Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive106

Check for uncivility and not adhering to AGF at Talk:Environmentalism


Please take a look at this discussion and see if user Viriditas did not adhere to WP:AGF and/or WP:CIVIL during the discussion which I have chosen to extricate myself from. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's quite a long discussion to be parsing for parsing policy violations. WP:DIFFs would be helpful. Gerardw (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Gerardw is correct: We need specific examples of comments that may be a problem (an easy way to do that if fiddling with diffs does not appeal is to quote some brief unique text such as the signature timestamp, so people can easily search for the comment). I just quickly skimmed Talk:Environmentalism and did not notice a WQA problem. There is a lot of discussion about a proposal to include something on "environmentalism as a religion", but in my quick skim I did not see any concrete proposal or uncivil commentary. AGF only goes so far—I did not see a comment accusing anyone of bad faith, and in the absence of a specific proposal (which I may have missed), the discussion seems unduly long. What specifically is an AGF problem? Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil conduct by User:Conte di Cavour


''General note: CrimsonBlack (signature) and GustoBLSJP (old username) are both User:CrimsonSabbath. Guoguo12 --Talk--  20:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)''

User:Conte di Cavour labeled my edits as "vandalism" and made personal attacks on his User talk:Conte di Cavour, even with my sourced, well discussed and impersonal arguments on Talk:Italy.

diffs    

diffs Talk: Italy    

CrimsonBlack 15:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As for what I remember, I only reverted some deletions by GuboBLSJP, because the user insisted to delete parts that are supplied with reliable sources. I never reverted the contributions of this user, nor made personal attacks. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am GustoBLSJP. I only deleted the redundancies and kept most of the text. Before my contribution, i stated on the talk page of the article various times. The idea proposed was not the appropriate. The data must be neutral. I always showed the sources.
 * CrimsonBlack 15:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * CrimsonBlack 15:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrimsonSabbath (talk • contribs)


 * I'm not asking for any kind of penalty for this User. I just want that my future contributions be respected, and the deletion of the talk i had with the cited User, on his "Talk page". I don't want any kind of association with such User.
 * CrimsonSabbath (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Conte di Cavour and User:Brutaldeluxe seem justified in undoing at least some of your edits. For example, in this edit, you removed sourced information citing "it's harmful to the NPOV". But, WP:NPOV tells us that to "avoid stating opinions as facts," and the text you deleted did not state, "Italy is the 'sick man of Europe'". No, it simply pointed out that it has been referred to as the "sick man of Europe", and there are references for proof. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). To quote Conte di Cavour, "You have deleted a lot of parts just because you didn't agree with them, but in case of sourced statements you simply can't do it". Guoguo12  --Talk--  19:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not protesting for the edits of the article. I had insert parts with sources, discussed the subjects and helped to turn the article more Neutral. I really think the article could be improved, as i stated.


 * 
 * 
 * 


 * User:Conte di Cavour misunderstood my edits as vandalism, maybe for not reading my inserts on Talk: Italy.
 * CrimsonSabbath (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See "Economy section rationalization" on Talk: Italy. CrimsonSabbath (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I realize that you are trying to improve the article and I thank you for your contributions. I also acknowledge that Conte di Cavour is reacting to your edits in an uncivil manner (swearing, shouting, etc., see user talk) and that considering your good faith edits vandalism are violations of WP:AGF. Even edit warring is not vandalism. However, you must understand that neutral does not mean unbiased. It means that all verifiable viewpoints are fairly represented. "Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say" (WP:V). However, calling your edits "vandalism" is certainly incorrect. Guoguo12 --Talk--  20:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help and opinion, Guoguo12.
 * This section must be ended, to not get tiresome.
 * CrimsonSabbath (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I have sent Conte di Cavour a follow-up message summarizing this discussion. I hope that both you and Conte di Cavour will continue to edit and improve this encyclopedia. I especially hope that you will remain undaunted by your recent conflicts and I thank you for keeping cool and remaining civil. Guoguo12  --Talk--  23:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I apologize with Crimson/Gusto for having exaggerated. I hope that now everything is settled. Thanks a lot to Guoguo12.--Conte di Cavour (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I will try to control more my edits and discuss more on the subjects.

Thank you, Guoguo12. CrimsonSabbath (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Unwarranted Accusations by Boringbob4wk


Both on my talk page and at that of playwright Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, User:Boringbob4wk, whose contributions date only to April but who claims to have been on Wikiepdia longer, has called my fully discussed, good-faith edits vandalism at least three times (these two, ) plus an edit summary. Aside from meat-puppet/sock-puppet issues I will take up elsewhere, he attacked me for reverting, with explanation, an anonymous IP (one of several with the same initial IP address) who had removed citation requests from uncited claims; turned fully cited footnotes into a bare number and link; and inserted uncited claims within foonoted passages, along with numerous style errors, and promotional WP:PEACOCK terms and tone.

You'll see from my responses throughout that I've remained polite and temperate.

I'm sure my reputation and full record can handle the unwarranted attacks, but this type of slanderous, uncivil behavior should not be condoned. Before he does this to others, I believe someone should make clear to him that abusive posts and unwarranted accusations are not allowed.

If possible, I would like him to voluntarily remove his abusive posts from my talk page and state on the Aguirre-Sacasa page that good-faith edits are not vandalism

Thank you for any help you can give on this. It is much appreciated. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Boringbob4wk, accusing an editor of vandalism because you disagree with the content is a personal attack and not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, so please stop. Gerardw (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at it, there are a few issues beyond just that:
 * Assuming good faith went out the window somewhat hand-in-hand with the personal attack in Boringbob4wk's first edit summary/edit to the article. This is also important since they reference the level one warning templtes in their post to Tenebrae.
 * Both the section heading and content of their post on Tenebrea's talk page show a serious misunderstanding of what vandalism is. There also seems to be a disconnect on how biographies of living people are handled. Mainly that citation needed is rarely used and removing questioned or questionable material immediately is the common practice.
 * Teanabrae's assertion about Boringbob4wk removing post's to their own talk page,, is a little worrying. Since Boringbob4wk only commented to Tenebrae's post, , the assertion comes off as hyperbola at best.
 * Bringing a user talk spat to an article talk page is rarely warranted. At best, referencing user talk pages should be to point out the points have been discussed previously, that's it. A section on the bio's talk page expanding on why certain edits have been made is fine. Hammering the accusation, or making one, isn't.
 * One last thing, Boringbob4wk should take another look at the warning templates, how they are worded, and how they escalate. Their post to Tenebrae, the more it is looked at, appears to be an attempt to browbeat or shame an editor away from an article rather than correct, in this case non-existent, problematic editing practices.
 * - J Greb (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely correct about my misreading Boringbob4wk's talk page. When I went to add a post the first time, it looked as if my first post had disappeared, and so I re-added it. There may have been an "Edit conflict" page in between that confused me. I do take back that assertion.


 * The rest of my statements, as you note, remain accurate. Thanks for noticing and for commenting. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And now I see he is slandering me to another editor here. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Two things in direct response to Tenebrae:
 * You still need to rethink dragging the accusations onto the article's talk page. I realize the accusation stings but the article's talk page is not the place to vent or add drama. If you feel the reasons for the edits need more explanation than can be provided in an edit summary, fine. Stick to the content of the edits and why they are valid or needed. If you need to comment on another editor's edits, stick to the content and why there is an issue. Leave commenting on other editor's comments on you personally to the user talk pages and venues like this.
 * As noted on my talk page, the post to GoingBatty was made prior to this thread. That in no way excuses it, but you need to be careful in placing the order of events. You may have just seen the post - I missed it in the contribution history as well - but it had been done at the time of the original attacks.
 * And to Boringbob4wk:
 * Accusing an editor of vandalism on an unrelated page such as is much worse than doing it on the related talk pages - the article's, their own, and WP:AIV. If you are going to ask an editor to check edits, pages, or re-run a bot on a page, it can and should be done without accusation about third party contributions or motives.
 * And weaseling around it like here is as bad. If you want to discus the content of the edits, use the article's talk page. If not, see the above point to you and point one to Tenebrae.
 * Having a page semi-protected only prevents unregistered - IPs - and extremely new registered editors from changing the page. It does not affect your ability to edit the page. If an IP wishes an edit made, the can request it on the article's talk page. The tone of your post suggests you are acting on behalf of another. They can ask for themselves.
 * While the post to GoingBatty was part of the initial posts attacking Tenebrae, the one to Crit is a new attack. To repeat: If you believe or have proof vandalism, file it at AIV. If you have a strong case to present of an editor being biased in there editing file it at WP:AN/I. Do not just attack them on third party user talk pages.
 * - J Greb (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, JG, for taking the time and effort to make a thoughtful, detailed reply. You're right about the article's talk page: I would not have 'ported the post over to it had not the vandalism accusation appeared in the article's edit-summary/history.


 * I do appreciate your noting to Boringbob4wk the seriousness of his actions. I hope he takes his Wikipedia presence seriously enough to come here and see this. With my regards, as always, --Tenebrae (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just seen that this editor has been blocked for his various actions, and I'm grateful that your post to him as to why was so detailed and specific. I've probably said this before, but taking on admin responsibilities adds so much more time and work to one's voluntary contributions to this encyclopedia. I remain very impressed by seeing both in your admin duties and as just a regular member of WikiProject Comics that you don't cut corners and that you take the time to give specific, point-by-point posts. Even if one disagrees with your point of view on one particular topic or another, as I'm sure I have in the past, anyone would have to say &mdash; I certainly have said and do say &mdash; that your points are always reasonable, clear and well thought-out. I continue to learn from all my veteran Project colleagues. Seriously. Thanks for all your work. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Icex15 and User:Night of the Big Wind


I am in a dispute with. He is driving me nuts with his behaviour. He started yesterday with editing on WP, good enough to start immediately with an editwar and 24 hours block. Now he is back and haunting me over a rude remark (polite version: I told him to start using his brain) that was already removed by an admin. I gave him advice over how to sign his edits on talkpages (no effect), over the mentoring project (no effect) and to read the information in the welcoming template (plain refused). He is getting under my skin... Effected pages:
 * Revision history of Columbidae: 9 reverts, no discussion
 * Revision history of User talk:Night of the Big Wind
 * Revision history of User talk:Icex15
 * User contributions ICex15

By now I get the idea that is a plain vandal or worse, a troll. This goes straight out of hand, so I need your help/advice. Please! Night of the Big Wind (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am also in a dispute with. I was only replying to a comment he made on my message that wasn't towards him. I was writing my message in my appealing block section explaining what happened to the people who review block appeals, and he kept the dispute going by leaving a message under it. He said to me use your F****ng brain which I found to be offensive he was basically called me stupid/idiot which was a personal attack which violates Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks, and Civility Codes, and he also told me to stop whining which I though was disrespectful as well.

He keeps telling me I need to follow the rules, but I think he needs to follow the rules as well. What he said was it doesn't matter if he breaks the rules, because he is an experienced editor. I am not going to listen to his advice on how to edit, because he was rude and disrespectful towards me. I might listen to another experienced Wikipedia editor who's civil, respectful, and polite on advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icex15 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 30 May 2011
 * This appears to be about (I added the unsigned and this link to assist the discussion). Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooops! I just noticed that this section is a result of the previous section . I suggest that no further discussion should take place here (instead, comments about both editors belong in the above section). Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merged the two request. It is a symptom of the problem that this happened. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an easy WQA case:
 * Night of the Big Wind: Please do not use plain language because Wikipedia operates on the basis that there is good in all of us. Of course no one is a troll here, but when a comment is indistinguishable from that which might have been left by a troll, it is best to not respond.
 * Icex15: This user appears to be incompatible with Wikipedia. First two edits:, . Remaining edits are to repeatedly post an undue and pointless comment , and to ask users why the the undue and pointless comment was removed. Multiple editors have reverted the comment, and the user was blocked, and shows no signs of stopping. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Steven Walling


I'm beginning to have a hard time assuming good faith with this user, so I was hoping someone could talk me down, have a word with him, or both. He's repeatedly reverted me on Joseph Farah with a (IMO spurious) explanation that it violated WP:SELF, and then WP:BLP. I understand his desire to protect Wikipedia, and those reverts aren't the behavior I'm seeking guidance in responding to-- the content is already under review at BLPN. Rather, it's the manner in which he's conducted himself in the making of those reverts that has made me feel uncomfortable.

I began to feel attacked and delegitimized when Steven reverted my edits with the comment "per WP:SELF" and accused me of being disengenuous on his talk, but without comment on the article's talk page. When I requested that he self-revert and discuss on Talk:Joseph Farah, he instead characterized my arguments as "stupid," "cynical," and "ridiculous.". I subsequently re-added the material, prompting another revert with an edit summary authoritatively forbiding others (presumably me) to include the sourced material, and a talk-page admonishment that my contribution was "not acceptable. End of story."

As he was originally involved in this discussion by User:JakeInJoisey requesting "administrative oversight" of my contributions, and as he declares on his talk page that he's a WMF employee, and due to what I perceived to be the inappropriately authoritative tone he was taking, I suggested that his behavior appeared to be less that of a volunteer editor on equal footing to myself, and more that of an employee of the WMF oversighting an article. This was met with an accusation that I'd made ad-hominem arguments, along with another declarative statement asserting that my edits violate WP:BLP, and that he had brought them to BLP noticeboard for further attention. That seems disingenuous to me, as the request he brought to BLP/N was for a general review of "the latest batch of contributions by [this] anon", and did not repeat his previous assertion that the edits were prima facia violative of BLP policy.

