignores everything I said. In that case I ask you: How would *you* frame that? It *is* like talking to a wall. You hear an echo, but nothing happens.

• You are on a crusade against windmills. That is after Pmanderson repeatedly claimes that I was a revert-warrior vandal that reverted because I didn't agree with his "sourced assertions", when the trouble was (as I also explained) that his sources didn't support the assertions. Pmanderson clearly believed that anyone that didn't agree with his opinions and free interpretation of sources disagreed because he had a different political standpoint. So he, repeatedly, attacked me, failed to AGF and added statements based on sources that didn't support these statements. That's what the warnings, also quoted by TFD above is about.

Question: Is there any way to talk somebody who misbehaves that isn't a personal attack according to TFD and Jusdafax? Should we just let editors that doesn't follow Wikipedia rules continue to do so? Because according to TFD and Jusdafax, telling them to stop violating Wikipedia rules is apparently personal attacks. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. In my view you misrepresent my own concerns, which center around civility. To take care in a heated discussion to stay collegial is a true art that few of us have truly mastered. (I daresay I'm not the best at it myself.) I don't agree with every one of TFD's issues regarding your warnings, but I have noted you have a pretty combative style. That is the focus of my ten points. My own feeling is that there is room for improvement, but clearly you don't agree. I'd say we are stuck, and without further input suggest we close this. Jusdafax 16:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There are other options in dealing with badly behaving editors; many of them can be found under WP:Dispute resolution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

My opinion has been asked on this issue. I find OpenFuture an irritant, and not just for his lack of civility towards me and others.

• His contributions to List of wars between democracies has consisted entirely of removing sourceable items on this list, and then - when I have restored them, with sources - of blanking and revert warring.

• • The following list of reversions is incomplete: 16:43 18 June, 17:21, 17:43, 21 June 04:13, 09:14, 10:18, 23 June 16:23, 24 June 07:42, 27 June 05:42, 28 June 04:23

• Most of his incivility on that page consists of yelling as fervently as he can manage that I am doing something in which I have no interest - and which my edits do not do.

• He is one of the unfortunate editors who believe that some past consensus can freeze a Wikipedia page; when I quoted WP:Consensus can change, he accused me of misinterpreting policy. This may involve his lack of fluency in English; some of the quotes above should show his difficulties with agreement of subject and verb.

• He is indeed highly combative, and both of these combats appear to involve an insistence on the (fairly extreme) views of a single academic with a web-site as the Truth which Wikipedia should reveal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

disagree his comments are hardly irritable or menacing. grow up wp, focus on the content. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2010 (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.

re User:Malleus Fatuorum

Stuck

 – This discussion has become ridiculous. Eusebeus (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

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

"subsequent comments [on archived discussions] should be made in a new section." Irrelevant to the closure, so doesn't belong here.

It is stuck, but I dispute that it is demonstrably untrue. The opposite is the case. Verbal chat 10:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Verbal, I hope you're not an admin, 'cus if you are then Wikipedia is in deep shit. --Michael C. Price talk 14:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC) The discussion is closed, let's stop bickering now. Also, Verbal is not an admin. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Ok, Ok, people. There's nothing more to be done here. We'll move on to the next step. Herostratus (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I don't see what makes commenting about an incorrect summary makes wikipedia "shit", or how that helps at all. The first sentence of the summary was and should have been enough, and I endorse that. Verbal chat 18:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC) As the final word, I've informed Malleus Fatuorum that there's not going to be a next step. I have a strong case I think, but I don't have the heart to pursue it, I need to get back to article work. I do feel a little guilty, thinking of his future victims, but I can't save the whole world. Thank you all for your time and consideration. Herostratus (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC) I thought this discussion was supposed to be closed? Time for you to stop digging now Herostratus. Malleus Fatuorum 10:26, 6 July 2010 (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.

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

Now here's an odd thing. And it is a lot more than just an "etiquette" lapse. But I'm not sure where to go. This is not a content dispute, but a situation where another editor has, for some unknown reason (I don't recall ever working with this editor) apparently taken an extreme dislike to me to the point where he made an extremely noxious attack on me and won't withdraw it. Normally I would shrug this off, but I am unwilling to for various reasons described below.

This editor has (with no justification whatsoever) accused me of being a pedophile, or at any rate of indicating that accusations made by others that I am a pedophile are justified as I have "brought [them] upon myself", as he puts it.

This is a very, very serious accusation. It it was true I would be instantly banned with no appeal, but much more importantly to me is that it could have very serious real-world implications for me and my family. There is various background to this which gets kind of involved and I won't go into here but can provide if required.

I tried to ask this editor to explain himself, but he has been unwilling to do so in a satisfactory manner and has now told me to "fuck off", so that seems to be a dead end. This thread is here.

I am very upset and angry. This is an accusation which I cannot allow to stand, as a matter of principle, as a matter of precedent for the protection other editors like myself who protect the Wikipedia against pedophile bias, and as a matter of protection of my reputation and myself.

This is definitely a matter for ArbCom, I would think. However, I don't want escalate more than I need to. At one point, a simple apology, withdrawal of the statement, or cogent explanation from Mr Fatuorum would have satisfied, but it looks like matters have gone far beyond that point now. Absent some solution, it is looking now like one of us will have to resign in disgrace, and I don't intend it to be me, without a fight.

What should I do? Any advice? Herostratus (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

User's response to my informing him of this thread was "I have never taken much interest in the WQA children's playground, and I have no intention of starting now", so I'm not sure what can be accomplished here. I would still value any advice. Herostratus (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I may be completely mistaken, but I thought Malleus's comment "He brought this upon himself" was in regards to the entire RFA recall, specifically the jokes you made on your own user pages, not the pedophile accusations. (While I myself wouldn't have taken them seriously, many users would). While Malleus can be particularly, er, anti-admin, he's never been one for personal accusations of such a high degree (as far as I've seen anyway). My advice, Herostratus, is to let it go. I don't think anyone here really believes you are a pedophile and surely that's what matters? (Of course, I could be wrong about the whole thing. That's just the way I interpreted it.) Regards, ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 05:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That's how I interpreted it too, and I think Bunnies' advice is generally sound. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, though perhaps Malleus could have clarified that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Editing on Wikipedia is (unless otherwise wished by the editor) anonymous. Herostratus by his actions has not only publicised his interpretation of certain comments, but has given details about his personal life which if given by another editor in relation to him would be a serious breach of privacy. I never heard of this editor until he started posting on MF's page- his own efforts at drawing attention to himself are damaging to the encyclopedia. Ning-ning (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict...)

I would like to [let it go], but its not possible now. I do not understand your reading of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2#Oh, and..., if you did read it. Here, I will abstract it, removing extraneous chatter. What it amounted to was this:

Herostratus: Oh, and would people stop calling me a pedophile for crying out loud? ... [This is in response to a post beginning "What this RfA should come down to, in my opinion, is whether or not the candidate is a pedophile..." where the editor uses a Wikipedia Review thread about me as his ref, and then some follow-up discussion]

Another editor:: It's a disgrace that there are Wikipedians... that give [Wikipedia Review] legitimacy by posting there. The absolutely halfwitted shite posted there about you, that some editors were even so daft as to repeat here...

Another editor:: ... Allegations concerning pedophilia can be extremely damaging, and editors should therefore remain civil and avoid engaging in speculative public accusation...

Malleus Fatuorum:Herostratus brought this upon himself. Don't let's pretend otherwise.

How on earth is Mr Fatuorum referring here to the RfA in general? This thread has nothing to do with the RfA in general, nothing. Except for off-topic chatter is is solely about me being called a pedophile. If you think that my abstract above is not accurate; fine, just use the actual thread.

So anyway, let me get this straight. According to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, this is OK and I should just forget it? What the heck do you have to do to violate Wikiquette? Call someone a murderer? Rapist? Nazi? Threaten to kill their children?

I appreciate your character references for Malleus Fatuorum, but I'm afraid they don't cut a lot of ice with me at this time. Again, I have no idea who Malleus Fatuorum is or what he does, I don't remember encountering him or have any idea why he would hate me. Maybe I deleted one of his articles once or something, I don't know. It's quite a mystery to me.

But anyway, thank you very much for your time and consideration. I'm sorry this was not successful, but thank you for trying. Herostratus (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(now responding to comments by Ning-ning: Whaaat? Is this person one of the regular volunteers here? Just what kind of place is this????? What details about my personal life??? I'm damaging the encyclopedia by trying to defend myself against a false and noxious implication withc the person will not withdraw? Urk.... well again, thank you all for your time... I think... Herostratus (talk)

Threatening to kill someone's children would certainly violate the rules of WP - as well as the rules of most societies. Take a breather, Herostratus - we all get "pissy" from time to time. Relax a bit: it's a big wiki... Doc9871 (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

