Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive109

Regarding the article 'Treschow (D.-N. family)'


The article Treschow (Dano-Norwegian family) has experienced the recent arrival of a user, TuriTerj,


 * who in his/her edits shows lacking respect for earlier and other users' contributions, which he/she, often in violent manners, has removed and replaced with his/her own,
 * whose behaviour is considered as aggressive,
 * and whose contributions seem to be encumbered with lacking objectivity to the subject concerned. (The Treschow family are aristocrats, rich and famous, and such people attract the negative attention of individuals who, when on Wikipedia, often have other mainsprings than the purely academical.)

In addition, the user has added incorrect and/or unnuanced information (and my own corrections of them have been removed), e.g. the sentence ‘nobility was abolished in Norway in 1821’.

The mentioned user dominates the article, like he/she owns it, and contributions by others are consistently removed and replaced with his/hers. It has become impossible to work on the article, since this user most likely will remove other contributions.

I will first of all ask about the following:

1st) Whether one on basis of the article's revision history (from 1 May) sees indications of the same.

2nd) How the problem may be solved.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a good article; there are no references. Find some that support your edits, use the talk page, and open an WP:RFC to get more editors involved. Gerardw (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, there are some refs now in the Literature and sources section but no inline citations. Translations of those would be a good start, anyone game? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have thought, and I believe that much of the problem may be solved by presenting to the user TuriTerj the following fundamental principle on Wikipedia: respect for the work (efforts, etc.) of other users, and thus that contributions happen mainly as additions to the existing text, and not by removing other users' contributions and replacing them with what oneself has written. I suggest that e.g. an administrator, if recognising the occurrence of such removal of text, may instruct the mentioned user so that similar 'article revolutions' may be avoided.


 * --- Aaemn784 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a Wikipedia principle. In fact, it would lead to an unreadable non-encyclopedic website. Note the text that appears below the save page "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Gerardw (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Aaemn784's edits are of low quality (see the inconsistent narrative in the section "1812 ennoblement"), he removes relevant information, and makes unsourced and misleading claims, e.g. that the family is of noble "origin" (the family is not of noble "origin", but a branch of the family, not the entire family, was historically noble, in the 19th century). Whether the Treschow family is rich or not has nothing to do with the edits in questions, and does absolutely not waive normal quality standards. (The persons who are "rich and famous", assuming he is referring to the ones inhabiting Fritzøehus, and who are using the name Treschow today are not aristocrats in any country, btw., and wouldn't be aristocrats even if Norway had still recognized the existence of the nobility as such. That's another misleading claim.) Aaemn784 has also refused to discuss his problematic edits on the relevant article talk page where I brought up his misleading claims months ago. "The problem may be solved" when User:Aaemn784 starts to discuss his edits. TuriTerj (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi.


 * You have presented much incorrect information, e.g. that the nobility allegedly was abolished in 1821. It was not. The Nobility Law of 1821 initiated a long-range dissolution of noble privileges and titles, ending in the 1890s. Despite this, you have several times removed my correction and keep claiming that ‘the nobility’ was ‘abolished in 1821’. (However, I see that I could have provided an inline reference.)


 * In addition, you seem (this is my impression) very obsessed with making a point of allegedly reductive factors, e.g. the Treschows' ‘subordinate’ position compared with the German family Tresckow (repeated three different places in the article, and even extensively in what is supposed to be a general and short description of a picture). It is neither directly relevant nor especially encyclopedical to compare the Treschows, who are (historically) important within Norway, with some foreign family who happen to have a name which has similar spelling, but different origin. You cannot use a German family's rank in Germany to ‘reduce’ a Norwegian family's rank in Norway unless this happens in a relevant context.


 * You include in the text much general information which can be found by visiting each article concerned. The Treschow article is not supposed to give a general summary of every single topic that the article comes in touch with.


 * Examples:


 * ‘The agnatic descendants of Michael Treschow are nevertheless included in the Yearbook of the Danish Nobility, which is published by a private organisation.’ (Can easily be found by visiting YDN's article.)


 * ‘Also her children bear the surname Treschow, but would not have been considered as noble according to the letters patent, as noble status is inherited only patrilineally.’ (Common knowledge, and available in the topic's general articles, e.g. nobility.)


 * ‘Some other Norwegian families are known to have adopted coats of arms (or variations thereof) of unrelated families with similar names.’ (Common knowledge.)


 * ‘By the provisions of the patent, the patrilineal descendants of Michael Treschow, including unmarried females, were considered noble.’ (They were not ‘considered’ as noble; they were noble.)


 * ‘[...] wherefore this branch of the family became a part of the untitled nobility [...]’ (In Denmark and Norway, the nobility is untitled; the others belong to the barons' estate, the counts' estate, etc.)


 * Another problem is that you are too bombastic in your interpretation of terms. For example, I wrote ‘family seat’. A family seat is, as a descriptive term, the seat of any family, also farmer families. To this, you wrote in the talk page: ‘The term "family seat" has no legal meaning in Norway today and is misleading, Fritøzehus, completed in 1898, is today inhabited by Stein Erik Hagen and Mille-Marie Treschow, and will presumably be inherited by a member of the (un-noble) Stang family at some point. Fritøzehus has never been a family seat (setegård) in the legal sense, [...]’ Indeed, Fritzøehus was not a seat farm, and that is why I wrote family seat. A portion of humbleness would have prevented this misunderstanding of yours.


 * Otherwise, before expecting that people shall discuss with you, you should adopt a less aggressive way of behaviour on Wikipedia. I would normally seek a personal conversation with the editor concerned, but in this case, I found it both uncomfortable and unrealistic.


 * You might find the following page useful: How to edit a page: Major edits


 * --- Aaemn784 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

1) The Norwegian Treschow family has adopted not only a name which is indistinguishable from that of the German family, but even the coat of arms of this much older family. It's highly relevant and informative to mention this prominently, especially when discussing the coat of arms that they adopted from the German family, and to distinguish it from coats of arms used previously by the members of the Norwegian Treschow family.

2) I don't agree that the information on how noble status is inherited in this case (not universally) is "common knowledge" (it's only common knowledge for persons interested in nobility). The Treschow name is today used by many persons who are not members of what was defined as a noble family in the past, including the heirs to alleged "family seat". This is helpful and relevant information.

3) I don't object to rewording the information on the abolition of noble privileges/status. If you had explained your position in the first case, we could have found a more acceptable wording. However, the accepted position is that the concept of nobility does not exist in Norway today. If that was the case, it would somehow be officially acknowledged (by law, by the Government).

4) The term family seat is misleading for a number of reasons, both because it is the common translation of setegård or a term frequently denoting such a concept, and also because the current residents are mostly not members of the family that was historically noble. It's an expensive building from the turn of the century, but not the "seat" of anyone else than the ones residing there. Describing it as a family seat is anachronistic and misleading.

