Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive110

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
‹ The template below (Archive) is being considered for merging with Annual archive. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›


User:Jim Sukwutput

Resolved
Jim and Wikifan have agreed to a self-imposed interaction ban at ITN [1] and to close this report as resolved. Both users are reminded to assume good faith and remain civil. Wikifan is also reminded that he is subjected to Arbitration Enforcement on the part of un-involved admins as per WP:ARBPIA as he has been formally notified of such sanctions, and that notification properly logged. An RfC will determine the application of WP:ARBPIA to ITN editors writ large.--Cerejota (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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

I haven't done this in awhile so excuse any technical errors. Basically, Jim constantly attacks me in almost every discussion at ITN. I made my issues known at his talk page after a long discussion at a potential ITN posting. That went no where. To streamline this, I'll just include some sample diffs here:

    • I never classified any user as "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian." Nor did I accuse Jim of being antisemitic, or accuse an editor of being a bigot. I requested he take up his criticisms to the appropriate noticeboards but he never does, so I felt this was the best place to go. ANI is an alternative but I'm not seeking punitive damages, I am just tired of being attacked with buzzwords in every discussion. WikifanBe nice 02:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I think this falls under WP:ARBPIA - and the various mediation, enforcement, and centralized discussions around that. I do not see personal attacks, just the usual POV warring of the topic area, but I can see your point: it is possibly disrupting the ITN process via WP:BATTLEGROUND - that's a legit concern, but not something WQA can address. You know you and I don't always see eye to eye, so take my advice as you will, but I am trying to be helpful in the limited way WQA allows: raise the issue at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Candidates as an RfC (Since there have been repeated incidents all limited to that area, RFC/U is too much - and not just with this user, so a wider issue is a stake WP:BATTLEGROUND), request commentary from WP:ARBPIA uninvolved admins etc. And of course, as always, be careful with the WP:BOOMERANG, some of your answers weren't helpful in terms of lowering the temperature: "The other guy started it" is not a license to ill. Only reason I do not close this is because you and I have history (some of it with very similar characteristics), but as you can see I am active at WQA, so this is why I reply. If you want, I can raise the RfC for you if you do not know how the process works etc. I see the user has not been formally notified of WP:ARBPIA so I am doing it - WP:ARBPIA applies to ITN threads on the topic area as the topic area is "broadly construed".--Cerejota (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Turns out non-admins cannot notify, so so I requested an Admin do so--Cerejota (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes that would be very helpful if you could open the RFC for me. ARBPIA issues tends to lead to AE, which is something I'm not prepared to do and honestly I'm probably not in a fair enough position that would lead to anything conclusive. My goal is hopefully to deter Jim from recognizing my presence in ITN discussions like I'm some pariah, it is really unbecoming and just plain annoying. Perhaps even defamatory. You can see my responses slowly escalated from cordiality to not-in-the-mood-for-this. I like participating in ANI, but I don't like seeing half the discussion be about me as an editor.
There is a difference between claiming a unique edit does not adhere to NPOV standards, to berating other users with descriptions such as "pov warrior." the worst, the worst is his claims that I have accused other editors of being antisemitic. For example, he says "Do you think it is fair to accuse all of us of anti-Semitism, as you have implied repeatedly?." and "But your POV-pushing in the article is making any such support impossible. I strongly suggest that you move away from the article and let other users clean up the POV mess you left behind."
I contributed multiple paragraphs of cited content at 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks, and not a single edit of mine was reverted or disputed as violating NPOV rules. See this discussion for the quotes listed above. Too tired to cite the whole diffs. I am not looking for a war here, I just want some sort of agreement that future accusations of "POV-pushing" or insinuation of poor behavior be filed at the correct noticeboard and not broadcast in content discussions. It poisons the area of discussion and creates a climate of general intolerance IMO. WikifanBe nice 08:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I was one of the participants to the discussion where this exchange took place. This is just a common case of sniping and biting, and a mild one at that. A few passionate exchanges are to be expected with the natural candour we desire (and need) in the process of building a consensus. User:Wikifan needs to stop running to the admins just because some mild provocation penetrates his thin skin - petty Wikilawyering like this sideshow is infinitely more disruptive than a handful of comments (by BOTH parties) in an ITN discussion. This etiquette notice is a complete waste of everyone's time. Deterence Talk 08:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I have yet to run to any admin. So you must have missed part of my report or else you would have not made such a statement. IF Jim's behavior continues without a warning and his bold accusations of "POV-warrior" and other attacks go unchallenged, perhaps an uninvolved admin needs to weigh in. Jim admitted I have broken no rules, yet he calls me names on a regular basis. Editors in this area of conflict get banned for less. WikifanBe nice 09:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Harden-up and move on. Deterence Talk 09:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with deterence on the general point - you can see this in other unrelated WQA I have opined here - but I see this as an ARBPIA issue, where we should be lowering the temperature, not doing the normal stuff. ITN affects the content of the main page, and Wikifan does make a valid point: being made pariah instead of specific edits being critiqued is not particularly useful, and repeated instances of the same smacks of WP:BATTLEGROUND. I know the ARBPIA area well, and I know that this happens a lot and gets dealt with harshly when it really interrupts editing (for example, Jayjg got a huge demotion from having pretty much every user right short of Jimbo to being a regular admin for what amounts to WP:BATTLEGROUND. I do not think it is a good idea to allow the mess of BS that ARBPIA is into ITN, and if we allow such behavior it will disrupt the seriousness, collegiality, and spirit of cooperation that should inform ITN as a process that affects the main page. If this were about nearly any other area I would {{trout}} both Wikifan and Jim and then send them to pet some kittehs, but this is ITN we speaking about!--Cerejota (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
My first comment here. I didn't wish to get into this discussion as it seems a bit pointless, but I see WP:BATTLEGROUND being brought up here a lot and I wish to clarify one thing. I do not have a stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or any other topic in the Middle East, and I couldn't care less what Wikifan's personal perspective on these issues is. I have never (as far as I can remember) edited any article in such an area. However, I do work extensively on ITN, and I comment on many of the nominations there. That is how I managed to get into this semi-dispute with Wikifan. Let me summarize it the way I see it.
What I've noticed during several recent discussions on ITN is that Wikifan almost always arrives at a discussion having taken a "side" and then attempt to push the nomination to that direction. His link above on the southern Israeli attacks is the first incident that I know of. He started a dispute with not one but three admins over the nomination in several issues, in a discussion which I managed to stay out of (we then had a discussion over a separate issue, about his neutrality disputes in the article). After the nomination was not posted, he apparently was displeased and proceeded to move to another completely unrelated nomination where he made a point about alleged double standards regarding using Indian and Israeli sources (see here "while many other stories have been ignored in spite of support" and here "dubious double standards for specific incidents, and admins with vested interests posting stories they support..."). During this discussion I advised him not to use other nominations to prove a point and also to focus less on the alleged "vested interests" of other users and more on the content at stake. Then came this discussion, which he has summarized pretty well.
That is the extent of my involvement with this user. Notice that I have never taken a position for or against his reasoning; in fact, on more than one occasion I agreed with him. My sole issue with him is his quite unnecessary accusations directed at other users on ITN, which were extremely provocative, time-consuming and damaging to our coherence. If ITN has turned into a battleground for the Israeli-Palestinian issue, I have nothing to do with it. If you look at the details of the discussions, you will see that there are at least four admins and three other users who have had disputes with Wikifan (for example see here). That is why I find it extremely ironic that Wikifan seems to be portraying himself as the victim here. This is not my issue - I was not the first one who have commented on Wikifan's recent behavior on ITN, and I wasn't the last. If Wikifan is truly concerned about the responses that he has received from several admins and other users on ITN and think that it is a systematic problem, he should do a RfC on the issue and not single me out as if I am the only one who has had a problem with his remarks. JimSukwutput 19:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Jim, you obviously have a side when you accuse other editors of classifying users of being "pro-Palestinian" or "pro-Israeli" when they never did such a thing. And I didn't get in a "fight" with three admins, several editors supported my suggestions. The diffs speak for themselves. WikifanBe nice 19:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I do not have a "side" on the conflict, and your unwarranted assumption of this is exactly what I meant by "classifying users as being pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli". Believe it or not, there are users on Wikipedia who contribute without a personal political agenda. JimSukwutput 19:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Jim, WP:BATTLEGROUND issues are not solely your fault, but you must recognize there is an inartfulness in your approach. Even neutrality can be a battleground position. ARBPIA is drama central, and when you make the choice to touch it with anything other than a ten foot pole, some of that will rub into you, no matter the great intentions you have. Feel me?
I have empathy for the pro-wikipedia "bias" you express. I am just saying that ARBPIA is so battle-scarred any position that is not firmly entrenched on either side, will get labeled as being for what ever side the current editor being addressed in a critical fashion is not in agreement with, specially if you call them on POV-warring. That is how ARBPIA rolls. Its its own alternate wikipedia were the rules are different - so it can be very disconcerting for editors like yourself to be touched by Its Presence. Accepting this reality in a Zen-like fashion is why WP:ARBPIA sanctions exist. Also why you should try to not engage editors on their behavior, it only leads to incivility. I sometimes do not heed this advice myself, but it doesn't mean it is not sound advice.--Cerejota (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
That's good advice. I wasn't aware of the particular sensitivity of that issue, so I will tread more lightly when I make a comment on this issue in the future. But I insist that I have nothing to do with this dispute. Wikifan's constant accusations of bias against Israel of other users on ITN is the root of the problem here; I only commented on it because I find it a constant nuisance. JimSukwutput 20:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Accusing other editors, specifically (naming them) in discussions as "POV-warriors" and suggesting they are sockpuppets for a government is not a PA? WikifanBe nice 18:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
sorry, but I concur there are no personal attacks - while I do recognize why they feel like it to you - if someone came at me like that, I would just {{facepalm}} and call them on their BS. --Cerejota (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm still not convinced of course. But Jim's hostility is clearly noted, I don't see how anyone can look at the diffs and think civility. WikifanBe nice 18:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh there is uncivility, just not personal attacks - and the incivility is somewhat boomerangy, as I explained above (ie you might have been provoked into it, but hey, you bit the lure!). That is why I said trouting to both houses was in order... In general, incivility is any (potentially) disruptive attention on user behavior not related to editing, but it only becomes an issue for enforcement when it is disrupting the community as whole, or when there is consensus to do so.--Cerejota (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Let me just point out that I have not in any way claimed that Wikifan is a "sockpuppet for a government" (or a POV-warrior for that matter). In fact, before this comment I have had no idea that Wikifan is an Israeli citizen. Please retract that accusation. You seem to have confused me with one of the many other users whom you have had a dispute with in the same discussion, which I suppose is forgivable.
Let me also point out that Wikifan did accuse me and several other users of some nasty things, such as being a bigot against Israel ("right now your criticisms border on bigotry, not policy..."), which is a pretty strong accusation, especially against an admin like Tariq (whom I believe is a muslim). But Wikifan has claimed that these are not accusations of anti-Semitism, and I am willing to accept that explanation for now, so I'm not going to take that issue any further. JimSukwutput 19:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. Jim has never made any personal attacks that I have seen, and you certainly haven't linked to any. Your last diff looks like a reference by Jim to your labelling of a complaint made by Tariqabjotu ("this complaint is trivial (and probably bigoted)") who was rightly identifying a sourcing problem (which still exists) in that article. Your reactions to criticism of your work are over-sensitive and often involve unwarranted attacks on other editors. It's you that needs an attitude adjustment, not Jim. Nightw 19:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The sourcing problem was dubious because the article was supported by reliable sources (and has been greatly expanded night). That article posting was opposed by Jim and others because they said it had too many Israeli sources, even though they were RS. But then in another posting, those same exact users supported a posting about a story in India, even though 70% of the sources were from India news sites, many non-RSs. So I concluded the issue was not about sources, but Israel as a country (hence, bigoted). So where are my attacks specifically? As shown, Jim made baseless accusations - that I classified editors based on their perceived opinions (never) and accused editors of being antisemitic (never happened, and users have been banned for saying such things). Jim constantly targets me as an editor, nobody else does. WikifanBe nice 19:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
First you admit that you called another editor a "bigot" and then you deny ever classifying editors based on their perceived opinions. ??? Look up "bigot" in the dictionary. Also, sourcing a story about activism in India to the Indian media is a bit different from sourcing a story about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict to the Israeli media. Multiple editors voiced concerns with the sourcing, and according to you all of those editors are "bigots". And you still refuse to apologise or concede anything. Nightw 20:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I never admitted to calling another editor a bigot, I said, I repeat - that rejecting a source based on their country of origin is bigoted. Is it not? Yes, multiple editors voiced concerns over the sourcing, opposing the blurb because the article had a lot of sources from Israeli papers (though reliable sources). Yet, the same editors had no problem with the story on India, even though the article relied almost entirely on India-related sources, many of which were not even reliable sources. So, IMO the issue wasn't simply about sources. I will of course strike any comments where I accused editors of being bigots and/or antisemitic if you link them. WikifanBe nice 20:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
This post embodies the entire problem at hand. Do you really not understand that your actions were in extreme bad faith and have turned ITN into a battleground? You relentlessly classify other users based on their perceived personal opinions or "bigoted views", yet you refuse to admit that you have done any such thing. Here you say you have never classified editors based on their perceived opinions, yet right above you say "Jim, you obviously have a side..." [in the conflict]. Then you admit to disrupting another nomination to expose alleged double-standards and anti-Israeli bigotry, but you insist that I am targeting you for pointing this out, even though your real issue is with the "others" - including 4 admins and dozens of other commentators on that section, who you frequently confuse with me. You claim that I opposed the article because of sourcing issues - I have done no such thing, although Tariq did (see my actual reason for opposing here). You claim that I have accused you of being a puppet of the Israeli government - I have done no such thing, although User:Mkativerat might have. As I've said above, I am far from the only person who you have had a conflict with on ITN, and if you find that the community is rude or uncivil to you, please address that in an open way rather than sneaking in a WQA against a particular user behind the back. JimSukwutput 19:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I never classified any users based on their personal opinions, ever. You said you had nothing to do with ARBPIA but constantly mention Israel/Palestine in your edits. That is part of the topic area. Where do you get the "4 admins" and dozens of other commentators? No admins or editors joined your accusations against me, issues about sources were totally independent of this. How are my actions in extreme bad faith? I was the one who originally brought up bad faith issues when you attacked my response as "POV-pushing." My very first post in the latest proposal you describe as POV pushing, seriously man. Just read the diffs I posted above. WikifanBe nice 20:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I said I have no opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; I bring it up because you are constantly accusing others of having a bigotry against Israel (presumably those who support the Palestinian position). And let me just say that I have no idea what WP:ARBPIA is. Can someone explain? JimSukwutput 20:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Let me be clear, I have never accused specific editors of having bigotry against Israel (and not presumably those who support the "Palestinian position" - that is your synthesis). I linked ARBPIA several times in the discussion but here it is again. Basically, the area of conflict you refer to is subject to different rules than other areas of Wikipedia. WikifanBe nice 20:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
It's a set of discretionary remedies by the Arbitration Committee to limit edit-warring on pages related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. If you're notified of the sanctions, you are subject to its restrictions (1RR and other things) when editing in the case's area of conflict. Since you have not yet been notified, you're not subject to it. Wikifan has been, and he's violated it four times. Nightw 20:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
"How are my actions in extreme bad faith?" Labelling multiple editors as "bigots" is both a personal attack and a blatant accusation of bias. Drop the act and redact your accusations. Nightw 20:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Your missing the timeline. The issue over sources was independent of this conflict. And I never *deliberately* attacked other editors as bigots - but said, explicitly, that rejecting a source based on their country of origin is bigoted. If you can link me to a diff where I said an editor was a bigot and/or antisemitic I will of course strike those comments. WikifanBe nice 20:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There is no consensus either way for considering [{WP:ARBPIA]] as applying to ITN/C threads that are about ARBPIA topics - already an admin who usually administers WP:ARBPIA issues denied my request for notification of sanctions on these grounds. So enforcement on Wikifan could be disputed. I raised an RfC on the matter, which you object- I suggest you let the RfC round its course and see were consensus lies. Otherwise, your position is incorrect. --Cerejota (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Wikifan, I call your attention to this by Jim, posted above: I wasn't aware of the particular sensitivity of that issue, so I will tread more lightly when I make a comment on this issue in the future. But I insist that I have nothing to do with this dispute. Wikifan's constant accusations of bias against Israel of other users on ITN is the root of the problem here; I only commented on it because I find it a constant nuisance. - Disregarding the WP:BOOMERANG issues, unless you have any other evidence to provide, I am inclined to close this WQA as "Jim made aware of existence of ARBPIA, he promises to be more sensitive to these issues - Wikifan reminded of ARBPIA sanctions, and that AE can be sought" or something of the sort. There is no more horsemeat to be obtained here - Jim has made a promise to modify behavior, which is the best you can hope at WQA.--Cerejota (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
@Cerejota I am content with that - though dispute with the premise that I made "constant" accusations of bias against Israel and that is the root of the problem. This specific report is based on a recent proposal where no mention of bias against Israel is made. In any case, I made a proposal at Jim's talk to end this mutually. WikifanBe nice 20:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Opened RfC at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#RfC:_Should_WP:ITN_area_discussions_on_items_in_the_WP:ARBPIA_topic_area_be_subjected_to_WP:ARBPIA_itself.3F.--Cerejota (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Split