We have a zero tolerance policy on this particular accusation, hence User:Malleus Fatuorum should be indef blocked until they agree to retract and not repeat such comments. Verbal chat 10:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If that is how the comment was intended, then I agree. However, I was commenting on the discussion at the time and despite the unfortunate way in which it has appeared, I don't think the user was referring to the paedophilia comment with this statement, and I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt. It'd be helpful if he could clarify this, however... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't matter how it was intended, it can easily and clearly be read as agreeing with the accusation - hence should be removed and User:Malleus Fatuorum should be blocked per policy. Zero tolerance is zero tolerance. Verbal chat 10:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Verbal's actions in removing the offending post. If MF didn't mean it the way it can be read, then at the very least he put the post in the wrong place. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed Verbal removed the comment and I certainly don't have an issue with that; regardless of how it was meant, it could be very easily misconstrued and it's suitable to remove the comment until Malleus rephrases it in a way which makes it clear as to its meaning. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, Malleus saying that Hero brought the pedophilia accusations on himself, while not a very nice thing to say, is completely different to Malleus calling Hero a pedophile. Saying that he has called someone a pedophile is completely jumping the gun. :/ ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 12:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; saying that he brought it on himself is suggesting that he did something to justify the comment; that's essentially supporting the accusation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) And I disagree again. Look at Malleus's talk page, he said he was referring to the jokes Hero pulled on his user pages. At no point has he called Hero a pedophile! ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 13:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Let me try and say this in words of one syllable, so that even Verbal may be able to understand. I have no idea who Herostratus is, or whether he (I assume it's a he) is a pedophile or not. Either way, I have certainly never accused Herostratus or anyone else of being a pedophile. What I have clearly explained to Herostratus is my view that he brought the accusation upon himself by the stupid prank he played on his user page, an escalating series of messages claiming that his local council was restricting his internet access. It's a mystery to me why Herostratus and Verbal have singled me out for an indef block and characterised my opinion as a "personal attack" while ignoring those who actually suggested that Herostratus might be a pedophile, or why Herostratus keeps banging on and on about this instead of letting the fuss die down, but I suppose that's the way of the playground. Malleus Fatuorum 13:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Malleus, that's rather what I thought you meant. Contrary to what some people here have said, there is a difference between saying someone brought accusations upon themselves and saying that the accusations are true. The former is certainly not a blockable offense. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 14:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, though that doesn't resolve the concern about inflammatory commentary like this which is avoidable. Responding to a misunderstanding by accusing someone of being obsessed with a topic (let alone this topic) is utterly stupid; such disputes are predictably escalated rather than deescalated. In other words, one cannot ignore the fact that Malleus was (in large part or otherwise) responsible for this needless escalation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have escalated nothing. Herostratus came to my talk page and asked me what I meant by suggesting that he'd brought the accusation of pedophilia on himself. I told him and he got the hump, Hence this childish nonsense here. I can understand that Herostratus will likely be feeling a little hurt by his failed reconfirmation RfA, but that does not excuse him of making unfounded allegations, as he has done not only here, but elsewhere. Neither does it excuse you Ncmvocalist. You're just out for blood. Malleus Fatuorum 14:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Take responsibility for your edits instead of making false accusations in an attempt to avoid scrutiny of your own conduct Malleus. I'm not out for blood, no matter how much you would like others to believe such nonsense, and I've already suggested the part Herostratus also played in this. Herostratus asked you what you meant; you made a vague useless comment that clarified nothing. Herostratus explained why he approached you on your talk page - what he interpreted your comment to mean and asked if that was what you meant [21] (which was the first sign of an actual misunderstanding). You then denied that was what you meant but simultaneously accused Herostratus of being "so obsessed with pedophillia". Again, you clearly played a role in escalating this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am quite happy to take responsibility for my edits, as Herostratus should responsibility for his. It has been explained to him repeatedly what was meant by the observation that has apparently so offended him, yet he persists in his accusation that I called him a pedophile, and has now begun making vague threats – "I guess what matters is no longer my opinion but the opinion of the people tasked with enforcing WP:PED. You will not be hearing further from me, but I am sure that you will be hearing about this case, and soon" – and accusations of sockpuppetry.[22] Malleus Fatuorum 15:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I like that: attack someone, and then whine "Why can't they let the fuss die down?" If I may say so: classic bully logic. Letting the fuss die down is and always has been in your hands: even at this late date, I'd be willing settle for a sincere apology, some evidence of self-reflection, and a promise to avoid further wrongdoing.

Don't try to shift this over to be about the people who directly suggested that I am a pedophile. They had the basic good sense to shut up about it. You didn't. You have chosen to double-down and triple-down and quadruple-down and continue to pretend an innocence that you don't have, and maintain your right to address me and speak of me in in this manner, with "Fuck off" being a typical bon mot tossed off to calm the waters.

Here is the entire comments of my userpage taken from the diff which you yourself cited:

Ever since The Incident — you probably read about it in the papers — they have greatly restricted my computer access, therefore I have not been and will not be as active as I would like. For a while. After a certain period of good behavior the Local Council may restore my computer privileges. Thank you for your patience.

A later addition which you didn't cite but which I'll include for completeness is:

UPDATE: Rather than improving, my situation has deteriorated. Now I am no longer allowed access to the internet, and am forbidden to watch television or listen to the radio. Nor am I allowed to view any periodicals published before 1960. The only way I can make edits is to mark up a printout and pass it to my majordomo to be typed into Wikipedia. Frustrating!

Don't like it? Fine. Think it's stupid? Fine. Don't like me in general? Fine. But how on this planet can this in any way shape or form be taken to mean that I am a pedophile or am "bringing upon myself" an accusation that I am a pedophile?

Of course not. Look, let's not play games: you are referring to a thread on on off-wiki web site, the Wikipedia Review. Some people there, apparently reading the above, decided that it somehow showed that I am a pedophile (I don't follow their logic; they may have emotional problems and/or cognitive issues or something). I can only figure that getting this type of treatment, either from Wikipedia Review or on-wiki, is something that I "brought upon myself" with the innocent, if admittedly unfunny, userpage text you cited. Is there some other explanation?

All I wanted (originally) was for you to explain what this post was doing in the middle of thread discussing accusation of pedophilia against me. You have not done so because you cannot. In which case, fine. Everybody makes mistakes, although not usually this kind of obnoxious playground-bully type of mistake. In the case of this kind of mistake, as I said, an abject apology, some sign of self-reflection, and a promise of no further bad behavior is generally in order.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that you can talk to people the way you do, but whoever gave you that idea was doing you no favor. My assessment of your current situation: you're in a heap of trouble, pal. This could get out of hand, and nobody wants that - I hope. (Although I do wonder: if you treat me this way, what kind of poison might you spreading against other editors?)

Anybody here who has your best interests at heart might want to have a little talk with you. I suggest you listen. Herostratus (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hero, Malleus didn't 'attack' you. If he thinks the jokes you quoted were above were unwise and contributed to the pedophilia accusations then he's perfectly entitled to think that. He speaks his mind in a somewhat blunt manner (to say the least) but it's not an attack for him to have an opinion on your conduct. You're not going to achieve anything by dragging this out. Sometimes people are going to say things about you that you don't agree with - that's life. Wouldn't you rather see all of this behind you? ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 15:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am going to say this again, so that Malleus can understand (hold on, that's not civil is it. Hmm) Zero tolerance is zero tolerance. The explanation above could have been given earlier, but Malleus' continued problem editing and the other highlighted comments () show that a block is fully deserved as an educational measure, to prevent further disruption, and per zero tolerance. Verbal chat 15:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Malleus has not committed a blockable offense in this case. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 15:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What difference does that make? Verbal's got the bit between his teeth now. The plain facts of the case are of no interest to him. Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to believe that Verbal hasn't read anything I said. Because you didn't call Hero a pedophile, ergo the zero tolerance policy he keeps repeating doesn't even apply. But what you can you do? This entire page makes me want to kill kittens. And I like kittens. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 16:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, the facts are plain. We have a zero tolerance policy. His comment could easily be read as such an accusation and he refused to clarify and made further problematic comments. Blocking is what policy and practice call for. If he were to fully retract the statements, without sarcasm, then all that might be required is a warning. Any repeat of such innuendo, intended or not, would lead to a block per the zero tolerance policy until the comment is retracted or refactored. Malleus has committed a blockable offence in this case. Verbal chat 16:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop bleating the words zero tolerance, it's grating. Anyway, Malleus DID clarify what he meant, before the whole issue was brought here. To quote him: I said no such thing, and I've got no idea why you're so obsessed with pedophilia. I was referring to the exceedingly bad taste stunt you pulled on your user page. See? He clearly states that he was referring to the jokes on Hero's user page. The phrase I've got no idea why you're so obsessed with pedophilia, while not completely un-inflammatory, kind of implies that he therefore does NOT think that Hero is a pedophile. I see no accusations. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 17:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"I've got no idea why you're so obsessed with pedophilia" Per policy (which is lacking in any leeway) he should be blocked. It's very simple, and has nothing to do with me. Verbal chat 17:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, take some time out to cool off and consider what you just said. "I've got no idea why you're so obsessed with pedophilia": how is that even close to an accusation of paedophilia? From what I understand, Herostratus' edits are very much within the field of paedophilia and child abuse, and Malleus was simply saying he doesn't understand why he chooses to edit so much in that topic. I don't think there's any ambiguity there, that's not a personal attack. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's going to be no blocking going on here today. Giftiger and Bunnies have hit the nail on the head in setting this straight. This comment was made five days ago? While ncmvocalist may not be "out for blood", there are plenty who are and, believe me, Hero, they would have been all over that at the time on your behalf. The fact that nobody gave it a second glance (until now) must show you that you have gravely misinterpreted it. Verbal removing the comment had more of an "escalating effect" than anything else on display here (apart from calls for indefinite blocking) and ridiculous claims of sockpuppeting aren't much helpful either. I suggest everyone takes a step back and see this for what it really is... anyone got a clue what that is? – B.hotep •talk• 19:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Good lord, telling someone they are "obsessed with peadophillia", following on from the understandable (and, AGF, unintended) accusation should be met with a block. It is a personal attack, and a blatant innuendo with a clear insinuation. We should not, and do not (due to the policy which is ridged in it's interpretation) have to tolerate this kind of abuse. Just so people don't think I'm involved, to the best of my knowledge my only interaction with these people is to agree with the call for Herostratus to be desysoped. You are right, there is no ambiguity. Malleus has been incredibly uncivil, caused this to be escalated when he could have resolved it simply in the first instance, and continued to claim no wrong doing while making these gross insinuations about other editors. Verbal chat 19:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While the few interactions I've had with Malleus have led me to believe he's somewhat... abrasive, perhaps, I haven't seen anything warranting a block or even a warning. I simply don't see the personal attack here; saying that he doesn't understand his obsession with paedophilia is perfectly reasonable in context here, as Herostratus says himself that he does a lot of editing in this field. If he'd qualified that with a more direct accusation that he does more than simply edit on the topic, as someone else did previously it seems, then that would be worthy of a block. But as it goes, Malleus' biggest fault here is simplying poorly-phrasing a couple of comments. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Verbal is right. The wall he is meeting in demanding basic tenets of our core policies is a constant feature when dealing with Malleus. See this recent thread for an example. Simply put, there are admins and editors that somehow protect MF whatever he does and explicitly refuse to enforce policy on him. This is obviously outrageous, but it seems it will also obviously not be resolved soon unless we put together a case and bring it to ArbCom. --Cyclopia^talk 19:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, and assuming good faith, Malleus hasn't made any personal attacks in this instance; I won't speak for other cases as this is one of the few times our paths have crossed). Claiming that a group of admins are protecting him from due process is not constructive, and at least in this case, completely untrue. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm truly at a loss as to how you can defend or shrug off the "obsessed with peadophillia" comment. Verbal chat 19:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that a group of admins are protecting him from due process is not constructive, - Why? See the thread I linked above. It is exactly what happens and it has been explicitly admitted other times. This thread seems just another example of it -an obvious civility breach met with unexplainable denial of intervention. --Cyclopia^talk 19:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that's because nothing has happened? Verbal, the comment was said and I am pretty sure meant in much the same way as if someone had called someone who edits a lot of, say, Israel-Palestine articles, or Macedonia-Greece articles, or, I don't know... Britain's Got Talent articles – what he is saying, in not so many words is "Why on earth would you invest so much time and energy in such areas when they are fraught with headache and inevitable controversy?" Elsewhere, I presume I am being accused of blindly protecting Malleus as I am the only admin here, or am I now misinterpreting comments? Still, nobody has told me why this has all of a sudden become important after five days? Hero either didn't notice it at the time, and by the time he did it was taken more out of context than it should have been (taking into account the flow of edits around the time to different areas of the same RfA) or he didn't want to make a fuss lest it interfere with the outcome. Obviously, by all means bring it up if it bothers you, but faced with comments that there really was no infraction, surely everyone should step back for a bit of reflection? – B.hotep •talk• 20:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we've all got the point Cyclopia. You and Verbal are demanding that I be indefinitely blocked because you don't like me. Fair enough, I'm not that fond of you two either. Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Where do you get that? I've never interacted with you before, and opposed Herostratus recently. What I don't like are gross personal attacks. Verbal chat 20:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't like them either, so I'd be grateful if you'd stop now. Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not dislike you, I dislike your behavioural pattern of incivility -and I dislike much,much more the unwarranted out-of-process protection you've managed to get. Refrain from incivility and I personally would welcome you back at any point. --Cyclopia^talk 20:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead of turning this round to the fact that you think I am blindly protecting Malleus in some way, why don't you look at whether he has done anything blockable or not. Try to be neutral about it. My words here are by no means a reflection of the entire admin corps and if any admin thinks he has done something blockable, they may decide to block him. All I've offered here is my opinion. – B.hotep •talk• 20:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree in part. I think you should step back and ask how you would take it if an editor, that you are in dispute with, says you are "obsessed with peadophillia". I would be mortified, and it can only be intended as an attack. Verbal chat 20:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You would be mortified if someone said you were just "obsessed" or "obsessed with paedophilia"? Do you think the problem might be interpretation and intent? – B.hotep •talk• 20:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