5) The nobility in Denmark and Norway is not always untitled. Untitled nobility is the common term for, well, the untitled nobility, and I fail to see what's the problem with that expression. The Wedel Jarlsberg family is, for example, a titled family whose head is lensgreve and whose younger members are barons. Multiple Danish families are titled nobles where the title is not tied to an estate/len.

6) The fact that other families have adopted (variations of) the coats of arms of unrelated families was added by yourself as far as I can tell; I merely moved it from the introduction to a more appropriate place in the article and reworded it. TuriTerj (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The question for this page is whether anyone needs help solving civility issues, not content. Please move the discussion to the article talk page. If you need more eyes on it, try WP:RFC. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Anglicanus' assumption of bad faith


Anglicanus and I disagree about the lede of a biographical article for a British subject usually known by a nickname should be set out. I have tried to explain my position and commented only on the issue and not on the user. Unfortunately I feel his mode of reply, in refusing to enter into proper discussion but blindly reverting and persistently accusing me of disruption, is distinctly unhelpful to resolving the underlying dispute. I have taken it up politely on his talk but it did not produce any change. I hope Anglicanus can understand that there is a difference between "an editor who disagrees with me" and "a disruptive editor". Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * These claims are completely false. I have already patiently tried - several times - explaining to Sam Blacketer the reasons why people's names are given as they are in these articles but he continues to assert that this is "incorrect" based on nothing except his opinion of what is "ugly" and what is a "correct" name.  Frankly, he is being extremely tiresome and hypocritical on this matter.  Everything he accuses me of more accurately describes his own behaviour. Anglicanus (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In the two cases cited, the persons concerned are widely known by their nicknames ('Googie' and 'Spike'), The articles will clearly need to give their full names as well. However per English/Irish usage, the nickname is never inserted into the full name - this seems to be US practice, but I've never seen it done with Spike (Or with Edward "Ed" Miliband", as someone tried to do with his article). We should follow common practice, not invent arbitrary rules. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, they are not just their "nicknames" - they became their usual or common names. They are the names which they would no doubt usually use themselves and usually sign with. Secondly, what evidence do you have that the "common practice" you say should be followed doesn't somehow apply to English and Irish people?  Surely that would be - by definition - to "invent arbitary rules". Unless you can provide such evidence then your comment is only an unsubstantiated opinion.  And it is false to claim that it "never" occurs with British and Irish people as it frequently does so - as with the Edward Heath article and hundreds of others.  Anglicanus (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * None of that is of the slightest significance - and the Edward Heath article doesn't follow British practice either - or can you provide external reliable sources that show this usage? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * All of my comments have been considerably more "significant" than anything you or Sam have so far provided. And you haven't provided any evidence to support "British practice" on this matter. I have discovered that Sam has been arguing for his opinion on this matter at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies).  He is of course, perfectly entitled to do this, but he isn't entitled to insist that his opinion is the "correct" one and that the common practice (which actually is supported in the MOS) is "incorrect".  It is very arrogant for any editor to act in this way. Anglicanus (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a link to the relevant MOS section? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(Outdent) Our own page nickname makes no British/American distinction and I personally (a Briton) have often seen Forename "Nickname" Surname – until today it had never occurred to me that that may be American usage. If anyone has a Debrett's or similar British style guide to hand, that would be handy. However, since this is posted in "Wikiquette", may I suggest that who is right is not so much our business as whether decorum and etiquette has been/is followed... DBD 19:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Anglicanus also accused me of disruption after I made an edit, with strong supporting evidence, changing 'Wellbeing' to 'Well-being' leaving the edit summary, "Well-being is perfectly acceptable in British English and is 10 times more common in usage than wellbeing and is also the COD spelling of the word." in the article Church of England. I support Sam Blacketer's complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalhomes (talk • contribs) 00:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing incivility issues here (disagreeing with someone isn't incivil.) There is already a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies); please continue there. Gerardw (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Incivility and assuming bad faith by User:Roscelese


I am almost always on the opposite side of a dispute from this user, but it has almost always been amicable and I have never seen her act the way she has in the past couple of days:
 * Calls a user's argument "stupid"; not uncivil in and of itself, but uncivil in the context of the following comments.
 * Assumes bad faith: "we can't remove it just because users who disagree with CFC want to pretend that no one important agrees with them."
 * After I reminded her to assume good faith, she blew it off and assumed more bad faith.
 * Half-accuses user of deliberately lying then again assumes bad faith: "I doubt that would have the pro-church-hierarchy effect you might wish for"
 * I told her that she was treating the article like her battleground, and she blew it off and accused me of simply harboring a grudge against her, then used the edit summary "cute" when I said I wasn't harboring a grudge.
 * The discussion moved to Talk:A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion, where she continued assuming bad faith.