Jim has agreed to end the dispute. Any objections? WikifanBe nice 20:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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

User:J3mm0

Take it to WP:ANI, there are much more serious issues here that mere WQA - WP:SPA, WP:BATTLEGROUND, possibly WP:COI, possibly SPI - and the AfD there is a veiled off-wiki threat. This need attention, but not here.--Cerejota (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Follow up: User:J3mm0 was blocked.--Cerejota (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)]]

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

Normally I'd just brush this off, but I have a feeling this will only continue. Could somebody tell her that threats and other "niceties" are on the inappropriate side. I don't think I should say something about her conduct as it will only agitate her.

On the bright side, "Some very, very unkind things were said about you at my dinner table this evening. Bgwhite, Shape-up or Ship-out." will go on my awards board. Still won't top an email sent to me and other people on an AfD discussion saying, "I'm Jewish and don't believe in hell. After this atrocity, I now believe and you are all going to hell." Bgwhite (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Hoising


On 17 July 2011, User:Hoising wrote on my talk page and saying that "好心你一出黎就唔好del哂D"&nbsp ;"啦。冇咗佢一個球員個名斷開2行，仲話佢唔重要。" (in English: Don't remove all "&nbsp ;" when you come back to Wikipedia, please! Without this ( ), the name of the players will be broken in two lines. Unexpectedly you said that it is not important). First, I have not said that it is not important but said it is not necessary. It is because without "& ", there is not line break within the player name in the template now. Second, I have quitted from Wikipedia on 17 June (known by Hoising) and did not make any edit between 17 June and 17 July. His latest comment on my talk page is read by me today.


I am not actually requesting to block him or give him any warning. However I am really tired of being a editor of Wikipedia and talking with User:Hoising. I am writing to explain the conflict between me and him and express my view. Hoping all of you may give some comments to me and him but I will not edit anymore.


After the incident about the article "James Ha" between me and him in February 2011 (We both were banned), he seems very angry and becomeing unkindly when we had different ideas on editing. In June 2011, we have different ideas on how to name Hong Kong Football Club in short form. We have talked about this in Chinese. I want to use "HKFC" while he want to use "Hong Kong FC". Although I have tried to explain why I use "HKFC" (it is officially used and commonly used), he said that "Hong Kong FC" (not officially used) is already a short form of the club, and told me to respect the fact with uncivilized manner. I have tried to provide sources of why using HKFC, including but not only the result numbers of Google, but he did not accept. I want to have and keep a good relations between me and Hoising. However, he has already used unkindly wording in the early stage of the talk. In the end, I decide to give up editing Wikipedia. Therefore after 17 June 2011, I have not done any edits on Wikipedia.


On 17 July 2011, which is one month after I have decided to leave Wikipedia, he wrote on my talk page and said the thing I have typed in the first paragraph of this section. I do not know why, and his words also seems unfriendly to me this time. I have not checked my talk page until today. It is really difficult to understand that he said these to me after one month I have qutited.


I write this not because of requesting to block him, but I hope he can finally become friendly to all Wikipedians. He usually seems unfriendly to others who have different ideas that he cannot accept.


User Samaleks

 Request withdrawn --Cerejota (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Editor Samaleks has used a vulgar and uncivil phrase in the edit summary while reverting an edit of mine. He also alluded that I am a less capable editor than others. I tried to engage him in his [[2]] page. He made arrogant and defiant remarks even there.

He had been behaving hostile, often making deriding and malicious comments. He not only does not assume good faith, but also always assumes malice. In his latest edit summary [[3]], he alludes suspicion about a screen shot of a page provided for the benefit of an editor whose browser did not display the original page. Previously, he had alleged doubt about an RTI report I used as reference.

Reviewing his recent edit history shows that he had done only such malicious edits. This editor does not add value to Wikipedia. He only adds malice.

DileepKS(talk) 05:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide diffs and notify the other party as per the instruction at the top of this page. However, after a casual glance at what little information you have provided I am far from convinced that Samaleks has anything to answer for. You might best be advised to cool down, take a large dose of WP:AGF and withdraw this complaint. If you wish to continue, it is only fair to advise you that your behaviour will also be under review. - Nick Thorne talk 11:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that the verdict has already been already reached, so I don't see the need to proceed further on this request. The request stands withdrawn.

Thank you for (indirectly) confirming that a statement such as aana thoorunnathu kandu aadu thooraruthu. (a goat shall not shit copying an elephant shitting) is acceptable on Wikipedia. I also take that the implied meaning there that some editors are more capable (and entitled more credibility) than others. Both are real revelations. I hope you wouldn't mind quoting another proverb veettil kaaranavarkku kalaththilum thooraam (the head of the house is entitled to shit in the cooking pot) and using it elsewhere if needed.

It is my understanding that everyone's behaviour is under constant review here, so you are welcome to review mine. I am sure you would use the same yardsticks across.

DileepKS(talk) 06:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

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

False sock puppetry accusations.

User:Hobartimus advised to wait for the result of the open SPI and continue to edit as if the editor were not a sockpuppet - focusing on the content. Keeeeper is advised that there is an area in the SPI investigation for him/her to comment about any issues - including establishing the accusation as false. There is nothing else WQA can do at this point.--Cerejota (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Follow-up Keeeeper was found to be a sockpuppet.--Cerejota (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Good afternoon! I am here to report User:Hobartimus. He insists insists to revert me on the grounds that I would be the sockpuppet of a banned user. It is a false accusation, and the on-going SPI case did not reach any conclusion yet, so his actions are rush. Can you please assist me in this problem? (Keeeeper (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

You know about the SPI but didn't respond there before you came here. There is a section for your reply on that SPI report, and you should use it. Doc talk 11:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Niteshift36

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Violeta123321 is advised that notification of reports is mandatory for WP:WQA and nearly all reports. Otherwise, there are no issues of incivility or personal attacks, but there are significant content issues. I suggest you both take this to the Original Research noticeboard for comment. A general reminder to assume good faith never hurts :)--Cerejota (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Hello, user Niteshift36 has been seriously bothering me. He posted this to my user page:

Violeta, what "sounds like a ghetto" to you doesn't matter. The source doesn't call it a "ghetto" and your assessment of it as one is WP:OR. Similarly, your assessment of the city ordinances is WP:SYNTH. I will be posting this dispute in the Georgia Wikiproject to get more input. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

YOU are calling it a ghetto, not "facts". YOU are calling it a "red light district", without any reliable source saying it (save a 70 year old reference that was discussiong new military traffic that no longer exists there). Your say so means nothing. Find actual reliable sources that say these things. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to presume that you haven't read WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Otherwise, if you have read them, you don't understand them. Find actual reliable sources that say these things. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's very simple. If a reliable source didn't say it, you can't make that conclusion. That ordinance proves nothing, other that IF there was a business that was deemed sexually oriented, it would have to go there. That does not state that a) there are or b) it magically becomes a "red light district". Similarly, just because an area is economically disadvantaged, doesn't make it a "ghetto". You ask me what city will call it a ghetto.......that should tell you something. It's offensive sweetheart! Just like calling overweight people "fatass" or calling a mentally handicapped person a "retard". You know what? If you're not going to bother actually reading the applicable policies, there is no reason to try to discuss it further with you. Show a reliable source that says it or show a policy that allows you to make up these conclusions. Even better, take 2 minutes and read the essay WP:TRUTH. You might find it enlightening. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Violeta123321&oldid=448805785 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Violeta123321&oldid=448811545 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Violeta123321&oldid=448811590 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Violeta123321&oldid=448848304 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Violeta123321&oldid=448849356 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Violeta123321&oldid=448850724

[edit] I was editing a section of the article Albany, Georgia when he undid my edits. I tried to re-edit it adding relevant sources. He claimed that they were not relevant, so I sourced more. The whole dispute was about if East Albany, Georgia was a ghetto or not; and if Slappy Blvd. was considered the 'red light district'. Honestly, from living in Albany my whole life...I know these things. I found a PDF showing that East Albany residents are way below the poverty level and the area is always been used to keep poor blacks out of the city. Also a city ordinance states that sexually oriented services can only be rendered in said area. By all definition these are a red light district and a ghetto. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck right? All this is really beside the point though. He accused me of OR. Which I will be the first to admit nowhere do the PDFs quote the area as being a 'ghetto' or 'red light district' I myself wasn't saying that they were concrete areas designated by the city, simply naming the areas with what they were defined as. He went on to add an article that I'm working on List of subdivisions in Albany, Georgia to a deletion list. Out of spite I suppose. I usually try to work these things out. And have had much luck. I always believe that kindness it the best policy. I have worked out many disputes on my own. But I filed this when he made his last comment. It's almost as if he is accusing me of being 'racist' or something. I was simply blown away by that. Nowhere did I say a ghetto or a red light district was a BAD thing. I myself live in an impoverished area. I read all of his policies, but again I'm simply calling the area for what it is. No other part of our city is like this. After calling my edits silly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albany,_Georgia&action=history) and hearing that my edits don't matter I just gave up the reasoning. Yes, I am new...but I don't deserve to be insulted. I've had enough of that in my life already, I don't need it on Wikipedia. This has upset me terribly and I hope to resolve this. It seems that other users have had problems with him as well. Any further discussion will result in harassment I'm afraid. --Violeta123321 (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Violeta failed to notify me of the discussion, but I found it anyway. I really don't think I even need to defend myself. I've repeatedly suggested that she read WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and even WP:TRUTH and apparently she hasn't read them. She says "By all definition these are a red light district and a ghetto. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck right?" and that tells us where the problem starts. It should also be noted that another experienced editor has made similar related removals. It should also be noted that earlier I posted to the Wikiproject for Georgia to solicit further input from other editors. Meanwhile, there is a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IKNOWIT from Violeta. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

trying to avoid an edit war

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Sorry, nothing we can do here, as this is not a behavioral issue we can address (involved editor is non-communicative, and this board is for issues of communication, not lack of communication). This seems more appropriate as a discussion at Talk:Insect morphology explaining the removal (I think everyone agrees the removal is "correct", but even "correct" edits need discussion, specially if reverted). If edit warring occurs, consider WP:EW, if the user edits but refuses to discuss, consider WP:ANI.--Cerejota (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

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

I am trying to avoid an edit war. A professional university entomologist, who does not edit wikis, contacted me about a paragraph in the lede to the article Insect morphology, pointing out that it was unsourced and misleading, so I removed the para for that reason. 4 days later, User:Bugboy52.40 reverted my edit without explanation. I requested on his/her talk page that he/she undoes this revert, but nothing as yet, and they don't seem to be active here all that often. So, my question is this: what can I do to remove a bad paragraph without risking an edit war, and without waiting until if and when some other editor wanders back here?? I reiterate that the para is unsourced, violates NPOV, and makes some misleading/false claims (i.e., paucity of fossil record???) ... it needs to go, thanks ... Stho002 (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would suggest trying to use more neutral language in your edit summaries and on talk pages, and I think it would be a good idea to bring it up on the article's talk page and ask for other editors to comment. Unless a source for the material you deleted can be found, deletion is appropriate, but the cycle is BRD, so it seem time for some discussion, at least to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Bugboy52.40 has not made a single edit since you contacted him about the reverts. He does not seem to edit too frequently/everyday. Also, this is not something for this noticeboard. This noticeboard is for events where you feel like you've been treated inappropriately/uncivilly. Nothing like that has happened here. either way (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that my edit was justified, since the paragraph was unsourced. The revert by Bugboy52.40 was not justified. I don't want to risk an edit war, so I'm not going to revert it. An edit justified by policy (i.e., mine) should not be reverted. There is no need to ask for comments/discussion ... goodness knows how long, if ever, it would take for anyone to even notice. An unsourced and misleading para should just be able to be deleted for that reason. I am asking that an admin do it, so that I don't risk 3rr. Stho002 (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I can take care of it, although the outcome may not be what you desire. Please understand we're not in a rush, and you can always ask for others' opinions at other venues. There's no real dispute here (yet), as Either way notes. But good practice is to initiate discussion on the article's talk page, and I think that's the best way to avoid edit wars. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
There can only be one outcome! An unsourced, biased, and misleading/plain wrong paragraph must be deleted as a matter of course, and any discussion can only be about bringing it back (if suitable sources, modifications, etc., can be found). Stho002 (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Strausszek

Strausszek wrote to me that "You really, and I mean really, need a course in logic or scientific method." He then compared my level of understanding to his unfavorable measure of the group of editors who prevent the Sarah Palin article from hosting controversy.

Strausszek next said that I am not "known for having a grip about sources in a critical way", followed by "Honestly, you deserve to have people speaking over your head; how else can we get some clarity here?". I removed this ad hominem talk page post per WP:NPA. He returned most of the post, repeating that I have not been known for having a "grip about sources in a critical way" followed by an indirect allegation that I was among the bottom few editors who would need to have a certain comparison pointed out to them.