And would you also be mortified and not a little piqued if someone accused you of accusing them of being a pedophile with little more basis than misinterpreted one line comments? – B.hotep •talk• 20:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of this diff?. Put it together with all other threads (here and on ANI) regarding MF in the recent past, and you may understand what I am saying more completely. --Cyclopia^talk 20:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What would you like me to say about that edit? It's a loaded question. – B.hotep •talk• 20:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You asked me to "look at whether he has done anything blockable or not." I quickly found one example, which is -to my understanding- blockable in conjunction with the persistent incivility pattern I linked above. --Cyclopia^talk 20:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

So what you did was look for an excuse to block him? As far as I know, everyone wants him blocked for calling someone a paedophile. So that's what it looks like. – B.hotep •talk• 20:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm You asked for a thing (""look at whether he has done anything blockable or not."), I gave you that thing (the diff above). Now you can't come back and move goalposts. It is not an "excuse": it is part of the whole Herostratus/MF interaction we're talking about (see where is that edit, and see the original post above). Is MF accusing Herostratus of pedophilia? In my opinion yes, but it is open to debate it seems. Has MF done anything undeniably blockable or not in his interaction with Herostratus? Yes, see diff provided above. MF has a long-standing incivility pattern, and that should for sure require a block: this is only the last of a long string of incidents. The pedophilia thing is just the icing on the cake. --Cyclopia^talk 21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There you go, this is what I meant by a loaded question. You want me to say that it's OK for Malleus to tell someone to "fuck off". You want an admin to say it's OK, or at the least by their very inaction saying it's OK. What I'm saying is, today's not the day. – B.hotep •talk• 21:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not what I want, and I'd be happy if you stop attemping to read my mind -your telepathic receiver is obviously not working . What I'd want is you admitting that Malleus did something blockable, check MF's pattern, and act consequently. If you don't, well, I didn't mean it but you said it, your very inaction/behaviour says it's OK. So today is the day, sorry, whether you want it or not. The diffs are there. You're welcome to comment on them, or to refuse to do that: either thing works as an answer. --Cyclopia^talk 21:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

While telling someone to "fuck off" certainly isn't civil, it's enough to warrant a stern talking-to, not a block. Malleus was obviously aggravated and while I don't condone the incivility, why should he be blocked for responding to what (s)he felt were justified accusations with rudeness? There was no personal attack in this case, though certainly telling someone to "fuck off" is incivil enough to report to WP:WQA for advice (and do bear in mind that WP:WQA is here to render advice to the targets of incivility, not to impose blocks). Both users need to stay away from each other, simple as that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If it was a single incident, I would completely agree. Problem is, MF does this regularly. --Cyclopia^talk 21:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well I can't speak to any of the other occasions you're referring to, but it appears that in recent complaints which you have made reference to, the community (note, not a secret cabal of plotting admins) decided that these actions were not sufficient to warrant action being taken (either that or said action has already been taken). We are only really dealing with these recent occurences re: Malleus' interaction with Herostratus, however, and I think it's pretty clear there was no wrongdoing by Malleus in this case. Have you tried discussing some of these concerns with Malleus at the time? That should always be the first port of call. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, I'm not going to do anything. Except go to bed There you go. What do you think about that? I suspect I thought I was coming here as a neutral person who happens to know Malleus, but treats everyone with the same respect and gives more benefits to more doubts than most (with a sprinkling of IAR for good measure) but also knows when someone is being wrongly tarred and feathered, but I guess I will now come away with the Mark of the Blind Admin who's let that dastardly Malleus "get away with it again". – B.hotep •talk• 21:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wishful thinking? I haven't gone yet. Strangely, I don't recall you making a fuss when I was accused of being a pedophile on 1 June. Bizarre. Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoever called you that should be blocked. If I had known I would have supported that block. Verbal chat 20:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Didn't see that (I was at a biochemistry conference and I did edit something only on article space). Of course if someone did that, should be dealt with as well. Where is that incident discussed? --Cyclopia^talk 20:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Who cares? Just carry on with your witch hunt. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, there you go. Malleus, if someone said you were obsessed with witchcraft, would you think "well, you do have a point, I do edit/create a lot of witchcraft articles!", or would you say "hang on! This fellas accusing me of being a fully fledged follower of Beezlebub and all his little minions"? – B.hotep •talk• 20:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unjustly accusing someone of being a paedophile is a serious breach of policy (WP:NPA and WP:OUTING), as well as being a serious form of libel in most legal systems; such a comment warrants a block. However, taken in context, the statement was not an accusation, and even ignoring WP:AGF, where we are asked to always assume that the least offensive meaning is the intended one, I think it is also the most likely one: Herostratus regularly edits articles and subject areas related to paedophilia and sexual abuse of children; I can understand that you may be mortified, Verbal, if someone asked you why you're "obsessed with paedophilia", but to the best of my knowledge, you don't make frequent edits to paedophilia-related articles, do you? Consider what your reaction might be, then, if you were asked why you're "so obsessed with reverting vandalism" or "so obsessed with AN/I": I believe this is what the comment was about, and even if we don't believe that is true, WP:AGF demands that we assume it is true anyway. This is certainly not a blatant personal attack when taken in context. With regards to the other comment, that "Herostratus brought it on himself", I believe that was also clarified and was not intended as a personal attack. With that in mind, there's really nothing to do here; Malleus is perhaps guilty of writing poorly-phrased comments, in which case perhaps he should consider the possible ramifications of these comments being misconstrued in future. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a comprehensive summing up of the situation here, Giftiger. And well put, I may add. The fact of the matter is, however, Malleus now has another black mark (another report against him, for those unsure what I mean) which will be used to build up this perceived pattern of incivility that keeps coming up, and oh, apparently, he has another admin (me, for those unsure what I mean) who will prevent him from being wiped from the face of Wikipedia come what may. – B.hotep •talk• 21:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The "black mark" is not this report. It is MF's edit history. --Cyclopia^talk 21:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that my edit history puts yours to shame Cyclopia. Now why not drop the stick? Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that whenever someone sees Malleus' name at one of the various boards around the Wiki, they think "what has he done wrong now" rather than looking at it objectively and seeing whether he has done anything wrong. And even when they have looked, they still find something at fault to justify its being reported in the first place. – B.hotep •talk• 21:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