I have a lot of respect for this user, but this is persistent and has gone over the line. Given my own history, I'm not in the position to be the civility police, but this behavior from Roscelese is persistent and needs to be brought to the attention of the community. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem you describe includes nothing of User:JorgePeixoto's sometimes pointless but otherwise point-of-view contributions. Roscelese is responding to the skewed contributions of that user. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Binksternet makes a good point. Further, Roscelese seems to be getting a bit impatient with NYyankee as well, and I can't say I blame them. I quote, per NYyankee's diffs: "Assuming good faith is generally a good idea in the absence of evidence of bad faith. But that's not the case here." "You're either misremembering or deliberately lying when you claim that I wished to remove the USCCB statement. I hope it's the former." (A perfectly civil statement, not a "half-accusation of deliberately lying" — what's a half-accusation of lying, anyway? Any sentence that contains the word "lying"?) Etc. To my mind, NYyankee's alphabet soup is ruder than Roscelese's attempts to inject logic in the discussion. "Reminding" an established editor to AGF is both time-wasting and provocative, NYyankee. Do you really suppose Roscelese is unaware of such well-known guidelines and policies as WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND? Bishonen | talk 21:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC).
 * half-accusation is a sarcastic accusation. Imagine if someone told you "You are either stupid or you made a silly mistake here. I hope it is the latter". You and everyone would realize you have been sarcastically called "stupid". In the quoted sentence above, I was sarcastically called a lier.
 * Second: inject "logic on the discussion"? I ask you to read the diffs in question. User Roscelese was claiming that the CFC should be classified as a Catholic organization, irrespective of the judgement from the USCCB, because she says the USCCB is merely a "pressure group" with no authority to say which organizations are Catholic! She eventually gave up that claim. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * JorgeP, all you're doing is making it painfully clear that your problem is with my worldview, not with my tone. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly the opposite. I would easily coedit an article with a Marxist, but if he starts accusing me of being a "stupid oppressing bourgeois" I would take him to Wikiquette. You were brought here because of "stupid", "n00b", "lying", "idiotic", "nonsense" and all other insults you hurl all the time. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing no one accused you of being a stupid oppressing bourgeois, then, or anything similar. Why don't we confine our discussion to things that are actually taking or have taken place, and not to a) pointless hypotheticals that map onto nothing that has actually happened or b) suggestions that I couldn't possibly be right about anything because I follow Wikipedia's policy on religious self-identification instead of the policy of an external organization with a political agenda? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I said elsewhere: if you keep accusing a person's actions of being "stupid", "idiotic", "nonsense", worthy of a "n00b", "what a joke", everyone understands that you are insulting that person. It seems you are trying to game the Wikiquette system by repeatedly insulting people's actions (so everyone understands the insult is directed at the person), hoping you can get away because you never directly insulted the person. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you agreeing with that my edits were POV and therefore I deserved to be attacked? I reject both parts of that statement. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but I have to admit, some of her recent edits have concerned me a bit as well. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you specify which ones, S? (My view on the situation is that I'm perfectly content to work with these users and I think that we can still do a great deal of productive work together in spite of our political differences, but I just don't see the value in asking me or anyone else to pretend that they are not trying to push a right-wing POV or that their interest in proper sourcing standards and other Wikipedia policies, such as BLP, is not secondary to this goal.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * , most recently... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the issue. It's a comment on content, not on a contributor. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When you call a change "nonsense", you're definitely implying something about the editor who made that change. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but I'll keep it in mind in the future. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I assure you that I am trying to reach truth in Wikipedia, but every edit I make and you disagree is followed by accusations of bad faith. You call me dishonest (by implying I am lying) all the time, and sometimes you call my arguments "stupid", worthy of a "n00b", and uses words like "LOL your sentence", "don't waste our time", and "what the hell are you trying to do". One small example is here. I was hones here; I think that having 9 pages of text on a subject that is borderline unnotable is an invitation for misinformation, because few Wikipedians will bother to verify the quotations on that text (even if it is sourced with many references, they won't be verified by anyone but you and Binksternet). You may disagree, but did you really need to start personal attacks? Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholics_for_Choice#Recent_edits_by_JP. The user here was angry because I used the sentence "expel the Vatican from the UN", which is a quotation from them, found on their website. She falsely accused me of taking this quotation from "enemies" (this is only true if CFC is an enemy of itself). I was actually nice and sugar-coated the real quotation, which was precisely "get the Vatican, the Holy See, booted from the UN". Anyway, even if she disagrees with including that quotation, was the incivility necessary? -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One small food for thought: there has been years since I ever met this level of incivility (many years ago, one user called me "Linux zealot" and accused me of "poisoning Wikipedia"). I have met many users who disagree with me, but they usually respect me. Even Binksternet, who is on your side, hasn't behaved the way you did. He may disagree with me, resent my presence on Wikipedia or even despise me (I don't know), but he still doesn't behave the way you do. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have (had?) a lot of respect for Roscelese. I disagree with her on just about everything, but we worked together cordially; recently, she has become impossible to work with and the behavior is spinning out of control. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO Ros' default mode is surly. Ocassionally, thanks to my highly developed wit and refined sense of humor, I am able squeeze a grin or sometimes a chuckle out of her. For instance when I asked her if she and Haymaker were taking dance lessons together off-wiki. But don't get me wrong: it's a lot of work. I agree with the other users here that lately she has been excessively rude, i.e. more than what's normal for her. She has even been snapping at me lately. Yes--you read that correctly: me!!! Of all people. She actually called an extremely well written and relevant move proposal of mine "silly." . And she did it twice! I think she's depressed. The only trigger I can come up with is that WP:WikiProject Conservatism, aka WP:RIGHT (isn't that the coolest shortcut?), recently tagged it's 3000th article. I know she watches the talk page. It's tough for libs to see WP:RIGHT on it's way to surpassing MILHIST. While I can't take all of the credit for this phenomenal accomplishment, if you feel moved to give me a barnstar drop it off here. But seriously, she has a nasty bedside manner. Ask anyone. I think it's time for a block. Sarek: push the button. – Lionel (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This button?
 * Why do we even have that button?-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good one. That's 2 trouts this week. Too bad it isn't Lent. Eh, I'll freeze 'em.– Lionel (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good one. That's 2 trouts this week. Too bad it isn't Lent. Eh, I'll freeze 'em.– Lionel (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Totally coincidentally, the users complaining of my conduct here are mostly those users whose (straight male Catholic) POV-pushing I've been working against. I'm sure the block they're requesting would be very convenient for them. I'd appreciate further review of my conduct from uninvolved users, and would also suggest a more general review of the state of the talk pages of those two articles, which are showing an alarming tendency to devolve into frivolous complaints and discussions of user conduct at the drop of a hat. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, please don't put political intrigue in everything. So we are "straight male Catholic"? You forgot to say we are angry and white. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good one. But 1 small correction: I'm not white. WP to Sarek... WP to Sarek... Come in Sarek... – Lionel (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I thought the whole point of this thread was that I was angry. ;) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Ros -- For a "straight, male, Catholic" (your words, not mine) I consider myself to be very progressive. Did you know... That I have a homosexual friend? Yeah. Didn't expect that, did ya? And it's beside the point that I'm encouraging him to go to Exodus. – Lionel (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * She also forgot to say that we are encouraging violence by talking about whacking people with fish. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Without reading the talk pages in question I'll note that comments about contributors instead of content are not a good sign. Have the users involved classified themselves as straight male Catholic:? Gerardw (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not me, I haven't provided these classifications to Roscelese. Only in my user page do I mention I am Catholic. And I don't remember mentioning sexual proclivities anywhere in Wikipedia. And I do resent this behavior of Roscelese - she keeps interpreting everything as a class struggle between patriarchal oppressors and female/homosexual victims. This makes her unable to get through different opinions on abortion, marriage, etc. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh, those female homosexuals, you just can't trust them to edit neutrally, can you? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You have just confirmed my theory. Read exactly what I said above: "she keeps interpreting everything as a class struggle between patriarchal oppressors and female/homosexual victims". I never said that all women (or homosexual women, or whatever) do this. I never said that you do this because you are a woman. On the contrary, I know that most women do not do this. But you claim that I accused all the female homosexuals - something I never said. This just confirms what I said - you treat everything as a struggle and make Wikipedia a battleground. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're going to make this conversation about how queer women are just so touchy, you sure as hell had better be prepared to back up what you're saying about my worldview with some evidence. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I never even said that homosexual women are touchy. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know or care what the users themselves are, but the POV that they spend most of their time pushing is that of the supremacy of straight male Catholics, hence "straight male Catholic POV-pushing," not "POV-pushing by straight male Catholics." Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First: you see political intrigue ("supremacy"? Really?) in *everything*, and this is a big part of what makes your behavior uncivil.