My reputation on Wikipedia is important to me. It does not need this kind of insult and innuendo. On talk pages, I argue the issues carefully and logically, weighing evidence as neutrally as possible. I don't try to paint my debate opponents as mentally unfit, and I don't wish to answer continued ad hominem attacks from Strausszek. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Those are not personal attacks as per WP:NPA - not every ad hominem argument is a personal attack - however you are correct we should avoid ad hominem arguments as much as possible. More worryingly, your templating the user with a high-level warning template against personal attacks usually reserved to repeated/escalating situations in which an uninvolved editor/admin steps in, seems to be an attempt not to resolve the situation but to escalate it. Another editor called your attention to this fact, an Straussek's reply was civil and appropriate. Since Straussek seems to be willing to talk, I suggest you try to resolve the matter between each other, and if this is not possible, try to avoid personal interaction as much as possible and that both of you focus more on the content than on each other. --Cerejota (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I see your point about the high level warning. I selected that one from a Twinkle menu as it appeared to be the only one available for personal attacks. I will see whether I can work with Strausszek on content issues while we avoid getting personal. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Those turns of phrase happened after several days of discussion about how heavily the article used a source whose author (Frances Kissling) and editor (Rosemary Radford Ruether) had personally been involved at the very centre of the events they described. User Cloonmore, myself and others had pointed out that the source was anything but neutral and non-biased and therefore had to be utilized with caution, and that effectively it was a primary source or very close to it (primary sources not being allowed). Binksternet has been quite unwilling to address this, but has kept repeating his view that because the book was issued by the University of Indiana, it is by default RS and everything in it is as good as a biblical injunction unless it can be challenged via the words of another source classed as RS. My simile with Niels Bohr joking that the moon was made of green cheese as a supposed "proof till further notice" was a way to highlight this uncritical handling of obvious weaknesses in the single most used source for the article.Strausszek (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
First, I appreciate both of you are willing to talk to each other and in this forum about this topic in a spirit of resolution. Binksternet admission that the high-level template is problematic is to be well taken, because a willingness to examine one own's behavior is a positive thing. I understand, reading the discussion, that this is a problem of trying to explain the same concept constantly. I have some experience on these kind of discussion, not all of it positive, but when it has been positive, usually it is because both sides recognize that there is an impasse, and seek ways to achieve consensus. In this case, I suggest that you seek comment from un-involved editors at WP:RS/N - be careful not to repeat your controversy there, and try to allow other voices to weight in. Binksternet, I know you are concerned with your reputation in wikipedia etc, but rest assured, if there was anything said, it was very low level compared to what truly awful editors do - so I can tell you, unequivocally, that the opinion of other editors about your behavior will not be colored by what other editors say about it, but what it actually is. So at best, try to brush aside any ad hominem arguments, if possible even ignore them and simply state your point. If you do not understand a point, or if you want clarification, simply ask for it. Assuming good faith tells us that usually, when one thinks the other editor is insulting us, that is not the case and all is just a misunderstanding. Of course, sometimes they are insulting you, if that is the case, usually asking they stop is enough, and if that doesn't work, then go to WQA or ANI. A good principle to think of, is that often discussions need to end, and a good signal is when one is making the same argument many times or when the argument is no longer about content or people. I am not making a specific adjudication - I am just trying to bring to both of your attention tools that might help both of you continue to improve the encyclopedia without so much friction. --Cerejota (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm an involved editor in the very discussion that apparently gave rise to this RfA. A significant problem is that, contrary to Binksternet's assertion above that he weighs evidence as neutrally as possible, on abortion-related articles Binksternet is very often intransigent and positional. The discussion at issue on the article's Talk page is a good example. I dropped out of it for a few days because Binksternet was not engaging in genuine dialogue but issuing pronouncements such as that his edit "stands" and that if I had an issue with it I could take it to the noticeboards. That is not neutral, cooperative, constructive engagement; it's obstruction and a technique to try to wear down other editors rather than engage in true dialogue.

Binksternet also takes a very expansive view of what he considers a "personal attack" on him, and as a result he wrongly removes comments from the article's Talk page, as he did with one of my earlier comments on the same subject. When I asked him on his own Talk page what was the "personal attack" that would allow him to remove another editor's comments, he did not respond. This again leads me to conclude that Binksternet uses comment removal as supposed WP:WPA violations as another technique to intimidate and wear down other editors. His behavior is the problem. Cloonmore (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

First the light stuff, this is WQA (Wikiquette alert), not RfA (Request for adminship) :) Now, the harder stuff, can you please provide diffs for any allegations? To address the one you did provide a diff for, I will wait for a response from Binksternet too, but the appropriate policy is WP:TPO and certainly the reversion you showed didn't meet that guideline. In general, WP:EW does apply to talk pages, so if you feel a reversion is incorrect, simply restore it and if reverted again, seek admin intervention. However, be absolutely sure your comment was not a personal attack or otherwise compliant with WP:TPO. Also a reminder that we deal with civility issues here, other issues should be reported at WP:ANI and content issues in the different approapiate noticeboards. You can also seek informal mediation. Please see WP:DR for options and for the dispute resolution pyramid.--Cerejota (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I echo Cloonmore's view. I have been in various disputes with Binksternet at Susan B. Anthony List for months. We managed to work together okay for awhile but he has become increasingly combative and unwilling to compromise. He too often acts like his view is the only reasonable view, as he has done here with Strausszek and Cloonmore. Strausszek/Cloonmore aren't innocent, but they have been antagonized by Binksternet; Binksternet is the problem here. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, diffs please. WQA is not for all disputes (you can see a list of the different boards at WP:DR) here we try to handle civility issues - and so far I am not seeing anything except the stuff on talk page reversion and the already addressed issue on the use of high-level templates. So ar ethere diffs showing incivility? All other issues shouldn't be handled here. --Cerejota (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't have any WQA problems with NYyankees51, only COI and NPOV concerns. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota, here's a diff taken one edit before the one Cloonmore chose to show you, in which you can see the Cloonmore edit summary "Binky's burden". I do not tolerate the nickname Binky as it is an American brand name of a baby's pacifier, and the use of that nickname demeans the target: me. On the other hand, I don't mind in the least when other editors call me Bink or Binks. When Cloonmore reverted my removal, the demeaning edit summary was not repeated, so I was okay with that. I did not respond to Cloonmore on my talk page because I did not feel I could at the time compose a calming response, one that "pacified" the involved parties, as it were. I also wished to minimize my exposure to the hated nickname, to minimize the delight some of my longterm debate opponents might feel in discovering a word that makes me go ballistic. Too bad I was not able to quiet the conflict at my talk page where a much smaller audience would have noticed. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Well you need to grow a thicker hide. That you have a problem with being called Binky is entirely your problem and unless you can demonstrate that an editor has used it after you have specifically told him or her that you find it objectionable then I'm afraid that editor has no case to answer WRT civility. However, what is objectionable is you deleting another editors comments on a talk page. That is a cardinal sin in my book and you deserve to be sanctioned for it unless you can come up with an altogether better explanation for the removal than you have so far. - Nick Thorne talk 10:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Whie I wouldn't word it as harshly, Nick is mostly correct. The reversions are blockable offenses. However, they are not recent enough to merit any sanctions. Binksternet, please carefully read and understand WP:BOOMERANG. No one so far has commented against the general opinion that your behavior has been less than stellar.--Cerejota (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

User:NYyankees51 was slightly uncivil at Binksternet's talk pagediff, after Binksternet made a good faith request to move the conversation on content away from the talk page. Binksternet might have issues, but this is not a license to stomp on them.--Cerejota (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
You think that's uncivil? I again give you Binksternet, retorting to my direction that he move a substantive editing complaint to the article's Talk page. Cloonmore (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It is clear all of the involved should focus on the content, not the editors, and that talk page snipping like this is not a positive thing. Two wrongs never make one right. Ever. --Cerejota (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota, I did not offer the diff to suggest that two wrongs make a right; they don't. However, I disagree with your blanket assertion that "all" of the involved have been uncivil. Indeed, some have, and Binks most egregiously, as demonstrated by the diffs. Cloonmore (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand that is your view, but I am giving you mine as a wholly uninterested party. And the diff you provided is less uncivil than what I saw at Binkternet's page: the diff you provide is an explanation as to why the approach was made - almost apologetic, what I saw at Binkternet's was a refusal to accept the request to talk in a more appropriate place. You all need to recognize your part on the dynamic and adjust accordingly.--Cerejota (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
You consider Binkster's edit sum, "It was about you, not the article", coupled with his retort, "The problem was your unthinking revert", to be less uncivil and "almost apologetic"?? Maybe you should read it again in full context. He raised substantative editing issues, and I responded that the issue was "your changes" (i.e., the content not the editor). Binkster OTOH emphatically and defiantly made it about me after I told him to move it to the article's talk page. I thought that kind of conduct is exactly what is condemned. Cloonmore (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I said everyone needed to focus on the content and not the user, that includes Binkternet. I am simply trying to draw attention to the fact that in this case, the personalistic focus is clearly not Binkternet's alone, and that part of fixing this dynamic requires a recognition that this behavior is not Binkternet's alone, and to modify behavior equally. I know you are not NYyankees51, but in Binkternet's mind, I could see how he could see you as essentially the same. So if one of you refuses to discuss something in the talk page, and then another tries to discuss in user talk, it feels dishonest. Put yourself in Binkternet's shoes - how would you feel? All of you seem to be acting in good faith, and as such you should work together - in spite of different views - to develop consensus. Am giving you some tips about how to move forward. You can ignore this advice, but I think it is sound advice.--Cerejota (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Not seeing how my question was uncivil...? NYyankees51 (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The original one wasn't, the response to a sensible request to talk elsewhere was, because you focused on the editor and not the content in a combative way.--Cerejota (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't meant that way. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no reason to believe otherwise - but I have no reason to believe Brinkternet doesn't mean to be uncivil when he appears to be uncivil. That is why we assume good faith, you see my point?--Cerejota (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Uh, no. I have plenty reason to believe that Bink means to be uncivil. How else to take removals of other editors' talk page comments without warrant, refusing to discuss said removals and other poor behavior? The corollary of assuming good faith is demonstrating good faith. (And, btw, assuming two different editors to be "essentially the same" and "feeling" that they're "dishonest" ain't AGF by a longshot.) Thanks for your personal thoughts, Cerejota. You've quite clearly confirmed for me that WQA isn't the place to address this. Cloonmore (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I doubt you would have gotten a different answer elsewhere. The poor behavior you mention has indeed been addressed directly, however, poor behavior is not incivility, and poor behavior doesn't warrant incivility back, and certainly doesn't warrant stopping to assume good faith. WQA does work, what happens is that you don't always get what you want.--Cerejota (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
No, I did not mean to be uncivil. I simply removed a post you made under the edit summary "Binky's burden" which I saw as an attack. Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't an attack, while "binky" might be offensive to you for reasons you stated, other people might not find it offensive, and the burden part is policy: WP:BURDEN. Again, just because you are offended, it doesn't give you or anyone the right to refactor other's comments, and furthermore, "edit summaries" can only be hidden by admins, so even if you revert the text, you are not reverting the edit summary. As told above, please read WP:TPG, in particular were it specifies that reversions for personal attacks are to be done only in extreme cases. Even if we consider the comment you reversed as personal attack, it was not a extreme form warranting reversal.--Cerejota (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Lets discuss it then

Users
Articles

Also this thread at S Marshall's talk: page diff

Initial comment

Basically self explanatory, I would like to get third party opinions on the issues of civility, personal attacks etc. Also, since Buster D feels like I am not approachable, I will like to know why - until I came across that nasty bit of talk page banter, I thought we disagreed and that was that (I even addressed direct questions - and that was that). I certainly didn't expect the kind of behavior I saw there. Also, claiming that I fail to assume good faith without I feel there is a miscommunication here that should be fixed, and dealt with, because I do edit areas with overlap with these users in other contexts. If I am at fault, so be it, but this cannot be let festering and lingering, and in particular, such untoward comments cannot be ignored.

I'll admit I was a bit peeved when I responded and then reverted at the DRV, so I apologize for that. --Cerejota (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Initial response from named parties

Initial response from involved unnamed parties

  • For me it seems like user Cerejota was overreacting for reasons that only the user can explain. Now user Marshall ofcourse flamed on the discussion by some responses but I think this is a non-issue discussion which in itself was resolved when Cerejota apologized above to for overreacting. If both parties could agree to disagree it would solve it. Simple and clear.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I mean comments like these in a discussion is so unnecessary, now Cerejota reverted it so no harm done but it gives doubts to the genuin interest of Cerejota in the discussion. What is the goal to resolve or flame on the discussion further?. I think both users should step back here and just move on. Especially Cerejota if I should be honest.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


Discussion

  • I dont want to sound like I don't appreciate Cerejota's work here, but my experience with him in this very page (WP:WQA) is exactly how S Marshall has described of his behavior elsewhere. I believe, as BabbaQ has suggested, this is a bit of an overreaction and would be solved by a "agree to disagree" approach. For the record, I've taken no more than a superficial scratch at the surface of this issue so weigh my words lightly.--v/r - TP 16:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


  • Babbaq:I think you hit on an important point, which is what S Marshall explains here: he has a vendetta against me, for reasons he explains, and *that* needs to be resolved. For example, in the very DRV in question, before S Marshall started his WP:IDHT disruption, I even commended him for a well reasoned argument: in the very response you call disruptive above. It is highly disruptive to have a user who measures your actions based not on the current discussion, but on previous grudges, and S Marshall's admitted total failure to assume good faith is a key factor in understanding what happened at the DRV, and hence, working to solve it is important to deal with future events. To let this fester, that is 12 year old kid stuff - to use S Marshall's mature and non-inflammatory description. Your call for a dismissal is both insulting and self-serving. And I am not over reacting: you accused BlackKite (an admin in good standing in the DRV of "disregarding the !keep votes" and other malfeasance- you just don't want your own words examined.--Cerejota (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • BusterD: you didn't approach an involved administrator: S Marshall is not an administrator. Regardless if you intended it or not, you approached another editor who shared your position in the Drv to have a bitchfest, instead of approaching me directly. Did my response to the question during the AfD was not reasonable? If you felt I was being disruptive, the first step in DR is to approach me, and you didn't, and that *is* disruptive and a failure to assume good faith. --Cerejota (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • My mistake. I've stricken the word from my statement above, but a reading of my initial statement on User talk:S Marshall demonstrates I didn't understand your apparent anger and was asking for perspective, not agreement ("Am I dense? Obtuse?"). I didn't invite the "12 year-old" response, but I clearly agreed with the sentiment, that your actions revealed an apparent lack of civility and maturity. Your characterization of the brief conversation on that talkspace as a "bitchfest" is totally uncalled for and demonstrates your apparent hostility. My concern was and remains your apparent lack of good faith, regarding both the creation and development of the page under discussion and the parties involved in the the AfD and DRV discussions. My position has been and continues to be if you have accusations of disruptive behavior, make them. It could be equally well-argued that you chose this particular forum to generate friendly input, instead of approaching ME directly. I see no message from you on MY talkspace, for example, until you chose this familiar forum to critique my behavior. If you would explain yourself on the subject of your accusations of paid editing (still have no idea who if anybody is accused, btw), this conversation could go back to the subject at hand (the DRV at 9/9). I'd much rather engage with you on subjects which clearly need discussion (our interesting disagreement on the application of WP:EVENT criteria) than continue chasing tails here about vague, unspecified, baseless and insulting accusations of COI and NOPAY. BusterD (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
If someone mockingly called you a 12 year old (without outing, I am several times over 12), wouldn't you be hostile? What I am hearing in this conversation is that, except for S Marshall (to his credit), no one is owning up to their responsibility and instead wants to justify their actions behind walls of text. I didn't approach you because I had no reason to believe it would be productive, based on your conversation with S Marshall - an entirely reasonable expectation if one looks at that conversation. On the other hand, you had no reasonable expectation that approaching me with your concerns directly wouldn't unproductive, and You accuse me of lacking an assumption of good faith, and yeas, I lack such an assumption for a blocked user, and an obviously disruptive article creator, but I continue to assume good faith about you here - if you read my introduction to this report it is clear my intent is to clear things up, which mean I have a good faith approach. You need to examine your own behavior too - and so far I am less than impressed in that respect, all I see is self-justification and further accusations.--Cerejota (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
This is getting us nowhere. I've asked at AN/I for more eyes. I'm not happy with the way this forum is being used to escalate a dispute. More eyes are clearly needed. BusterD (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
How is saying I continue to assume good faith about you here - if you read my introduction to this report it is clear my intent is to clear things up an escalation?--Cerejota (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