So now an editor who has a long standing pattern of incivility (and for this reason ends up being reported regularly) and which is regularly protected by other editors/admins despite repeated breaking of policy is the victim? Oh dear. --Cyclopia^talk 21:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just a witch hunt. I simply observed that Herostratus brought the accusation of pedophilia upon himself, I did not accuse him of being a pedophile. I would suggest to you that your campaign to have me indefinitely blocked is at least a bus ride from "civil". Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Observation Is it me, or does the statement above by MF invalidate the defence lovingly crafted for him by other people? Wikipedia has great difficulty in persuading anybody to try to keep the (surprisingly many) articles connected to the subject of paedophilia neutral and clear of POV pushers from the pro-paedophilia side. Saying that someone who willingly takes this job on "brought the accusations of paedophilia on themselves" because they are "obsessed with paedophilia", isn't going to encourage new volunteers any time soon. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• • And we may have established (or at least Giftiger has) that he was wrong to phrase it like that, but coupled with the fact that the "brought it on yourself" comment was meant in regards to the widely panned "bad joke" on Hero's user page, this is yet another skew from context. – B.hotep •talk• 21:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • Agree: I felt the comment was inappropriate as it appeared to be suggesting that Hero did something to warrant being named a paedophile; in the context of there apparently being some sort of joke made by Hero, however, it seems that this was simply out of context; it did remain poorly phrased though, and very easy to take out of context in the way it was left, so I support verbal's removal of the comment, and Malleus also agreed to it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • The dishonesty on display here makes me sick. Who decided to post those stupid "jokes" on Herostratus's user page? Certainly wasn't me. How pointing out that it was rather silly, to say the least, encouraging others to believe that he might actually be a pedophile has become a blocking offence is a complete mystery to me. Or it would be, if I didn't already know how corrupt wikipedia's governance is. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Perhaps reading your comments again, without the benefit of context which many users did not have, will explain why this misunderstanding occured. Given that this apparently isn't the first time this has happened, perhaps you should consider taking more care when phrasing some of your comments. As for wikipedia's "corrupt governance", if you feel that way then no one's forcing you to contribute to the project; we're all volunteers here, including the "corrupt governance". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • Malleus is right though. He makes a one line comment which gets totally and utterly misconstrued, yet others actually did think Hero was a paedophile and yet they escape the, let's face it, rather distracting matter of a WP report. Giftiger, Malleus has long been of the opinion that all of Wikipedia is corrupt and that all admins are bad. We just have to convince him and others (there are many) that it isn't all that bad. Don't knock yourself out over it. And I'm sure he won't mind me saying that. – B.hotep •talk• 22:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • • Wait, I thought the user who accused Herostratus of being a paedophile had been blocked? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, User:Keepscases continued editing, did not receive a formal warning (although other editors did argue with him). He repeated the allegation in at least two places on the RfA, and on his talkpage. User:Balloonman is still editing and never received a formal warning after calling Hero a paedophile to his face - although he finally did grudgingly accept that maybe he was being an arse he got it wrong. No-one offered to revdelete the offending remarks either. I can see why MF is up in the air over this.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Elen. It makes the context more clear. I still think that MF is not the innocent victim that Bubba depicts above, but for sure both editors you cite (btw, can you provide diffs?) should be sanctioned as well. Have there been reports of these incidents? What happened? --Cyclopia^talk 22:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Bit late to do anything now, but FWIW,this is Keepscases's original statement, here is the second time he said it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)here is Fences and Windows remonstrating with Keepscases. Fences and Windows blanked a bunch of comments here, but left them in the history. Note Keepscases's other comments in that thread.

So is five days too late to do something about Malleus' comment? – B.hotep •talk• 23:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Your call, but it should be the same rule for all of them. The ed17 blocked Off2riorob this morning for asking another editor if he was a paedophile (based on things that the other editor had said which Rob was almost certainly misinterpreting). I certainly don't know why Keepscases wasn't blocked.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't those comments refdeled (sp?)? If the accused's real life identity was revealed, these could have real life consequences. Dougweller (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What do you mean, he's not the innocent victim I think he is?! In this case he had someone come to his talk page asking him to explain an edit, when that explanation was forthcoming and Malleus categorically stated he was not calling Herostratus a paedophile, and Herostratus persisted with that accusation, along with sockpuppetry (I remain laughing at that!), and threatening to take it further, Malleus told him to "fuck off" and basically do what he had to do. What is the lesser of evils there? So, in your opinion, someone should be flogged for an invalid crime because they happen to have been here before and got away with it? Wouldn't you rather get him with something rather more substantial? This appears to be what you want to do, so why not come out and say it. You're questioning my integrity, so let's see what your is all about, hmm? – B.hotep •talk• 23:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • • • The point I was making is that he is being singled out. For why, I can only hazard a guess. – B.hotep •talk• 22:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• My 2p - What a load of knicker-twisting nonsense. I'll tell you all something. I decided, for no particular reason other than it was a shite article, to improve Nick Griffin. Doing so opened me to quite a few nasty accusations that I was somehow a National Socialist, with racist tendencies, and a supporter of the man. Quite rightly I was offended, but Malleus basically asked me what else I expected - and he was right. If you're going to work on articles that involve the nastier elements of human behaviour, you're going to get mud slung in your face. So I sat back and let it wash over me, with a note on my userpage to that effect, and guess what - nobody here (to my knowledge) presumes I'm some kind of skinhead racist fuckwit, just as nobody (if you shut up about it and get on with your life Herostratus) will make the mistake of presuming that you're a paedophile. Whinging because Malleus pointed out the simple human truth of a matter isn't going to get you anywhere.

• Oh, and frankly, the behaviour here of some, screaming for a head on a stick because they neither understand civility nor like being told the blunt truth, is disgusting—but entirely unsurprising. Parrot of Doom 23:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Edited to clarify - Truth in that Malleus did not call you a paedophile, but instead pointed out that by you making light of accusations you were, you left yourself open to further abuse. Parrot of Doom 08:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Call to close: Can an uninvolved admin please close this now, before we start getting any further into the finer points of human behaviour? I think we're largely in agreement that no action is required here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Malleus should be blocked for his actions. As should all the others that have made similar or more direct accusations. Malleus compounded his actions with his following comments (repeated above) and his generally uncivil behaviour. We have a zero tolerance policy. Verbal chat 07:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We've already carefully explained why that's not appropriate and is not going to happen. WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Also, if we had a zero-tolerance policy on incivility, this board wouldn't exist to "give advice". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose any block. Malleus hasn't done anything wrong except be straight-forward in his style, as he usually is. This is just another witch-hunt by people looking for even the slightest excuse to block him. Skinny87 (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've seen people try and shrug off the accusations because they weren't direct and apparently being called "obsessed with pedophilia" is civil according to some. However, it is not civil and he he should be blocked due to the zero tolerance policy towards pedophilia and accusations of the same. As should anyone else that has made similar or more direct accusations. Skinny is wrong. Verbal chat 07:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Verbal, I don't believe I have any prior history with MF - But if we are going to take the position that being a paedophile is bad, which I take to be the consensus position and that of policy - then making accusations or intimations of someone being a paedophile has to be bad as well. Unomi (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I cannot even to begin to imagine what could have possibly started this thread. Really? A total waste of time... Doc9871 (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2010 (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.

Cyclopia (talk · contribs)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Content disputes should be resolved at the relevant talk pages. Eusebeus (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Cyclopia (talk · contribs) has repeatedly refactored talk page discussion at Talk:GNU#Additional_references_re_completeness_.2F_incompleteness. Creating subheadings labeled "Irrelevant" and moving other editor comments under that heading. Yworo (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically this is a summary of my take on the situation:

• Yworo creates a paragraph starting Here is a place to list additional references both for and against completeness. - This implies that you want people to add and list more stuff in there.

• I add another category under which to list references and move one of the reference there, with explanation.

• Yworo aggressively reverts, saying that it is refactoring his talk page comments, and leaves me vandalism warnings on my talk page.

• I ask Yworo "well, if so, do you really want people to edit this paragraph and help in categorizing references or is this just a place where you dump how you personally categorize them without further help?"

• Yworo repeatedly refuses to answer to this question and says that we should follow his rules, for some unknown reason, to use the paragraph (and then he explicitates that on top)

• When I refuse to legitimate that and therefore move my edits, you send me another TALKO violation warning, like he was actually owning the paragraph.