 * Second: your justification above doesn't cut. You say very uncivil things about our contributions ("idiotic", "nonsense", "stupid", "n00b"), and you think you are civil because you dont directly say these things to our persons. But I tell you: when you keep telling someone that his ideas are "idiotic", everyone will understand that you are calling him an idiot. Your mode of thinking in the sentence above ("I did not say they are straight male Catholic, I just say their POV is that of a straight male Catholic") is an example of this. This needs to stop. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen that but this is a typical post from her "If you have nothing productive to say, there are probably Catholic forums at which you can complain about the eeeeeevil Jewish Wikipedia editor trying to censor you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)" Such ad hominem attacks have happened before. difMarauder40 (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny how you're not providing the context there, where you're accusing me of dismissing a source just because "they are Catholic and report on Catholic topics," even though I'd already stated multiple times that I was dismissing them because of their explicitly stated bias against the subject. You seem to be thinking that the fact that a source is Catholic makes it reliable and that I somehow can't see this because I am not Catholic, but accusing editors of anti-Catholicism because they aren't letting you use attack sources is not a good way to get what you want. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When did he accuse you of being anti-Catholic? NYyankees51 (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone said that a source (either a newspaper or a person) was unreliable because it was Catholic, wouldn't you think that was an anti-Catholic thing to say? That's the opinion Marauder40 is falsely accusing me of holding in spite of multiple comments to the contrary. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the ad hominem attack I provided the diff, that is all the context that is needed. As for the time I allegedly called you anti-Catholic and you brought me to this page, EVERYONE except for you say I didn't call you anti-Catholic.  The admins agreed.  It was actually called a tempest in a teapot.  Nothing about my statement called you anti-Catholic.  The only person that felt that way was you.  Feel free to search the archives of this page if you want the details. Another perfect example of trying to play the victim card.  Typical par for the course.Marauder40 (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, none of us has said all three things, Gerardw. And even if we did, it would still be uncivil. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I request, for the second time, uninvolved feedback on my conduct. If the users whose POV-pushing I work against wish to complain about me to each other, surely they can find a little echo-chamber of their own. I'd like to do something productive with this WQA report, not hear repeated ad infinitum the personal accusations and out-of-context quotes of those who'd like to get me blocked because of my content editing. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not out to get you blocked. I just think your behavior has gotten out of control recently and I want you to get in back in control before you do get blocked. And if you want us to accomplish something, stop baiting people with your "straight male Catholic" stuff. That has nothing to do with it. Open a different request on all of us if you want. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's offensive to imply that there is a unique straight male Catholic POV. How can you discern the difference between that and gay male Catholic, straight female Catholic, or straight male Protestant? Additionally you shouldn't be working against anything, you should be working for the encyclopedia. 10:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you disagree that working against POV-pushing is working for NPOV and working for the encyclopedia? This seems like an unnecessary semantic distinction.
 * I didn't say that there is only one straight male Catholic POV, which is no surprise since it's not something I believe. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This discussion above is getting hopelessly convoluted, so allow me to summarize:
 * AGF is not a suicide pact. As I said above, I'm more than ready to edit with these users and I think that in spite of our differences we can still do productive work together, but I don't see how it benefits the project to pretend that behavior like this represents a desire to build an encyclopedia (in each case, only one instance is presented, though in many cases the behavior has been repeated over and over long past the point of edit-warring):
 * inserting antisemitic BLP violations of the "wealthy Jewish businessmen secretly undermining Christian values with their money" nature
 * inserting low-quality attack sources long after their rejection by multiple noticeboards
 * misrepresenting reliable sources in order to claim secondary-source legitimacy for primary-source criticism
 * rejecting academic sources and making frivolous complaints in order to reduce or downplay Wikipedia's coverage of pro-choice Catholics
 * inserting unsourced text intended to reflect negatively on the subject
 * claiming that an editor who rejects a source because of its explicitly stated bias against the subject really just wants to delete any source with a particular religious affiliation
 * The false accusations have got to stop. WQA is not a blog for complaining about users one dislikes with no evidence and no consequences. It's hardly surprising that JorgePeixoto hasn't been able to produce diffs for my calling him the names he says I called him, since I did not call him these names. (Amusingly, one of the things I said was that he was not a n00b. How he interpreted this to mean the exact opposite is beyond me.) Likewise his wild speculation about my worldview, or Marauder40's claim that I want to discard any Catholic source. What is surprising - and shameful - is that they aren't even bothering to try.
 * Something that I realize has gone unmentioned so far is the fact that I asked these users to bring this issue here. The out-of-context nature of the diffs presented in the original report obscures the fact that on the various article talk pages in question, I had to ask these users at least five separate times to stop discussing contributors and start discussing content. And they still have not addressed the article-related questions I was trying to get them to discuss. Instead, they just complained more about me. I'm glad the discussion is here now instead of on an article talk page, but this is still why I've repeatedly asked for uninvolved review: unfortunately, this discussion has become, for the most part, yet another circle jerk about how oversensitive I am, how I don't recognize the authority of the Catholic Bishops, etc.
 * --Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are going to respond to legitimate criticism of your behavior as "yet another circle jerk about how oversensitive I am, how I don't recognize the authority of the Catholic Bishops, etc." I am not sure how to move forward productively. - Haymaker (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a very bad summary for many reasons. Some of them are:
 * 1) The information about George Soros has nothing with the fact the he "is" Jewish (by the way, he is atheist). You are manufacturing anti-semitism out of thin air.
 * 2) The sources were not misrepresented as you claim. I just don't think that a source has to contain a text verbatim to establish notability. If the communications office of the USCCB says "the CFC is not Catholic", and the New York Times says "the USCCB has rejected the CFC's claim of being Catholic" then the NYT establishes the notability of the USCCB judgement, even if it does not contain the text verbatim. So I can use a primary source to confirm the text verbatim, paired with a secondary source (that paraphrases the text) to establish its notability. This is very sensible.
 * 3) When I removed the part about "obstructing", I explained it was about removing POV. We don't have to reproduce verbatim the POV of the sources. NPOV is a non-negotiable Wikipedia policy.
 * 4) Don't misrepresent my claim. I explicitly said that you do not directly called me "stupid", "idiotic", etc. I say that you repeatedly insult my contributions with these words, thus making everyone understand that you are indirectly and sarcastically insulting me. The diffs containing "stupid", "idiotic", "nonsense" are mostly already above (posted by NYyankees51), which is why I didn't duplicate them. And when you said "you shouldn't have to be told this, you're not a n00b", this is a sarcastic way of saying that my contribution is worthy of a n00b. I don't say this kind of thing to you! You shouldn't say it to me.
 * 5) It is disingenuous to claim that you asked for us to "start discussing content". Do you call this "discussing content"? I was trying to discuss content there, until you arrived (in a conversation that didn't previously involve you) and started attacking. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jorge, a point of order: George Soros never said he was atheist. He simply responded "no" when asked "Do you believe in God?" That's not equivalent to saying "I am an atheist". Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank-you Roscelese for including the diff with your claim it is a perfect example of your taking what someone says and totally changing around the meaning and trying to play the victim card.Marauder40 (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have filed an ANI report on the anti-Semitism charge. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am withdrawing myself from this thread; we're not getting anything constructive done here. I suggest all users do the same before things get any worse. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Obsidian Soul
I have collided with this esteemed user's behaviour considered by me as impolite at AFD started by me. God knows, I hadn't wanted any flame starting the AFD. I have contributed mainly in Ru-Wiki, not here, my contributions there are not considerable, but it isn't a reason to be impolite with me, is it? :) Please help. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Powered Skateboard Racing League
Sources of reference for Ppowered Skateboard Racing