I wish that Cerejota would stop misrepresenting themselves. In the diff they presented above they claim to be 12 years old.[4] Yet in 2006, as has been pointed out to me, they had a userbox announcing they lived alone.[5] This kind of nonsense has been going on for a long while now. If they intend to continue editing wikipedia, they should stop WP:TROLLING in their edits. They started editing in 2005 and evidently were not 6 years old at the time. Their edits and closures on WQA have been quite unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm can some explain why I am facepalming --Cerejota (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to vote that Cerejota was using sarcasm.--v/r - TP 20:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Undoubtedly. If Cerejota is worried about wikiquette, then perhaps he should be more careful how he replies to other users. This reply for example seems far from optimal.[6] Mathsci (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but if you are going to question what is being said, you should both pay attention (ie the "12 years old" comment was originated by S Marshall, I was just responding to it) and be more careful with your diffs (the one you say directs to a userbox change directs to something that is not even my edit!). In other words, if you want me to pay attention and learn from your criticism, make sure this criticism is carefully considered and not so obviously a troll.--Cerejota (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The diff I just gave you shows a prior borderline personal attack on at least one of the users you reported here: I will speak even more slowly, because if I am dense, you apparently approach neutron star levels. The previous diff I gave for the userbox was provided to me by an administrator to show one state of your userpage in 2006; I just copy-pasted. What I'd noticed on this page recently is that your editorialising summaries in closing threads have not always been helpful. Your over-direct approach could benefit from toning down. Mathsci (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
BTW, BusterD just went to ANI, way to resolve conflicts and not add to the fire...--Cerejota (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota you are now using the same style of confrontation that put you in this spot to start with. Please take it a bit more easy when you respond to comments. I beg you.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I would be extremely useful if you pointed out how I am being confrontational, instead of just saying I am. Because I defend myself?--Cerejota (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes its better to let go of things. And move on and simply not be confrontative. And im asking you what good comes out of this? I cant see anything. Instead users have to take time from actually doing some good on Wikipedia to continue this never ending meta-debate of "you wrote this, and you wrote this".--BabbaQ (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for stating your position. I think that a lot of good can come out of this, if people are willing that it does. However, you are not answering my question: how am I being confrontational?--Cerejota (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Right now for example.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
"way to resolve conflicts and not add to the fire"
"can some explain why I am facepalming"
"you approached another editor who shared your position in the Drv to have a bitchfest"
Just take a minute, take a breath, and wait to respond until after you feel driven to reply. When you feel a drive or a neccessity to respond to someone's comments, you'll likely come off aggressive. Take 10 minutes after reading what someone wrote and then respond only to what you remember of their comments 10 minutes later in a positive way.--v/r - TP 22:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I see your point, and to an extent accept it - however, what is correct response to WP:ADMINSHOP? to a lack of basic reading comprehension? What is a non-controversial synonym to "bitchfest"? Taking time to think was why I opened this WQA the first time.--Cerejota (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • And this comment to S Marshall, make sure this criticism is carefully considered and not so obviously a troll. doesnt seem to be carefully considered by you Cerejota. It seems like you are being rude/abusive towards the user. Think before you write.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The comment was not directed at S Marshall. Please read it again and you will see I was replying to Mathsci.--Cerejota (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
It doesnt really matter. The comment was uncalled for anyhow.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it was uncalled for. Your comment, however, was lie. Which is worse?--Cerejota (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I give up on this and you. Still more confrontation from you. Sorry to see that. Im out of this no good faith meta debate. Cerejota its difficult to see how I can assume good faith towards you when you are being constantly unpleasant and quite frankly aggressive and confrontational. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I want to respond to this: "I think you hit on an important point, which is what S Marshall explains here: he has a vendetta against me, for reasons he explains, and *that* needs to be resolved ... S Marshall's admitted total failure to assume good faith is a key factor in understanding what happened at the DRV, and hence, working to solve it is important to deal with future events."

    My position is that I have no reason to doubt your good faith, Cerejota. But my experience of you is that you seem to want to participate in Wikipedia at a level above your actual competence. The evidence is that you miss nuances and details, you close discussions you don't even understand, and when called out on these things, you reply with scattershot accusations of bad faith, and when challenged, you cannot substantiate these accusations with diffs. But you don't retract them. In short, I think you're in perfectly good faith but sufficiently advanced incompetence is hard to distinguish from trolling.

    What I want from you is just to stop. I want you to agree to refrain from using the word "facepalm", the template {{facepalm}}, any images of dead horses, or in fact any other image that's sneering, dismissive or contemptuous of your fellow editors. I want you to refrain from speaking to your fellow editors as if they were anything other than equals. I want you to agree not to make any accusations of bad faith that aren't backed up by diffs, and I want you to refrain from taking it upon yourself to close discussions in contentious areas until you've shown by your conduct elsewhere that you have the grace and respect for your fellow editors that's necessary to make difficult closes.—S Marshall T/C 23:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughtful response, even if I disagree with some of the details, I do take as true what you are saying - and the spirit of resolution you seem to try to express:

  1. First, you are incorrect I had no knowledge of the discussion at V. I have edited V before you were in wikipedia, and the First Sentence page is not a new idea, but one that has been around, and comes and goes for a long while. And while my actions were disputed by you and others, they were also defended.
  2. As your "12 years old" comment shows, we are not robots, and we do use humor, exaggeration, sarcasm etc. What is true of you, is also true of me. I feel that if you think you have a license to mock and taunt editors, at least expect to be mocked and taunted yourself. A close look at your behavior at WP:V shows that you did in fact engage is such behavior, and engaging in it was by a closed all those discussions. I am not "accusing" you of anything, so I am not providing diffs, but you know what you posted - and if you want me to trust you you would at least stipulate to this as a way to move forward. My actions were brash, but they were called for in the context. Had I acted on your side, you would have given me a barnstar!
  3. I see no reason why I should refrain from being WP:BOLD simply because my actions are not agreed by some editors: contrary to what you imply (and what BabbaQ has alleged) I know how to horsemeat has been obtained. In this case, it hasn't - and so far, except for you, the other two involved have shown a lack of willingness to engage in anything above the basic level of name calling. In WP:V, my actions might have rubbed some the wrong way, but have turned out to actually helped the process along, controlling the disruptive anarchy that reigned in the talk page.
  4. I will dispute the assertion that I do not respect or have comtemt for my fellow editors, and the reasons you give for this belief puzzle me. You seem to have a position that unless one agrees, one shouldn't express disagreement. In that sense it is helpful to provide tools to better handle situations, but I have a seriously hard time looking past the fact of your deep involvement.
  5. Even in this thread, you make comments like "at a level above your actual competence", and expect no response? Isn't that a bit more like what you are accusing me of being? Respect is a two way street - and your casual dismissal and condescension, which you repeat here, cannot be possibly be expected to make you a credible voice in addressing me. I could express some regret for some word choices, but I cannot, in good coincidence, do so unilaterally. It takes two to tango, and quite frankly, you are are much more a dancer than me (and this is not a compliment).
  6. I do suggest you seek a way to clean the slate, because it is clear to me you have resentment towards me and my action that are not letting you approach me in a positive fashion.--Cerejota (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
you are are much more a dancer than me (and this is not a compliment). Your at it again Cerejota, also you are trying to refute every single point that has been brought up here. I find it puzzling to say the least. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Cerejota, the reason I'm using this heavy, bludgeoning language with this is because I've said it to you nicely and niceness did not work with you. So I'm coming in hard. I want specific remedies from you here. I will list them, and I want you to post your agreement to each point.

    1) I want you to agree not to use the word "facepalm", the template {{facepalm}}, any image of a facepalm, the words "dead horse", or any image of or reference to dead horses, for the purpose of belittling or dismissing your fellow editors. Doing so is disrespectful and if there's one message I want you to take away from this discussion, it's that your words on Wikipedia are seriously lacking in respect. Part of the problem, I think, is that you don't know how disrespectful you are.

    2) I want you to agree not to speak to your fellow editors as if they were anything other than equals. This means following a specific sequence: read - comprehend - think - post.

    3) I want you not to make any accusations of bad faith ,against anyone at all, unless your accusations are backed up by diffs. An important part of this is that the diffs must appear on the same page as the accusations.

    4) I want you to refrain from closing contentious discussions for a period of three months.

    Now, what do you want from me?—S Marshall T/C 00:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall you communicating with me in anything other than "heavy, bludgeoning language" - I am not questioning that perhaps you have, I simply do not recall it, could you dig a diff of such communication to refresh my memory? All of my memories of communication with you are unpleasant and disrespectful - even here. All of the points you make here is how I already communicate, and your presumption that I don't is in part what prompted the ANI - you seem to think that I do not have a right to disagree, for whatever reason - in fact, a distinct whiff of considering me insolent is gotten - but insolence requires a presumption of superiority, which then begs the question, superior in what sense? That is not a trivial thing: it seems that you are bothered more by a perceived insolence than a real grievance.
The last point is not going to happen based on your simple request - in particular, I find the source to not be a disinterested one. However, if you also refrain from WP:V/WT:V for the same three months, I might consider this proposal a very useful sacrifice to help the wiki, a quid-pro-quo I could consider a small token for a huge return.
What I do want from you is that you do not color our further interactions, as you have done, with the experience at WP:V, and indeed, to practice a little of what you preach: understand that while your perception might some basis on the truth, it is also a reaction to your own behavior.--Cerejota (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Here is where I asked you to do the exact same thing, but more politely. Here is me attempting to interact with you civilly at the DRV.

    Cerejota, there is absolutely no way that you're going to drive me off WT:V. As Jimbo Wales already advised you here, the discussion was perfectly productive before you arrived, and as Hans Adler already advised you here, you are the most disruptive person on the page. If you aren't going to agree to what I said, or if you will only do so on the basis that I stop editing WT:V that you've so thoroughly disrupted, then you and I are not going to be able to solve our differences through direct conversation. In that case we will have to wait for the opinions of uninvolved editors.

    But before we go that route, I want you to notice that nobody in this discussion so far has agreed with you. So far, everyone participating here so far holds you to be the disruptive one. This whole WQA is a massive case of WP:SHOT and I think you should gracefully agree to reflect, learn from this, and make some genuine changes to your behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 01:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Alright, I'm going to have to step in here a little. First off, I'm going to admit any bias I have. I have known S Mashall and I consider him admin material, I have a lot of respect for him going into this discussion. I also have interacted with BabbaQ and we've butted heads in an AFD and subsequent DRV. I explained my bias relating to Cerejota above. So I have pro and anti bias toward some folks in this discussion. With possible biases on the table, here is my attempted unbiased/neutral opinion on this whole thing. Cerejota, I feel you have made a habit of making a good faith comments followed immediately by a bunch of accusations. My diffs to support this are: [7][8][9][10][11]. You really need to stop. If you agree or feel someone's comments are in good faith, then you need to take a minute to take those comments to heart. I feel you are doing something that during a audible conversation is similar to 'Hearing but not listening' or rather 'Thinking of your response rather than listening'. Stop for a moment and consider someone's response and quit being so aggressive. Just because someone has an opinion of you doesn't mean you need to respond with your opinion of them. Give a little to this conversation. Let go of something. Give up on a position. Let up on the aggression. In other words, suck up your pride a little and allow the leeway neccessary for compromise. From reading the above, it appears to me that S Marshall is ready to compromise.--v/r - TP 01:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your description of S Marshall as "Admin material", who called be names repeatedly here and elsewhere, doesn't allow me to trust your judgment on this matter anymore - in particularly because you call his comments a "compromise", which they are not. Sorry, but how can you say these things and expect them to be well received?--Cerejota (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
As I am uninvolved, I wanted to clear up (be truthful about) any possible biases. I feel the quickest way to resolve this issue is that you heed my words. Despite that they are not in your favor, they are honest.--v/r - TP 01:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the honesty and transparency you have shown, it is commendable. Can you understand why I feel frustrated when direct questions are not answered, and instead an attack launched?--Cerejota (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
No-one is attacking you. You're simply on the receiving end of a WP:SPADE. I think you're finding that uncomfortable and hard to deal with. I understand the urge to portray yourself as the victim and me as the nasty bully, but I'm afraid the consensus here does not appear to be on your side. I do hope that doesn't make you too unhappy.—S Marshall T/C 10:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I think what S Marshall is saying is that he is trying to be plainly honest about his feelings in the matter so they can all be resolved instead of hiding some point of contention that can brew a grudge later. He is trying to find resolution with you. What concessions can you make, Cerejota, to bring this to an end?--v/r - TP 13:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, forget any requirement for concessions from me. This whole WQA is getting so very one-sided that I'm sure Cerejota will have learned from it. That's all that was needed. Rubbing his face in it by making him make one-sided concessions would be counterproductive.

Perhaps someone uninvolved would be kind enough to close this thread and archive it.—S Marshall T/C 13:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's usually best to just let the thread run its course; MiszaBot can do the archiving just fine. Slapping an archive tag frequently triggers a WP:LASTWORD reaction. That said, if Cejejota desires I'd be happy to archive the discussion. Gerardw (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


I rather wait for more input, its been a day and in a particularly sensitive weekend in the USA, as there is precious little of uninvolved input. Furthermore, BusterD, actually showed a true spirit of cooperation in my talk page, with a true compromise and resolution - S Marshall's position that there is a consensus is both premature and there is a total lack of self-reflection on his part, hardly a compromise and more like a pile-on to hurry closing this. Jedi mind tricks don't work on me :)--Cerejota (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Cerejota, by WQA standards, we've already had an enormous amount of input. I'll certainly reflect on myself if an uninvolved editor suggests that's necessary, but as you can plainly see, our fellow editors don't seem to feel that it is.

    It's really up to you whether you listen to the concerns you've heard or learn from this in any way. You don't have to let it go, but you can, if you like. Or you can let this be a learning experience for you.—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please carefully re-read what I wrote above. Then read it again. Then, think about what I said. If you still reach the same conclusion, then indeed this discussion - in this forum - might have reached its limit, and we should go to a more structured forum. In particular I draw your attention to there is precious little of uninvolved input and BusterD, actually showed a true spirit of cooperation in my talk page, with a true compromise and resolution. That the wall-of-text issues in this WQA are nearly completely your responsibility shouldn't evade uninvolved parties, as neither should be you using these issues as a reason to close as they are your creation, not mine or other parties. --Cerejota (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I totally reach the same conclusion. In view of everything that's been said here, by about half a dozen users, what else am I supposed to think? I advise you against taking this to RFC/U in view of the huge WP:BOOMERANG this has been. The genuine concerns about your behaviour shown by so many editors here will tell heavily against you. But if you're determined to WP:WIN, that's your next venue. Be my guest.—S Marshall T/C 00:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
While I later regretted some of my wordings and statements, I'm still of the opinion that accusations have been thrown around incorrectly (black brush), and I see zero contrition or further explanation from User:Cerejota on that subject. Each of us has our own individual responsibilities to act in the true spirit of compromise and resolution. I have chosen to let all this go, but moving forward, I'd appreciate a considered response inside this forum from that user. BusterD (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

My position, as it was in the DRV, is that I had provided the evidence - that a blocked user had been the one to move the article after multiple denies and that the original submitter to AfD has some WP:DUCK issues in terms of COI. However, I admit that I reacted negatively to your use of the "black brush" imagery in part because in Spanish that is much more serious accusation than what I now think you were saying: In Spanish, it is generally used only when you are accusing someone of having malice and willful wrongdoing, while in English it is also used to simply describe the action (without necessarly implying ill intent, although it can be used in that way). Until you approached me, the first definition was being confirmed in my mind, after your approach the second came to front. One thing I take from this is that investigating COI violations of WP:NOPAY is a sensitive topic for some, for whatever reason, and hence to be approached with more caution. Also, that WP:DUCK is no longer seen as an investigative tool by some editors - hence not the usually useful thing it once was in AfD. I hope I have answered your point :)--Cerejota (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The cultural differences between us kept me from seeing your point there. Thanks for clarifying. Ironic (but not surprising) that knowing you better makes your actions easier to comprehend. Appreciate your taking your somewhat casual inference of NOPAY a bit more seriously. My second comment at User talk:S Marshall gives the reason why I believe this is a real concern for all of Wikipedia, but was lost in the shuffle when we started talking about the S Marshall's response to my first comment. BusterD (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from WP:WQA Volunteers

Cerejota you've received thoughtful advice from S Marshall et. al. My advice is to heed it. Behavior such as the "facepalm" reply is unlikely to resolve situations and will typically escalate them. Gerardw (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

User:RPSM

I don't want RPSM to contact me. I've tried to make that clear to him on my talk page, but he keeps writing there.