To be pedant, in one of his edits in this bickering, Yworo actually removed one of my signed comments (which seems a real TALKO violation), but I want to WP:AGF and assume that he didn't notice that. --Cyclopia^talk 17:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and now Yworo is calling me "obtuse much", which doesn't sond WP:CIVIL: [23]. --Cyclopia^talk 17:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've only taken a quick look at the page history (someone please provide some relevant diffs) but WP:TALKO indicates that it is appropriate to refactor or archive comments which are unsuitable for a talk page (this usually involves collapsing them). I think moving them into a section entitled "irrelevant" is somewhat insulting to those who left (presumably good-faith) comments, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Produce some diffs indicating some of the comments refactored and perhaps we can agree on which ones were rightfully relocated, etc. the edit history appears to largely indicate edit warring between the two of you, which isn't comforting and is partly obscuring what the edits in question actually were. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Irrelevant" was not referred to comments (and in fact I quickly fixed that to avoid misunderstandings). It was referred to the references. Yworo wanted to categorize references as supporting or opposing a statement (namely, that GNU is an "incomplete" operating systems). One of the refs he added stroke me as not relevant to this, since it didn't support either position, so I created a third section and moved the reference there. Which can be disputed, but doesn't seem to be a TALKO violation, because Yworo was creating a public canvas to list references within (only to retract this when it turned out that someone could disagree with his own categorization) --Cyclopia^talk 17:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The place to make your comments about relevance is indented under the listing made by the other editor. Yworo (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

So this means it is your own personal categorization, not a public space for helping? That's perfectly fine, but it wasn't clear at all. If you don't want people to edit your paragraph, don't advertise it as "a place to list additional references both for and against completeness." --Cyclopia^talk 17:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly, that pretty tame compared to what I'd like to call you. You can fill in the blanks. "for and against completeness" in no way implies creating other non-orthogonal categories. I think I was very clear about that after you refactors, and you continued to aggressively refactor after I made clear that I felt that it violated my original discussion intent. Yworo (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Diffs: [24], [25], [26], there are more. Yworo (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is clearly a content dispute (albeit on a talk page) which is spilling over onto WQA. It sounds like both users are attempting to helpfully arrange a section of a talk page to assemble some references for the article, but they can't agree on how it should be organised... which is frankly ridiculous, you're basically arguing over how to argue about the article. The question is, what exactly would you like us to do about it? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• • I agree with your analysis. Well, I'd say that asking Yworo to clarify that he can't tell other editors how to argue about the article and making it clear he should refrain from personal attacks and misuse of vandalism templates on my talk page would be more than enough for me. --Cyclopia^talk 18:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

agree no merit for the alert.

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

User violating WP:3RR rule

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – WP:AN3.

User:Muboshgu has violated the three revert rule on Amar'e Stoudemire. He doesn't seem to understand that this player has agreed to become a New York Knick. I changed the article to reflect that but he keeps changing it back. Thanks --FourteenClowns (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the Wikiquette alert page, not the alert page for edit warring, which is at Wikipedia:AN3. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag (talk | contribs)

Resolved

 – User blocked for 12 hours. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – Editor has been unblocked as he eventually self-reverted on the edit-warring incident, but the issues I have brought up here haven't been addressed yet. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This user's recent incivility towards me is becoming a bit of a problem; the user recently reverted the addition of a new thread to WP:AN, which was reverted by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). He reinstated it so I reverted as I felt that being reverted by an admin on the admin noticeboard is reason enough to stop reverting and discuss it with the user to avoid edit-warring. He then informed me of a thread he started to deal with the thread and complain that myself and Sarek reverted him, leaving me a rather lacking notification message. When I commented on the cause of the dispute, he refactored my comments several times, claiming that the comments had no relevance. In the meantime he accused me on my talkpage of adding reams of off-topic comments to AN and when I politely asked him to stay off my talk page unless he was going to be polite, he "refused my request". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I see he's been blocked for 12 hours. He was blocked for 12 hours for edit-warring but has now been unblocked; my issue is more with his incivility so I have "unresolved" the thread again. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that his response when I informed him of this discussion wasn't exactly polite, either. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment to make about this ridiculous non-issue and will not be following any discussion which takes place. I would merely point out that if Giftiger wunsch (talk · contribs) thinks that they have the authority to 'ban' other editors from their talkpage, then they are very much mistaken. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 14:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am not surprised by GiftigerWunsch's description of TT's boorish behaviour. Do we need to sic Rodney King on you TT?--Milowent (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

TickleMeister

TickleMeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to me to be personalizing a series of content disputes. I tried to request that they take a step back and focus on the discussions at hand, but I may be too close to the issue to do any good here. Might I persuade someone else to take a look at the following diffs and discuss them as you think is best. If I am off base here, just let me know and I will withdraw this.

• Speculates that one or more other editors may have base or venal motives for their edit or edits or are editing in bad faith: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31].

• Accuses another editor of deliberate misinterpretation: [32]

• Accuses another editor of engaging in a campaign of AIDS denialism onsite and offsite: [33].

• Describes another editor's edit as "asinine": [34].

• Responds to my original request with the edit summary cant you read?.

• Describes another editor as "hostile": [35].

• Responds to another editor's request to avoid describing other editors as "hostile" with the edit summary rmv more worthless comments.

• Refers to the abovementioned request as "harassment": [36].

I have notified TickleMeister of this thread. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that this is a growing problem. Polite requests and what I felt was reasonable advice have been consistently rebuffed in an uncivil way. It is harming the development of the aspartame related articles. Verbal chat 19:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If I may add, some comments TickleMeister made about me:

• Refers to my applying WP:MEDRS to sources he wants cited as "obstructionist" "ridiculous" "OR" and "tendentious" [37]

• When asked to refactor by a 3rd party, he insists on labelling me tendentious and then removed further discussion as "harassment" (not the same link as above): [38], [39]

• That my application of WP:UNDUE is "risible": [40]

• Accusing others of "tag teaming" when he is reverted: [41]

• Defends calling my edits "tendentious" "ludicrous" "risible" and accuses me of being a SPA [42]. Yobol (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

More input requested

Is this really appropriate behavior? [43] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobol (talk • contribs) 14:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Or any of these one wonders: [44], [45] (note the edit summary). I have never posted here before, so I hope I m doing this properly. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Response from TickleMeister

While some of my comments were made in frustration —since my edits have all, without exception, and no matter what the quality of the sourcing, been reverted by a small group of editors who seem to OWN the page— most of them are accurate and I stand by them.

1. Yes, the group of editors who have blocked every one of my edits is hostile to me

1. Yes, their editing is tendentious and they do tag team to revert me (just check the Aspartame and Aspartame controversy page histories)

1. Yes, many of the reasons given for reverting me are risible and ridiculous, but it hardly matters because I am outnumbered and the quality of the arguments is really not material because of consensus claims

Please note that I am trying to edit a NPOV into articles discussing a product that is worth nearly $700 million annually to its manufacturers. These selfsame manufacturers have sued many people who even breathe a word against the product (it's in the record, look it up). They hire people to travel the world to give reassuring speeches about the product. They run astroturfing websites (eg http://www.aspartame.info ) that portray the product as harmless. Do they have people editing wikipedia, the #1 hit for a search on "aspartame"? I don't know, but if I were them, I definitely would. I urge any patrolling admin to study the history of edits and reverts to the pages concerned and see if they also find it suspicious. An uninvolved editor commented that some of my edits are good, but he was drowned out by the opposing group of editors, some of whom have short and very focused editing histories. TickleMeister (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ticklemeister has made it clear that he believes Aspartame is dangerous to health, that the regulators have hidden the dangers and that scientists have been bribed. He insists on inserting views that have been presented by fringe theorists into these two articles. It has been repeatedly pointed out to him that these articles must reflect what is contained in reliable sources and that these articles are no place to correct the science. Although the other editors and I are only insisting that the article follow RS and NPOV, Ticklemeister accuses other editors of having a pro-Aspartame bias. TFD (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD, I object to your interpretation of my beliefs. The only firm belief I have about aspartame is that it gives me headaches. Of that I am 100% sure, through a process of withdrawal and challenge, numerous times. The other "beliefs" you ascribe to me are all false. Others (and I am not talking about "fringe" people here) have those beliefs, yes, as the reliable sources show. I just want our aspartame articles to reflect that. Once again, I point you and the other editors to WP:CONTROVERSY. Even MEDRS says we need to make people fully aware of any controversy, but the suppression and censorship of studies and opinions that is being enforced on the aspartame pages flies in the face of this stipulation. TickleMeister (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You do not know that aspartame gives you headaches, because there is no evidence that it can cause headaches. These articles are not the place to prove that it can give headaches. TFD (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely you jest, my good man! Please read Aspartame and Headaches. TickleMeister (talk) 06:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

These studies have not gained acceptance in academic literature and in fact have been disproved. Until and unless they gain recognition they cannot be included. It is interesting that this case is the opposite of most involving large corporations. Usually corporate defenders attempt to discredit the scientific literature, but in this case it is all on their side. TFD (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It is odd that you would claim that when published papers state as a matter of fact: The list of foods, beverages, and additives that trigger migraine includes cheese, chocolate, citrus fruits, hot dogs, monosodium glutamate, aspartame,.. and as recently as 2009 Although the data surrounding the role of certain foods and substances in triggering headaches is controversial, certain subsets of patients may be sensitive to phenylethylamine, tyramine, aspartame, monosodium glutamate, nitrates, nitrites, alcohol, and caffeine not to mention the plethora of sources that TickleMeister has provided in the link above. Stating that they have all been disproved is a fairly extraordinary claim that you should present a source for. Unomi (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Industry-sponsored studies have found no relation to headache, that's true, and industry-funded reviews point this out and choose the industry-funded studies above the independent studies. But that does not mean that wikipedia cannot point that out, and present both arguments (or sets of conclusions) to readers. There is no such thing as studies "gaining recognition" in this field, it's all opinion and counter-opinion. Studies are not "disproved", there are merely studies with different methods, cohorts and conclusions. If everything were so crystal clear-cut, there would not be an investigation by the British Food Standards Authority ongoing as we speak into aspartame. Claiming that the research is "all on the manufacturers' side" is yet another blatant example of the risible nonsense confronting my attempts to edit in a NPOV. TickleMeister (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about the content dispute, it's about the attempts at WP:DR that have been met by incivility and personal attacks, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (eg. bringing up the FSA study, where the press release flatly contradicts your interpretation of it - they say it is safe). Verbal chat 09:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This section, on this noticeboard, is really about trying to leverage wikipedia civility rules to gain advantage in a content dispute. In other words, a form of subtle abuse of the system. TickleMeister (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a thoroughly uninvolved editor who is providing input at this WQA, I'd question the accuracy of that statement - there is a good chance that this would not even be here, had you not made inappropriate remarks like this. I'm not going to spend time discussing the sheer absurdity of the harassment claim that you made, but instead, I'm going to make a suggestion. It might be a good idea for you to take a temporary voluntary break from the area so that you can cool off, refresh, and avoid snapping with the bad faith assumptions; it will probably assist in making your contributions more effective, whereas if the current pattern continues, comments slowly become more and more inappropriate - eventually moves for involuntary removal are made. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You link to an edit I made on my own Talk page, and the only thing I can see that may be even slightly questionable about it is the use of the somewhat irritable phrase "WTF", mainly because I was being admonished for templating another editor who had made a blatant assumption of bad faith towards me. If that's enough to warrant a carpeting on this Noticeboard, then something is wrong with the process. So instead of me taking a break, since I am the only editor actually attempting to insert new encyclopedic content into artic;es that are clearly POV (and now frozen in their current poor state by a group of reverters), why don't the reverters take a break? And what if there really are people with a COI editing the page to whitewash the immensely profitable chemical? Do I back off and let them win the day? Is wikipedia broken? TickleMeister (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Invention - article edit, brutal and Vandal acts

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – See comments below. Eusebeus (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Dear friends in Wiki community

I would like to share with you my experience with my first edit.