Articles on Powered Skateboard Racing and on NAPSR, The National Association Of Powered Skateboard Racing   author James Eric Hawkins    August 12, 2011

www.encinovelobicycle club.com www.napsar.bz www.sports@dailynews.com www.hd.net.com www.Adrenalina World Tour 2011 marathon Skateboarders Journal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.205.48 (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Breeches of WP:AGF by Wee Curry Monster
In the Falkland Islands talk page discussion, Wee Curry Monster's attitude seems to continuously display an uncivil and accusatory tone towards other editors. This has also been in full display in his contributions at WP:RSN over the same subject. He has made a host of accusations against myself and several other editors, to include IP socking, hounding, WP:OR, etc. Assistance and oversight would be highly appreciated, thank you.Alex79818 (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I wish it to be noted I was not informed of the WQA thread as required.
 * See or, see also his contribution history  and the SPI report (not filed by me by the way) Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818.  Alex is the same editor as the IP, which I can prove with evidence gathered off-wiki but which will unfortunately out him so I cannot reveal it here.


 * Alex is disrupting Falkland Islands and related articles as he has since 2007, this is just another example of him using wikipedia's processes to be disruptive. Some help would be very much appreciated, certainly by me.  I've been targeted by this guy for 4 years.  Wee Curry Monster talk 20:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies for my late notice, I was temporarily distracted. Nevertheless my comments stand and seem to be reinforced by Wee Curry Monster's statements above. I will also point out the fact that the SPI was declined, and was supported by this user. Your input to this matter would be appreciated.Alex79818 (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently distracted by editing Talk:Falkland Islands? You only informed him after you were told it was required and after Curry Monster had responded.  Which is more warning than you gave me at WP:ANI, where the rule is rather more obvious.


 * As to the substance, if anyone can find evidence of Alex - either as himself or as one of his IP sockpuppets - having ever assumed good faith in either myself or Curry Monster I would be interested in seeing it. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Pfainuk talk 21:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * SPI case was not declined, use of Checkuser was declined as the sock puppets are IP addresses. The SPI case is ongoing and looking at behaviour.  Again I can prove the links between the IP and Alex but only by outing.  Please also note that I had indicated I would resort to a WQA earlier today if this persisted.  I suppose this is a result of WP:BEANS. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There's some pretty compelling behavioural evidence that I have that I haven't highlighted at SPI (but am happy to do by e-mail) - and I'm hoping that even that's not needed since the evidence available publicly on the SPI is pretty strong on its own. I'm rather hoping that the personal stuff isn't necessary. Pfainuk talk 21:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I make note of the threatening tone and manner of the responses above and the fact that these users have been accused of similar instances with a number of other users as evidenced by a previous instance in which their behavior led to an ARBCOM complaint diff. Note that I am not the only editor who's had negative dealings with these individuals and their uncivil behavior seems to continue even in this forum.Alex79818 (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A frivolous arbcom case you started and canvassed anyone you thought might back you. Please note the repeated habit of canvassing is readily confirmed by an examination of his contribution history.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is worth mentioning at this stage therefore, that it was Alex that filed that Arbcom after three and a half years without a single acknowledged edit to Falklands topics, let alone as part of an active dispute. I believe he demonstrates my point about his persistent failure to assume good faith. Pfainuk talk 21:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a place where cooperative parties can receive neutral assistance to help them mutually resolve their differences. It's unlikely we're going to be able to help you here. Gerardw (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time. I've RFC'd regarding the specific issues being discussed; nevertheless if the editors' uncivil behavior continues I will raise the issue with WP:ANI and cite your response, unless you have a suggestion for what you believe is the proper forum in which to address these users' behavior. Thank you again.Alex79818 (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom
I tried take this to AN/I, to no avail. accused me of acting like an idiot. I then asked him to be civil. In response, he told me to "take your civility link and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, sunshine." . Here (yesterday) he calls a message left by another editor "childish prattle". Here, he again calls me an idiot. Here, Parrot calls me "fucking stupid". Here, he uses "fuck off please" (directed at someone else, not at me) as an edit summary. Here he tells me to fuck off in an edit summary. At the very top of his user talk he states "Some basic rules. One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it. Two, anyone whinging about WP:CIVIL will be referred to the previous answer."

User:Parrot of Doom is being extremely aggressive, belittling me and directing personal attacks against me and others. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You were told at ANI that your own behaviour was far from exemplary, and many editors seem to think that Parrot of Doom was under due stress, from what I gathered skimming over the thread. What are you hoping to achieve by bringing the same issue here? You were told there that he won't be blocked. And bringing up what he says about OWN and CIVIL seems redundant. Ooh Bunnies! Not just any bunnies... 23:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Redundant how? And I was hoping that people here might actually care more about his incivility. I was never anything but civil towards him, we simply disagreed over content. I didn't call him an idiot or tell him to fuck off over it. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's redundant in that Parrot of Doom can basically say whatever he wants about WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL on his own user page. And, as Connormah says, it looks exactly like forumshopping, which reflects badly on yourself. You didn't answer my question, what exactly are you hoping will be done? Because for now you're just complaining. Ooh Bunnies! Not just any bunnies... 23:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So you've raised this at ANI, WQA and 3RR now...this is starting to look like WP:FORUMSHOPPING Connormah (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I've raised this at ANI and WQA. I raised his edit warring at 3RR. Separate issues. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 79, I suggested to you earlier, at ANI, that you drop this stick; you didn't. Let me offer you a suggestion: tell Parrot of Doom, on some talk page, to fuck off, or suggest that they're stupid. Maybe that will make you feel better--filing these reports is not likely to get you anywhere. I don't think that Parrot will care one way or another what you call him. What Parrot does care about, probably, is that edits are done properly. That's not Ownership--that's good manners, and others agree. Now please drop the fucking stick and walk away from the dead fucking horse. You're wasting too much time--time you could have spent reading WP:CITE. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So unless edits are cited using a particular format they are to be deleted wholsesale? 79.97.144.17 (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're starting to become stubborn - the article is an FA - an example of our best work. Surely you'd assume that a proper citation format is favourable? Connormah (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Favourable yes, but not an absolute necessity. But when I edited List of people hanged, drawn and quartered, which is not an FA, Parrot immediately jumped in and started reverting my contributions. Were they cited in the ideal format? No. Were they cited? Yes. Did they contribute new, relevant, meaningful information to the article? Yes. But once again he refused to accept that this type of capital punishment happened anywhere other than England.79.97.144.17 (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Parrot of Doom is behaving poorly. However, given his unwillingness to participate in this voluntary forum and/or follow the ideals of WP civility, there's not much that can be done here. Your best bet is to drop the issue and move on. Alternately you could start a user WP:RFC but it seems unlikely it would be worth your while. Gerardw (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Legolas2186