I guess, in short, I'm feeling as though this user hasn't assumed my good faith, and that he's referentially implying authority in a manner which disempowers me as an editor, and precludes collaboration on an equitable basis. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's what's going on: Another editor asked me to get involved because of a BLP concern (They did not get involved themselves.) Now that the anon is failing to successfully argue for their opinion, and has been reverted in part or whole by two other editors as well as myself, they've simply moved on to making ad hominem accusations against me. To be clear about "authority" or having someone "disempowered": I have not used my sysop rights, and I already reiterated on my user page and on the talk page that I'm using my volunteer account and it's not a Foundation issue. I have done nothing to prevent this anonymous editor from participating in Wikipedia, or even suggest that they cannot or should not be editing. That's nonsense. While the dispute continued, I went to the noticeboard for outside input rather than revert again, which is meant to prevent edit warring between them and myself. In short: I find this to be a frivolous attempt to try and divert the issue from content to contributors. Steven Walling  23:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Claiming that it's been "reverted in part or whole by two other editors" is an outright fabrication. It's been reverted in part by only one other editor, pending discussion on WP:BLP/N. I defy you to provide diffs that prove otherwise. I'm increasingly concerned at your failure to recognize the referential power implied by mentioning your status as a sysop. I'm also disturbed by your repeated failure to assume good faith, as evidenced by this most recent characterization of my concern as "frivolous." It's disingenuous to suggest that repeated reversion and misleading talk-page commentary do "nothing to prevent this anonymous editor from participating in Wikipedia." You've been both condescending and dismissive since the inception of this conversation; it's highly unbecoming of an admin. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly as someone in the middle of a heated debate with me, you're not in the best position to make a clear judgement about what is and isn't appropriate or becoming. Also, it really has nothing to do with being an admin, as adminship is not an editorial position and gives me no right to make an executive decision about the content. As for the diffs, everyone can see the history of the page: you continue to edit war back and forth over multiple issues in the article. Steven Walling  19:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding your accusation that I'm "edit warring"-- diffs or it didn't happen. Regarding your claim that I'm not in the best position to make a clear judgment about what is and isn't appropriate or becoming: you are 100% correct, but I suggest you're similarly compromised. That is why I initiated this WQA discussion in the first place. I would appreciate comment from uninvolved users. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * uninvolved User:Off2riorob. Stephen has not made a single edit or comment that requires dispute resolution. This is a simple content and policy discussion that is now at a noticeboard (BLP) and the article talkpage already and there is nothing at all in Stephens actions that deserves dispute resolution at all, in fact IMO his actions have been exemplary in this situation. As for the edit warring comments about IP:24 - the user WP:BOLDly added the content and it was disputed and removed and the IP:24 re added it twice against bold - revert - discuss - WP:BRD Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We appear to have a difference of opinion on the meaning of the term "uninvolved." In my view, you are not. You should disclose your involvement in the issue. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am completely uninvolved and have a complete NPOV position on partisan Republican and Democrat content and Barack Obhama conspiracy content. I am a UK residence acting here as a neural experienced contributor to this issue and at the WP:BLPN thread, from assessing and investigating the IP:24 users contributions I am also commenting now here. I am also not a online supporter or friend or connected contributor to the S Welling account. I have made only one quite minor edit to the Joseph Farah BLP as such I am completely uninvolved WP:UNINVOLVED - Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec - please use 'preview') WP:BRD isn't policy, and you are clearly not completely uninvolved. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because you attack me doesn't make me involved. Policy or not - its good practice and as I said - I am uninvolved and S Walling has zero editing issues to reply to here Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was borderline incoherent. Did you even check the diff? It's hardly my attacking you-- it's your edit, in which you alter a comment you made and I'd replied to in a way that altered the context. And WP:UNINVOLVED isn't relevant unless you're secretly an admin. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You continue with your worthless personal attacking battlefield comments and imo you are simply being disruptive. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Involved editor comment: I'm not seeing any evidence of wrongdoing on Steven Walling's part. Gerardw (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Original submitter comment: To be very, very clear, the wrongdoing I'm alleging is that the user under discussion reverted my edits without being prepared to engage in a extended discussion, and that he employed dogmatism, arguments from authority, and personal aspersions to the end of bolstering his position. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob


User repeatedly claims to be uninvolved in the User:Steven Walling issue on WQA, despite that being demonstrably not the case. User also refactored his own comments on BLPN in a way that altered the discussion's context, and responded to a request that he clarify which content was in place when, per WP:REDACT, with an accusation that I'm being pointy. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And then he characterized my concern as "worthless." 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's pretty much my point. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I fear I do not see what precise violation of Wikiquette actually occurred here. Have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How about adding an accusation that I "attacked" this user to a comment that I'd already responded to? It dramatically alters the context of my reply, and a user who simply reads the page has no idea that my response is not, in fact, intended to be responsive to that accusation. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate the tea, though. ;-). 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Also - I dispute there is any violations worthy of report or dispute resolution in this report and I completely reject it and will not respond again. As such via my rejection this noticeboards value is degraded and anyone who considers the report valid is welcome to escalate the report. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)That really doesn't make sense -- your participation doesn't determine WQA's value. Regardless of that, this report is appears to be simply retaliatory and most unfounded. It does appear Off2riorob refactored his comment after someone replied, which isn't quite copacetic. Gerardw (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem with Wikiquette here. Move on. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► UK EYES ONLY ─╢ 21:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This petty issue is a waste of precious time and anon has failed to make out claims of involvement, be it during this WQA or in the one filed yesterday (and it is becoming disruptive). Off2riorob, stop feeding the anon with excuses to end up involved in some silly dispute with you when you can just revert the amendment, or if you feel you must include it, make it as a separate sentence with a separate signature (in brackets or something if you want to include it in the same reply). Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For posterity, I disagree. A tennet of WP:Wikiquette is "Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, Sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles)," which the user under discussion flagrantly failed to do. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User: Sergecross73 Sergecross73and Nickelback
Ok so he is putting up some false information at the Nickelback Wikipedia and I don't like that. Also, ever time I change it to the correct information he reverts it to the false information, please block him for false info. Oh and he is stalking me every time I do an edit. Also, he is harassing me because he thinks I'm Picklesatwar which I'm not, but he keeps harassing me saying the two words "you are". ; Nickelbackrules1518 ; (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC);


 * (See Sockpuppet investigations/Nickelbackrules1518)
 * I am an involed editor in this situation and have tried to communicate with the above editor . Nickelbackrules1518 has been directed to Talk:Nickelback on many occasions and despite my efforts to start a civil conversation he/she simply does not respond. . . Not all the addition merit reversal in my opinion, however others have raised concerns about the edits as a whole.Moxy (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that Nickelbackrules1518 and Picklesatwar have indeed been shown to be the same editor and have both been blocked. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to clear things up, we have tried a number of times to work with "Nickelbackrules", but rather than engaging in numerous discussions we have started on the discussion page, he choses to ignore them, and instead break WP:3RR and engage in sockpuppetry (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nickelbackrules1518) I never harass him, I merely tell him to stop breaking wikipedia policy, and to discuss things on the talk page. Then, he has the nerve to report me here, and without notifying me. *sigh* Sergecross73   msg me   00:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, we would have notified you had there been something discuss. Gerardw (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Jake Fuersturm

 * 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.



Jake Fuersturm initiated an edit war on May 28 over content that he added on May 22. I reverted one of his reverts to an earlier state that USER:MikeWazowski had done.

Jake repeatedly demonstrated issues of WP:OWN  with the article. In addition Jake filed a bogus 3RR against me for two reverts when he had already had four reverts in the article. Jake's argument was that the earlier revert MikeWazowski had should count against me for a 3RR violation. In the notes of the 3RR he filed against me a third party admin (Kuru) advised Jake against reverting further which he followed. However, Jake has continued to make inflamatory and sometimes taunting remarks. Some hightlights include    (many others are in his recent contribs). In the last example Jake claimed he was "having fun" when calling me sanctimonious.

Another bit of WP:POINT, other than from filing a 3RR against me when I had only two reverts, was when Jake started a discussion at WP:SPI about opening a socket puppet investigation on himself after I observed the coincidence of an anonymous editor with no previous edits in the article suddenly appearing to defend Jake. The discussion continued at SPI until another admin (Shirik) told him to "drop it". .

It should be noted that I offered WP:TEA to Jake twice  in an attempt to reset the interaction between us. I also pointed out to Jake that Wikipedia is not a battleground, as he seemed to believe. These jestures did not prove to be very successful.

Jake has been disrupting Wikipedia for a few days now, despite repeated warnings from at least two admins and two warnings against uncivil behavior from me. Jake's approach of making content changes and then edit warring over those changes once they're reverted appears to now be continuing here. His edit notes there are particularly pointed. Erikeltic ( Talk ) 20:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that I haven't posted an edit to the article in question in almost 72 hours is hardly being disruptive.
 * I would contend that Erik's decision to F9 this image simply to make a point is what's disruptive -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a Wikiquette alert. Your continuing disruptive behavior will speak for itself. Erikeltic ( Talk ) 20:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Erik, what did Mike say about Ad hominem attacks? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I find this particularly disingenuous given Erik's own history with regard to Wikquette alerts, and the fact that he himself has been blocked twice in the past for edit warring, the most recent occurrence being a scant two weeks ago. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem attacks aren't warranted, Jake. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "He did it too" is not excuse, not even for me. I learned my lesson, now you must learn yours. Erikeltic ( Talk ) 20:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mike - would you agree that Erik's decision to bring this entirely unrelated edit into the Wikquette alert to be a an Ad hominem attack? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that the subject under consideration is your recent actions/poor attitude towards others who disagree with you, no, I do not. It has a direct bearing on the situation, whereas your comment was basically an attempt to deflect blame by making another editor look bad using an unrelated matter. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't exactly consider you to be an unbiased commenter here, all things considered. And this Wikquette alert relates to the Spock article, not to the America: The Story of Us article.  Feel free to open another Wikquette alert for that one if you feel justified in doing do, but I think that would just be continuing the distuption. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No Jake. This Wikiquette alert relates to you and your recent actions.   Erikeltic ( Talk ) 21:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - What's disruptive is that Erik has insisted in posting this Wikquette alert when consensus was reached on the edit in question, but he insists on carrying the debate into another forum simply to further his point -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand Jake. It is your continued uncivil and disruptive behavior that has sparked this alert.  Nothing else.   Erikeltic ( Talk ) 20:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What's disruptive was your insistence on continuing to post to my talk page just to beat a dead horse. And then continuing it here when I shut it down. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is in error. My last comment on your talk page was at 14:31.  You archived it at 15:37.  In between both of those events you made these comments   and started yet another edit war.  This was well after I attempted to be very civil with you.  Clearly my attempt to offer you some tea failed.  That is why we are here now.   Erikeltic ( Talk ) 20:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Erik, your continued posting on Jake's talk page wasn't wise or helpful. Generally, if an editor isn't reception to discussion on their talk page, you should just walk away. Gerardw (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I concede that you are correct, however, Jake never told me I could not continue the conversation on his talk page & seemed to invite continued discussion with his edits until the very end with the "last word". That was when I said okay and didn't comment on his talk page again.  I had planned to drop it, but he made more uncivil comments (previously cited) and started another edit war.  My last post to his talk page was to inform him to this alert.  Erikeltic ( Talk ) 21:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Erik - you said yourself that "The discussion is over for me and I refuse to participate in any more finger pointing or needless escalations of a dead issue." . -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The "wisdom" part is in grokking when it's time to leave before the editor makes an explicit request. Gerardw (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Erik insist's on bringing up non-Spock related issues, and overall editor behaviour, I would note that repeated user talk page posting is exactly what led to Erik last blocking -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with your continued poor behavior?  Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 21:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that it takes two to tango. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I was responding to a question posted by you. It would have been rude to ignore it. Unless it was a deliberate attempt to draw me back in? Hm? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As as for another edit war - the edit war started with someone else (Mike)'s reversion of my edit - and last I checked it's one revert for me, and two for him. So who's edit warring? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's amazing how you can never percieve yourself to be in the wrong - which is exactly what's causing you problems. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's amazing how you and Erik can accuse me of that, but not see it in yourselves. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you understand that when you add material to a Wiki page and it is reverted by another editor that you should go to the talk page and begin a discussion with the other editor, not just undo the revert? It's a pretty basic principle here. Do you understand that process? Undoing the revert and treating it like a race to see who ends up on top before the 3RR is counter productive to a group effort. Do you understand that?  <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 20:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One revert for me, two for him. Case closed. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And for the record, I did start a discussion - probably not on the correct talk page, but it was a talk page nonetheless -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No Jake, you had at least three, possibly four reverts as Kuru observed to you in the 3RR you filed. The link to that is above.   <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 21:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you mean the case where you insisted on posting a revert AFTER I'd already started the related talk page discussion? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You really don't seem to "get it." When you make an edit (in this case the edit was on May 22) and another editor reverts your edit, it is not your duty to then undo the revert and restore the changes you made but you must discuss them on the talk page first.  This has been your MO throughout and is what you are currently engaged in in the "America" article.   <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 21:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This statement that Jake "enjoys sparring" and calling Erik "sanctimonious" isn't good. Jake, do you think you could dial it down a bit? Gerardw (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Gerard - with respect, that wouldn't have happened if he didn't decide to visit my talk page continuously to beat a dead horse -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't actually work that way. An editor is responsible for what they post regardless of what other editors do. Gerardw (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed resolution
Can we agree that Erik will stay off Jake's talk page, and Jake will refrain from making comments about Erik, and all go our separate ways? Gerardw (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can live with that. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If this includes Jake staying out of Trek-related articles, then I too can live with that. I have been involved with editing these articles long before Jake was an editor at Wikipedia.  He clearly has issues with several of the "regular" editors on the Trek articles, so working with him in the future may prove difficult for anyone.  Otherwise, it is my opinion that Jake's actions warrant an edit block for 24-72 hours minimum.  Jake must also pledge to stop edit warring.   <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 21:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Erik, was this your intention all along? If you're going to insist that I refrain from editing Star Trek articles then I withdraw my earlier response to Gerard.
 * I'm also not sure how Erik defines "regular" editor, when I've been a far more regular editor than both him AND Mike. I would note that from April 1, 2011 onwards, I added ~19K worth of material to Spock, whereas the last time either Mike or Erik (the "regular" editors) posted an edit to this article that wasn't a revert or a minor edit was July 2009. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, my intention was to engage you with respect and civility. My edits speak for me, as do yours.   <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 22:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The attempt to CSD this file simply to make a point is hardly civil on your part -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would accept a temporary edit block if Erik is subject to one of the same duration. I believe that's customary in cases such as these. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have done absolutely nothing that warrants an edit block Jake. You on the other hand have.  Don't attempt to deflect blame on to me and "drag me down with you" over your inability to conduct yourself properly.   <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 22:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This wouldn't have continued as long as it had if you hadn't decided to drop by and continue the dispute on my talk page today. And for the record, that's the second time you've done that, the first bring on Sunday.
 * The fact that you're also proposing a topic ban suggests to me that you've been acting in anything but good faith. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was on your talk page to try to reset with you, that's it. It was your continued uncivil behavior after that discussion ended that prompted this alert.  You had clearly learned nothing and still haven't.  I firmly believe you need to blocked from editing for at least 24 hours if not 72.  Your continued behavior is disruptive.  Your responses here have deflected your actions on to me and Mike and you clearly do not understand that Wikipedia or its policies.   <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 22:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand them just fine - you attempt to turn this into a full-blown topic ban demonstrates your lack of understanding (and judgment). -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then take a 24 hour block all on your own, accept responsiblity for your actions, and never edit war again. Believe me, I don't want you to have a topic ban.  In both of my attempts to reset with you I told you how I looked forward to working with you, and you continued to be uncivil and disruptive.  Your so fond of pointing out my past blocks; why refuse to accept responsibility for your actions?   <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 22:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI - I would point out that when someone truly comes along to bury the hatchet, then don't generally caveat their comments with a critique of the person they trying to bury the hatchet with. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Erik: Why would a block be imposed on anyone? Jake just agreed to drop the personal attack-ish comments. Blocks are not punitive. Additionally the very top of this page states clearly avoid filing a report if you're looking to get someone blocked. Additionally your comments indicate WP:OWNERSHIP issues. I'm sorry, I can't help you.

