User:Smerus/souvenir

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Johannes Brahms. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''Your behavior in the talk page discussion does not appear aimed at constructive dialogue and appears to be intentionally provocative. I also note that you deleted the ANI notice with what appears to be a dismissive edit summary. This is not helpful. I suggest you strike the accusation of lying as it is rather obviously inconsistent with WP:AGF. '' Ad Orientem (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC) −
 * This warning is inappropriate and any such warnings should be directed equally at after a more complete review of his ANI complaint. More appropriate: Withdraw this undue warning and shut down the ANI thread.  SPECIFICO  talk  13:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

−
 * With respect, the warning is valid. Please take a look at the talk page history and consider how you would feel if someone undid your complaint with "fantastic", "yawn", "LOL", or "your citation is bullshit, so bring it, snowflake!".  These are not the hallmarks of civility. Hasteur (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

−
 * I stand by my cautionary note though I do agree that there was some blame to go around here, which point I have addressed at the ANI discussion. I would also note that this was not a block or a level 3 or 4 type warning. In short it is simply a caution about civility and AGF. Beyond which I also tend to agree that this is getting more mileage than it deserves. Unless there is something relevant to this discussion that has not already been said, I'm moving on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Liar
User:Kintetsubuffalo objected to an intervention I made in an article, and called me a liar. (See Talk:Johannes Brahms). As can be seen, I indicated to Kintetsubuffalo that this was against WP standards; Kintetsubuffalo then called me a liar again; I further requested Kintetsubuffalo to remove the word liar from his/her comments. S/he did not respond. I referred this matter to dispute resolution where the arbitrator decided "Closed as not an article content issue, at least not as presented. User:Kintetsubuffalo is warned that referring to another editor as a "liar", even if their statements are inaccurate, is a personal attack. Resume civil discussion on the article talk page. Report personal attacks at WP:ANI, but only if they continue." I accept this decision. However, Kintetsubuffalo's response on the talk page has been to escalate the situation by provocative remarks, and to leave the 'liar' statements. I don't care about the provocative remarks, but I am concerned about the 'liar' comments remaining on the talk page of the article (which btw I am working on and slowly trying to bring up to GA standard). I don't myself seek redress or action against Kintetsubuffalo, but I should be grateful if the unwarranted and excessive allegations against me as a 'liar' could be removed. I am therefore reporting this matter to WP:ANI as advised by the arbitrator at dispute resolutions ("report personal attacks if they continue"). Smerus (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Noting that Kint has removed the AN/I notice from their talk page so they've acknowledged that the discussion is taking place and have elected not to participate. Further I note the combative history of the user's talk page and agree that an official warning from an admin needs to occur indicating that the behavior (casual swearing, being incivil, not responding to complaints, etc) is unacceptable and must not continue per WP:CIVIL. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Warned Kintetsubuffalo about AGF and CIVIL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This complaint has a disturbing WP:BATTLEGROUND tone.  closed the DR with advice "Report personal attacks at WP:ANI, but only if they continue."  I don't see any evidence that the personal attack, to wit, calling Smerus a liar, has continued. Kintetsubuffalo made only one remark, again expressing his pique but stating that he's dropping the matter. No repetition of "liar".  So why the complaint here?  At the very least it can't hang its hat on Robert McClenon, who wisely closed the matter to avoid further recrimination at DR.   I think you've jumped the gun here and suggest you look into the related threads and give any warning equally to both editors. I edit that article page infrequently and it was a stupid nuisance to see this pop up on my watchlist with a childish edit war.  SPECIFICO  talk  13:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * With respect, the advice of was for me to go to ANI if personal attacks continue, not only if I was again called 'a liar'. And also, if I may, the comment made by  on Kintetsubuffalo's talkpage - "This warning is inappropriate and any such warnings should be directed equally at @Smerus: after a more complete review of his ANI complaint. More appropriate: Withdraw this undue warning and shut down the ANI thread" - seems rather to be prejudging the issue.Smerus (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly, and I say this as one who greatly respects your past contributions to WP, you did not take the time to write up a well-formed and fully documented complaint here that would have allowed this to be adjudicated without needless tail-chasing here at ANI. He made one final gotcha post expressing his resentment but I don't see where the "personal attacks continue" and if you have a diff that fits McClenon's bill then just post your evidence.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Well since there appears to be no one actually denying they are personal attacks and there is agreement it is a personal attack, would a third party admin follow WP:RPA or I will in 24 hours if Kinet hasnt. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, is it a personal attack if it's, you know, accurate? A little something Smerus left out. On the talk page, he wrote "Without explanation, User:Kintetsubuffalo has twice deleted from the photograph in the lead the words 'unknown photographer'...". Except that Kintetsubuffalo DID -- twice -- in the edit comments. --Calton | Talk 14:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While you're at it, consider what you'll do to show Smerus not to edit-war. This just needs to be closed and forgotten.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This situation feels very tempest-teacuppy to me. Namely:
 * 1) Kintetsubuffalo removed "photographer unknown" from a caption citing WP:MOS on captions.
 * 2) Smerus rolled back without explanation (which in itself is a violation of rollback, as the edit was not vandalism).
 * 3) Kintetsubuffalo reverted, calling out the rollback violation and stating that he had given a policy.
 * 4) Smerus rolled back again, with no policy but an opinion and command not to revert "unless you have evidence as to the name of the photographer".
 * 5) Smerus opens a talkpage discussion claiming that Kintetsubuffalo twice deleted "photographer unknown" "without explanation"; later adding "If s/he does have evidence of the name of the photographer, that would of course be gratefully received".
 * 6) Kintetsubuffalo reverted the caption again, again citing Manual_of_Style/Captions.
 * 7) cites WP:CAPTION on the talkpage, as advising against credits for their own sake.
 * 8) Kintetsubuffalo calls Smerus a liar (in bold) on the talkpage, stating that he had given an explanation and again citing Manual_of_Style/Captions.
 * 9) And so on and so forth, with Kintetsubuffalo responding to further comments "Or, you could just stop lying."
 * 10) Somewhere along the line it gets taken to DRN (by Smerus) and rejected.
 * 11) A bit more squabbling.
 * 12) Meanwhile, if anyone had bothered to actually look, the name of the photographer has been on the file since 2011.