I made one constructive edit to the above article (disputed an outlandish and unsourced claim) and was personally attacked by the above user. You can see what the user said here and here. I've decided not to engage the situation anymore, however I don't appreciate the attacks directed towards me and thought I would bring it up here. Thank you. Thankyoubaby (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Where have you two tried to resolve your disagreement prior to bringing the issue here? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are clearly personal attacks, and I left a warning for the editor. Criticizing a person's actions is one thing, directly calling them an idiot is another. --  At am a  頭 00:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Night of the Big Wind talk  01:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC) The conflict started with some edits at the article Myrtle Allen. Rms125a@hotmail.com did a few edits that in my opinion were not okay. I reverted and added quite a few of his edits (but not all) in the article. I think I hit a nerve with that and some misery started at my talkpage.

It started with this edit in which he was questioning my "judgment" (sic) due to the fact that English is not my first language. I consider that as an unprovoked personal attack. His next reply was also blunt and again an attack on my language abilities that I consider a personal attack. His third reply is another personal attack, especially his remark proof that you have no intention of addressing the execrable state of the current Myrtle Allen article due to your poor editing. In his [next personal attack he even dared to name me a vicious individual . But still he had not enough and came with another personal attack.

I have a good sense of humor, but that is still incompatible with this string of personal attacks. I have warned him in my replies and I have warned him ons his talkpage. Night of the Big Wind talk  01:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Vicious individual" is an uncalled-for personal attack, and should not be repeated. However, criticism of the content of an edit is not a personal attack. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason
It all started one day when browsing All Music Guide website. Suddenly I noticed that there is mentioned music genre A and music genre B on 1983 album by Madonna. Since All Music Guide is well-respected and reliable, I added an AMG reference as a proof that the above album is not only genre A but also genre B (without a proper reference it is considered as original research, obviously).

Behavior of the user
The particular user reverted the edits of mine and it all seemed as "accidental" vandalism. However, the user even reverted my edits the second time although I asked him to halt the "infobox wars" process. I even tried to resolve the situation by posting one of the generic "warning" templates on his talk page. The disputer seemed to be very friendly and surely can solve issues with grace. He even calls my actions "idiotic" which I find very offensive and disrespectful.

Aside from the irrelevant mini-infobox war, I personally request the etiquette assistance since this kind of disrespectful behavior and language is absolutely unacceptable on Wikipedia.

Thank you in advance. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Update
Although the user didn't want to discuss the issues on his talk page in the first place, he tried to harass me on my talk page (see link). It's lovely that he hasn't apologized to me yet and he still continues to behave like an arrogant person who is above the whole world. However, it seems like he is now trying to reach a consensus since The Incident. Glad to see some progress here. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The particular user still calls me names, this time he uses the word "dumb" (the word originally meant a mute person yet nowadays it is often used as a derogatory equivalent to 'stupid', i.e. an unintelligent person)
 * The word "dumb" isn't an insult, it's a synonym for "mute", when used in the phrase "deaf and dumb". I'm leaving a warning for engaging in personal attacks, but not for any of his interactions with you, but for comments made previously. --  At am a  頭 00:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an informal use of the word but basically you're right. Thank you for your reply. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, and although it was clumsily made, that comment was a request for you to engage in discussion rather than reverting further, which was the proper thing for Legolas2186 to do. --  At am a  頭 00:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope the dispute will be resolved on Madonna (album) talk page. Still I'm unsure if you actually can resolve issues with a persistent user who even openly claims that "Any user using them (Allmusic) should be trout slapped even when explained.". Why is this behavior still tolerated around here?  ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking through the archives of the reliable sources noticeboard, I see that Allmusic is controversial at best as a source, and it seems to be because the information at Allmusic contains a mix of content that is subject to editorial review, and content that is user-submitted and unchecked. The term "trout-slapped", by the way, comes from WP:TROUT and is intended to represent setting someone straight, not a literal act of violence. It's also generally used tongue-in-cheek (after all, the whole term comes from The Fish-Slapping Dance) and is usually used instead of giving someone a serious warning, to indicate that there are no hard feelings. You shouldn't be jumping so quickly to assume the worst intentions from other editors, especially with comments like "still continues to behave like an arrogant person who is above the whole world" which can be considered a personal attack. --  At am a  頭 16:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It truly is an interesting revelation. However, that "trout" comment can be also considered as a humorous warning to all users "not to dare to add anything from Allmusic around here." I can assure you that I'm the last person on Earth who jumps to conclusions very quickly. Also don't forget that he insulted numerous users – does it even mean anything to this noticeboard? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can be considered a humorous warning to all users not to dare add anything from Allmusic, if you want to throw WP:AGF completely out the door. And when you say "don't forget that he insulted numerous users", how can I forget something I haven't seen? Where are the diffs of these insults? I've seen a total of two personal attacks, against the same person, and gave him a warning for which he . Saying that someone insulted numerous users, that doesn't mean anything to this noticeboard. Actually showing that he has, that might mean something. And were any of these insults in the past 24 hours, after the warning and apology? Keep in mind, we don't punish people for bad behavior, we do what we can to prevent it from happening again. --  At am a  頭 21:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it rather ironic that the same user who has AGF "stickers" on his talk page repeatedly breaks this rule. See above for diffs. This all happened before. I proved him  wrong, then he accused me of sockpuppetry and that's pretty much it. From this point I doubt that there could be any conflict progression.  ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He accused you of being a sockpuppet and was wrong. I've done the same before. I've also been accused of being a sockpuppet (I wasn't, in case you were wondering). This is one reason why I have such an animosity toward people who use sockpuppets. When you are harassed often enough by people who create new accounts and pretend to be new people, but end up being the same person who pestered you before, it makes you suspect anyone you run into conflict with. It doesn't excuse the behavior but I understand the motivation behind the accusation. --  At am a  頭 22:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When you find out that someone accused you of sockpuppetry, internet treason or whatever, it obviously means they're losing the argument and are grasping at straws. Also it could be an indicator that the user is not as innocent as it may seem and had the same conflicts before (you can tell this from his/her/your/mine block log). ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Tony1
I am an occasional but relatively long-standing editor, who has had a few disagreements with the above user over issues of delinking and linking (although we are actually not that far apart on the issue really). Today I made about seven edits - either fairly open-minded observations on talk pages or minor content edits - including to a page they had been on recently. Anyway, is the following pattern of behaviour acceptable -

1) to describe people who disagree with them over the use of a hyphen, totally unprompted, as "ignorant"?

2) to repeatedly reinsert a "copyedit" tag onto the page, purely, it would seem on the basis of that one issue?