Jake: despite Erik's lack of cooperation, I'll suggest you refrain from personal comments anyway. For one thing, it's Wikipedia policy. Additionally, if you run into future conflicts it provides the other editor with dirt to throw at you, confounding the underlying dispute/disagreement. Both of you: you should talk edits out on the talk page without worrying about who reverted who last. If you can't come to an agreement, open an WP:RFC. Continued squabbling could result in an admin slapping full page protection on the article, and there's a chance they'll pick the wrong version to protect.Gerardw (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You offered a solution, I responded. I only brought this alert in the hope that Jake would learn from this.  Clearly he has not and will not.  That's too bad.   <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 22:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And I responded as well. Quickly and simply.  It was only Erik that insisted on all the pre-conditions. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How exactly can we go our "separate ways" when we work on the same articles? So basically if I agree and show up in Spock again, I'm in violation of the agreement?  That's the only reason I said that; I've repeatedly tried to reset with you only to be taunted and treated without civility for my efforts.  Again & again you shift blame for your actions on to others and bring up things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.   <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 22:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And I point out again, except for minor edits and a handful of reversions, you haven't touched Spock in almost two years. So are we really working on the same articles?  Or is this just more tendentiousness? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, if you're going to try to deflect blame and state "facts" about other people, it would help is you actually knew what you were talking about. A simple search of his edit contributions shows that Erikeltic edited the Spock article multiple times in 2011 (February, March and May), and multiple times in 2010 (March, July, August, September, October). Please, look before you type next time. You're not doing yourself any favors. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Please, look before you type next time." I suggest you follow your advice. As I stated quite clearly, edits other than minor edits and a handful of reversions -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike, but it's pretty obvious at this point that Jake is either unwilling or unable to conduct himself properly and those that should care don't. He has already discredited himself in the eyes of his fellow editors and I suspect he is going to have a difficult time moving forward.  It's a shame for him, but the continued debate is uttelry pointless.  Here he is--in this latest response above--deflecting once again.  Pity.   <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 22:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Erik - you're the one who asserted: "How exactly can we go our "separate ways" when we work on the same articles?". How is my direct response to that a deflection.  What is a deflection however, is your continued attempts to impugn me rather than thinking on the proposal below. - Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, now I can add wikihounding to the list of Jake's recent behavior. I asked an admin a simple, non-binding question and Jake takes that as an invite to start up on the admin's talk page? Seriously? And he is the same person feigning injury for an so-called unwanted discussion (so-calle after the fact) on his own talk page? There is simply no end to it. <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 23:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, because I've similarly caught Erik snooping my edits. Furthermore, I shouldn't have to remind Erik that Wikipedia edits are open to all to see, and for good reason.  Although Erik attempts to spin it otherwise, all he is doing is tantamount to canvassing. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal, part deux
How about this: -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) any time either of us (Erik or Jake) reverts (and let's be clear - this isn't just hitting the "undo" button) a Star Trek universe related edit made by the other, and the original editor objects, we go to discussion with a 1:1 revert count (i.e. the article goes back to status quo prior to the first revert). And we agree not to do anything about that until a consensus is reached on the article talk page.
 * 2) we also refrain from posting any other Star Trek edit (talk page edits excepted, for obvious reasons) while this discussion is ongoing, to prevent any instances of WP:POINT (whether real or perceived).
 * Now, do we need to include Mike on this, given that the two of you seem to have been allied in the Spock dispute with me? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've not allied with anyone. Quit trying to present yourself as the blameless persecuted one - it's not working. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Other than Gerardw (neutral third party) you're the only two posting opposite me here.  You're also the only two who posted on the deletion of the Kogan/Young Spock picture (until SarekofVulcan posted his opinion this afternoon).  And you're the only two to post reversions on the Texas Supreme Court quotation that started all this. What am I to think? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved editor hereThis proposal seems quite fair and reasonable in my honest opinion. I would request all three of ya'all quit letting personal opinions of each other influence your remarks and making accusations and simply adopt or reject the proposal.--v/r - TP 00:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it also require Jake to stop wikihounding me and starting edit wars over material he includes that other editors find objectionable? Jake has stated (quoted above) that basically reverts are a race to whoever gets to 3RR first, so in this compromise he'd just revert back to whatever version he felt to include without any need for consensus.  (period).   <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 00:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the proposal appropriately covers reverting, but if you'd like the words to say "edit war" specifically, than I proposed the following:


 * 1) Any time either Jake, Mike, or Erik reverts (either rollback, undo, or an edit that undos the previous change) a Star Trek universe related edit made by the other and the original editor objects, you go to discussion with a 1:0 revert count (i.e. the article goes back to status quo prior to the first reverted edit) and a 1:1 revert count if 14 days have passed, due to the presumption of consensus as per WP:SILENCE. You agree not to do anything about that until a consensus is reached on the article talk page.  If consensus cannot be reached between you, you'll ask for a third opinion.  You will refrain from personal attacks and focus on the content.
 * 2) You also will refrain from posting any other Star Trek edit (talk page edits excepted, for obvious reasons) while this discussion is ongoing, to prevent any instances of WP:POINT (whether real or perceived).

Is that agreeable? Again, please avoid personal attacks and focus on the proposal. Accusations, whether true or not, do not help close this issue.--v/r - TP 00:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that sounds fine.  <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 00:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I clarified what "edit" meant in the first sentence. Please review.--v/r - TP 00:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Sounds fine to me, but before I agree - can you please clarify what you mean by "the article goes back to status quo prior to the first reverted edit", because that sounds a bit like "the article goes back to status quo prior to the first edit" rather than "the article goes back to status quo prior to the first reversion".
 * 2) Am I correct in saying that this is simply a rewording of my original proposal (for clarity, rather than content) - if that's the case, then why did Erik object to my original proposal, but accept this one? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that it would go back to the status quo prior to the first edit.  <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 00:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is not what the intent of my proposal was. If that's the case, then it's 2:1 reversion, not 1:1 -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It all comes back WP:BRD, doesn't it? If an editor makes an edit that the other finds objectionable, it goes back to the status quo until a consensus is reached.  Why is that so objectionable to you?  Tell me again about flat refusals and preconditions.   <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 00:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Erik has it right. It goes back to the status quo before the first objectionable edit.  The way you had it, Erik, it would have gone back to the first objectionable edit instead of before that edit.--v/r - TP 00:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems to be right in line with WP:BRD and is a-okay with me.  <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 00:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you please stay on topic?  <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 00:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am - I am clarifying whether or not any substantive change was made to my proposal, or if it was simply cosmetic. Your attempt to deflect here suggests to me that you only accepted the revised proposal because you perceive there to be an advantage in your favour. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not cosmetic alone, no, although I did fix up a few sentences. I added the bit about "edits" to disambiguate whether only rollback or undo is considered applicable to this agreement to include edits that change or remove what the other had inserted.  I also changed what I mention in your first question.  Again, please focus on the proposal and your agreement/objection to it.  There is no need to worry about the other.  I'm willing to work the in between here.--v/r - TP 00:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So then the wording of the proposal should be amended, as it's obviously not a 1:1 revert count, but rather a 1:0. Which, incidentally, is not the intent of my original proposal. But I'm willing to compromise here. However, given consensus is presumed via WP:SILENCE, I think there should be some time constraint placed upon this, to prevent someone making a revert too long after the fact.  So something along the lines of 1:0 (which is consistent with WP:BRD) within the first 14 days (just throwing a number out there), and 1:1 after that? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable and I've updated my the proposal to reflect that. Can we get agreement?--v/r - TP 01:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Just to make it explicit, could you add "and a 1:1 revert count if 14 days have passed, due to the presumption of consensus as per WP:SILENCE" or something along those lines? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again seems fair. 14 days is plenty of visibility.  Erik/Mike, does that proposal seem fair?--v/r - TP 01:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, here is the current form of the proposal:


 * 1) Any time either Jake, Mike, or Erik reverts (either rollback, undo, or an edit that undos the previous change) a Star Trek universe related edit made by the other and the original editor objects, you go to discussion with a 1:0 revert count (i.e. the article goes back to status quo prior to the first reverted edit) and a 1:1 revert count if 14 days have passed, due to the presumption of consensus as per WP:SILENCE. You agree not to do anything about that until a consensus is reached on the article talk page.  If consensus cannot be reached between you, you'll ask for a third opinion.  You will refrain from personal attacks and focus on the content.
 * 2) You also will refrain from posting any other Star Trek edit (talk page edits excepted, for obvious reasons) while this discussion is ongoing, to prevent any instances of WP:POINT (whether real or perceived).

Thoughts?--v/r - TP 01:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds a lot like pre-existing Wikipedia policy. It works for me.  The only thing I would also ask for is clarification that there will be no wikihounding of any kind during an open discussion.   <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 01:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thumbs up -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Erik - I think that's sort of covered by the 2nd bullet of the proposal; or rather it is the intent to prevent Wikihouding in Star Trek related articles. I dont think this proposal prevent further Wikiquette alerts in the future if there is Wikihounding.   I can say that if you need anymore third opinions in the future, I will volunteer.  I am a part-time Trekkie and I, surprisingly, haven't involved myself in any Star Trek related articles so I am fairly uninvolved.  I am willing to mediate any discussions you two (three) have that you can't seem to find consensus on with a trek-aware background.  I would like to suggest that you two try finding common ground.  I think you can both agree that you are passionate about Star Trek and that might be the foundation for a friendship.  Friends don't have to agree, they only have to appreciate the other user.--v/r - TP 01:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI
For what it's worth, Geradw--the "neutral third party" that initially handled this alert--was awarded a barnstar for diplomacy by Jake moments after calling me an asshole for this edit. Seriously!? I open a Wikiquette to get called an asshole by the "neutral" third party editor? That's simply appalling. <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 01:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we just need to let bygones be bygones.--v/r - TP 01:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, so if I were to call someone an asshole--what would happen then? If I were to tell another editor to fuck off, how'd that go?  Bygones be bygones?  It just happened.  Fine.  I'll drop it, but Geradw's behavior is unacceptable and he/she/it is clearly not neutral.   <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 01:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I was planning the Barn long before you and Gerardw decided to have at it. The timing was simply unfortunate as I wanted to wait until things were pretty much fini. Doesn't mean that he didn't make efforts to help resolve things - which you rejected outright because you were asking for a lot more than he was putting on the table. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Gents, let's prevent this issue from flaring again by letting it go.--v/r - TP 01:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Bullmoosebell
There is a user named Bullmoosebell. Because he was the last who edited a page I asked him something to his talk page. Instead of telling me he cannot do it, he rudely deleted my comments. When I asked him to be more polite, he sent me a comment from which I understood he hadn't even understand what I was asking. Then I begged him to answer but he deleted me and didn't answer. Please do something to make him a)More polite and b)To understand what I ask. (I am user IP 178.128.75.48 but I changed today. I am the same person)--46.12.45.67 (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not read too much into what happened. Wikipedia is a very big place, and it is very likely that Bullmoosebell did not know what your comment referred to. Someone else who had more time might have replied and asked you what article you meant, and what you were suggesting, however on this occasion that did not occur. A user is entitled to remove (almost) any message from their talk page without explanation, and your message might have been quite puzzling, so the easiest course was to remove it. Repeating the message just gives an impression of unduly pressing some point, and you should not expect a volunteer editor to respond to some issue that you want raised. Next time, please put a new section at the article talk page. If you want to alert an active editor (although that should not be necessary if they are watching the article), you could post on the user's talk page with a link to the article talk. Example wikitext:   which displays like this: Talk:List of current United States Senators.
 * In conclusion, unless you have something more specific to mention, I do not think there is an issue which needs consideration here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am BullMooseBell. As I stated in my comment to IP address 178.128.75.48 (now IP address 46.12.45.67), initiating a discussion pertaining to a specific article should be posted on that article's discussion page (where any user with that article on their watch-list can provide input). I am not inclined to entertain a discussion with any persons directly on my talk page, especially if the user does not even have a registered account. Understand, it is not my prerogative to upset you, though your continued pursuit of a response from me reflects your feelings have been hurt. However, communication with defamatory remarks, after I gave you guidance on how to accomplish the task, can be perceived as offensive and will not be tolerated. This has been explained to you by many other users, as well. Frankly, your conduct is immature and I am unwilling to assist you considering you are making this a personal matter. If you wish to discuss the content of an article, post a new discussion on the talk page of the article. Attacking another user will not allow you to achieve your desired results. —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC).
 * So this wasn't the first interaction between the IP and Bullmoosebell? Where did  you (Bullmoosebell) make the comment initiating a discussion pertaining to a specific article should be posted on that article's discussion page Gerardw (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Why does this matter and why are we still discussing this? A non-registered user is upset because they feel I was rude to them, which is completely subjective. They asked a question and I guided them to the article's discussion page. In a vilified stance, the IP user contacted me multiple times after guidance was provided. I felt their comments did not warrant a response considering their efforts should have been focused on the article, not attacking me. This whole line of discussion is trivial and a waste of our time. If you wish to research the discussion, simply read the User talk pages. Bullmoosebell (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. No gross (or even moderate) incivility here. See for examples of posts from the other IP on Bullmoosebell's talk page (which were difficult for me to understand). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We are still here because you chose to comment. I'm asking because it appears you simply reverted their comment on your talk page without comment -- so I'm asking where you directed them to the article talk page. Why does their status as registered or non-registered matter? Gerardw (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Owain the 1st