This is the term Invention , a subject dear to me.

I am an engineer and patent attorney. As inventor, I was granted 8 U.S. patents.

After using Wikipedia for some time, I like it very much and depend on it on my work.

Of course I searched the subject thoroughly for this edit, apart from my experience.

Thus I was shocked to see that someone simply DELETED (undid) all my contribution.

This - without bothering to contact me, discuss it, explain.

• Vandalism - Wikipedia benefits many people, it is a treasure of knowledge comprising tiny contributions from many people like me. A vandal deletes today one contribution, tomorrow more... the next thing he will do is: Delete *.*

• Freedom of speech - a basic value in a democracy, and of course at Wikipedia. Some contributions are unworthy and should be completely deleted, no doubt. Others can be edited and improved. A select few remain unchanged.

• Leaving a contribution in Wikipedia for some time allows a free exchange of opinions, so a decision is reached based on consensus, or an obvious reason, etc.

• The communist/Stalinist approach is, rather, to kill it in the bud, to close their mouth for good and with finality, so inconvenient facts or truths are safely buried.

True intellectuals are receptive of others' views and don't try to kill their expressions.

• On my part: Although I am technically-oriented, I have a deep respect and admiration for inventions in the humanities. I don't have the temerity to judge which invention is better or more important, these wonderful expressions of the human spirit should be approached with respect.

• It is with a deep respect that I did this edit - I did not delete a single word in the previous article, nor made any changes in it except for a minor formatting of the titles.

• The Editor specifically invited Edits for this article; I started it carefully, planning to discuss it with others in Wiki community and proceed with improving the article.

But - if such acts of vandalism are permitted and people are prevented from seeing my Edit, how can we proceed?

Have a wonderful week.

• • • zutam *** —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zutam (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am personally very sorry that your first experience on Wikipedia has been disappointing. Still, it is very common for edits to be reverted that way, and being this a wiki, you should gladly expect that your edits can be reverted by anyone. Actually, the revert(s) was absolutely not vandalism and in fact I endorse them completely. The problems with your edits are mostly a complete disregard of WP style guidelines (especially abuse of bulleted lists and references not inserted properly). Moreover you inserted a lot of content in one single edit, which although not technically prohibited, is a big no-no since it is difficult then to isolate what is good and what is not. About your complaints, Wikipedia is not an exercise of pure free speech, meaning that it is not a blackboard where you can just write what you like and expect it to stick: read WP:FREE, WP:NOTANARCHY for details. Reacting by throwing random accusations of vandalism and Stalinism is not going to help you one bit. You are doing what you are doing in good faith, and I congratulate with you, but if more experienced editors undo your edits, please attempt to seek an explanation from them in the article talk page instead of simply re-reverting them and complaining. Most likely than not there is a good reason for it. I hope it helps. --Cyclopia^talk 19:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Invention - Let's stop "undids" and start dialog

Hi Cyclopia. Thanks for the comments - someone to talk with ...

re your comments:

1. Abuse of bulleted lists - the WP style guidelines itself uses bullets just the way I do. Let me cite from the very Wiki article which you have mentioned:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style

Yes, but that is a guide, so it is appropriate. One thing is guides and guidelines, another are mainspace articles. Note that bullets can be appropriate also in mainspace article, but the way you used them was not. --Cyclopia^talk 20:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

2. Why are references not inserted properly? Please be specific, I try to do it OK. Can you tell how to improve it?

See WP:REFSTART for a primer. --Cyclopia^talk 20:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

3. Inserted it all in one edit, striving to make it easier to review it all at once.

No, it is better for review if you do individual small edits. This allows one to individually discuss/revert an edit singularly. If you do a big edit and parts of it are good but others not, it becomes a pain to edit it all instead of simply reverting individual "atomic" edits. --Cyclopia^talk 20:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, the structure is simple:

I added a first part; retained all the existing article without change, except titles format; added citations at the end of the list.

Simple to see, understand, review.

The point is not the structure, is the amount of content. --Cyclopia^talk 20:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

4. Still, it all is open to discussion.

More people can review it and we can reach an understanding.

Preventing other people from seeing a contribution or Edit is vandalism to me.

You are not prevented to see anything. You can just click the history to see all edits. Nothing is destroyed. --Cyclopia^talk 20:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent people talk, don't erase each other's work in a childish brute force play. Zutam (talk • contribs)

I agree. But reverting edits is not always a "childish brute force play", it is in some instances just how Wikipedia works. The "undo" button is there for a reason. See WP:BRD for more information. --Cyclopia^talk 20:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, it is you that is now engaging in edit warring on the invention page by re-reverting. Take care: while 1 or 2 reverts can be ok, reverting more than 3 times becomes edit war and it is a blockable offence -exactly because we don't want childish brute force play. --Cyclopia^talk 20:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This really is not an issue of Wikiquette, it appears to be a general misunderstanding of Wikipedia editing as a whole. We work on WP:CONSENSUS - unfortunately, if you make 10 changes at the same time, and only 2 or 3 look good enough to obtain consensus, the odds are that the entire edit will be reversed in order to fix the other 7 or 8 (the principle of "least amount of work"). Discussions about what does or does not belong on the article belong on the associated talkpage of that article as per WP:BRD. With all due respect, there's nothing WQA-able here. Let's ensure the new editor has a nice welcome with policies and links, make sure we don't WP:BITE and acronym-the-heck-outta-him. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Before I close this, let me say that in fact this is a good example of how Wikipedia should work. The editor made a classic set of newbie mistakes (very understandable, we were all there once) and was dismayed when his edits were reverted. The subsequent discussion on the talk page is a model of patient and good faith engagement to explain the why and how of good editing and, moreover, struck a tone that was agreeable and conciliatory. The editor's subsequent stubbornness in promoting his changes over and against the consensus process is actually the WQA issue here, but at this point the talk page is the best venue for resolution. Eusebeus (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Ddd1600

User:Ddd1600 chastises me here for demanding article content be supported with WP:RS writing among other things: "Abandon your project with regards to this page. Your un-natural regard for authority alone reveals you as the ANTITHESIS of a libertarian. Go away, you're not providing value here." Could someone explain wikiquette to him? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I left a hand written note on his page, for what it's worth (The whole "I'm objective! I'm objective!" vibe from his user page and his talk page kinda sets off my spidey sense). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

disagree Carol has been the primary editor for some time on the libertarianism article. a suggestion was made on the talk page for Carol to take a week off, which she refused. many times Carol has accused me of soapbox, yet remains highly visible in the article as well as discussion page. is it possible that you are actually the soapboxer here? please reconsider a voluntary break from the libertarianism article. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't exactly crossed paths with you or CarolMooreDC before, but based on what I saw from Ddd1600's contributions, I'm not going to withdraw my note to him. I cannot speak for other situations, but Ddd1600 did repeatedly make a bunch of edits that were unsourced, sometimes removing sourced information, and in this instance, his remarks were uncalled for. If you have any issues with CarolMooreDC, that's your business, not mine. The issue here is Ddd1600's behavior, if you want to file a report in the NPOV board, ANI/I, or whatever, fine. And if she wants to file a report about you, fine. Considering the ANI report on you I've found, it's really only WP:AGF that's keeping me from being a lot more blunt in saying I think you'll need plenty more evidence than she will. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's fully possible that both are at fault here, even if I couldn't see any examples of CarolMooreDC doing anything wrong. But even so I think Ddd1600's comment was wrong, and I agree with Ian.thomsons viewpoint and note to Ddd1600. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ian, welcome to wp. your 1st year of contributions has helped wp. being an editor for far longer, i have seen many come and go. i feel the same as the founder when he said, "senior editors are making fewer contribution because of the attitude here. more people are focusing on wp:rules and less on content. an above complaint about another editor saying "you make no sense" strikes me as childish. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been here since 2006, and active since 2007. Please don't patronize me. I'm not quite following you for the rest of your post, could you be less vague? I don't want to get involved in the above argument between you, TFD, OpenFuture, et al, so please do not try to draw me into it. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

apologies Ian, a search of your talk page/earliest comes up december 09. Carol has contributed to the libertarianism page more than most, as well as being the primary reason for the article being listed as a philosophy page, we all owe her a great debt for her help. her edits have become so prevalent, others have grown tired of her influence "your project", and have expressed a desire for new voices. her complaining about another editor "chastises me" seems a bit much. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