3) when another editor, ie me, comments on that (as noted above) in to suggest that the issues are not that definitive, while noting the rudeness and that fact that prior edits had wrecked some formatting and taken out some pictures, to then immediately follow me to a totally unrelated page they have never edited before to blindly revert me (and in doing that, restore inaccurate quotes from a novel, which I had removed. I can't believe they took the time to check or verify)?

4) to then template me and accuse me of "trolling" and warn me I will be blocked if I continue?

5) to remove a possibly firm but perfectly reasonable (crossed) comment that I had posted on his talk page with the edit summary "removing vomit"?

I am happy to discuss issues reasonably with Tony, but I am not willing to watch him accuse others of ignorance about fairly minor punctuation points; follow me and revert wrong information into an article he has never been to before simply to make a point against me; or accuse me of trolling, or posting vomit.  N-HH   talk / edits  14:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I notified User:Tony1 of this thread, and that post was removed with the edit summary "removing more vomit". I am slightly at a loss now.  N-HH   talk / edits  14:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You return after six months, stalk me, revert me, carry on at my talk page—this is not a productive course of events, and taking the matter here is going to get nowhere. I'm not participating, and please do not post on my talk page again. Tony   (talk)  15:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Where have I "stalked" you? Where have I "carried on" at your talk page? Diffs? I think I have probably edited two pages where you have been previously in the 30-odd fairly minor edits and fixes I have made, sporadically, in the last two months, and, as noted above posted politely on your talk page once, and then once again to notify you of this thread (both of which you deleted while talking about "vomit").  N-HH   talk / edits  15:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As we're talking about wikiquette, I'd like to point out that here, User N-HH reverted my edits with the summary 'rv vandalism by script ...'. And since we're talking about wikistalking, I'll also mention that of his 19 article edits since returning on 25 July, three have been reverting my changes. Draw your own conclusions. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You and Tony (and OhConfucius, among others) run through thousands of articles making systematic changes to do with links and other MOS issues. Many people have concerns about those changes and sometimes they actually genuinely mess pages up (as anyone glancing at your talk pages will see). I'm often going to turn up at some of those by chance (as I have just noticed I did in fact to the A Fringe of Leaves page - Tony had been there 6 months previously. My edit today was not to anything he had done). Or because you spark up my watchlist, as has also happened in the past. Beyond that, occasionally, sure I look at your contributions - as you have obviously just looked at mine. I ignore 98% of what I see, but sometimes think you've made a bad call on a link and reinsert some - but never all - of those you took out when you were there (or, on occasion, take more out). Often this can be many days after you passed by. This is not illegal. By contrast, today, Tony was suddenly appearing on a succession of pages within seconds of my editing there and blind-reverting my edits one after the other, edits that were entirely unrelated in terms of topic or type of edit. That is genuinely what wp:hound is all about. It is worth reading - eg "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles".  N-HH   talk / edits  17:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 17:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with point 1, as calling an edit "ignorant" is not an insult. By definition, ignorant simply refers to a lack of knowledge in a a given area; it's not a comment on another persons intellect. Nor do I have a problem with point 2 on the basis that we can't read Tony1's mind so we don't know for sure that he was making that change based on that single problem. However, point 3 and beyond are where things begin to unravel. It certainly seems like Tony1 was hounding, and that is not okay in any circumstance. I checked his edit history through the last few thousand edits and searched for A Fringe of Leaves and did not find him contributing anywhere to it at any other point in time. Thus, it seems as though the revert was blind retaliation. Point 4 was excessive as a block warning wasn't justified in this case. N-HH had done nothing that would deserve even a warning, as he only made two edits to the page and one on the talk page. Honestly, that just seems like an attempt to intimidate. Point 5 is also out of bounds. There is simply no reason to refer to another editors edits as "vomit", especially when they're making perfectly valid points. So I don't have any doubt that Tony1 became uncivil.

As to Tony1 and his accusations of "Stalking" or "carrying on": Can you please provide some evidence of this? It seems to me that you're just tossing out unsubstantiated accusations. And while he did revert you, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. He didn't start an edit war.

Finally, Colonies Chris, if you have an issue that you feel needs to be reported then open up a formal complaint. There is no purpose in issuing this here. It's a red herring.Ultimahero (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I’m not sure what one can really expect from coming here other than to prompt an apology from the other person or at least some sort of confirmation from an uninvolved third party that you are neither mad nor overly precious when it comes to identifying rudeness. I guess I have the latter now at least. If Tony thinks he doesn’t need to apologise, or at least acknowledge his behaviour was slightly hysterical and offensive, that’s up to him. I’m not interested in forcing either point, or getting any kind of punishment as such.


 * I can’t help note though that Tony is meanwhile persistently demanding apologies and redress from another editor, who as far as I can tell simply said Tony would be stupid if he edit warred over something and subsequently suggested one of Tony’s conclusions was “silly”; as well as complaining to another editor about what they have said about him at ANI on an unrelated matter (and about their failure to step in over the previous issue). That seems a little thin-skinned, not to mention hypocritical* coming from someone who thinks it is OK to describe other people’s edits/views as “ignorant” (twice over), talk page postings as “vomit” and another editor specifically as a “troll” for no discernible reason.  N-HH   talk / edits  14:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ps: btw one editor on the receiving end of the "ignorant" comment blanked their talk page, had their user page deleted and has not edited at all since Tony made that comment to them. Let's assume that's coincidence, but still.
 * pps: *perhaps not the best description to use on a WQA page, but I can't see how else to view this.