Owain the 1st has made multiple personal attacks over the last few hours. I received a probationary period based on WP:ARBPIA for asserting that another editor was a liar. I don't think this needs to escalate that far (unless no action is taken) but I am asking for an admin to redact the comments (or simply strike) and make it clear to the editor that ARBPIA 4.1.2 (Decorum) is supposed to be enforced.
 * (asserting that another editor is a liar is certainly not acceptable. The other editor took offence to what looked like a rhetorical and snide question but there was no excuse for saying it was "lies")
 * (this one is just annoying but it is rude)
 * (commenting on the assumed intentions of another editor is usually prohibited)

Cptnono (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

notified


 * Cptnono is hounding me over 3 pages for many hours.Here on my user talk page where he was told not to comment on a thread that was about a different subject but continued anyway, I deleted most of it here .He is also following me on another two threads namely here  and here
 * I would add that your first claim has already been struck through by you here Owain the 1st (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC).


 * Looks like a storm in a tea cup to me. The first is in response to an accusation, the second is trivial and the third is mild compared with other comments on controversial articles which are not brought here.  Aside from asking everyone to moderate their language I can't see that any action is required -- Snowded  TALK  07:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not see any comments worthy of the label "personal attack". WP:DR please. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  17:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then this will go to AE. He is not allowed to assert other editors are liars. Period. If an admin does not want to tell him that then I hope he gets topic banned instead.Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to assume good faith yourself - just because editing gets heated, as it does sometimes, doesn't mean one should run to WP:WQA. Instead, stay calm and cool. If you cannot do that you may want to try contributing in a less controversial area. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  03:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good advise, and I would be think hard about the consequences of taking a trivial issue to AE -- Snowded  TALK  05:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Filed by Gimpman
[deleted] Gimpman (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Blocked as sockpuppet and entry deleted; see below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * User has already been warned for it. No further action needed. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  03:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Notified the AndyTheGroup as courtesy; issue already discussed on his talk page.Gerardw (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ye, I realise it was a breach of Wikiquette. It needs to be looked at in context though. Bus stop is repeating exactly the same problematic behaviour that has already seen him topic-banned twice, and it makes normal discussions practically impossible. This is clearly more damaging to the project than bad language. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unclear what point you're trying to make here. If (hypothetically) Bus Stop's behavior is 4d on an arbitrary Wikipedia damage scale, and the incivility is 1d, are you saying 5d is the same as 4d? A better answer if an editor does 4d worth of damage it's best to limit the damage to 4d. There is no context in which incivility is helpful to Wikipedia. Gerardw (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a plea in mitigation, rather than an attempt to justify it. And no, it probably isn't helpful to Wikipedia, but it was helpful to me. If the choice comes down to telling Bus stop where he can put his endless Wikilawyering misrepresentations of policy (etc, etc,...) and me giving up on Wikipedia entirely so he can turn it into Bus stop's compendium of anybody a 'reliable source' says is Jewish, then the question of whether it is good for Wikipedia is best answered by others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A false dichotomy. Telling him to fuck off and being told by others that your behavior is unacceptable is not likely to mitigate his behavior. I recommend WP:SHUN if you can (it's less work than the other options) or RFCU, as has been suggested on your talk page. Gerardw (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: The expletive at issue has been used many times on WP, and many times by admins on WP, without any finding more than t is uncivil, but not extraordinarily uncivil. WP:FUCK sould be excised if the word is to be forbidden, as well as over three thousand places in project space alone, and over six thousand times in articles. AtG may well have been grumpy, but it takes more than one expletive to do anything more than tell everyone to enjoy a cup of tea. Iterated incvility may be a problem - one expletive here is not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Meaning (and appropriateness) depends on context. If an editor says a comment is fuckin' stupid, that's coarse but tolerable, if they say fuck off, it's not. It's not the word, it's the attack. Gerardw (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See wih the comments "While crude, even fuck off is not a personal attack, only a moron would think so ",  whilst an editor in the minority opined "Of course telling another editor to piss off is rude and uncivil. Don't overthink it."     has an extensive colloquy thereon.  This seems, in fact, to be a nicely recurring discussion on WQA, but always with the result that a single instance does not rise to any actionable level, although continued use of such language could so rise.  Your mileage may vary. Collect (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A non-sequitor. Of course it isn't actionable -- my first edit(s) to this WQA was to mark it resolved, as AtG already told by two editors on his talk page his behavior was unacceptable. It's just not a good idea. Gerardw (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * OP is yet another brand new editor attacking AndyTheGrump and wanting to insert an ethnic category into this article. Another was blocked as a sock 3 days ago. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OP? Gerardw (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Gimpman, the original poster. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Who turned out to be a confirmed sock of User:Judenwatch. Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Closing this to WP:DENY the abuse of DR; the concern was already dealt with, and the sock had no business escalating it here where it was not directly involved in the first place. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Scott Mac
This editor is calling me "idiotic", a "troll," and announcing assumptions of bad faith. His comments to me on his Talk page: In discussion of a cocnern about an attack page: Another noticeboard: Notes.
 * "Grow up"
 * "I'm not assuming good faith, no. Because it patent you are not acting in good faith.... Hypocrisy, trolling, disrupting Wikipedia to prove a (or several contradictory) points. You seem to be cruising for a ban. So, if that's what you want up the ante again and someone will oblige. If it perchance isn't then change the tactics. These ones make you look idiotic"
 * "Assume good faith does not mean we are blind when your antics patently lack it."
 * "First, this post is troll. Mindbunny has being using his own userspace to comment on living people and been blocked for it. He is also, AFAIK in a dispute with SlimVirgin. So, this is hypocrisy and posturing"
 * "You are being played." (i.e., I am "playing" and manipulating other editors)
 * 1) The editor is an admin
 * 2) The editor has a userbox that states "This user doesn't give a flying *!*? about your Wikiquette alerts." Mindbunny (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * and 3. The editor is being relatively restrained in responding to purposefully provocative and disruptive behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully endorse the addition of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's point number three. Mindbunny, what is it that you are contributing to this Great Encyclopedia of Knowledge other than drama? --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * per WP:BOOMERANG, if I responded to this, it would only be to propose a community ban of Mindbunny.--Scott Mac 21:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mindbunny, Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground is another policy that we have. Scott might have been a little on the candid side but he made some succinct and valid points. I recommend you find common ground with people and move forward positively. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The purpose of etiquette is to to make it possible to find that common ground. Exactly how should I find a common ground with someone calls me an idiotic troll? The drama-creation is due to those who make personal attacks, not those who point out problems. The idea that an admin is entitled to call editors idiotic trolls even if the editors are misbehaving is untenable. Mindbunny (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your best reply is to be as constructive and beneficial to article content as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe by ceasing to behave like an idiotic troll? Or would that be too obvious? Hans Adler 04:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Resolution: Scott, stop characterizing people as "idiotic". Mindbunny, stop disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I wouldn't want to have to revive my proposal to community ban you, or take your behavior to arbcom again. Chester Markel (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Badger Drink


This is an editor that seems to have had quite a long-term problem with civility, assuming good faith and so on 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 20102011 2011 2011 (particularly nasty and with an edit-summary worth a second glance)

So far today, he's accused me of disruptive editing + "making impotent insults" and being "illiterate"  + given me a template warning for "using improper humour" on a page where I did absolutely no such thing   + referring to me as "TrolleryTag" and failing to provide evidence for his allegation of improper humour

I'd appreciate it if somebody could point out that this isn't a terribly impressive trend. Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► most serene ─╢ 22:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your condescending swarm has not gone without notice. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► First Secretary of State ─╢ 22:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I try not to feed the trolls, so I'll be brief - consider this my sole contribution to this discussion. It seems TreasuryTag, after barging into the kitchen (so to speak) by labeling my contributions to a MfD as, quote, long, dull tirade(s) is now shocked - simply SHOCKED - to find that he can't take the heat. I'm sure his neglecting to mention the location of this entire "dispute" (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Strasserist) is simply coincidence, and certainly not a deliberate attempt to mislead others in his little WikiWar. Should I also mention that TreasuryTag, this outspoken opponent of User Talk templates, had no problem dumping this lovely template on the talk page of an editor who's been around nearly as long as he? In short, I find it quite surprising that such an evidently sensitive, easily upset snowflake would be capable of such provocative statements and actions. Badger Drink (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While the linked comments are borderline, the above one is too much. Badger Drink blocked 48 hours. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  22:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You do realise, I hope, that by posting "TrolleryTag" you've committed that most pivotal of Wikipedia act: licensing it under the GFDL. This means that it's now freely available for re-use by other editors, myself included, who are thoroughly tired of TT's regular 'wounded innocence' routines. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Badger Drink has posted an unblock request. I'm not going to act on the request as I've had extensive negative interaction with TreasuryTag, but I am not convinced this is a good block and hope it will be reviewed quickly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not a required block by Prodego - this is a primary discussion location. I heard admins are not even required here - if there is an issue an admin or a user feels serious, then move to a higher location - eg - WP:ANI - Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * User was unblocked by Beeblebrox; matter taken to ANI (so unless they send it back here, closed so we don't have same thing in more than one forum). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Unsure of what to make of this...
Is there any reason why editors have sections of their userpage dedicated to making personal attacks? How would WP:USERPAGE and WP:SOAPBOX work in this manner, if it's not specifically mainspace or talkspace? I don't see how WP:ATTACKs against other Wikipedia editors should be openly displayed on one's own page, so proudly and boldly at that. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Notified user and asked to remove from his user page. Benlisquare, please add latin characters to your signature per WP:SIG. Gerardw (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a bit with him earlier today trying to shoehorn more of the same POV into an unrelated article.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Such a "name and shame" was specifically forbidden by the arbcom ruling in this case, which states quite clearly that a "hall of shame" like this should not be created in userspace. The inappropriate content has been in place for several months, and I see nothing indicating that its creator has any intention of using it in an appropriate dispute resolution process. I've left a strong warning on the user's talk page, since he removed Gerardw's comments without an appropriate response, but I suspect this will end up at ANI. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Content was removed about a minute later, it seems. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Resumed threats from Tokerdesigner


Several editors have been maintaining quality of some cannabis articles subject to fluff edits and vandalism. I have had to revert Tokerdesigner's edits several times. He once made a run on many articles I wrote in retaliation, and today left a message threatening the same on my talk page, literally threatening the notability of the 44 film articles I've contributed. Please read the message carefully as it is typical of his threats. Standard methods of mediation don't work with this user. I don't feel like defending my 44 articles. Can someone help? Mainly see history of article Cannabis smoking. Thanks.--Mjpresson (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)--Mjpresson (talk) 10:29 am, Today (UTC−7)

User:Dave3457


I am having a dispute with Dave3457 at the article Femininity. The tone of this dispute has been very uncivil, in my opinion, from the beginning. There's really no progress being made and any help would be really appreciated. I really just want to discuss the specific changes and reliable sources, but Dave3457 has been accusing me of a lot of negative motivations which I disagree with and I find unfair. Even if I do have some biases (I'm not going to say that I am a 100% neutral person, I doubt anyone is) I think the only useful thing is to discuss the actual changes and sources and not the other editor. I've tried being friendly and pointing out AGF, I've tried being firm, and I've also advertised this dispute at some Wikiprojects and the NPOV noticeboard. Below are some examples. Thanks. 12345Aronoel (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any obvious Wikiquette issues here. It's clearly a content dispute, and Dave3457 patiently explains and supports evidence that suggests you are editing with a bit too much of an agenda. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't believe I have an agenda. How should I move forward? --Aronoel (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe a WP:THIRD opinion would convince you otherwise. This is really a content-dispute. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Both Dave and Aronoel seem to be editing in good faith. They just happen to be presenting two different, but valid sides of an issue. I think the discussion would benefit from a de-escalation of bad-faith accusations and more effort to keep the discussion at a respectful and collaborative tone. I would encourage Dave to refrain from the "agenda" rhetoric, and especially refrain from insulting Aronoel with comments about his/her edits being "absolutely laughable", etc. The debate should be focused on the quality of the sources, not on personal accusations about "agendas". Everyone has opinions and those opinions affect what people contribute to Wikipedia. As long as people are adhering to Wikipedia policy, that's usually OK. In other words, debate the content (and sources), not the editor. Kaldari (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Could anyone comment further about my behavior in this dispute? For example, how I should have handled it differently, or how I should respond to accusations that I have an agenda? --Aronoel (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Should have not edit warred. Should have not replying to Dave's explanations with more questions and "I don't understand"s. Should have gone WP:THIRD or WP:RFC when it became clear your were unlikely to agree between yourselves. Gerardw (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't think I could do 3O because I already posted a request for comment at the NPOV noticeboard. In the future I will just stop discussing it until I can get more uninvolved editors to comment. --Aronoel (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's usually a good idea, especially if you feel tempted to edit war otherwise. Kaldari (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You just ruled in my favor in the above dispute but...