In other words, just your basic Wikipedia squabble/mix-up that happens thousands of times a day. I think the worst of it was bolding the word "liar", but other than that, silliness all around, and best completely ignored. Kintetsubuffalo, you can defend yourself without calling other people liars. Just state the facts. Softlavender (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Softlavender, for stating the situation clearly. I don't dispute your analysis, or my own misjudgements. I simply seek a way of removing the inappropriate comment 'liar' being applied to me and remaining on view in WP.Smerus (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My two cents: I personally never respond to personal attacks, even when called a liar or worse, even if it's repeated. To me they simply do not exist, and I only discuss edits, not editors; I also do not use the word "you" or refer to other editors by name. The only thing that sets this particular case apart, in my mind, is that the word "liar" was bolded. Otherwise, this is all ignorable in my view (since it is not a repeated pattern across multiple pages over time). Perhaps Kintetsubuffalo could just unbold that word and we could all move on. Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Smerus, you are correct that Kintetsubuffalo should not have called you a liar. You were incorrect about (a) using rollback inappropriately, (b) saying something demonstrably untrue about another editor, (c) making snide comments about what he says on his user page, (d) making a smug-sounding semi-apology ("I am sorry that my error in this small matter is causing you such anxiety"), and (e) insisting that someone else should make the first move to decrease tensions, and only then will you do the same ("In this light, I cordially request you to remove from this page the comments where you label me as a 'liar', and I shall be glad to remove this comment, and, if you wish, my previous comment"). I'll let the reader decide which was more unimpressive.  If you'd like my advice, I suggest first striking thru your personal comments about KB (which you made before you were called a "liar"), make an actual apology, clarify that it was not a lie but inattention that caused you to say something incorrect, and then ask him to remove the word "liar" because it bothers you, and see what happens. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And: Please don't use a misrepresentaton of 's close to create a platform for your pursuit of this petty squabble. That may as well be retracted too.   SPECIFICO  talk  15:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been repeatedly pinged in commenting on my close of the DRN thread, but it appears that no one disagrees with my close, and that I have nothing to add. I agree with the comment that this is a tempest in a teapot, and with the analyses of User:Softlavender and User:Floquenbeam.  I don't understand why User:SPECIFICO is increasing the Beaufort force of the tempest, but it is still in the teapot.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Robert, you volunteered to offer your considered advice at the DR close and it was disregarded and this stupid ANI was presented as an instance of your recommended action. That was incorrect. I didn't say it was a lie but it was at least a careless incorrect statement. If you don't care, you could say so without the side snark.  SPECIFICO talk  18:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You have a legitimate complaint about some of the language directed towards you. To which end I have posted a cautionary note on Kintetsubuffalo's talk page. But I would also note that some other editors have brought up some shortcomings in your own conduct in this rather overblown affair. I'm not going to belabor them but I hope you will take their words on board and try to be a little more thoughtful when engaging with other editors. Beyond that the only thing I have to add is that it has been my experience that sometimes the better course of action is to just let things go, especially when the issue is so minor, or even trivial. Sometimes people get worked up and tempers can get short. With so many people and differing personalities it can be helpful to develop a thicker skin and ignore petty sniping. You might also want to take a look at WP:STICK. I have nothing further to add and I agree with SPECIFICO that this has gotten more mileage than it deserved. If someone wants to close it, I won't object. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)