Some background: RPSM, I and several other editors have been involved in a dispute concerning sv:Skäktning (Shechita) and editing style. This ultimately led to RPSM being permanently blocked on the Swedish Wikipedia. I took this personally and I have avoided contacting RPSM. In August I was informed that RPSM wanted to apologize, and I wrote at his talk page that I accepted his apology. That doesn't mean that I want to continue the contact. I would appreciate it if someone would inform RPSM that what he is doing is not OK (provided you think that he does step over the line). BTW:regarding his last edit on my user page: I am not sv:User:Stigdaniel. Sjö (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: When RPSM writes "On the 8th April 2011 you were asking me" (my bold) and gives a link to edits by one Stigdaniel I can only read that as an accusation of sockpuppetry.Sjö (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not see further contact after you made the request for no contact, or am I missing something?--Cerejota (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I made this Wikiquette request after RPSM's edit at 09:44, but before my edit at 16:44. Hopefully RPSM will just let me be now, but I have my doubts about that. What is your opinion on the accusation of sockpuppetry?Sjö (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Your allegations on sockpuppetry cannot be handled here, the appropiate place would be WP:SPI. However, I recommend you wait until this WQA thread is closed before going there, as per WP:FORUMSHOP. I have no opinion on the matter, but claiming this without out good evidence is not very civil, and usually is inflammatory, so I suggest you do not raise this point again here. --Cerejota (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll remember that if the issue comes up again. I don't think I'll go the Swedish WP:SPI, mostly because I don't feel the need to prove I'm not a puppet or a puppetmaster, but also because given the circumstances a request would probably be turned down (several months ago, no recent edits by Stigdaniel, etc).Sjö (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Also you must notify the user of this report.--Cerejota (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I've done that now.Sjö (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
More background. Some editors on English Wikipedia were surprised at my Swedish block and couldn't understand it. Neither can I. What worries me most is the official reasons for the block that Sjö, as a Swedish administrator requested and Grillo activated. These were 1) being a POV pusher and 2) calling other editors antisemites. I am 100% positive I have never done this. I am currently sifting through the Swedish text on talk pages and home pages to find some trace of me having called anyone an antisemite ever. So far without success. If Sjö could give me a link to where I have called another editor an antisemite I should be eternally grateful.
If he is not able to substantiate his allegations, I would appreciate if, at a later stage he could withdraw them and apologize.
What I have arrived at after ruminating over this, is that it seems to be based on some obscure code of Political Correctness among lefty Swedes that proclaims certain subjects off limits. (I am grateful to Swedish editor Cutthecrap, an ethnic Kurd, for illuminating me about this) where some subjects are taboo and Wikipedia editors today feel personally insulted by the mention of the word antisemite although the person referred to is no longer living and proclaimed himself to be an antisemite in the Swedish Parliament in 1939 (Otto Wallén) The English phrase "guilt by association" has been bandied about. But this is an attempt by me to try to figure out how their minds work, and it is to me a mystery.
I thought that no censorship was the basis on which an encyclopedia was created, especially with regard to the origins of the concept by French philosophers.
Unwritten rules based on Political Correctness that only apply to certain ethnic or language groups limit the quality of the final product.
My Swedish block appears to be based partly on unsubstantiated rumours and I am currently having discussions with other editors some of whom are editing both on Swedish and English Wikipedia to discover what went wrong. Should I fix my discussion style, or does the fault lie elsewhere? Should nor care about my reputation and honour and let bygones be bygones or should I stamp on libel and rumour or expose wooly group thinking based on collective paranoia?
My block on Swedish Wikipedia is based on false and libellous allegations that have no basis in fact. Sjö made these allegations and I have no recollection of doing what he accuses me of and can find no trace in the record.
As for me not contacting Sjö on his English Wikipedia talk page, I will do whatever is best for the community and for Sjö. Does he want me to talk behind his back, or isn't it fairer to operate with transparency? I would like to give him fair warning that an examination of the grounds for my Swedish block is under way, and he is free to act in whatever way will reduce friction and aggravation for himself and others. RPSM (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Sjö to me on his talk page:
I didn't realise until you began posting on my talk page how deeply I have been affected by the controversy on Swedish Wikipedia. For my peace of mind, I ask you again: please do not contact me. Please don't post here on my talk page or even email me. I have avoided contact with you because it upsets me very much, so please don't contact me, not even to answer this post.Sjö (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)RPSM (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Does my block on Swedish Wikipedia depend on Sjö's emotions and instincts? RPSM (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No, but your respect for his emotions and instincts (and vice-versa) is required by WP:CIVIL. We are not here to discuss your behavior or the reasons for the block in Swedish wikipedia, we are here to discuss the issues between the two of you here (My Swedish is awful, I can barely read definitely not speak, and it is based on my only slightly better knowledge of Bokmal and Nyorsk, so I have requested one of the Stewards for assistance to interface with Swedish wikipedia and see what is going on). So for now, the entire background of the situation is to be ignored, and the present situation addressed:

  1. Unless diffs are provided otherwise, it seems to me that Sjö has been civil with you, and that in there is nothing in this user's behavior that needs to be addressed in this sense
  2. The appropriate guideline to follow in this case is Wikipedia:USERTALK#Editing_of_other_editors.27_user_and_user_talk_pages and the sections in WP:TPG it links to. As you can read there, it is usually a good idea to generally honor a request not to edit another user's talk page - unless there is administrator action or some other actual content issue or warning needed. In addition, the actual editing is subjected to all of our policies and guidelines.
  3. From reading the thread, it is clear to me the talk page was being used to discuss matters not related to editing or ongoing situations in En-Wiki. As such, you have no legitimate reason not to honor the request to stop posting in the talk page of the user. However, Sjö must understand that there might be some cases when this communication might be needed in the future, in particular if both of you edit the same articles, so there is a difference between saying "I do not want to talk about this topic" and saying "do not ever talk to me" - one is a good request, the other can be seen as provocation, and actually counter-productive. However, if Sjö does feel there is merit, s/he can seek an interaction ban at WP:ANI - be advised however that this ban would be for the both of you.
  4. WP:NOTCENSORED applies only to article content, not user interaction - we can and regularly censor user comments in talk pages that are offensive to other users on a case-by-case basis, and those of a specially harsh nature are even deleted by admins, not just reverted.
  5. As per above, if you think that Sjö is a puppet, got to WP:SPI, but accusing a user of being a puppet without evidence is not a very civil thing, and can be a personal attack if not taken in a timely fashion to investigation.

Are there other matters to be addressed? If either of you want a neutral space in which to discuss the other issues feel free, but do not use the other's talk page for this purpose. In terms of the stuff on Swedish wikipedia, I will await response from the Steward.--Cerejota (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding point # 3: I understand your point and I agree that a request never to be contacted can be unreasonable. In my third post in the thread I was only trying to get the point across to RPSM that I didn't want him to continue that conversation. Sjö (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I refer to the thread on my user talk. I've been trying to help RPSM to be a better Wikipedian, since I failed to help him overturn his ban on Swedish Wikipedia. My heartfelt advice to him is to drop this pointless chasing of Sjo. I'd note that Sjo could offer some sort of apology / retraction / token at little cost to himself, but hey I'm an optimist, but I'm also an experienced Wikipedian who has found that gritting my teeth and apologising to people I may have upset usually ends up making us both feel a whole lot better. Main point: RPSM, just leave him alone. This behaviour is not going to help you in the way you want it to anyway - (ie getting reinstated on Swedish Wikipedia) in fact, quite the opposite. --Dweller (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I think I can have misquoted from the Swedish text and put words into Sjö's mouth. I haven't checked this. In that case, Sjö will think I am accusing him of sockpuppeting, I wasn't doing that intentionally. It didn't occur to me that Stig Daniel might be a sock puppet. I didn't think Sjö would use a sock puppet as he is a stickler for form.
Secondly, Sjö's behaviour on the Swedish site is to bring the discussion back to things to be done eg "Where is that reference?" which is admirable and I commend him for it.
Thirdly, I was touched when Swedish editor Law told me that Sjö was genuinely upset and that is why I apologized to him. My apology still stands.
Fourthly, I bear no grudge against Sjö and wish him well and he may contact me about anything he desires and I will do my best to help if I can.
My primary concern was to reduce the POV I was showing inevitably in the writing of articles. Judaism is only one of my interests. It was the deficit in basic knowledge shown by the source material (eg the Swedish Department of Agriculture, Jordbruksverket has published a paper stating that Jews cannot eat the hindquarters of animals because they are unclean. This is not true. The Department of Agriculture did not bother to co-opt Jewish or Muslim expertise and this source was regarded as authoritative, and the error was repeated in various newspapers. (The Telegraph carried the same error. It was corrected there, but not in Swedish.)
My interest in editing in Swedish is because my Swedish is bad, and editors like Sjö have a high level of Swedish.
One difference between the English and Swedish sites is that there is no banner heading that forbids discussion of the article's subject, so every two or three years someone appears who says: "Let's get down to basics. Is religlious slaugther cruel or not? This was Dmn db in Swedish last time round and kicks in with "I think it would be a happy death if I had a steel bolt through my head. An earlier example was that Jewish slaughter is disgusting, like female genital mutilation. (These examples are just to show the depths of the discussion, nothing to do with Sjö) These debaters made no contribution to actually editing, but were hijacking the talk page to have a discussion on the article's subject. That's ok up to a point, but then when I provide a link to an article on antisemitism in Sweden, the discussion switches to my home discussion page, and an angry Dmn db starts off I will have you know, I am not an antisemite, damn you!
Sjö, acting as referee, says: You are not to call other people antisemites.
The situation is analogous to a football player rolling over in the dirt calling "Foul!" when the referee wasn't looking.
Another difference between English and Swedish is that on Swedish WP, you are not permitted to erase anything on your home page even if it derogatory, and even if there is cyber bullying going on. If I could have acted there as Sjö has acted to me (Kindly go away, I do not wish to speak to you.) or even erase side issues it would have helped. (On the other hand, administrators are allowed to come along and edit as they please on my Swedish talk page). Gradually and inevitably it became a collection of derogatory remarks about religious slaughter. Religous Slaghter is not my prime interest in life.
Grillo the blocking editor on Swedish WP did not introduce himself as such, but said as a new anonymous person that he thought that animals should be put to sleep first before cutting their throats (discussing subject matter). When I argued against it, the following exchange ensued.
Grillo You called me an antisemite!
RPSM I did not.
Law You seem to think that anyone who supports the law (the Swedish law effectively banning Religious Slaughter) is an antisemite.

This last remark I take as a bridging tactic to calm the waters. (But it so happens the remark appeared in a newspaper debate in Sydsvenska Dagbladet I discovered.

Then it turns out, Grillo is blocking administrator on the Swedish site. He has two hats: one is complainant, (injured party) and the other as policeman, judge and jury.

I got a blocking warning from Grillo in 2007. at the same time, he erased something on the discussion pages of the article Skäktning (Religous Slaughter). He points this out in the text himself.

Finally, I thoroughly sypmathise with Sjö's report that he is feeling sick to the stomach of the whole thing (that he is emotionally affected more than he imagined). I have gone through this too. No real effort to see that there are two sides to this thing. Ostracising and banning is not the real solution. RPSM (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I must have quoted an unidentified editor who did not log in with a profile and so showed up in red [Stig Daniel] by mistake thinking it was Sjö. I haven't time to check. I did not accuse Sjö of sockpuppeting. This is another inference he is making himself. These logical jumps without referring back to the source (me) lead to the well-known phenomenon of whispering in a circle. The game is that a message is whispered to your neighbour who whispers it in turns around the circle. Then the final message is reported and it differs enormously and unrecognizablly from the original. Finallly, each member of the game reports what they heard and understood and the small changes building one on the other can be identified.
This is why I, as person being complained about was called in here. Sadly, the conversations parallel to this on the Swedish site took place begind my back. Therefore, I suggest two changes in routine on the Swedish site: 1) That a banner demanding no discussion of the subject matter of the article be introduced, as on the English site 2) calling the person complained about to hear and respond to accusations, as here. RPSM (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I am blocked permanently until further notice on the Swedish WP. But there is unfinished incomplete material there, in particular the article Shechita (the Jewish method of killing animals for food). There are five forbidden movements of the knife when slaughtering, and I have not arrived at Swedish terms for these. My question to Sjö was if it would be forbidden for me to contact a friend who would put these in for me. Otherwise, there is no point in the Swedish article. No one else is editing there. If that is not the correct way to do it, what is the recommended procedure? There are also references I was asked for to a statement in the text, where the Professors at the Swedish Veterinary College declared Jewish Slaughtering to be humane and not cruel in 1925 (commissioned by the Swedish government. Perhaps I was being provocative asking him, but I was not aware I was inferring he was sockpuppeting - that is simply a misquote I made (I think). My apologies (again). RPSM (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I have looked at Stig Daniel again. he wrote [12] (in Swedish)
Jag har påbörjat en städning av referenserna där jag i ett första steg redigerar befintliga referenser till wikipediastandard och försöker att räta till döda länkar. hittills har jag hunnit titta på de nio första referenserna. Jag tar inte bort några referenser utan föregående inlägg under den här rubriken--Stigdaniel 4 april 2011 kl. 16.56 (CEST)
I have started to clean up the references where initially I edited the references up to Wikipedia standard and tried to fix dead links. So far I've managed to go through the first nine references. I will not delete any references without first mentioning it under this heading here (signed) Stigdaniel 4 april 2011
This sounds like a serious editor who just came and then up and went leaving his signature name red. I don't think it sounds like a sockpuppet, but I'm not sure. If Sjö thought I was accusing him (Sjö) of sockpuppeting it would be because I quoted Stigdaniel by mistake attributing it to Sjö by mistake. Not intended. It was a slip up.
A good result would be for Sjö to realise that I mean him and others no harm, and to assume that I am in good faith. RPSM (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
@RPSM: As I understand your posts, the conflicts on sv-wiki has caused you distress as well, and I'm sorry for the part that I have played in that. It seems that I didn't get my meaning through to you and I could, perhaps, have been more specific in my posts.
Regarding what has been said or not said on sv-wiki, I don't want to discuss that. This is not the place for it, and I don't think that much good would come out of it in the end. Let's just agree that we don't agree on what has been said there, shall we?
As for the sockpuppetry, I accept your explanation that you misstook Stigdaniel's post for mine. Those things happen. However, you wrote "I did not accuse Sjö of sockpuppeting. This is another inference he is making himself." I think that you could consider that there are other ways of making accusations than writing them directly, like "You are a puppetmaster". Even the more roundabout way in which you wrote about Stigdaniels' post was taken by both Cerejota (IIUC) and me as you saying I used a sockpuppet.
You ask if a friend could add some text to the Swedish Shechita article. Maybe I'm not the best person to ask, but my take on it is that if the person is comfortable with making the edit as his or her own, and if he or she is upfront about your involvement, then it will be no big problem. The best thing to do is to ask at the Swedish article's talk page or maybe at the Village Pump sv:Wikipedia:Bybrunnen.Sjö (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Moni3

I've given myself time to cool down, and after careful consideration, I still think Moni3 has gone far beyond acceptable behavior on the discussion page for Roy Orbison and elsewhere. We could have had a simple but civil dispute over POV, but he instead launched into accusation immediately. When user Binksternet tried to come to my defense, he accused us both of failing to read the source material, although, significantly, he had no reason for making this assumption (which, by the way, was a false one). Furthermore, Moni3 also went on an attack, more or less arguing that he was above Wikipedia rules regarding POV and ownership attitudes because he had contributed much to Wikipedia in general and to the article in particular, and that the POV language was simply "better writing" -- an argument as invalid and subjective as the edits we were arguing over in the first place.