According to Wikipedia protocol, am I aloud to accuse someone of bias editing on a talk page? Personally I'd like to think that we are all "big boys and girls", but on the other hand I can see how it could result in a kind of "melt down". On one level Aronoel is right in that I was focusing on the editor rather than the edits. On the other hand everything I said was true and she is doing harm to Wikipedia's good name, (whether she realizes it or not) and it would be helpful if other editors understood the motivations for her edits and her editing tactics and thus kept an eye on her.

In short, while you ruled in my favor in a big way, I suspect that I may have been in the wrong when I publicly accused her of having an agenda even though she did. In my opinion, I have all kinds of evidence that she is letting her biases effect her editing and that she is even being disingenuous in her edit summaries, but I’m thinking that I may have crossed the line first.

Again, in your ruling you said “ Dave3475 patiently explains and supports evidence that suggests you are editing with a bit too much of an agenda.” Are you sure that I can do that on the talk page?

I have to be honest, while I should take the time to try and expose her, I'm thinking in hindsight, as she suggests, I may have gone about it the wrong way. Dave3457 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF says to assume that the other editor is doing what they feel is to the benefit of Wikipedia. The ruling was not in your favor, it was in Wikipedia's favor.  You should move on from this.  Don't try to "expose" anyone, the effort will harm Wikipedia more in the long run than whatever you feel is wrong with Aronoel.  Just let it go and move on from here focusing on the edits and assuming the best in others.--v/r - TP 02:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As explained at WP:ATTACK "the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody." Kaldari (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * TP What I meant by exposing her was that I plan to go through the proper channels.
 * I would point out that WP:AGF only works if everyone actually is editing in good faith. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is an extremely powerful tool for those who desire to move public consciousness in a desired direction. And no, I obviously did win the judgment, but neither am I here gloating.
 * Kaldari I agree with your recent changes to the feminine talk page and the position on Attack pages however there has to exist a channel with which to expose people you believe are not editing in good faith. Presumably this is the Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave3457 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dave, as I said, attempting to "expose" people is harmful to Wikipedia in the long run. Keep in mind that you have a biased point of view against someone you've had conflict with.  You feel they are editing in bad faith because of that bias.  That is why WP:AGF is most important here.  You need to assume that despite what you feel is the truth, that there is the possibility that they feel they are editing in good faith and you need to acknowledge that.  Another good principal is WP:DGAF.  Just let it go.  It will reflect just as poorly on you if you can't get over this incident.  I say that with the utmost respect and interest in your well being as a non-involved editor.--v/r - TP 13:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The assumption of good faith applies irrespective of whether good faith actually exists, which often cannot be determined. We assume that editors are contributing in good faith unless clear and convincing evidence is presented to the contrary. For instance, running an abusive sock farm, attempting to cause real life harm to editors, actions which have no plausible explanation except disruption to illustrate a point, etc. would indicate malicious editing. Conjecture that an editor's contributions may be motivated by a political or social bias does not constitute acceptable evidence for overruling AGF. Otherwise, the guideline would cease to be relevant at all on controversial topics, in which any editorial position could be attributed to some biased motivation. This does not mean that one cannot criticize editorial conduct such as persistent violations of WP:NPOV, but only that an editor's reasons for non-neutral editing should not be speculated upon. Chester Markel (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the fact that one disagrees with an editor does not, by itself, imply that they are violating WP:NPOV. Though it's sometimes necessary, one should at least be wary of making such an accusation against an editor with whom one is involved in a content dispute. It is often better to let uninvolved editors and admins judge behavior. Chester Markel (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your points are well taken. It seems to all boil down to "one should behave professionally". In fact, since I've been "behaving more professionally" I've been enjoying the editing experience more. That being said, the real test for me will be if some of this evening's work gets reverted on suspect grounds. Dave3457 (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Beyond that: Editors may be biased, and to any degree. What matters is whether there's a conflict of interest, but having views is not a COI, or whether the article is neutral, and biased editors can produce neutral output. Indeed, they often do better editing, because they know their subjects, and some (not all) unbiased editors are simply editors with little subject knowledge. Content is what's important here. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

User:DonQuixote


Personal offense (diff), refusal to apologize. Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, the last part was a personal attack. Removed from talk page. DonQuixote, please comment on the contribution, not the contributor. Gerardw (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

GenKnowitall


I (Melchoir) have been involved in a content dispute with GenKnowitall for about two days. His attitude is partially responsible for the difficulty I'm having in resolving the dispute, because it is so taxing to interact with him. Rather than provide diffs, I'll just point to Talk:Center of gravity. Melchoir (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you are having difficulty adhering to the discussion and editing process, Melchoir, preferring to simply hijack an article and make substantive and objectionable revisions without discussion, where the article is being actively discussed and edited. Some of your material is good and may be included, with prior discussion. Yet you have been repeatedly asked to participate by submitting a proposal for discussion, which you have not done.  Please submit such in discussion instead of complaining about how 'taxing' it is to collaborate. Additionally, resolving a 'dispute' first requires that there be a bona fide dispute not just disagreement, offer a position that is properly stated and supported by some authority, and then engage in good faith with responsive answer to replies to resolve it. There should there be a real (as opposed to fabricated ) dispute between authority, otherwise it is just a food fight. This has been explained to you. Please participate in the editorial process instead of what you have been doing.
 * I have little sympathy for your complaint Melchoir, as you were involved in a previous incarnation of the article, based plainly on a flawed understanding of the subject, trampled an article by a previous author, mucking editing up so badly an entire deletion was the only sensible exit. You wish to do that again. No, sorry, the subject deserves better. Your behavior so far has not been exemplary, and except for the fact that I believe and hope you have good contributions to make to the article I would have made complaint about you.  I submitted an article which you agree is correct as stated. I have treated you respectfully and in good faith. Join the discussion with your proposals and engage in good faith editing. GenKnowitall (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * GenKnowitall's contributions indicate he is unfamiliar with the WP:Consensus model; I've commented on the specific content dispute on the talk page. Additionally I've left warning for his personal attack on another editor on the talk page. As this is primarily a content dispute I don't think there's a lot more to be done here. Gerardw (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gerardw, but will post the following which I had prepared.
 * GenKnowitall's first edit was three weeks ago, so it is not surprising that their understanding of procedures is incomplete. I have not investigated the content dispute or much of the discussion because is sufficient to show a problem: the term "vandalism" has a specific meaning here, and must not be used to describe good-faith edits; do not comment on an editor's background ("graduate student")—article talk pages are to discuss content; terms such as "You were on notice" and "I will seek your removal" are highly inappropriate in the context used. Subject experts are welcome, but they need to demonstrate their expertise by providing reliable sources that support their edits, and by responding to points raised (and there should be multiple sources for such a well known topic as this; see WP:DUE or possibly even WP:REDFLAG). Wikipedia requires collaboration and when an editor reasonably requests a reason for an edit (as was the case with the diff just given), the reason must be supplied. There is no urgent reason to revert an article back to one's favored position—instead, editors should provide explanations on the talk page and allow a reasonable time for responses. I would have thought there were plenty of good editors watching this article, but if more input is needed, post a comment at WT:WikiProject Physics. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

So... if we're done here, I can take this page off my watchlist. :-) Melchoir (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A dispute over editing process arose, compounded by the actions by two people who were not involved in the article and whose sole apparent purpose of entry was to precipitate a technical edit war. Article content cannot be seriously disputed, examined, or improved where collaborative process is so thwarted. Instead an admin has entered, agreed to mediate, and will practically decide process. Complaints may be made, but the above seem neither formal complaint nor official action on a complaint, nor good faith attempt to resolve anything, so are perhaps best understood as continuation of the edit war while admin actions are decided. GenKnowitall (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Two uninvolved and experienced editors confirmed above that you are mistaken. New editors are allowed a lot of rope, but you need to quickly understand WP:CIVIL because is not acceptable. If you think about a typical unmoderated newsgroup where the majority of content consists of personal attacks, it will be apparent why Wikipedia enforces the comment on the edits, not the editor procedure (that is, it is ok to claim an edit is misguided although you will be ignored if no policy-compliant reason is provided, but it is not ok to claim that an editor is misguided). Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq your remarks violate the same rule in the same manner that you claim mine do (only more so). You didn't see that? Interesting. My remarks were in response to another editor, and were an appropriate response (a) You've already taken a position in the discussion and are not 'disinterested', (b) Editors are not superior to each other, (c) Everything I stated above is true. Please stop making false claims about people and uncivil remarks. I'd cite the rules but you seem to know where they are. Go read them. GenKnowitall (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment related to your behavior, not personal qualities. The editing policy instructs contributors to be bold in updating articles. You claim that users shouldn't edit center of gravity without discussing proposed changes first, and that a lack of discussion constitutes an acceptable reason for the reversion of edits   . You have taken a position squarely in opposition to Wikipedia policy. If you persist, sanctions will be imposed. Chester Markel (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor in this matter (and at this time, do not wish to get really involved). I wanted to alert those that are involved that as a new page patroller, I have recently PROD'd Center of gravity/Archive 2. Talk 24May11 Article-Edit War, which I realized afterwards may be related to this discussion. Singularity42 (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk: Pound (mass)


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User Hans_Adler is behaving in an uncivilized, arrogant and controlling manner throughout the following talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pound_%28mass%29&oldid=432672014 Talk:Pound (mass)

He has behaved particularly offensively toward me (and my profession - engineering) in the following section:

If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pound_%28mass%29&oldid=432672014#Is_.22pound.22_a_force_or_a_mass_.28with_reliable_sources.29... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pound_%28mass%29#Is_.22pound.22_a_force_or_a_mass_.28with_reliable_sources.29...

I took a poke at him in the following section (more to get him to put his money where his mouth is and actually attempt to improve the article in question rather than just grandstanding on the talk page):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pound_%28mass%29&oldid=432672014#Finally_a_clear_explanation_of_the_pound-mass_.2F_pound-force_matter_in_a_reliable_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pound_%28mass%29#Is_.22pound.22_a_force_or_a_mass_.28with_reliable_sources.29...

...and he is now resorting to threats because I have apparently "nagged" him. I certainly wasn't aware of any nagging policy.

I realise its unlikely I have abided by all Wikipedia policies to the letter, but the offending user is clearly a more experienced Wikipedia editor and has made my introduction to active involvement in Wikipedia possibly my last, if not by his hand by my own due to a lack of interest in putting up with that sort of behaviour.

Any assistance would be appreciated.

Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk • contribs)