<--Note that at this diff User:68.59.4.188 added a similar hostile comment to USer:Ddd1600 after my response to him. I ask at the diff if they are the same person. Both have edited the article frequently of late. Waiting for response. (Not sure how to deal with the issue if neither answers the question which would leave the impression they are the same person who just prefers to use both identifies which I'm sure is vs. wiki policies.) Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Captmonkey

I'd just thought It would be good to bring up some incivility from User:Captmonkey on here, here and here insulting me and other editors and a certain subject he disagrees with. User:Exxolon has listed every peice of incivility from Captmonkey here on WP:ANI. Please forgive me if i've lain it out wrong as it's my first report here. I didn't want to have to do this but I feel it should be adressed. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well he's not edited since the previous ANI so this might be somewhat stale already. The issue isn't so much in how that you laid out the report but in the fact that you failed to notify the user (in accordance with the instructions above). Obviously, if he continues to make inappropriate remarks, then ANI would be the place as he really should know better by now, and I don't think a great deal can be done here to help. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Biased editor

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Already heavily admonished at WP:ANI and rightfully so (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Bender176 is biased against anonymous editors and will revert them regardless of the merits of the edits. He also insults editors. He labels anyone who disagrees with him or her as 'vandals'. See his or her edits for the whole history. 129.120.176.206 (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

False all the way around ladies and gentlemen please check my other contributions. I may make some mistakes but I cleaned my act up since then. People may disagree with me but that doesn't mean they're wrong. He's trying to [hound me] because I reverted a few of his edits mistakenly [here] and it's not because he's an anon either, I revert vandalism from [registered editors] as well. I even agreed to bury the hatchet but he disagreed. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 01:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

you are anonymous and therefore you don't count You could at least say "I'm sorry for saying that". 129.120.176.206 (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I did by saying "[let's bury the hatchet]" but YOU [refused to], and I only meant that on my talk page because you have no right to edit war on it but on articles everyone has equal say. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 01:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, looking through, I saw this. Bender, that's not vandalism (he's trying to help), that's unsourced commentary. I recommend looking at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace some more. It's honestly a bit rude to lump all edit that aren't perfect together as vandalism. You should have gone with {{subst:uw-unsourced1|Superman Returns|subst=subst:}} ~~~~, (same for this), which would have left a message asking him to use sources in the future. You need to cool it with the vandalism warnings until you don't get so pissy about them and until you understand what actually does constitute vandalism. Behavior like you've had towards 129.120.176.206 was why you got blocked before.

129.120.176.206, please check out WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Your edit to Superman Returns was not vandalism, but it does not meet the standards for sourcing, and I would have reverted it had I seen it. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, user has been indef'd [46]. Swarm^Talk 02:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Hounding, Cyberstalking and Bullying

Wiki-Hounding, Cyberstalking and Bullying

I am forced to object to the activities performed by Ckatz and Johnuniq against me in the following articles:

Print on demand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
InstaBook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Victor Celorio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For a long time now, the editors in question have shown repeatedly a very strong bias against my entries in those articles. They follow me around and either erase my entries without explanation or they try to disqualify my entries in the articles in which I've participated by placing unfounded tags without any concrete proof or evidence. The implications of those tags are that there is something wrong or false with my entries, when every assertion I've made has been backed by independent secondary references that comply with the requirements set by Wikipedia. I have gone so far as to reference just about EVERY SINGLE LINE I write to make sure of this.

However these editors, for unexplained reasons all of their own, have been going out of their way to erase my entries, tag the articles in which I participate and/or try to bully me into erasing perfectly valid secondary references. Ckatz has refused to answer my questions and has in turn tagged my articles, again, without any explanation at all.

He has been assisted by another user named Johnuniq, who jumps in to answer my questions instead of Ckatz (they both may be the same person, I don't know). Johnuniq is the one that in those 3 articles tries to bully me into deleting valid secondary references for unexplained reasons.

Both Ckatz and Johnuniq are not interested in suggesting any improvements to any of the the articles mentioned: they just try to block me and demean the articles.

I have asked them politely why are they doing this and I have constrained myself from starting a little war of insertions and deletions as the policies of Wikipedia indicate.

I have followed Wikipedia rules. My entries are limited to state the facts without any conclusion or statement from me, and I have included plenty of reliable references (Secondary and tertiary, as indicated by Wikipedia).

It seems to me a blatant Wiki-Hounding, Cyberstalking and Bullying with an undeniable bias against me personally and/or against the subject of those articles for unknown reasons. Therefore I request formally an investigation into this matter. Llambert (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to have edited here in the last two months, and just glancing at your contribution history, I can't see where your contributions have been deleted, nor can I see where you've been threatened with being blocked. Can you be more specific, please? Dayewalker (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to agree with Dayewalker - I had a look at the talkpages, and there's just too much to look at. It looks like Johnuniq has tried to explain matters on a few of the talkpages, but I gather you have further issues? TFOWR 18:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am watching this page and so have noticed this report. If anyone has any questions please ask here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Dayewalker: I am sorry, but I never wrote that I had "been threatened with being blocked", as you say. In regards to my not editing in the last few months, I followed Wikipedia guidelines and stopped editing so as to let matters cool off.

The demands (what you call explanations) I was getting from Johnuniq, were not aimed at improving the article but on the contrary, to demean it. His intervention was prompted evidently by my asking questions to Ckatz, as to why he was tagging my articles and erasing my entries, so I have to assume he was speaking for him.

Johnuniq followed me around, just as did ckatz, in all the articles I participated on, watching my entries and erasing or changing my entries. In the Print On Demand Article, for example, references and links I provided were changed or deleted. Furthermore, in the InstaBook article, Johnuniq demanded that I erase perfectly valid references to US patents and magazine articles, something which I found very strange.

I think it is very telling that ckatz never answered my questions, and instead it was Johnuniq who came forth everytime, in any and all of the articles I participate. If they are not the same person, it is clear that one does the deed, and the other tries to back him up. Llambert (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still can't see what you're talking about. Looking at your contributions, it does look like Johnuniq reverted you once on Victor Celorio, reinserting a COI tag here [47]. That was January 3rd of this year, over six months ago. Your contact with Johnuniq on Talk:Print on demand seems polite, and four months old. On InstaBook, the discussion is also six months old and the only direct contact I see is when Ckatz reverted you here [48] to readd a COI and an ADVERT tag.

If you'll read WP:DIFF, you can see how to make a DIFF of a particular edit, as I've done above. It would help us understand what you're trying to say if you could give us specific instances of edits you have a problem with. Dayewalker (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Dayewalker, you are already mentioning some of the specific edits that I am complaining about, but let me ask you a couple of questions before we go on.

1.- Do you think it is proper for an editor to tag the articles of another editor, with no proof whatsoever of his accusations?

According to Wikipedia guidelines regarding COI tags it is not:

"Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban."

Here is the complete quote:

"Dealing with suspected conflicted editors

The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban."

Both ckatz and Johnuniq did NOT follow the guidelines to place a COI tag, and they did tag my articles precisely as a way to "harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute". ckatz did it on December 15, 2009, right after I deleted some unsourced entries I found in those articles, following Wikipedia guidelines. As a response to my deletion, ckatz tagged all of my articles. You can check the date on the tags.

That is my entire point and the one that gave origin to this entire incident. And this is what I like to correct. If you still cannot "see it", I'll be glad to provide you with the diffs.

2.- Is there a time limit to request an investigation? I ask this because you keep mentioning that this happened some time ago and I don't see the relevance since the problem persists still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llambert (talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems that a lot of the angst here is coming from whether or not the article should be tagged with a COI tag. So let me just ask this: Are you connected to the product in such a way that you would have a potential conflict of interest? — e. ripley\^talk 19:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

See also WP:BOOMERANG.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty, if you're asking people to dig up diffs from last December and block or ban other editors, it's not going to happen. Looking at those articles, E. Ripley's question above about involvement and COI certainly seems to be a good one. Also, do you have any connection to the account Playa27 (talk · contribs)? Dayewalker (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Man, that internet is something. Nice call, ER. Dayewalker (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I also would like to know if there is any connection between Llsmbert and Instabook, and between Llambert and Victor Celerio. If this isn't denied, I'm quite happy with the COI tag. Not that I'm unhappy with it now, mind you. What I am unhappy with is Llambert's complaining about it without commenting on any possible relationship. Makes it hard to AGF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, your responses are interesting, and I take it they mean that you all think that it is proper not to follow the guidelines set by Wikipedia. Wow! So the following question would be, why bother then with the rules and guidelines?

And it is not angst: they are just questions. I don't understand the aggressive tone in the responses to my questions.

By the way, the second part of the Wikipedia rules on how to handle COI, says the following.

"Wikipedia places importance on both the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's policy against harassment prohibits this. COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themself discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing. In case the editor does not identify themself or their affiliation, reference to the neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing."

So, according to the rules, what matters is the writing and the references provided in the article itself. Or are you going to ask me also if I wrote those press articles and magazines essays? Are you going to ask me if I have a connection to the encyclopedias and the New York Times and all the hundreds of articles that have been written about the subject, and a connection to all of the other editors that have contributed to it? Because the moment you ask about one, then you are asking about all of them.

And no, I am not complaining about the tags themselves. The article has been tagged before. I am complaining about how those tags were used: as a response to my erasing unsourced material placed in the article back in December. That's it: pure and simple harassment. I didn't even add anything to the article back then: I just erased bad material, trying to keep the article clean as indicated by Wikipedia. And the response from ckatz was the tags and deletions, left and right.

I must conclude by your responses that you all believe it is ok to tag articles as a weapon and just for the fun of it, instead of following the rules.

And then you wonder why Wikipedia has such a bad reputation in academic circles...