I realize that the argument got heated on both sides, but Moni3 had no interest in civility from the get go. He made an accusation starting with his first edit, then argued that the rules don't really apply to him as long as, in his judgment, it's "good writing," and then, just to make sure there was no civility at all, he launched into a profanity-filled diatribe on his userpage, where he called me an "asshat." I did not go to his userpage looking for trouble, I went there to try to sort out our differences, as I thought we're supposed to do, but once you get into name-calling and foul language, it's clear to me that all hope for rational discussion has been lost.

Since then, he has replaced his userpage's content with a disclaimer that he is "semi-retired" but he continues to edit the article that was under dispute. However, the page history still reveals his profane language and name-calling.

I'm not claiming to be an angel in this incident, but I certainly didn't deserve such treatment. Moni3 is an administrator, which, I understand, Wikipedia allegedly holds to a higher standard. Does this standard include groundless accusations, name-calling, swear words, and a policy that the administrator is above the rules? If so, Moni3 is a shining example. Minaker (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Please provide WP:DIFFS providing examples and notify Moni3 you wish to have a discussion here. Gerardw (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I would think that this is the "profanity-filled diatribe" mentioned in the WQA. There's certainly some foul language, but to me, it seems more of a cri de coeur from an editor in despair than a profanity-filled diatribe.—S Marshall T/C 17:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
It's also from July 28. You posted a WQA about something from a month-and-a-half ago? LadyofShalott 18:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Have you read the sources yet, Minaker, after a month and a half? Are you still insisting that the article is POV without having read the sources? Can you help me follow that rabbit-trail of logic? Btw, I placed the vacation and semi-retired tags on my talk page long before you ever made it there. --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Moni3, when the POV template was added to Roy Orbison, you removed it with a dismissive edit summary. Four days later, a conversation began on Talk:Roy Orbison. You posted this on 4 August. Was this your first talk-page contact with Minaker?—S Marshall T/C 21:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Right around never. I didn't even know who put the POV template on the article when I posted my impassioned...whatever it was...on my talk page in response to another editor. --Moni3 (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

S. Marshall: You're right, "profanity-filled diatribe" may be an over-statement. I guess I was distracted by the use of the word "asshat," which was clearly directed toward me, and the phrase "fuck off, dumbass, which was aimed at me and others who have disagreed with Moni3 in the past.

Lady of Shallott: After reading the "asshat" rant, I gave myself and Moni3 time to cool off, advice I got from Wikipedia a long time ago. If it seems petty to bring it up again, it's not just out of a grudge, but Moni3's rant includes a fierce defense of taking ownership of articles, and also includes reference to the fact that this is a recurring problem for him. He refuses to discuss it further, as evidenced by the above-referenced quote, "I don't know how to respond anymore to this than "fuck off, dumbass"'.

Moni3: I read the sources you're referring to before I even made the edit. You never had any reason to assume I didn't read the sources, except for the fact that you apparently jump to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with you must be uninformed. And the disagreement also does not excuse name-calling and personal attack, which are both expressly forbidden both on Wikipedia and in polite society. Minaker (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I feel that Moni3 and I have both already devoted too much energy and time to this, so I'll let the Wikipedia community decide who's right, who's wrong, and how we both can avoid such conflict in the future. Can I please request that if anyone -- I mean anyone other than Moni3, who is a bit too close to this to think objectively -- has any advice for me in terms of how I should or should not have handled this, can you please post it on my talk page? I don't want to waste any more time on the conflict itself, but I would like to learn from it. Thanks. Minaker (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ask what's going on before posting unnecessary templates on articles is my first suggestion. Use the talk page of the article. Read what's been going on among the editors on the talk pages. See if there has been someone working on it. Also, I don't promote owning articles. My point is that Wikipedia does. I dislike being accused of owning articles, but at this point, I just accept that disconnect. I don't think it's unwarranted to expect editors working on an article to be familiar with what the sources say. Apparently that means I own articles. Editors don't read the sources and don't communicate what they don't understand on the talk pages. They act (I've encountered this numerous times--enough for me to write about it) and expect someone else to clean up templates or other messes they create. If you've read the sources, you've not exhibited that in the talk page discussions. That might help: to discuss them in detail.
Also, I have officially rescinded your asshat crown. You are no longer designated an asshat. Don't be sad. I know that leaves a void in your life. I suggest taking up crochet or collecting spoons to compensate. --Moni3 (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Minaker, I concur with your position. POV is about the way an article is written, sources are about the facts in it. So Moni3's statement that you can't evaluate POVness with personally reading all the sources is silly. Additionally it's easy not to own articles, you just take them off your watch list. And certainly his name calling and taunting is not within the intended spirit of civility and NPA. Unfortunately maintenance of civil standards is a weak point of WP. As far as proceeding:
  • As noted by Lady of Shallot, the time lag of Moni3's remark make support from a forum such as WP/ANI unlikely. You could write a RFC/U but it's a lot of work for what probably isn't much benefit.
  • If you want to make changes to Roy Orbison you'll need to go through the talk page and have a thick skin. RFCs can be helpful when dealing with unreasonable editors.
  • Easiest would be simply to edit elsewhere. Gerardw (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Wat? "POV is about the way an article is written, sources are about the facts in it." You don't seem to understand what the POV policy is. "The way an article is written" is quite vague and doesn't seem to express any specific issue. Specifically, the NPOV policy means the article accurately summarizes the best reliable sources and alternate viewpoints from reliable sources are given due weight in the article. If sources present information they indicate is relevant to the topic, it should be included. You seem to be promoting the idea that accessing sources to ascertain if the language in the article is not neutral is unnecessary. How can you possibly justify that intellectually? Why is this such a pandemic and systematic attitude on Wikipedia, a site that is completely dependent on the sources it uses for its information? I've already assumed it's just plain laziness...maybe you have different insight into this. I simply do not understand how you or any other editor has any faith in this approach. Hence my frequent and well-hewn language, so expressive, so colorful.
And an RFC/U for this? Wat again? You guys are nuts. But hey, today it's entertaining. Bully for you. --Moni3 (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
"was an American singer-songwriter, well known..." well-known by whom? Americans? Americans of a certain age? English speaking folks on the Indian subcontinent? That's fanboy non-encyclopedia prose.
By your logic, I could find an obscure source on Orbison which you haven't read, change the article, and then claim you're not qualified to have an opinion on POV.
Of course we're nuts. We waste time working on WP for crappy pay. We're all nuts.
The site is not completely dependent on sources. It's dependent on editors -- the sources don't cite themselves onto wiki pages. Therefore asshole behavior hurts WP just as much or more than less than perfect articles.
It's not particularly expressive. Emily Dickinson is expressive.
RFCU is an option for Minaker. Didn't say it was a good one, ("probably not much benefit"). Gerardw (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Rather than an RFCU, this seems a case for WP:DRN or WP:MEDCAB, because of the content issues are intermingled with behavioral issues. We should focus on the content, not the editors.--Cerejota (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that although I wrote the bulk of Orbison's article that others have made changes to it, including the tidbit you pointed out, right? If you do not understand the passage in question, or think that it might benefit from being improved, by all means suggest it on the talk page. I did such a thing at Ricky Nelson's talk page here (ended up changing the info myself a few days later when no one responded), and again here at Emmett Till's, where I eventually rewrote the article. A collaborative encyclopedia is defined by the fact that editors collaborate, hopefully with some common goal in mind. I work under the impression that improving articles should be the common goal. I'm so often met with the exact opposite of this that I'm flummoxed and frequently frustrated.
By my logic, I hope you would join with me in discussing what the best sources say about Orbison, his life, his music, and its impact. The most fun I ever had at Wikipedia--and the most satisfaction--was working with editors who were fully invested in the material, willing to discuss the sources at length, and found it a pleasure to do so. Anyone who can read and is interested enough to access the best reliable sources about Orbison and his life is fully qualified to discuss the content of this article. Anyone who either has not read the sources or refuses to discuss what they say and how it is summarized should gracefully decline to comment or place templates on the article until s/he can familiarize himself with the sources and discuss them. If you find a source I haven't read, bravo. Seriously. I'll do my best to find it. Then let's talk about it.
Site's not completely dependent on sources? Is it? Is it your approach that no matter what weird oddball stuff someone places in an article, that's more important than what sources say? Because editors are more important than sources? Because they're not. Ask anyone who's been blocked indefinitely. ArbCom or the disgruntled masses at Wikipedia Review should be able to give you a long list of names.
Emily Dickinson once told a preacher in Amherst to eat a burlap sack full of genitalia so large he would explode and rain penises all over the town. No, wait. I might have made that one up. Still, expressive and fun. --Moni3 (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall saying editors are more important than sources. Both are necessary conditions. Your counterexample regarding Dickinson merely emphasizes how pedestrian, and unexpressive, "fuck off dumbass" is. It's also uncool to direct it to your fellow editors, regardless of how lazy you may perceive them to be. Gerardw (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
When I got up this morning, I says to myself, I says, "Self, today, among all days, is the day you will finally become pedestrian and uncool." Thank you, Gerardw, for confirming that my long-held dream has come true. This truly is a place where magic happens. Also, Jesus favors me. Also, I don't care about your standards. Sad, in some ways, because I used to. But over the years I encountered so many editors who just simply don't give two shits enough to read the sources and wish only to impart their own nutty personal viewpoints in articles despite what has already been cited and well-provided by reliable sources that I have realized that I've ensconced myself in a community rife with sloth and inertia. Had you taken one more nanosecond to read the full comment diff on my own talk page that struck such a chord in Minaker's soul, you should have comprehended that I dislike being at the stage where all I can respond with is "fuck off, dumbass". Also, that I was responding to an editor who emailed me to make sure I saw the changes being made to an article. Get that. Someone emailed me to make sure I was going to fix it. I'm trying to take time away so I don't tell someone to fuck off, and someone else is unable to make simple changes to an article, so infantalized are they by this system. If you can find an instance where I have directed that toward another editor, I would like to offer you Minaker's new spoon collection as a reward.
At any rate, civility is irrelevant. Not for you, perhaps, not now. But for me it surely is. Shame me further if you must, but I have no idea who you are and your admonishments are meaningless. You might do better to save yourself the effort. Spend a couple weeks or months writing an article. Then watch what happens when someone comes along and puts up a POV template without explaining why... Then do that for 5 years...and 30 articles. --Moni3 (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Wesley Mouse causing trouble in WP:MEDCAB

Users
Articles
Initial comment

I started the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/28 July 2011/Games for Windows to help resolve a dispute. In the second proceeding (yes, there was a first), User:Wesley Mouse proposed himself for mediation. When asked me to express my consent, I refuse to accept his mediation and requested another person. Apparently, this "No" answer was very hard for this user: Since then he has launched a full-scale personal attack against me, accusing me left and right of being impolite, gaming the system, backbiting me in other people talk pages (see User talk:Mr. Stradivarius) and even threatening me in MedCab! There is only one person in the MedCab page that has commented on the contributor instead of the contribution and that's him. In the mean time a mediator is supposed to be neutral and keep a cool head in heated discussions, not to launch a nuclear warfare of his own!