 * The sense of entitlement demonstrated by this user is astonishing. By now I have spent at least two hours on answering his questions, which were caused by confusion between the normal and the engineers' variant of the foot-pound-second system. The last thing I expected to hear after I located a specialised academic encyclopedia that explains this very clearly and typed the relevant passage in for further use was the following: "Are you going to put this in the article, or do you just like blowing smoke out your bum?" I am not familiar with any culture where it is socially acceptable to use the services of a PhD for free in the way that the user did (on the article talk page, rather than at the reference desk, where such homework-type questions belong) and then use such language. I do not understand why the user feels so offended, but it appears there is some serious mind-reading going on. I would appreciate if others could deal with this user from now on, as it is likely to be more effective. Hans Adler 13:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: I reverted the anonymous user's last contribution to the talk page. The user found their way here before I did so. Hans Adler 14:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe someone can be as arrogant as Hans Adler in such an idealistic system such as Wikipedia. At no time has he ever been under any pressure or been obligated to answer my questions (by the very nature of the system itself - being entirely voluntary), and his assumption of my confusion is unfounded (and further insulting); the actual system that I originally came to the Pound (mass) article seeking clarification was use of pound-mass (as in the FPS gravitational system, per the comparative table at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-force#Foot-pound-second_systems_of_units, which the offending user seems to have repeatedly ignored on the Pound (mass) talk page and contradicted it. I am very familiar with the difference between mass and force and have used metric and imperial (FPS engineering) units for years in my job first as an aeronautical engineer and now as a mechanical engineer. He is likely making his assumption based on some simple mathematical errors I made (which I even stated were expected), which is when his grandstanding over me began I think. I readily and regularly convert between the two systems and convert between mass and force as a matter of course. My objective here at Wikipedia has been to prompt for clarification in the article Pound (mass) and other related articles to highlight some of the ambiguities that he seems intent as waving off as odd or stupid or due to simple misunderstanding. All the while it seems that he is misguided into thinking that a pound can and should only be a unit of mass. Now he has tha gall to claim that I'm making a personal attack, after he has repeatedly treated me like an idiot and appears to have violated multiple civility clauses WP:CIVIL including rudeness, personal attack (personally and to my profession), quoting me out of context, belittling, and finally a personal threat (PLONK). I honestly don't really care that much whether I'm banned or not; I will forget and move onto other things that interest me. At this stage I probably won't be contributing to Wikipedia any further by my own choice I expect that people like Hans are able to run amok unchecked merely because they know the system better than those they offend. I would much rather other users have "dealt" with me as he is the rudest person I've come across in a long time. His "two hours" were spent by his own choice, not by coersion or demand. He is apparently very passionate about the topic, which is obvious from his contributions on the talk page. He seems to enjoy bickering (and I've been happy to oblige his interest a little) but he continually ignores the need for article improvement and indeed is perhaps applying indirect pressure on others to refrain from doing so or risk being reverted and subsequently subjected to his ridicule. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 203.129.23.146, your comment at was pretty uncalled for, as was your followup which Hans Adler removed. There is no obligation for him to make any edits on your behalf, the article isn't even semi-protected. It doesn't appear to me that there was incivility until you made the comment about blowing smoke.  Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  14:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I did find the irony of bringing a complaint in this tone to an etiquette board entertaining. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is no obligation for any user to make edits on my behalf. The reason for the off-comment that you highlight is that he has been so intent in proving everyone wrong on the talk page but seems to have no interest in improving the article (isn't that the purpose of a talk page?). I would improve the article myself but I am very new to the editing process. Hans is clearly more experienced, not that I expected him to do anything at any point. Your lack of acknowledgement of civility before my blowing smoke comment I feel is unfair but not unexpected, which is why I will seek other interests other than active participation in improvement of Wikipedia articles. If I have offended Hans for my smoke comment, I apologise to him. If you read closely and consider the context of my comment, I feel that it wasn't entirely uncalled for. Hans seemed to be on a mission to degrade the engineering profession from which I come (look at the red highlighted bits in his comment that I replied to with the smoke bum). Nonetheless, thankyou for your consideration Monty. Nuujinn, I brought my complaint here because (as Hans alluded to earlier) I read his mind. He is the passionate Wikipedian; I'm more like a passer by by comparison, but I'm glad you have been entertained :) 203.129.23.146 (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC
 * So am I. But you see, if you get in a discussion that grows warm, and fall prey to the baser desire to poke someone else to elicit a response, even if they are out of line, you're not going to get much of a response to an accusation that the other party is rude or arrogant, at least not from me. Arguments happen, best to back off, come back later, take it easy.... --Nuujinn (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC))
 * Hans was the one doing most of the poking. He just got all pissy when someone else poked back. I got to this wikiquette forum first, but only after he threatened me on the talk page. Check edit timestamps. My response was more along the lines of "ok if you're going make rediculous threats and get all hypocritical about it then i'm going to dob on you for being a jerk not just to me but to everyone on this talk page". The things I have since taken offence to have been in response to his threat. Nonetheless everything I have accused him from is justified. I would have probably just ignored them (per your advice) if he hadn't threatened me. Have a squiz at the talk page for Pound (mass) for more entertainment. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really care who started it. Seems to me to be a case of a misunderstanding that got out of hand with both parties participating with less than optimal levels of politeness. I think the best course is for you both to take a break from it and try again later. Of course, that's just my opinion. And please, edit in an external editor if you want to really tweak your prose, the edit conflicts are onerous. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 203.129.23.146, that wasn't even a 'threat'. You made an inappropriate Talk page remark and he said he would remove off-topic comments. You already indicated that Hans did quite a bit of work answering questions on the Talk page. Why not just focus on the subject material again, lay off comments that focus on other editors and move forward? -- Avanu (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (Follow-on from Nuujinn) ... or better still, register yourself as an editor and work in your own workspace. In that way the articles you write will have visibility of Wikipedia and if you add a few personal details on your home page, other editors will know a bit about you (as much or as little as you like) making communication with you easier. Martinvl (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I misunderstood the whole "plonk" thing to mean banning me from posting, but reading it again it looks like ignoring by a particular user. I have no problem with him doing that. I didn't realise it could be done, and I'm not familiar with usenet. By the way, before you people hang me out to dry over an "inappropriate remark" that I have apologised for, why don't you check out the previous section on the offending talk page, where I have acknowledged insult but let it go (at the time). Hans is being hypocritical because he spent much of his "two hours" poking me and got all upset when I poked back. He wasn't answering my questions. I was offering a different perspective and he was trying to prove me wrong. It is a shame that belittling is apparently tolerated here, but responding to it is a crime. I will of course lay off other editors, as I have endevoured to do since the beginning of my involvement. The comment to which Hans took offense to was merely my way of saying "ok you made a point, stop grandstanding, are you gunna put it in the article?". Had I realised he would take offense I would have lightened up on the slang. He has laboured the whole "pound is a mass" thing throughout the talk page, not just in the offending section, and it was wearing thin. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So long as you're using loaded statements like "It is a shame that belittling is apparently tolerated here, but responding to it is a crime", I think you'll have problems here. You're obviously bright, and you seem to know something on the topic. You found your way here remarkably quickly, and I'm surprised by your comment regarding not being familiar with usenet, so I'm beginning to think you have more experience than you are letting on. But assuming good faith on your part, I will just say that you've gotten some advice, and only you can decide if the risk of running into disagreements is great enough to preclude continuing to edit here. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Outside my profession I'm a hobby software developer (Linux, Delphi/Lazarus, PHP/MySQL) but I'm not into social networking. I have heard of usenet but honestly never used it. I have accessed IRC a couple of times, but I'm not even sure if that is related. I don't have the time or patience to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia editing and policy. I just came across an article that I thought was ambiguous so I thought I'd put a word in. I got here quickly because of a lucky Google search (Wikipedia stuff usually appears at the top of Google searches, but I've learned that through engineering moreso than anything geeky). Perhaps I shouldn't have use that loaded statement, but I still stand by it, and as a result of this experience I will be more reluctant to contribute further to Wikipedia in future. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call Usenet "social networking", although in some respects the term could fit. It pre-dates the Web by a decade, and was/is used for discussion, information storage, etc.  Maybe rather than assuming a weird word like PLONK means something, since it was linked, just click it and find out, or just ignore it.  You brought the complaint here, which by most of us appears to be your own overreaction.  Focus on the subject and less on the people and you'll do fine.  You put a lot more than a word in, and one of the things people who interact essentially anonymously have to watch carefully is tone, since text conveys intent poorly.  My initial impression is that you are a little bit cavalier with your tone, and Hans might have been exasperated trying to help you, but obviously put in some degree of effort trying to answer you intelligently and comprehensively.  Simple answer, let it go, move on, focus on content, not people. -- Avanu (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (Hopefully really my last comment here, as this nonsense is not good for my blood pressure.) The simple fact is that "pound" with no further qualifications is a mass. According to the US' 1893 Mendenhall Order (and much earlier, as it only affected the value of the avoirdupois pound, not its dimension), according to NIST, according to every single UK Weights and Measures Act that I have seen. (I have trouble finding the really old ones.) Some engineers are confused about this because they are using a variant of the FPS system in which the pound-force is more important than the pound and because in legal and standards contexts the word "weight" is used for mass. (In engineering contexts it makes sense to refer to the pound-force as "pound" for simplicity, and consequently to the pound as "pound-mass" for clarity.) But it's still a fact, whether you can make yourself believe it or not. Most people care about how much gold they have lying on their table. It's only engineers who worry primarily whether the force is going to break it. I might have been more patient with you if you were the first user with this misunderstanding. But while most editors active in the area understand the situation, we occasionally get a very obstinate editor who tries to prove everybody else wrong on this.
 * I apologise for using the term "PLONK". Wikipedia has no killfiles, and it would be hard to implement something like that. What I meant is that my opinion of you had fallen to the point that I resolved to ignore you. It never occurred to me that you could understand this as the threat of some technical measure, even after you began to inexplicably (for me) talk about a threat. – On the other hand there is a lot of things I said that I have no reason at all to apologise for. You came to the talk page with a long post containing some errors that demonstrated that you have some fundamental difficulties with physics computations. Many students make such mistakes while in school; at university they are supposed to learn the correct approach that prevents them. They are supposed to learn that they can't just write equations that really only mean "this corresponds to that", and manipulate them at random. After I spent a lot of time writing an explanation of the problem, you returned, added another mistake, and claimed that that was an improvement because now your result had almost the right order of magnitude. A little later you suspected me of being clueless about science and engineering for daring to say that the historical choice of using the term "weight" for the force rather than mass when the distinction came up was odd. Hans Adler 18:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Skipping the discussion of what pound is (a type of Cake, right?) because we don't do content here, just seeing escalating spiral of incivility from both editors. Please just focus on content and not the contributor. Gerardw (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Gerardw: I don't know if you have had a look at Talk:Pound (mass), but while it is often fair to comment on an "escalating spiral of incivility from both editors" in hope of settling down a dispute with some face-saving on both sides, in this case that attempted settlement is extremely unfair. Hans has given 203.129.23.146 a lot of very civil and very constructive help at the article talk page, but it appears 203.129.23.146 does not (or possibly, will not) get it. The comments are too long to be sure, but I do not see any incivility from Hans (and I don't see a diff to point to one). After what happened at the article talk, it is absurd to suggest that "PLONK" was uncalled for. I have added the page to my watch list and will assist to remove any more nonsense. I recommend closing this discussion because the only editor that needs WQA assistance is 203.129.23.146 and they have demonstrated that time spent on explanations is wasted. Wikipedia requires civility—it does not require that nonsense be tolerated. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know where this stupid notion that the pound is primarily a unit of force  is not a good opening for a civil conversation. I do concur with closing, as I don't see much good coming out of continued conversation here. Gerardw (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reading the discussion shows that the "stupid notion" comment is not uncivil, and it is an important part of the discussion (and not in any way directed at an editor). 203.129.23.146 started the article talk section with a link to a discussion at the Science reference desk, and we should assume that Hans Adler reviewed that discussion before answering. He would have read 203.129.23.146's answer to the question: "How did people fall into this unfortunate notion that the pound isn't primarily a unit of mass?" which included "For me it was engineering textbooks and university courses".
 * The immensely helpful and comprehensive reply by Hans Adler started "I don't know where this stupid notion that the pound is primarily a unit of force and needs to be renamed for use as a unit of mass comes from, but when it is actually being taught at university level I guess we can't ignore it...". It is simply a mistake to read "stupid notion" as an insult to the person reporting that books and courses were the origin of the notion (the "taught at university level I guess we can't ignore it" text shows that the comment is addressed to the issue that pound is a unit of force is a stupid notion that cannot be ignored because it reportedly is taught at university level). If the reader were to initially make that mistake (and believe "stupid" was applied to the editor), they would surely realize the following highly civil and helpful text contradicted the thought that the message was an insult. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well obviously we disagree. Starting a reply with less pejorative synonyms ("incorrect") could have good a long way to avoiding this WQA in the first place. (I've addressed the content issue on the talk page.) To be clear, has Hans Adler violated any WP policy? Not that I'm seeing. But not all that is permitted is wise. Gerardw (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Kuebie and Historiographer and KoreanSentry


To give very brief background, articles pertaining to China, Korea, and Japan often attract controversy over issues of historical interpretation, and the present disruptive behavior pertains to a Chinese/Korean conflict. The above-named editors have all been blocked in the past for edit-warring, and their present behavior reflects this tendency.

On the talk page of the Joseon Dynasty article, the editors Kuebie and Historiographer have continually reverted the addition of a "WikiProject China" banner. The banner was added due to the close tributary relationship between the states which lasted for several centuries. Even as an editor who is more interested in Korean history than Chinese history, I agree that the banner is appropriate, because it is impossible to discuss one nation's history without discussing the other- a little bit like Vatican City vis-a-vis Italy. (Edit: I just checked, and WikiProject Italy does indeed have a banner on Talk:Vatican City, with the article judged to be "Top" importance, to boot.) Kuebie and Historiographer, however, have expressed the view that the addition of a WikiProject banner is POV-pushing and tantamount to claiming that the Joseon Dynasty (a Korean state from the 14th to 19th century) was "a part of China" or else lacking in sovereignty. At least two editors (including myself) have explained to the above-named editors that WikiProject affiliations simply indicate that editors interested in topic x may be interested in helping to improve article y, and that WikiProject affiliations do not imply any endorsement of any particular point of view, nor have any bearing on content disputes. It would be helpful for a third party (or parties) to intervene and explain to the above-named users that deleting valid WikiProject affiliations is misguided and disruptive.

Edited to add KoreanSentry as a party; I initially missed his or her involvement.