Llambert (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia has a bad reputation in academic circles because academic circles are mostly occupied my older people who are just now figuring out this brand new "email" thing and get us mixed up with TVtropes, Facebook, and Encyclopedia Dramatica 4chan. Even when they know who we are, they don't understand that we're not an academic source, and never will be. We're general reference, major difference. You don't cite Wikipedia in a paper for the same reason you don't cite Encyclopedia Brittanica, it's either something you shouldn't need to cite (common knowledge) or something you should be going into more detail with, using a better source.

Also, you may wanna check out WP:SPADE. There hasn't been any outing yet (just statements of suspicion and questioning regarding possible involvement), and the fact that you're not denying any involvement sounds kinda like "quack quack". That you're bringing up the outing issue before anyone has actually revealed any private information about you does not look good for you. If you just said "no, not involved, just concerned," that'd be one thing, but you completely duck the issue and try to hide behind rules. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for an answer to my direct question. I'll state it again. Are you connected to the product in such a way that you would have a potential conflict of interest? — e. ripley\^talk 02:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Your response is great: calling me a duck makes everything right.

So lets follow your logic: I followed the rules set by Wikipedia by cleaning an unsourced entry, while ckatz and Johnuniq did not. And because I am asking why the rules are created if they are not going to be followed by them you turn this against me by saying that I hide behind the rules?

Wow. Brilliant logic.

Again, I will quote from the Wikipedia rules that you don't seem to like (and that you don't respect since you have such a low opinion of Wikipedia itself):

"Primacy of basic content policies

All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. All editors are expected to stick closely to these policies when creating and evaluating material, and to respect the good faith actions of others who edit content to ensure it complies with these policies.

Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. "

As long as a contribution is neutral and unbiased, there should not be any problem regarding who makes the contribution. And as it happened, the contribution that created this whole thing was my cleaning an unsourced entry, as it is REQUIRED by Wikipedia.

Without conceding anything, lets assume that I do have a connection with the subject. So what? That doesn't erase the fact that ckatz and johnunique did NOT follow the rules set by wikipedia and used a COI accusation as a weapon in the article because they didn't like that I erased that unsourced entry.

There are rules to dealing with a COI in Wikipedia before tagging an article and I did quote them in this space.

So I was trying to uphold Wikipedia rules, while ckatz and Johnuniq did not, and you insult me and tell me that I am somehow wrong?

As I said before: brilliant logic. Llambert (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you're wrong. We do have guidelines, and you seem to want to pick and choose between them. One thing we don't do is block or ban something that is 'stale'. For instance, we have WP:3RR, which as it says is " a bright-line rule called the "three-revert rule" which is very often applied as a reason for blocks." But it applies to the last 24 hours, and we don't enforce it for something that is say six hours older than that (and thus hasn't been repeated in the last 24 hours). So no, we would not take any action here even if there had been anything serious to take action about several months ago - that was the appropriate time to complain.

And there's another problem. You talk about "my articles". You don't have any articles. You may have created them but they aren't yours. See WP:OWN.

Then there's your complaint about unsourced material. When you created the article Victor Celerio, you wrote " Victor Celorio foresaw the advent of what is now known as the internet". That's still in the article. It isn't sourced. Here [49] you added some more unsourced material with citation needed tags. What were you thinking? Adding material and asking others to source it is not the way we are meant to be writing BLPs. The article needs attention as it still has unsourced material - and then there's what looks like an attempt to use patents to show notability, another but more minor issue as Celerio passes our notability criteria.

We are not going to take action on these stale complaints. You've now been asked about COI and are stone-walling. The COI tags shouldn't be removed. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Fresh eyes here - I have just read all this for the first time, and have no connection to anyone here whatsoever. Sure seems to me like the questions about the possible COI are at the heart of the matter. This seems an easy call... Without a direct answer from Llambert, or other new information, I would suggest leaving the tags and closing this thread due to the stonewalling. Jusdafax 08:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I obviously touched a nerve here. I am receiving so many false accusations is almost comical. Let me start by the most obvious one.

Stonewalling: I am not stonewalling. Although I am under no obligation to do so, I thought I had already answered the question by saying that you can assume that I have contact with the subject.

I will be glad to answer it to e. ripley more clearly: No, I don't get paid by anyone for editing this. I do not own shares in the company. I am and have been for many years a professor of history in a local college, and that is as much as I am willing to say about myself. Is there a potential COI? Yes, there is. But that is why I have always been extra careful about any edits I've made so as to comply with the Wikipedia rules since I became aware of them. I rarely do any editing directly in those articles except to clean vandalism or wrong entries. Which is what happened in December 2009. I cleaned an entry which was clearly wrong. So why aren't you asking the other guys what was their interest in the matter?

Jusdafax says the the tags are at the heart of the matter, which is what I have been saying all along. Not the tags themselves, but the way they were used by ckatz.

But Dougweller hurries to find me at fault in something and he makes a couple of big mistakes. The first one is the WP:3RR rule. I didn't claim that a WP:3RR aplied. My question was about the use of the COI tags as a harassment weapon, which is clearly NOT allowed by the rules. No ifs or buts.

Sorry but no, I don't pick and choose rules. You are the one with the power to do so. Not me. To the best of my abilities I've followed all the indications and the guidelines in Wikipedia regarding these matters. And I've come here to express my disagreement, like I am supposed to do.

The second is perhaps more serious mistake and makes obvious the intent to turn the tables on me by any possible means: Dougweller accuses me of writing the very same unsourced entry that I erased in December 09 for being plain wrong!

WOW!

His third accusation is wrong again: the patent was just another reference. Nothing else and nothing more. The text says InstaBook got patents and I provided the numbers of the patents as a reference. How is that wrong? Please explain it to me because I don't understand what is the big issue there. As a matter of fact somebody else is editing that article right now and asking for (guess what?) the citations for the patents.

Your fourth accusation is correct. I meant to say my entries, not my articles. My apologies.

However as I said before, if my action to clean the article as it is REQUIRED by Wikipedia provoked ckatz reaction with the tags, and I let six months pass by, following Wikipedia advice, how does that make the actions by ckatz less wrong?

You say that you will take no action since I let those six months pass by and the whole thing is "stale". Fine. I cannot do anything about it. But my actions followed precisely what the Wikipedia guidelines recommend: stop editing, walk away and then come back to ask the questions in these pages.

I don't understand the hostility. You guys are getting all agitated for nothing, because frankly, from the beginning when I wrote to him, I was not asking nor expecting any specific action against ckatz except perhaps an explanation for his actions.

I received none. And now you tell me that you don't care about giving me one either.

That is fine too.

But it seems to me that by trying to make me the guilty party here, and worse, by making it via false accusations and innuendos, you are diminishing the standard that Wikipedia should aim to reach. You are not harming me: you are harming Wikipedia. Llambert (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So you edited articles you admit you have a conflict of interest in, then got upset when the articles were tagged with a COI tag six months ago? Again, I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish with this. Dayewalker (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading a bit more closely, it appears as if Llambert is saying the problem with the COI tag is not that it was placed, but that it used in some sort of harassing fashion. I'm a little confused about how you can be harassed by someone placing a COI tag, if you admit that you have a conflict of interest. Am I missing something? I'm not agitated or hostile, mostly just confused. Llambert, one of the things you should understand about the culture here is that many people who edit Wikipedia have a very strong, sometimes knee-jerk antipathy toward those who edit Wikipedia in order to further some business interest. That aside, when you have a conflict of interest, your edits on that subject are always going to receive more scrutiny than other edits might because your motives are automatically in question. That's why the policy recommends that you simply not edit articles on subjects about which you have a conflict of interest. Instead, you should propose changes on the talk page and allow non-involved editors to evaluate them for their appropriateness. I'm sorry if you feel that you have been treated poorly. Wikipedia's processes are rarely intended to be punitive and particularly do not contemplate punishing someone for minor infractions that occurred half a year ago or more (though, I make no judgment about what was or wasn't improper since I haven't evaluated it myself). Given that, what would you like to happen here? — e. ripley\^talk 15:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, E. Ripley, for reading more carefully what I wrote. I am sorry I didn't do it more clearly. Yes, I am complaining about the way the tags were placed. In other words, the abuse, not the use.

In answering to your earlier question, I said that there is a "potential" COI. But potential is not the same as existing. As I understand it by reading Wikipedia guidelines, and is clear by any analysis, it only becomes a COI the moment I write something which is not factual, either positive or negative. According to Wikipedia, even the subjects themselves can correct their own pages as long as they remain neutral.

My objection was, as I said before, that those tags were used as a response to a clean up I did, when somebody was placing wrong and defamatory information on those pages (the same wrong information Dougweller found objectionable and accused me of writing). And Wikipedia indicates that such information needs to be removed, no ifs or buts.

Wikipedia has a guideline about those tags. If I placed any information that could be read as a COI, I would expect the other editor to follow the established procedure.

But instead of that, those tags were slapped as a response to my clean up, and then some other entries I made someplace else were deleted, using those tags as an excuse in a circular way: I get accused in one place, and then I get dammed and convicted in another using that COI accusation as proof. That is when it became harassment from my point of view. Even here, the tag carries such a weight that I got slammed for asking questions about it even though an actual COI does NOT exist.

I wrote a polite message to the other editor and asked why was he doing that and he ignored me. Instead of entering into an editing war I waited as suggested by Wikipedia and then I placed my question in these pages and I got angry responses in return.

To answer your question: what I would like to see happening is for that editor(s) to be reminded that there are procedures that need to be followed for the common good of Wikipedia, that tags are not to be used as a weapon because the only one that is damaged is Wikipedia itself, not the editors.

As I said several times, the only thing I did was some required cleaning following the rules. If those tags need to remain in place, then so be it. If not, then they should be removed, because they were not there before my clean up. Llambert (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)