I start the MedCab case to resolve a very small problem peacefully and now I have a major problem. Someone please get this guy off me. Fleet Command (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Wes has approached me for advice, and I have responded. In short, I have advised that he move on to another case. If he carries out that advise, as far as I can see, the issue will be settled. CT Cooper · talk 18:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to counteract the accusation being made here by User:FleetCommand. On checking further into User:FleetCommand's own etiquette, then it would appear that he indeed uses similar "off-handish" and deceitful tactics against other users, even when they are providing reasonable explanations, in the same manner as he has done towards myself. This alone, shows that Fleet Command uses under-handed tactic towards other administrators, and "talking down" to them, even when they are offering what appears to be constructive and helpful advice. It hasn't been a case that I take "no" for an answer; on the contrary I have accepted the users personal choice to decline my offering of mediating the disputed case. However, when the user states there is no personal reasons for declining (as shown here in this diff), only to contradict that reason with accusations of me being "un-neutral" and incapable of carrying out mediation (see this diff); then it is perfectly reasonable to ask for the user to provide reasons to back-up their accusation. In the initial medcab case, Fleet Command, asked for 3 different users to add their input into what URL should and shouldn't be used. At that time I offered reasonable suggestions both for and against the case (as shown in this diff). In response, Fleet Command then goes on to state that he had now received what he wanted, in being 3 points to place a dispute into his favour, above others. Even though all parties involved hadn't provided their say (as shown in this diff), therefore a reasonable consensus hadn't been reached in order to satisfy a peaceful resolution. I continued to monitor the article talk page to see if I was wrong; only to find that the dispute had escalated into a 3-way editor slanging match, to which I had serious concerns for all users involved. It was at that stage that I sought advice from User:Mr. Stradivarius, and he agreed that it would be appropriate to reopen the medcab case, as the dispute had flared up again.
Several times I have asked Fleet Command to explain his accusations towards my personal abilities, and each time I get fobbed off with more insults, rather than answer what is a reasonable request. As User: CT Cooper has rightfully pointed out, I got to the stage of seeking a second set of eyes, to make sure that nothing untoward was being done by anyone involved, before I decided to step down as mediator and close the case on grounds of clear time-wasting editors, and not allowing them to assist others to find common grounds to work peacefully as a team. However, as Fleet Command has submitted this complaint before I even had chance to read CT Cooper's response, then again underhanded tactics are being launched at myself from the aforementioned, and not allowed me to pursue my course of action. Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Removed comment restored. CT Cooper · talk 20:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. You're an angel. But my nerves are fried. I don't think I care about the case anymore... At least not right now.
One strange point though: No one had previously told me that MEDCAB is not supposed to supply outside input. In fact, admins have previously told me otherwise. Fleet Command (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Well those admins must have been confused. The central page at WP:MEDCAB states "We facilitate communication and help parties reach an agreement without imposing sanctions or making judgments.", and the mediator for a case I was involved in made clear that he was not going to make rulings on content. CT Cooper · talk 19:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
No, they are not confused. I checked with one of them and he pointed out that there is no distinct borderline between mediation and supplying outside input, those purely supplying outside input is not mediation. And please don't call other people confused. This is an offense. Fleet Command (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Any reason why my response to this (as shown in this diff) have been removed? Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly a mishandled edit conflict? You can restore the comment if you want. However, I have a question for you, why someone who just joined wikipedia want to go into MEDCAB right away? Usually MEDCAB volunteers are either admins or non-tools experienced users. There is no rules that prohibit you from doing this, but I just wonder why? --Cerejota (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Not sure. I completely missed the comment because it was quietly removed, so I have now restored it on the presumption that it was an accident. CT Cooper · talk 20:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring that on my behalf Cooper. In reply to Cerejota's question, even though it appears that I have joined recently, I have been assisting on another project via my IP address for quite a while. Its was only a few weeks ago that I decided to become more active and create a user account for myself. I have been involved in mediation cases on other websites, as well as in real life; and it was only through checking on a medcab case that I was involved in, that I felt it be good to assist in one myself as a mediator. You only need to check my user page, to see a barnstar in appreciation for dissolving a dispute peacefully, which that itself gave more confidence to tackle a med-case on here, especially with my personal expertise in such background of work. In my opinion, a mediator needs to be a good listener, but also provide advice and suggestions wherever necessary; so that disputers can find common ground to get along with each other, and work as a team. I hope this answers your question. Wesley Mouse (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I propose FleetCommand strike the comment "For one thing, he has certain misconceptions regarding the status of the case and for another — well, I do not mean to offend — he does not seem to have the merit of neutral mediator," Wesley Mouse withdraws from mediating cases involving FleetCommand and we consider the issue resolved. What that satisfy the involved parties? Gerardw (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I second that proposal by Gerardw, and if possible a formal apology for falsely accusing me of various things, to which I provided the "diffs" for in my above statement. Wesley Mouse (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Wesley, take a look at m:Metapedianism and also, m:Association of Metapedianist Wikipedians, because you seem to be right at home there :)--Cerejota (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether to treat that as a compliment or being pedantic; today has been a long one, and sleep deprivation is starting to kick in I think. I'll take a proper gander at those with fresh eyes in the morning though if that's OK with you!? Or perhaps a better explanation into the orientation and meaning of that group would be gratefully appreciated. Thanks = Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Totally a compliment. Metapedians are extremely important in my view.--Cerejota (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Requesting an apology implies an admission of guilt, which is not conducive to peaceable closure of the disagreement. Striking the offending phrase should be sufficient. Gerardw (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I suppose a strike-through, by revoking a statement, is a form of apology in its own way. That's perfectly fine. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment Cerejota, if its OK with you, I'd like to take some time to ponder over your suggestion. I do like contributing to some projects that are dear to me; and would wish to continue in those; as long as that is possible as well as dealing with this Metapedian thing. On a different note, I would like to point out that FleetCommand is still using underminded tactics to stoke up a fire which was being dealt with. To accuse me of backbiting, only for he to be doing exactly the same thing but on a worse scale is bang out of order (please refer to this diff), and is highly uncivil, even for a user who has been a member of Wikipedia for a long time. If it was a new user, then it would be understandable, as a newbie wouldn't be familiar with policies and etiquette; but an older user to deploy such tactics is despicable. What ever happened to lead by example? Its becoming more of a case of "do to those what you wish to be done to yourself". I would appreciate that these types of actions being done by FleetCommand be investigated, before more harm and upset is done. Wesley Mouse (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Hold it right there buster. I have never posted anything to Qwyrxian about you, so stop trying to put words into my mouth that haven't been said. And as for striking out my comments above... why? I am well within my rights to provide evidence, if I find that a user is being unjustified and using evading tactics to hide the fact that they are clearly trying to twist words to make themselves look like the injured soul. You first told me to leave you alone, only to ignore your own request by firing up this in here in the first place. If you are to deploy a tactic of "let it drop", then you should do just that. I'm surprised that nobody has seen the devious ways before now to be honest with you, and it is shameful that any person can behave in such despicable manners; especially when editors are suppose to set an example of etiquette for newbies to follow. Now for the last time, leave me well alone, and I shall return the same gesture. Wesley Mouse (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

    • You just broken your record of number of lies in one post. And you just called me "buster" which is a direct insult.

      Yes, you have commented on Qwyrxian and your denying it is a shameless lie. You must strike that comment unconditionally. Not anyone that comes near me should be offended because you hate me.

      As for your other comments, I have told Steven that "you have taken it as a serious insult". If my statement is true, then what is you objection? If it is not true, then all you instances of accusing me of personal attack must be removed outright and you must apologize, while I am not required to strike any comment of my own since you have not been offended. Fleet Command (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

      • Please show the diffs from Qwyrxian's page that shows I have said anything to him about you. There are none, as none have been posted. Any diffs that I provided in my statement are well within my rights as a person to provide such details for my side of a dispute. I'm sure if those pieces of evidence where uncalled for, then someone of more authority would have said so by now. And as that doesn't appear to be the case, then my evidence stands. How do you expect anyone to put down their side of events without using evidence? And an apology? As Gerardw rightfully pointed out, by requesting an apology implies an admission of guilt, which is not conducive to peaceable closure of the disagreement. Again, you have clearly shown that by "letting it drop" means to continue to goad a person in an almost bullying manner, just to get a winning result. And as for the term "buster", you may or may not know, but it is a term of jovial gesture from my part of the world; it is like saying "hold on to your horses, so that one can give their side of events".
        • Don't pretend dumb. I never said you commented on Qwyrxian's "page". Inanimate objects like "Pages" do not take insult. You commented on Qwyrxian's communication right in this page, in your original communication. Remove it. And yes, I want an admissions of guilt, since you are guilty. I do not tolerate your dragging of my friends into cross-fire. And "buster" means "an angry idiot", everyone knows that. Otherwise, you and your dialect must be from a very tiny island. Fleet Command (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Notice to Cerejota and Gerardw; I have clearly asked for Fleet Command to leave me alone, and I will leave him to his own devices; yet it is prominent to see that this request is too difficult to grasp for some people. I would kindly appreciate that this user be told officially to leave me alone, and continue with his own work. Thank You - Wesley Mouse (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


I'm not seeing evidence from either editor of behavior conducive to a mutually agreement settlement.

  • FleetCommand. Complaining about indenting? Providing a diff which is of CT Cooper's post? Really?
  • Wesley Mouse -- you reference "newbie" above and yet wish to act as a mediator? While I have no experience in the mediation process, I'd expect mediators to be editors who mitigate wikidrama. I'm not seeing evidence of that.

Note that I have no authority to tell an editor anything. If you wish the other to leave you alone, just leave them alone. I've never seen that fail to work. First person to walk away "wins." Gerardw (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Aha? And why is the post is signed "Wesley Mouse"? How about this diff? Remove comment against Administrator Qwyrxian. He is a good admin and has nothing to do with this. Then I will walk away. Fleet Command (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I had to restore the post because FleetCommand removed it, under the presumed reason that it was an edit conflict that was not dealt with correctly. Please be more careful when dealing with edit conflicts in the future, as this has clearly caused a lot of confusion. CT Cooper · talk 10:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed the comment on Qwyrxian personally. As for dealing with edit conflicts, I will be more careful in the future. I will request a user with oversight right to irreversibly redact those comments. I am ready to walk away. But I am watching this page in case those comments came back. Fleet Command (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to remove the comments from the record at all, and other users can judge for themselves their validity. At the end of the day, if a user reports another user to a noticeboard, both of them should expect to be scrutinised. It is very unlikely they will be oversighted, per WP:OS. CT Cooper · talk 11:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow. This edit is amazing. Fleet Command, did you really just remove the following:
On checking further into User:FleetCommand's own etiquette, then it would appear that he indeed uses similar "off-handish" and deceitful tactics against other users, even when they are providing reasonable explanations, in the same manner as he has done towards myself. This alone, shows that Fleet Command uses under-handed tactic towards other administrators, and "talking down" to them, even when they are offering what appears to be constructive and helpful advice. [...] [Wesley Mouse] 19:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)]
and had the audacity to claim that it's a negative comment on an admin (Qwyrxian) rather than on you? Under normal circumstances I might have said that the removed passage was a bit too strong, but it's supported not just by the link within it, but now also, and very strongly, by your removing it with a deceptive justification. See WP:BOOMERANG. Hans Adler 12:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Assumption is the mother of all blunders. Fleet Command (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And you said boomrang, really, now. Maybe you believed all his lies about my committing personal attacks against him. Let's look back at how things unraveled from my point of view, now that we have Mouse's.

  1. At first, it was this: I arrived to see Mouse having struck out everyone's comment! It struck me as very impertinent and arrogant but I said nothing. I though to myself "come now, he is new around here; he does not mean to say 'I have the last and you are all dog food.' Cut him some slack." However, I knew that important tasks like mediation cannot be entrusted to inexperienced or unskilled. Therefore, I politely declined.
  2. 19:41: Mouse did not take the simple refusal. He asked for explanation.
  3. 19:45: While fixing Mouse's previous error, I left a polite reply as to why I had declined and requested another mediator. (Diff) I tried to be somewhat vague and not think of him as an arrogance person.
  4. 19:49: Mouse declined to step down. He alluded to edit warring and account blocks which was very strange because the case have been very peaceful.
  5. 20:12: Mouse sent this message on my talk page and tried to talk me into accepting the mediation.
  6. 20:45: I did not. I said that "without denying the fact that you are acting in good faith and actually mean to be and do what you said (i.e. being a neutral mediator), it still seems unlikely to me. If there is any consolation, I still believe that you can be a valuable involved party and we might as well use your valuable input. Besides, I believe that every single person on Earth is created unique and therefore, it is natural that any given person may not be suitable for absolutely all given tasks."
  7. 21:15: Mouse begun his personal attacks on me. He accused me of having accused him of lying. (He said "And I am disregarding your comment that any mediator would say they are lying about being "neutral"." Well, that's not disregarding, and that's not what I said.)
  8. 21:45: Mouse used harsher tone.
  9. 22:47: Mouse fired his second round of personal attack. He said "Now User:FleetCommand is declining my offer stating it "isn't personal", only to use personal attacks towards myself further down the MedCab page. I'm keeping a cool head and ignoring his sly comments, whilst maintaining professionalism in reminding the user to avoid such attacks and keep civil throughout the mediation process." It is funny however: I did not know that repeating the allegation of my so-called personal attack twice (once to me and once to a third person) is called "ignoring it"! Now, someone please point at the personal attack in my 20:45 comment above. I am sure there is none in it.

Next day...

  1. 12:15: I sensed danger and asked Steven Zhang to step up as a mediator.
  2. 14:31: Having spotted Mouse's comments on my talk page, MedCab page and Mr. Stradvarius talk page. I am not please at this time. Asked Mr. Stradivarius to step up if Steven did not.
  3. 14:57: Replied to his comment on my talk page. Having removed my displeasure from my speech, I made it clear that I do not accept his mediation one way or another. I kept all references to his recent backbitings out of my message. But I concluded that "I have already told you that I do believe in your intention of acting in good faith, that my decision to have another person as a mediator is not out of prejudice and that it is really a matter of skills and experience."
  4. 15:36: Mouse sent a double-edged message. He begun his message with an apology. But then proceeded to tell me that I must stop telling him to assume good faith ("It is important to avoid WP:AAGF")! (Well, I really like to see a diff of my telling him to assume good faith.) He also offered a truce the terms of which is my accepting him. (He didn't mention as what I should accept him, but I think you can work it out yourself!)
  5. 16:50: I am tired of playing with words in vain to be polite. I told him straightforward that I was not fighting him, that I never told him to assume good faith and that I would rather have an skilled mediator who can stay focused in heated discussion.
  6. 17:17: Mouse dropped all pretense and called me "highly confused, and prejudging a person without due cause" despite my previous denial of prejudice. He said: "You state that I am not skilled or experienced, yet you have not answered my question to provide your findings on such serious allegations. It is getting very clear that you are behaving in such a manner on the possible grounds that you won't get "your own way". And that should never be the case, and is showing signs of being a wiki-diva." And so on...
  7. 17:42: Enough is enough, I declared. If he goes on to any length to make me tell him what he already knows perfectly, then I will tell him!

To be continued... Fleet Command (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Did you or did you not claim that the passage you removed was directed against an admin? Was that true or not? Does anything on that long list excuse your dishonesty in removing the passage with the incorrect justification, yes or no? Hans Adler 13:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Too impolite; did not read. It appears that out of pure prejudice, you have already issued your verdict against me so much so that you do not even want to read. (I bet you did not read the diff either because it is longer.) And you go ahead and commit the crime of reinstating the offending contents, not to mention that you have the audacity to call me deceptive. I removed that comment because it IS offensive and I will do it again if necessary. Go ahead and request a block for me if you wish and can; do your absolute worst! I will sleep in peace knowing that I did my best to defend a fellow Wikipedian from collateral damage, even if I am blocked for eternity.
Look at yourself, you so-called Wikipedians: Your mediators spark new disputes and your etiquette-people are impolite beyond human comprehension. And your founding pillar of Wikipedia:Civility stands only to mock itself as the greatest sarcasm in the world. FYI, me and the VividNinjaScar almost reached a consensus, almost without a mediator.
I was "walking away". Please do not interrupt me again. Fleet Command (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, please stop persistently removing comments you personally dislike - other users have made clear there objections to it, and it is becoming highly disruptive. If you manipulate the comments of any more editors, or otherwise continue this disruption, yes, there is a very good chance you will be blocked. Given your above comments and this, perhaps we should continue this at WP:ANI. CT Cooper · talk 15:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I agree, the removal of comments by others, specially after repeated requests that this not be done, and in particular because they are comments directed at him in a DR board (not his user talk page or editor review) are indeed ANI reportable and will probably result in a block.--Cerejota (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by KoreanSentry

Users
Articles
Initial comment

User:KoreanSentry reverted my edit with an edit summary "Undid revision 449302007 by Phoenix7777 (talk) WTH is Ba-gua? reverted edit done by right wing Japanese"[13] without any reason of the "right wing Japanese". The user violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Please note I am not discussing the revert itself here. However the revert is unconstructive because Ba gua is clearly the origin of the South Korean flag[14] which I address later in the article's talk page. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's uncool. I've left request on KoreanSentry's page for them not to do that. Gerardw (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Initial response from named parties

Initial response from involved unnamed parties

Discussion

Comments from WP:WQA Volunteers

Please notify the user of this report, as you did for the report at ANI.--Cerejota (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I already did that. VanIsaacWS 10:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob and User talk:Bgwhite

Users
Articles


Initial comment

I've been bullied by him in the past and I will no longer be bullied. Inappropriate language and refusal to do anything beyond what he wants regardless. I know he is a problem child with all the ANI requests he gets, Bgwhite (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Initial response from named parties

  • Repeated bullying is a serious charge which you should either present a case of or retract. Bullied in the past, please post diffs of previous bullying. As I see - User Off2riorob has only ever posted to your talkpage today. diff also - calling someone a "problem child" is a bit personal and not a good start. Neither was you comment after I politely asked you why you removed the British English template that you replied - "there is only one English. And that is American-English as God intended" - that is so funny ho ho. Your first edit with your wiki AWBrowser was detrimental diff - it removed all the archive links and the archive search and the British English template. Off2riorob (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The reporter seems to have gone off editing, this looks like a drive by report to me. I suggest he retracts his rubbish bullying assertion and that this thread is closed for what it is - worthless peek because I pulled him up about his faulty AWBrowser edits. Off2riorob (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I have no idea why the User:Bgwhite editor came to an article I was working on and made this mess - why would they come there and revert war with me if they had previously been bullied by me, as I see it this User:Bgwhite was the instrumentalist in this escalation, for whatever reason only they know. I had to 3RR warn him before he backed off - (and I was polite to not expand the warning template). I had the 3RR report ready as well. Perhaps they are upset with me still about some previous issue which I don't remember, if they want to discuss and resolve that so it can be left in the past where it belongs, we can. Otherwise I am going to remove this from my watchlist - let me know If anything is presented such as evidence of repeat bullying, which the reporter should retract or present evidence of such a serious wiki crime. I think on line cyber bullying is actually a legal crime. No evidence shows its a a worthless attack on me anyway. Moving forward I will give the editor a bit of space or avoid them if I come across them. Thanks - goodbye. Off2riorob (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Initial response from involved unnamed parties