Relevant diffs with regard to edit-warring behavior:     

&mdash;Bill Price (nyb) 14:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This doesn't appear to be a Wikiquette issue -- I recommend opening an WP:RFC. Gerardw (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Clooneymark
This editor became unhappy last week when I pointed out that his main activity had consisted of adding external links, all leading to the same domain. Yesterday he was already back at it, again adding external links to the same site http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deborah_Houlding&diff=prev&oldid=432672876, with another editor interfering and asking him to stop adding links. This user now goes on making comments referring to a WP:OUTING case that was removed by a WP adminstrator yesterday, even after that adminstrator commented to explain the WP policy. I have asked Clooneymark to remove these comments, but he is not responding. How do I resolve this case? See Talk:Deborah_Houlding and Talk:Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer). MakeSense64 (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If any outing is available in the history of a page somewhere, you can request that it be removed at WP:RFO. You need to provide a diff of the edit that introduced the outing (or multiple diffs if more than once). To do that, consult the history of the page and copy the link for the "prev" difference. Confirm you have the right one by posting the link into the address bar of a web browser. As an example, the diff for your above message is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=432822809&oldid=432808211
 * Re the external links: please report any problems at WP:ELN. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The outing was removed in the history pages by a WP administrator yesterday already. But now this editor continues to make new comments about the outing materials that are no longer there, making the assumption that they were true. What do I do with these new comments that are completely ad hominem? Can I just delete them as per WP:TALKO? Will report to ELN about the links. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm noting the original poster came off a two year editing hiatus and their first contribution was to question Deborah Houlding's notability. If there are specific wikiquette issues, WP:DIFFs would be good. Gerardw (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * [material redacted here]I have said I will remove the comments if a WP administrator clarifies that policy is being broken. Have I broken it here because this is the sort of comment he wants removed - because it reveals how his off-wiki vendetta activity is relevant to his on-wiki editing of that bio and the links he claims are spam. I intend to try to work on pages which do not involve this editor, because this is a tiresome situation but I will check the page to follow the advice of admin so there's no need for Makesense64 to argue the situation here.Clooneymark (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just best not to make reference to the editor's off-wiki behavior. You're not required to defend yourself against accusations/warnings on your talk page. Just discuss the article, including relevant external links, on the talk page; if you need additional assistance from additional editors see WP:RFC for how to make such a request. Gerardw (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is an example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer)&diff=432678978&oldid=432672568.
 * And : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deborah_Houlding&diff=prev&oldid=432662379
 * Also note that Clooneymark came off a long holiday and his first contribution was to add back multiple external links the day after another editor had removed them. Diffs:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deborah_Houlding&diff=prev&oldid=432022852
 * After I pointed this out he refused to focus on content.
 * Now he goes on talking about an outing that was removed by a WP administrator yesterday. See example above. How does that line up with WP guidelines? MakeSense64 (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the outing policy, but I'm not seeing any significant civility issues on Clooneymark's part. Your posting a spammer warning on their talk page was excessive. Gerardw (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He could have agreed that adding 3 external links to the same domain was excessive, and then I would have removed it. Instead he tried to tell us that he had added those links because he had just come across them that day. Coincidence that this happens a day after another editor trimmed the links down to one? And his contributions show that he was adding similar links back in August 2007, the only other time he has been that active on WP.
 * As for the outing policies, the WP administrator made a direct comment in reponse to Clooneymark, diff:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deborah_Houlding&diff=432655856&oldid=432655130
 * But he still continues to refuse to go by it, wondering if he is breaking any WP policy. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I need to go out but will check again this evening and make any corrections that are deemed necessary as decided by WP admins. Or will understand if an admin makes deletions to avoid controversy. I have nothing more to say on this except to ask again that you check the details before judging. I haven’t outed anyone’s identity - only made reference to an issue that concerns this editors Wiki activity. I believe he is breaking policy by using WP to further his own harassment campaign. Tricky situation but I won’t add more because enough’s been said already. Personally, I want to move on from this murky matter now Clooneymark (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * WP is about facts and things that can be verified. Nobody says that you have outed anything, but you continue to make comments about material that is not on the table and not verified, just pushing what you believe. There is nothing tricky about it, because if something gets edited against WP guidelines then somebody else will come in and correct it.
 * It is very easy to move on, just agree that it was not right to add multiple external links where another editor (not me) had trimmed them to one the day before. And now the article has references (and a photo), where it had none when I came across it just one week ago and tagged it. So what are you actually continuing to complain about?
 * A good guidelines to read is WP:FOC, focus on content. But somehow you want to continue to focus on one editor (me). MakeSense64 (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Unfortunately Clooneymark still refuses to focus on content, and is again making allegations and ad hominem remarks that are very similar to the ones that were removed here by a WP administrator yesterday (see page history). This editor shows no intention to even try to work by WP guidelines, now treathening to repost more comments that have been deleted from the history earlier. Can anybody take a look, and what is my next step if this continues? See diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer)&curid=4782129&diff=433046013&oldid=433031598 MakeSense64 (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Groan. Not only am I trying very hard to focus on content, I've put a lot of hard work into improving the content and made my first bold attempt to add changes to the main page today. Makesense64 has done nothing towards the content - except try to use the words of every WP policy known to man to stop this and another page I worked on evolving; from throwing around threats that I'll be blocked for spamming if I use links that lead to the content of relevant published articles, to raising threads on admin boards presenting his own slant on reasons why another source of reference I used should not be accepted as a 'reliable source' . For example This is really tiresome. He is quick to raise offical complaints but never presents the full story.


 * I've noticed he's just deleted whole chunks from from an astrology article that past editors have worked on, without allowing any discussion or raising an alert that the material needs improvement. See here. I wanted to revert that but left it alone to avoid more controversy with this person.


 * Just to be clear, the comment he keeps saying is self published was a comment made about the subject in a very well respected journal, in 1993. I have given the reference and a link to a site that gives an online reproduction of the article, and the phrase I used is taken word for word from that published article. So anyone can see that this is a published comment that describes his reputation, not something he just said about himself.  But Makesense64 knows this already.  I asked him not to start another edit-war when there was no new point to start one over. Yesterday I did nothing when he took it upon himself to delete the discussion comments I made that revealed his motives, even though no one else had agreed that they need be removed. If he had brought forward a new point fair enough; but this is part of his tactics - time wasting and obstructiveness and threats of destruction if we don't stick to WP policy as he chooses to interpret it. He seems to have more time than I do and will probably go on to do a lot of destruction on pages of topics he doesn't like. He certainly seems to want me off of WP and is likely to get his way because I've had just about as much as I can take of his disingenious tactics. If any of you recognise this kind of situation from your own experience, and can offer any suggestions please do. Thanks Clooneymark (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * To put questions on the reliable sources noticeboard is the most normal thing on WP. Why is that tiresome for you? Second opinions should not be heard if there is no concensus?
 * And now you seem to be following me around to every edit I do. People are welcome to go and read that chunk I deleted on Astrologer. As for following people around, have a look at WP:WIKIHOUNDING MakeSense64 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:SarekOfVulcan


Bit put out with Sarek's negative attitude towards my motives on this page, as shown by his giving me a template warning for edit warring on my talk page, and in the discussion I then began on his talk page (to which he has not exactly been forthcoming in explaining his actions). I don't wish to imply that Sarek has a personal vendetta against me, because I don't believe that to be the case, but feel I should point out that Sarek recently blocked me from Wikipedia for a day, a block that was subsequently overturned. U-Mos (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about your motives on that page. All I said was that you had reverted more times than you were supposed to.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Reverts: . That's four reverts in 24 hours, with one more revert shortly before that: . The warning you received was perfectly appropriate, and no wikiquette problems are apparent. SarekofVulcan made no comments about your motives, and giving you one (correct) warning a month after a too hasty block is hardly a "vendetta". Fram (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I have no intention of suggesting Sarek holds a vendetta against me personally, but I do believe his over-zealous warnings etc. are highly unconstructive. I may have unintentionally slipped over 3RR on the page, but I was not involved in an edit war and so the warning (especially considering the edit that apparently triggered it) were totally inappropriate. U-Mos (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No one claimed that you intentionally slipped over 3RR, but note that the revert or edit you give here is not even included in the four reverts I listed above, so is not really relevant in the end. The text on your user page is the standard 3RR warning: Template:Uw-3rr, not some specific text SarekofVulcan made up. If you believe that that template is not friendly enough and "highly unconstructive", perhaps it would be better if you discussed that at the talk page of that template. If you believe that Sarek had better used some more personal, less confrontational text than the one supplied by the template, you could have suggested this on his talk page. Taking this to Wikiquette alerts was not the best approach to this though. Fram (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As Sarek's talk page shows, I did attempt to discuss this but was met with little to no response, and Sarek did highlight the edit I linked to above (which is in no way a revert). I would have preferred Sarek to have not used the arbitrary template, but my main issue was that I believed it to be a template aimed at tackling edit warring rather than 3RR, wheras it appears to serves the purpose of both. I will therefore take your advise and raise my concerns on the template's talk page. U-Mos (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * After taking another look at that fourth diff(-"Sontaran"), it appears it would indeed be a stretch to call that a revert. However, that still leaves you with 3 reverts, and warning at that point is usually a Good Thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Fram covered most of this in his above comments, although I will add a few points. U-Mos, I note that you said at the outset that you don't think Sarek has a vendetta against you; it does seem like you editing with the intention of improving the encylopedia, and you have clearly been here for long enough. But WQA was not going to accomplish much. Perhaps you can make a greater-still effort to abide by 3RR. Sarek, were you actively going against Don't template the regulars? I don't see any indication from you that this was a mistake. Perhaps you can make a greater effort to avoid attracting this sort of attention by putting a bit more thought in what you are doing; this was quite small in the end, but the principle does seem to apply to the bigger issues you involve yourself in too. Seems like this is ripe to be marked as resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither WP:DTR or WP:TR are policy. Gerardw (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 3RR is an exception to DTR. Experienced editors who violate 3RR ought to be happy to be let off with a template warning. Looie496 (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in to think I agree with this. As a bright line and pretty clear cut rule, using the template for this is not the same as using say a vandalism or NPA template. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That it isn't explicitly written into policy does not mean admins don't understand what happens in practice or haven't seen that happen for themselves before; if you know certain people are likely to react in a certain way to a particular type of form, yet you actively use that form on them anyway, that is an issue because it increases the chances of attracting this sort of attention. The editor who filed this was put off by the admin's apparent attitude and the templated warning; not the warning itself; an appropriate personalised nudge can produce very different results to what we have seen here, even for 3RR. Yes, 3RR is a bright line rule, but it is not completely devoid of meaning either; it shouldn't be used at the expense of or as an excuse to replace what's more important (the underlying purpose of the project). Each admin is given additional responsibilities which come with their privileges, elected to use his/her judgement appropriately, and should fully reflect on and abide by the spirit of policy too; it was because not enough regard was paid to this that the admin's recent block of this editor was overturned. Next, the admin used a template on that same regular editor (in spite of WP:DTR), then when that editor came to his talk page to resolve the concern, the admin's only response is to post 4 diffs without any further followup, and then after this WQA, the admin admits it was a stretch to call one of the diffs a revert. If all of these circumstances isn't an indication that more thought and care could have prevented this escalation, I'm not sure what is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * True, discretion is needed and your comments are much more nuanced than mine! In this specific case I agree that the template should not have been used - context is as usual key here. Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A proposal relating to this issue has been made at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► duumvirate ─╢ 10:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And my suggestion on the 3RR template can be found here. U-Mos (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Slavery in modern Africa


The user is inserting a causal relationship between slavery (which predates Islam) and it continuation to the leadership of Sudan and their Islamic faith. WP:SYNTH Asked to discuss on talk page, failed to bring sources argument and still continued to revert and edit war and disrupt other ongoing edits. Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, I don't see what this complaint is doing here. I see some content conflicts, but who's right and who's wrong is not relevant for this board. The plaintiff, Halaqah, says nothing about the IP having acted against etiquette, provides no differences of such behavior, and I myself see nothing in the IP's contributions that warrants some kind of note or intervention. The IP wasn't even properly notified of this complaint. In fact, I see some questionable behavior from the IP's counterparts, but that's not for here either. Someone please close this quickly; Halaqah, please stop forum shopping and try to resolve your differences via other means. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin
Orangemarlin has been uncivil and bitey toward the new editor User:Jjnullww. I then filed this report. Thoughts on how this should be dealt with? Thank you, Alpha Quadrant    talk    04:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  Orangemarlin adds cleanup tags to the edit summary of "This article is nonsense"
 * 2) Orangemarlin Uses a profane edit summary while fixing the cleanup tags nominates the article for deletion with a profane edit summary
 * 3) Orangemarlin creates the AfD page and uses profanity both in the rationale and in the edit summary, with the new editor interprets as directed at him
 * 4) Orangemarlin reverts User:Jjnullww's attempts to fix the article with the edit summary of "Deleting. This is not cited, and it's original research"
 * 5) Orangemarlin reverts User:Jjnullww's attempts to fix the article  using twinkle
 * 6) I inform Orangemarlin that he has made 9 edits and two reverts, which could be interpreted as edit warring by applying Template:Uw-3rr
 * 7) Orangemarlin reverts my edit and uses profanity and personal attacks in the edit summary
 * 8) Orangemarlin leaves a message on my talk page telling me to read WP:DTTR, that I can't count, and that I should never warn someone about edit warring again
 * 9) I reply explaining my reasoning and inform him that he was incivil and bitey toward a new editor
 * 10) I leave a talkback template on his talk page
 * 11) Orangemarlin reverts my edit and states "Don't give a shit...when I get an apology, maybe I'll give a shit."
 * Well, for starters, consecutive edits don't count as multiple reverts, so OrangeMarlin has 2 reverts at the most, which normally isn't considered edit warring. Also, this doesn't show profanity in the deletion nomination -- it shows him swearing at the multiple-issues template for not properly documenting how to use it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that the swearing is inappropriate, but [Alpha Quadrant] you're out of line here. He made 2 reverts. By definition that is not edit warring. For you to post on his page telling him he is edit-warring and out of line is simply inaccurate. I agree that he is brash in his comments, but which specific rule was he violating? As far as I can see the edits he was reverting were not sourced, which is the reason he gave for deleting it. You should withdraw this complaint.Ultimahero (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to remind OM that good editors don't need to be bullyish, it's enough to be good or smart or right. The rest is superflous and harms the community.  It's also useful to encourage other editors to share their opinions, even if incorrect, and to show them better ways of doing things.  Idealist, perhaps, but better than the current alternative, I think.  Acting like the encyclopedia is constantly under attack by idiots is no way to live, nor is it a way to treat fellow editors. Ocaasit 05:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheese talk is tedious. We all understand your frustration, OM, but you can expose the flaws in the cheeser's thinking without making yourself look like a lout. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Guys, after you finish rebuking Taoist, please remember that this kind of behavior is a constant problem (check the edit summary) with Orangemarlin, and it needs to be corrected. Cla68 (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Orangemarlin needs to learn that the proper course is to make a pretense of civility here, then fling insults from the safety of an external site. Or make accusations by innuendo, being careful to superficially distance oneself by claiming "I've been told by email..." or the like. Right, Cla68? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL is policy, just like WP:NPOV. No one has permission to chuck one out the door to achieve the other.  Wikipedia is a community-written encyclopedia.  We would be wise to keep the community in mind while we write it.  Improving the tension between believers and scientists is not just about keeping out the trash, it's about how we deal with people who share other views, fringe views, and sometimes unpopular or unwise but still encyclopedic views.  As soon as WP:CIVIL is deprecated and replaced with WP:CIVILEXCEPTTOPEOPLEITHINKARENUTS, the culture of insult should cease.  Smart people are smart enough to get their points across without ire or irritation. Ocaasit 14:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OM has a clear explanation of his behavioral expectations on his talkpage, which AQ ignored in posting there, drawing the predictable response. WP has broad tolerance for editors behavior on their own talkpages, and this certainly falls within that. AQ should simply apologize before aggravating the error further. The edit summary AQ describes as "profane" might be a tad salty, but had no mention of any hypothetical supernatural entity. Rather it expressed evident frustration with the state of template:multiple issues/doc. If anyone has reason to be upset by that it would be the editor(s) of that doc page, not the newbie. Meanwhile, the problem page Taoist medicine Taoist Medicine still doesn't belong in articlespace until properly sourced.LeadSongDog  come howl!  14:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Noting that it is Taoist Medicine and is still in articlespace (with no sources). Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks Doug. Refactored. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Quadrant: you aren't being honest here (possibly not even with yourself). You say "I inform Orangemarlin that he has made 9 edits and two reverts, which could be interpreted as edit warring ", but that isn't true. What you actually did was left a std template on OM's page (thereby violating DNTTR, as OM noted and complained at you for). You made no mention of 9 edits and 2 reverts: you said: "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war". You further said "If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice". That asserts (a) that OM *was* (not might be; *was*) edit warring; and that he risked a block for it (both of which were false).