Discussion

  • I thought Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance was to help an editor deal with another editor and not a battleground. I thought somebody would actually look at the talk page and article before I made a comment on the behavior. Nobody wants to comment directly on what was said and help me on what to do? Instead, I get Off2riorob continuing his behavior. I get somebody else joining in, calling both of us idiots ("idiosyncratic" same root word as idiot and often used as an euphemism for idiot) and saying it is nothing ("Coffee Deficiency Event").
  1. I and others look at Category:Biography_articles_without_living_parameter for WikiProject Biography missing the living parameter. It is a required parameter. I haven't a clue on who edited the page as I bring the list up in AWB.
  2. I added the living parameter in. I removed collapsed=yes from WikiProjectBannerShell in accordance to Template:WikiProjectBannerShell and Wikipedia:Talk_page_layout#Lead (bannerspace). I also expanded out "WP UK Politics" according to policy. When I visit a talk page, I try and fill in everything that I can so another editor doesn't have to come around and do it. I removed also {{British-English}}
  3. Off2riorob undid my changes and contacted me, very nicely, about why I did {{British-English}}
  4. I redid the edit except for doing the {{British-English}} like he asked.
  5. Off2riorob responded, nicely, why I removed removed collapsed.
  6. I had been writing my response to Off2riorob when he replied. I did not see his message as I copied and pasted my reply that I was writing. I responded with "What? there is only one English. And that is American-English as God intended :)." Please note the smiley face. Trying to make a joke, however bad, is usually a persons way of lighting the mood, a way of saying "I'm good. I'm not tense". I told Off2riorob about the living and compressed. I left a TB on his talk page.
  7. Off2riorob responds with "Well just take your time dude. If I ask you to discuss what your doing don't go back to it and do it again. I don't give a fuck about god. - or if its only added mandatory if there are more than six also don't post talkback templates on my talkpage I can see messages.Off2riorob" Tell me, is Off2riorob's response a normal civil conversation? Does the response sound like somebody wants a conversation or is it him intimidating me on how it is and don't mess with it?
  8. I ask him to calm down and the response is "Stop fucking around then" Again, tell me is this a normal civil conversation?
  9. I redo the change again, with a comment on where the relevant pages in wikipedia are located.
  10. Off2riorob responds with a 3RR and "I as a local editor - want it collapsed - stop edit warring . thanks " How is the is 3RR? I only changed it twice after he first contacted me, with the first revert doing exactly what he asked about, {{British-English}}.
  11. Note, Magioladitis has since made the "WP UK Politics" change on the talk page...as I said other editors will come by and make necessary changes.
  12. The one thing I hate most is overt bullying. It's something I've come to abhor after dealing with Professors for years and the consequences it has on students and staff. I will not put up with it ever.
  13. Wikipedia:Harassment, "Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely."
  14. Bullying "Bullying is abusive treatment, the use of force or coercion to affect others" "Bullying consists of three basic types of abuse – emotional, verbal, and physical. It typically involves subtle methods of coercion such as intimidation"
So how do I respond? Have I been uncivil? How have I done 3RR?
I looked at ANI and Off2riorob is repeatedly mentioned in reports the last two years (both good and bad). This is not just about me... What happens next time Off2riorob goes off? Is bullying and intimidating behavior condoned? I guess I can tell people to fuck off, we are doing it my way, end of story and it is ok.
"Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance from other editors in resolving a situation." In asking for help, is getting called an idiot and brushed off normal? Bgwhite (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
No one called you an idiot. Your initial report did not provide diffs or sufficient justification to support your assertions about Off2riorob. As an aside, I was recusing myself from the role of neutral third party as I have had prior interactions with Off2riorob. It appears the crux of the conflict is whether a talk page banner should be collapsed or not? I'd suggest WP:3RD or WP:DRN for assistance on that. My suggestions for avoiding conflict:
  • Looking for dirt on the other editor (e.g. referencing past ANI postings) isn't helpful. Characterizing other editors as a "problem child" isn't helpful.
  • Avoid humor when discussing issues. "American English like God intended" could be offensive to both non-American English speakers and devoutly religious editors. Adding a wink emoticin doesn't make it okay.
Disagreeing with you is not harassment or bullying. Gerardw(talk) 07:26, 15 September 2011


[15] with the edit summary: clear out talk page. I'm done so everybody can go and FUCK OFF seems to me to indicare not only that this complaint lacks substantial merit, but that the user might well find his own words viewed in a less than favourable light. Collect (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

While ill advised, this was a response to a "fuck off" on the part of Off2riobob - lets not take things out of context. BgWhite certainly has not reacted well to people not sharing his view on this situation, but this is not a license to discard his valid points. As I said, the issue here is that neither of them are able to collaborate with each other, for whatever reason, and so they shouldn't. And if BgWhite strongly feels this process here is not productive, there are other DR forums and steps he can take. What both of them got to understand is that it is not ok to do these things in this way, no matter how injurious the offense: that is why we are a collaborative environment rather than a individualist one.--Cerejota (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I did provide the talk page and the history of the page in question...all the evidence that could be provided. I wasn't looking for dirt... I was looking if this was a one time incident, if so, I wasn't going to do anything about it, instead I found a pattern. This is not about the talk page, I don't care. This is not about working with Off2riobob. This is not about Off2riobob disagreeing with me... It's *how* he disagreed. This is about somebody using offensive behavior and intimidation to get their way and everybody seeming to be ok with this. Things I did in the initial report was wrong. You are right that I'm not reacting well.
So far people have told me (right or wrong) never to use humor as it is offensive, I can't vent feelings in the comments on my talk page, I should never have brought a complaint, I screwed up in how I reported the complaint... but someone telling me directly to stop fucking around, I'm going to do it my fucking way and report you as a 3RR even though it is not a 3RR is just fine and dandy? I feel like I got beat up by the school yard bully and the teachers are punishing me for complaining about getting beat up... I fully understand now, next time I will just take my collaborative beating. Bgwhite (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Your initial report was claiming harassment and bullying. I don't see evidence of that. I can find no evidence Off2riorob told you to fuck off - saying "I don't give a fuck" or "stop fucking around" is not the same thing. Note the top of this page clearing says "assistance may come in the form of volunteers suggest how you can improve your behavior to avoid conflict." 3RR warnings are giving for edit warring, so they should come before the 3rd revision. Gerardw (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
"stop fucking around" can be interpreted as a "fuck off" by reasonable people... lets not pile-on Bgwhite: I agree he over-reacted to the situation, but he didn't just do it out of the blue. The key here for all of the involved is that not everyone communicates in the same fashion, and we should be thoughtful both when receiving and giving communication, and also, when not to deal with certain people, because we cannot handle them.--Cerejota (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from WP:WQA Volunteers

  • First off, let me begin by saying that both of you are extremely valued, extremely productive contributors, and that in this sense, I invite both of you to reflect on this fact - if either of you gets in trouble, it will be a net loss for all of us. You are also both known to be, how can I say this nicely, idiosyncratic. If these are the only issues to report, it seems that this is a Coffee Deficiency Event and I propose we close this, that the issue of the talk page not be touched by either of you again, and that it is taken to the talk page for uninvolved discussion, perhaps with some canvassing in the involved WikiProject to get some eyes in. --Cerejota (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

MarshalN20 & Wee Curry Monster

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Marshall is an editor that has recently started commenting on the talk page of Falkland Islands. There is an ongoing discussion about how best to structure redirects and the disambiguation pages. Marshall's contributions to the discussion have not been helpful, he has accused other editors of bias and lack of neutrality whilst not providing a logical argument. Today he made a personal attack accusing me of acting out of revenge and bias [16] . I gave him a chance to apologise and instead he repeated the accusation [17]. This is a controversial topic and needs cool heads, Marshall seems intent on raising tension. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that you are making mountains out of molehills here.Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The only editor I have accused of lack of neutrality is you, and your exaggeration ("he has accused other editors of bias and lack of neutrality") is a lie.
Whoever evaluates this section can take a quick read of Wee Curry Monsters actions ([18]). From the start he pretends to be a neutral editor, attempting to sway the actual neutral editors to his side, when in fact he has been pro-redirect from the start of the discussion ("I also understand Apcbg's point and do sympathise with it", and "Weak Support Proposal to change the disambiguation"). How does he expect anyone to believe he is actually a "neutral editor"?
Finally, his question and statements:
  • "May I also ask you both a blunt question, whether you would be prepared to go to the es.wikipedia and argue for equal treatment of the English toponymy - something currently lacking?"
  • "yet you're not prepared to use your language skills to redress bias in other areas of the wiki project."
These statements show that his method of editing is based on revenge. His logic follows: "If web A does bad things, then web B should be bad as well." Revenge is the best word in the English language for this kind of attitude ("A tooth for a tooth").
As you can further see in the development of this discussion ([19]), he once again accuses me of a personal attack despite I have done no such thing. Instead, the discussion shows that my "logic" was indeed correct.--MarshalN20 | Talk 21:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
For the record I'm so biased and bent on revenge that I changed my mind based upon a logical argument and withdrew my proposal [20] (before Marshall posted the above). Further, Marshall did not provide a logical argument, rather his actions seemed bent on creating tension. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Repeating allegations of bias and revenge at WQA does tend to rather demonstrate he is unaware his approach is problematic and inappropriate at wikipedia. And further for the record, my comments referenced above stemmed from two editors accusing I and others of bias, rather than attempting to discuss the argument. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
It's funny how you dig your own hole. If other editors accuse you of bias, it means I'm not the only one who saw it. Your belief that you can decide what is a "logical argument" and what is not is also worth noting. Other editors and myself have presented relevant arguments to the discussion, but you kept discarding them (pretending to be the "neutral" editor) and questioned everything that went against your non-neutral position.--MarshalN20 | Talk 21:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Not seeing significant incivility on MarshallN20's part; except making claims about the relative standards of the es and en wikipedias is uncool. Wee Curry Monster, I'd suggest you refrain from using terms like "high horse" and " I would appreciate it, if you were to begin to assume good faith." In any event, it appears the dispute is settled and I'd recommend both parties drop the WP:STICK. Gerardw (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Good advice from Gerardw, but I'd also like to add that Marshal's comments, while not really uncivil, are still inflammatory and not productive. Marshal, I don't know if WCM is biased, but I totally understand what it's like to debate someone who you think is. And while it's tempting to just call them on it in the debate, that doesn't help. If you truly feel that way, handle it in the appropriate forum, because you can see what happens if you don't. But yes, for now, I would strongly recommend that both parties refrain from commenting about the other entirely. Focus on content, not contributors[1] and the discussion will go a lot smoother. Regards, Swarm u / t 02:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Gerardw's wise recommendation should be followed. I was not aware that WP:COINB existed, and I would have certainly raised the problem there had I known of it. While I understand why WCM raised the situation here (he doesn't see his actions in the same way that I do), what worries me is that WCM does not understand what he has done wrong and, therefore, will do it once again in the future. As you can see in this edit, [21], the lad accuses me of "insanity". Throughout the discussion he used a condescending tone, disregarded all opinions contrary to his own as "illogical", threatened to switch sides constantly, and badgered Spanish-speaking editors with the situation of the Spanish WP (using the "tooth for a tooth" idea, at least from my perspective, hence why I used the term "revenge"). I am not insane, and surely (as he notes) I was not the only editor who noticed his behavior. This is not meant to disregard my own actions, which I admit should have been better raised in the WP:COINB, but when you add up all of WCM's actions, his Wikiquette issues are actually worthy of consideration.--MarshalN20 | Talk 02:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed inappropriate, and I'm sure Dave would agree. This is only going to be resolved if both of you: A) acknowledge that you have acted inappropriately during disputes; and, B) pledge to refrain from continuing to make inappropriate comments in the future. If both of you are reasonable, you'll do that. Please sign below if you agree to these terms. Swarm u / t 03:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
If we had a structure, all of this would be easier to organize :)--Cerejota (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm willing to admit that my concerns over WCM's neutrality should not have been raised in the article's talk page, but rather in the WP:COINB. Aside from that, I commented on his actions, not on him as a person. I also pledge to use the WP:COINB in the future (I have tagged it as a "watchlist"), thereby avoiding raising inappropiate concerns in the talk page. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 04:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Asking a fellow editor for a sanity check on your interaction with another editor is not accusing them of insanity. How can allow him to spin a claim that I'm accusing him of insanity? Where is there any presumption of good faith here?

I am not biased, my edits follow NPOV and my comments stemmed from Marshall starting this interaction by accusing me and others of bias when we were discussing tweaking a disambiguation and redirect. Comparing with es.wikipedia didn't help, I acknowledge that. But from the outset MArshall demonstrated a complete lack of good faith and acted to create tension. What I find difficult to understand is how he can continue here and effectively get away with it. He's needlessly converted a reasonable discussion into a dispute with accusations of bias and personal attacks and gotten away with it. He'll do it again and regarding all the comments about dropping the stick, this guy is not going to modify his behaviour and really encouraging him to go to WP:COINB is very WP:BEANSy. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else you want. There's nothing wrong with pointing out a suspected bias in good faith; it simply needs to be done in an appropriate forum. Marshal has explained that they were unaware of this, they've acknowledged that their comments were not appropriate, and they've pledged to handle it in the correct way from now on. That is the best possible outcome. If Marshal is simply lying, as you suggest, and he continues to fling accusations of bias without handling it at WP:COINB in good faith, than it's time to request administrator intervention at WP:ANI, and you can cite this thread as a failed means of previous dispute resolution. Swarm u / t 10:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
@WCM, if you cannot see what other editors saw in your edits, then obviously a small problem exists and will continue to exist with any of your future edits. Of course, I cannot judge your future actions, but just be aware that your comments and behavior are also what caused this little incident (simply stating that it was my fault doesn't do away with what you did as well). What I would like to add is that I only raised my accusation on your edits, not on anyone else's edits, because you were the one that kept claiming to be the "neutral" editor despite (as you wrote) other editors had already stated that you were not. By exaggerating my actions, you are inadvertedly lying and making this problem bigger on yourself than on me. I hope someday you will understand why I raised the points I did in the discussion, and correct them before you end up getting into a bigger problem. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I would also like to add that WCM keeps beating the dead horse ([22]), despite being recommended to stop.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Marshal, WCM's remark was made over three hours ago and has since went off to take a break. Also, you might want to stop your rheotric of making personal remarks about others when you and your own behaviour are showing up on our radar like a brightly lighted christmas tree. Should there be sanctioning measures being implemented, it would become you getting the short end of the stick... so I'd strongly suggest that you go ← way while WCM goes → way. Knock it off before this becomes an issue on ANI. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
All of my edits have been in reference to his editing behavior/attitude, not him as a person. I find it strange that he takes them as personal, but it doesn't surprise me that you would defend his stance (I am completely aware of all the insults thrown on my person from both of you, including calling me an idiot once, idiot twice, and a lunatic). It's also interesting how I am the only one who has accepted my error, and yet the other user apparently has the right to go around beating the dead horse (it doesn't matter whether he did it 3 or 2 hours ago. What matters is that he did it after being asked to stop), and receive cheers for it. Of course, considering I like getting sanctioning threats and insults as much as any other insane person, perhaps I don't have a right to point these things out? Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(←) Marshal has handled this in an exemplary way, and I sincerely hope WCM is satisfied by their response, but I don't think there's anything more we can accomplish without pointless drama. Swarm u / t 17:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)}}

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive110&oldid=1143135763"