So: you need to (a) correct your erroneous report, (b) apologise to OM for your violation of DNTRR William M. Connolley (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I note that WP:DNTTR is an essay which advises against templating the regulars. So one can't "violate" it.  It also advises that "Recipients should still assume good faith".  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have corrected the report. Apologies for my mistake in point #2, I misread the diff. As for my use of Template:Uw-3rr, it can be used before the editor has violated the 3RR. He had made two direct reverts, as well as several consecutive removals. He had not yet directly violated the 3RR, but there was a potential for it to occur. Secondly, I did not, and cannot violate WP:DTTR because it is an essay. It is suggested templates are not used on experienced editors, but it is not policy. Lastly, the majority of this issue took place off of his talk page, the use of profanity in edit summaries to a new editor's article is bitey. Most, but not all, new editors know how to use the history tab and would be able to clearly see the summaries. Use of profanity may be acceptable on one's own talk page (or even other talk pages), but when editing a new article created by a new editor this is not acceptable. His deletion rationale did not specifically explain issues of the article, and if anything, was discouraging the new editor from creating another article. (And we have this problem) That is why I filed this report, I have no issues with his reaction toward me. Alpha Quadrant    talk    17:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. You should not have used the template. You still seem to be in denial about that. How about you show some kind of charity / good faith / whatever, and apologise to OM for your error? Secondly, the template (which you used, and therefore you take responsibility for the words) didn't say OM *might* have been edit warring, it said he *was* edit warring. So again, you are in error and owe an apology. If you're just going to stonewall this: why are you here? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether or not he should have used the template is a matter of opinion. It might be gracious of AQ to say to OM something like "I didn't intend or expect to upset you by using the template and I'm sorry if I did".  But I wouldn't say that he needs to do so.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As it happens, accusing an editor of edit warring when they're not, and threatening to have them blocked them for it, could be seen as a violation of WP:NPA (see WP:NPA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence) . On the other hand, swearing, per se, could not be seen as such a violation. I suggest that AQ apologises for his handling of this situation, and in future adopts a more politely discursive and less aggressive approach to such situations. I also respectfully ask that OM please avoids using language that could be misconstrued/construed as offensive in the future, as it doesn't tend to help resolve matters. Best wishes, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the situation, I see that I was in error in using the 3rr template message. Instead, I should have hand written a message, I apologize for this mistake. Alpha Quadrant    talk    21:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as OM is concerned, I think the community would prefer OM not to use crude language as in, or .  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll second that. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too.Ultimahero (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you forgotten that wp:NOT and wp:NOT, or do you just think that policies doesn't matter? LeadSongDog come howl!  06:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither, of course. We are not voting, "voting" or !voting on anything here, we're discussing a certain proposition.  A consensus might or might not emerge.  What are your views on the proposition that most people would prefer OM not to use crude language?  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, wp:NOT is "about Wikipedia's content". Civility is a policy too, and one of the five pillars.  It mandates that users should "avoid directing profane and offensive language at other users".  The discussion is whether [,  and  consitute offensive language.  What are your views on that?  [[User:Sergeant Cribb|Sergeant Cribb]] (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sergeant Cribb: remember that the aim of this page is to move disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour. Can you please focus on mutual resolution not forciable punishment. It is not within the mandate of WQA to restrict an editor from using "crude language" (or from doing anything, for that matter); our role is to informally provide dispute resolution. To suggest that you have the backing of the community in imposing such a restriction just because of a discussion at WQA shows a appalling lack of understanding of what this venue is about. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 07:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no mention of "punishment" in discussing the proposition that "most people would prefer OM not to use crude language". AQ asked about profanity and I gave what I believe to be the majority view, supported by Civility, which is a policy and one of the five pillars.  What is problematic about that?  If I was wrong, then no doubt someone will show me a consensus where the language in [,  and  has been considered and pronounced inoffensive.  Saying that most people would prefer OM not to do something is so far from "imposing a restriction" (something I do not claim to do, and have no remit to do) or threatening a "punishment", as to suggest that the "appalling lack of understanding" which you see in my comments might perhaps be more on someone else's part.  [[User:Sergeant Cribb|Sergeant Cribb]] (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You say above that the proposition is that most people would prefer OM not to use crude language (this in itself is a strange way to word a proposition), and that you're trying to form a consensus on that matter. In the event that a consensus was formed, then OM would effectively have been told by a consensus that he is to no longer use crude language. However, you are mistaken in thinking that WQA is the correct place to be making propositions and trying to form consensus about how users should be behaving. It is not. It is, as I have said, an informal venue for dispute resolution. The discussion you are trying to form has nothing to do with resolving the matter in a way that satisfies all parties, instead, it is focused on proving that a particular party behaved in a poor manner, and establishing a consensus that states that they should not continue that behaviour in future. That is not what WQA is about.
 * In this particular case, both the users most heavily involved have violated etiquette. However, we are not here to prove that, nor to sanction them for it. Alpha Quadrant has already apologised for his violation, as a result of informal mediation, rather than consensus and propositions (you should probably think about that). OM, on the other hand, does not seem to be interested in taking part in the mediation, which is perfectly understandable.
 * Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your views on dispute resolution are most interesting: thank you for expressing them. Your views on my behaviour and motivation are not helping to resolve this dispute.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos


ClaudioSantos is already over a long period busy with pushing his point of view in al kind of article relating to euthanesia. He already amassed a few blocks for that (see: here). Most recent on 3 May 2011, for edit warring on Non-voluntary euthanasia. Unfortunately, immediately after his block he started again removing unwelcome texts, mostly by claiming it was original research. That came close to another edit war. But now he started shouting and roaring, and now I have enough!

Claiming that I am lying:, , , , , Changing text or lay out of text: Copying text to another place without notifying:, , Hiding warnings for edit warring and POV-pushing: Removing unwanted references:

Maybe I am at the wrong place here with my complaint, but this looked the best place. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it a fault to change the layout in order to facilitate the reading of the paragraphs? Is it a fault to copy a discussion from the user talk-page to the respective article-talk-page? Whathever. The relevant issue is that my deletion of some sentences in some articles was not any personal attack nor and edit warring. The paragraph that Night of the Big Wind was continuosly reinserting in non-voluntary euthanasia was WP:OR: the source does not say what this paragraph claims. That source (here is the abstract: )is an study about Deliberate termination of life in newborns in The Netherlands; an review of all 22 reported cases between 1997 and 2004, but it never claims that "In the modern world, the term (non-voluntary euthanasia) is usually applied to medical situations, such as the termination of newborns born with severe spina bifida (child euthanasia), performed in the Netherlands under the Groningen Protocol". The source does not even use the term non-voluntary euthanasia not even the term Groningen Protocol.
 * Nevertheless, Night of the Big Wind insisted the source claims that statement when I proved it does not, and of course he failed to provide a quote of it from the source when I asked for it but he insisted to include the misleading paragraph. So it was WP:OR and blatantly misleading by falsely attributing to a source something it does not claim: that is lying. And I also remember that statement was firstly inserted into the lead by an user who was expulsed due sock-puppetry and well known and well expulsed because of using dirty tactics in order to force his editions, also known by Night of the Big Wind as he was also his victim:-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly the same in the case of this reference I've deleted: . The source Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, which is an article from the own en-wikipedia, it does not state that "Also in 1990, the Supreme Court approved the use of non-active euthanasia". That is a sort of claim made by the WP-user, falsely atributed to the source. In fact the conlsuioon made by the Suprem Court were quiet different see: -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Therefore I am not deleting "unwanted" references nor forcing any POV, but just removing WP:OR-statements which are misleading by falsely attributing to the sources things that those sources actually do not claim. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Interpretations, my friend. You removed two sources, of which at least was inconvenient. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears much of the dispute comes down to this article, the title of which was "Actieve levensbeëindiging bij pasgeborenen in Nederland; analyse van alle 22 meldingen uit 1997/'04" [Deliberate termination of life in newborns in The Netherlands; review of all 22 reported cases between 1997 and 2004], . The authors, Verhagen AA, Sol JJ, Brouwer OF, Sauer PJ were from the University of Groningen, and two months later two of them published "The Groningen protocol--euthanasia in severely ill newborns." in N. Engl. J. Med., detailing the protocol. While I wouldn't trust my ability to translate the Dutch text, it clearly is discussing the same topic, whether or not it literally applies the same term.
 * This is a very delicate topic, editors should endeavour to use the greatest tact possible in discussing it. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. And there are many misconceptions and much misinformation. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To show his POV: . Night of the Big Wind (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * At this edit by CS, which was then reverted by NotBW we see both editing in evident bad faith. The first assumes wp:OR and deletes, where there was only justification for a (and that citation could have been provided, albeit with a change of wording from "non-active euthanasia" to "voluntary withdrawal of life support". The court's words were that "A competent person has a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause in refusing unwanted medical treatment.") The second edit labels the first edit as vandalism, when it was clearly a content dispute. Frankly both these editors need to give their heads a shake. LeadSongDog  come howl!  04:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, maybe. It is indeed possible that after all the previous issues, I am overly itchy for Claudio's edits... Night of the Big Wind (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Tjprochazka


User Tjprochazka is an editor who seems to be an SPA on the article for the How I Met Your Mother episode Slap Bet.

Quickly summing up the plotline on the show, one character (Barney) lost a bet, and another character (Marshall) gets to slap him five times, whenever he wants. The slaps have been an ongoing subplot of the show for years, and always a big deal (and clearly indicated by Marshall saying "that's one/two/etc") on the show. The show is told in flashback, and not in strict chronological order.

Since mid-May, this editor has inserted material indicating the fifth (and final) slap was given on an episode, where the editor fully admits no indication was given whatsoever that a slap delivered was the fifth slap. In the final diff given, the editor admits their addition is based on "visual perceptions," not any sourced material. They've been reverted by several other editors, but never used the talk page until I asked them today to please explain, where they basically responded with "it's in the episode." Relevant discussion is on the talk page here where I tried to make a point about speculation, which was ignored in favor of "the truth."

Where this rises above a slow-motion edit war is Tjprochazka's attitude towards my attempt to get him to discuss. His response was to insult me and ban me from his talk page. He then went to my page and called my good faith attempts to discuss "foolish".

I have no desire to get into an edit war with someone who clearly believes their version is "the truth", and I doubt they'd be listening to me anyway. Would someone more patient than I please take a look at this situation? Thanks in advance for your time. Dayewalker (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone must have missed the rules at the top of the page here: "Avoid filing a report if: [...] You have not followed the directions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Avoiding disputes. Politely, in a non-judgemental [sic] way, raise the issue with the other editor; emphasise [sic] the desire to move forward constructively; and address how to move forward on the outstanding content issues whilst assuming good faith." - Tjprochazka (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried, and left a message on your page and on the talk page discussion. You responded by calling me "Lame", a "drama queen" , "lazy" , insulted my intellegence , and told me to stay off your talk page (after one post) . I've made my case on the talk page, sorry, but I don't have the patience to deal with your behavior right now. As such, I've brought the matter here for further attention. Dayewalker (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This criticism has been addressed elsewhere, as per Wikiquette protocol, and may have been resolved on the respective User talk pages and the article Discussion page. (Links provided above). Tjprochazka (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It has not been resolved, although another editor has also reverted your changes at the article. This WQA isn't about a content dispute, it's about your behavior. If you'll use the talk page, stay civil, and seek consensus rather than edit warring, I'll gladly close this WQA. Dayewalker (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You know, honestly, it isn't worth fighting with blind fools who won't face facts ... so I will stay satisfied with the fact that I am right and will wait, in the wings, until the night that the writers fess-up to their mistake or elaborate on their ploy and will then return to not only say "I told you so" but also that I was right all along. If you don't like my attitude that is your problem, not mine. I am who I am and I don't care what people think of me. You spammed my User page but I should thank you for that because you have given me a brilliant idea of how to use it going forward. I still maintain that talk pages are worthless (evidenced by the lack of "Discussion" for over three months on here 'and' the lack of the other editor's contribution to the same ... but I have now found a purpose for my own, individual talk page which shall henceforth be the equivalent of my blog. For THAT I should thank you ... but I'm not going to! If you find me/that annoying, oh well! I'll see you next season (and I can't wait until the other writers prove me right)! AMF! Tjprochazka (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You really are digging yourself a hole by making comments like that; I hope the warnings on your talk page will persuade you to end this feuding voluntarily. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)