User:Gise-354x


This is a case of a user who does not seem to understand the principles of consensus and BRD cycles, and as a result has started making several accusations of bias and POV pushing against me and other editors. The background: Gise-354x has been trying to insert links between the two articles into the See also sections of each. This is based on material that I feel is a mixture of non-RS and original research. I reverted both links, and explained at great length on the talkpage why (see here). He twice reinserted the link at News Corporation scandal (and then once more after user:Alexh19740110 also reverted his addition, and the converse link here he re-inserted once (the page is 1RR protected). That's the background. The conversation on the talkpage is one thing (he genuinely doesn't appear to understand wikipedia core policies), but he's taken to making regular accusations of misinformation, uncivil behaviour and POV-pushing (mainly in the edit summaries, if not there, in the text). Have I done anything wrong? In good faith, given his apparent newness to wikipedia, I suggested that the kind of material he wanted to put up was more suitable for blogging, not wikipedia (see also my talkpage link below). He found this insulting, and I apologised as one should when another editor takes offence. I also asked him if he had edited wikipedia under another name, explaining that he was editing a lot in a controversial area that has seen a lot of SPAs and problem accounts (see my talkpage link below). I don't think I was uncivil here in the way I put the question, and certainly, I don't think it has merited the persistent attacks. In essence he doesn't appear to like people disagreeing with his edits, and doesn't want to build consensus (if he understands what consensus is, which is another issue). Attempts to talk with him have taken place, as well as on the talkpages of various articles, on my talkpage (see the two sections following each other) and on his own talkpage - to no apparent benefit. I was hoping outside input could help with this before it gets more unpleasant.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Gise seems to have exchanged boldness for rashness. VK has been very civilYopienso (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I may be entirely mistaken, but this report and the one below seem to be part of a pattern of disputes between editors, in which incivility does not seem to be a major issue. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm surprised you don't see any incivility. You don't consider repeated refrains of "acting unfaithfully (sic)", "have an agenda", making "unfounded accusations", "deliberately misinforming", "I must assume he is not acting with faith and has an agenda" uncivil? (there's more than this, too). I would also have considered the report beneath this one as somewhat suspect, given that it is a barely edited cut and paste job from this report - that is, not actually put together as a serious analysis of my conduct. Is that an appropriate use of this forum? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked again at the comments as requested on my talk page. There's no question that some of the comments cross the line, but in the main this is a content dispute between the parties. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Disclaimer: I am named above and supported Vsevolod in the content dispute. The appearance of the rather quirky counter complaint below may give a first impression of history of hostility between Gise-354x & Vsevolod. In reality, Gise-354x burst onto the scene just a few days ago (with sparse edits going back to July) and has made an alarming number of changes in a contentious topic area. When he is reverted, he tends to edit war and immediately assumes a hidden agenda - despite all appearance to outsiders that the people he is disagreeing with are in general terms on his "side" (perhaps not me though). In fairness, from reviewing his contribution history, he does appear to be taking a lot of care and acting with good intentions. And it could be said that he was encouraged a little in this folly by an experienced editor who should have known better. Nonetheless, in the matter of this News Corporation / Climategate business he is without question completely confused - and just not listening to anyone. I reverted his edit once and within minutes there was an angry message at my talk page. Edit summary: Removing undo from user who misinforms me and has an agenda, NYT source is reliable! I am concerned that if he ends up as confused about other content issues as he is on this particular issue - and if he then shows the same disregard for consensus - he is capable of creating a lot of trouble. So he does need to understand that consensus is required, in particular that he needs to assume good faith - and it would be nice if he acknowledged that Vsevolod isn't out to get him. I also think that, as a new editor, and someone who has spent the last five days in front of his computer editing Wikipedia like a pro, Vsevolod's question about whether he's edited here in another account is probably fair enough. It'd certainly be nice if Gise would introduce himself a little. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note. User:Gise-354x has now been blocked for edit-warring on another page (with a similar pattern of abuse towards those disagreeing with his edits), and has declared he is leaving wikipedia because of "lack of communication and zero tolerance from admins" and their "agendas". I had hoped that raising his behaviour here would have led to outside intervention earlier, before things got out of hand and more people's time had been wasted. Contrary to the suggestions of this being a means of continuing a content dispute, I had actually waited until the dispute had effectively ended (with other users joining in to deal with his edit-warring) before raising matters here, and after other users had also tried to communicate with him and failed. It's a pity that despite three other editors supporting this complaint, it was still seen as basically a content dispute between two users. Still, at least Gise has managed to unite quite a few people in a common purpose who would otherwise be arguing with each other.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is beyond the scope of this page, which is not for punishing misbehavior but resolving disputes. Often, disputes come here in which incivility is a minor part of a larger picture. Remember too that this is not an administrator noticeboard. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had understood that this page was not about dispute resolution, but about asking for help with incivility. Am I wrong in this? I am fully aware that this is not a page to seek sanctions; I explicitly brought the matter here first so that sanctions could be avoided further down the line for a new user who was clearly showing problems communicating with any user who expressed a hint of criticism for his actions. Dealing with his incivility might have helped him have more respect for process. (By the way, this incivility was not only towards me but to others; it wasn't just a content dispute between two users, and as I stated above, I waited until the edit war had been contained before coming here to deal with the civility problem.) Given your view that Gise's level of incivility was not severe enough for this particular forum to take an interest, what exactly would be bad enough for here, but not bad enough to take straight to ANI (it seems like a very narrow range)? Or should I have read between the lines and understood you to be saying that we should just wait and give the user enough WP:ROPE? I ask, because after this experience, especially given that other editors across a fairly nasty content divide also weighed in to support the case I brought here, I'm not sure what the point of WQA is, if it isn't a way of dealing with problematic behaviour without having to seek sanctions.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually this page is part of the dispute resolution process, and its function and limitations are described at the top of the page. The page is staffed by volunteers, and I was the only one who responded. Others might have had a different perspective. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

User:VsevolodKrolikov


This is a case of a user who uses deliberately false claims for reverting new additions to the wikipedia. He does not seem to understand the principles of consensus and BRD cycles, and as a result has started making several accusations of bias and POV pushing against me. And he claims that i would do my own investigationhere in the last parts. But all i did was using a reliable source. The background: VsevolodKrolikov has been trying to remove a legit link from the See also sections of the above two articles. He started here with saying, quote "Remove Newscorp scandal link. That page has nothing at all about climate change; the link cited on the talkpage here is explicitly speculation." I then went on to try to explain that this is not pure speculation and provided a source. After this he claimed the source was not reliable, when i cited another "reliable source", the New York Times. Still he can not accept that it is based none original research and reliable sources. Then he went on and reverted both links here & here, and claimed at great length on the talkpage why (see here). Later another user joined him and removed the link again, without even bothering explaining here After asking user:Alexh19740110 why he removed the link he said that user:VsevolodKrolikovreason are 100% legit here.

The case started with him pretending that the addition had no facts and was just speculation (he appears to follow an agenda and is using false accusation to make his point), from the start he asked me to leave wikipedia and go blogging here in the middle Then he claimed my source is not WP:OR or i'm WP:UNCIVIL, beside he started from the start with insulting me when asking to leave wikipedia, i called him Dude at a later point 2 times to be exact, i'm not aware of any other uncivil behavior or what he could have meant, beside this he himself called me Dude. and all the time he kept putting forth false arguments.

The source is in question is a news article from last month, where the New York Times clearly says that Nahil Wasdill has been at the MET during the time of the CRU investigation.here Later in this discussion i found out he was misinforming me all the time, when calling it WP:OR. I ask him about this but with almost every reply he kept ignoring my arguments. Attempts to talk with him have taken place, as well as on the talkpages of various articles, on my talkpage (see the two sections following each other) and on his own talkpage - to no apparent benefit. I was hoping outside input could help with this before it gets more unpleasant. Gise-354x (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to be more of a case of a long-term dispute between users. I'm not seeing incivility here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken; this is very recent. Yopienso (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Long term or not, this and the dispute above it, concerning the same editors, appears to be the outgrowth of a heated content dispute in which incivility is not the primary issue. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: Gise-354x, the filer of this report, has been blocked for edit warring and has declared he is leaving wikipedia. See here for a longer note at the WQA report I filed about gise directly above this one.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest this be closed, this report was obviously in bad faith in retaliation for the above report by a user that was blocked for a week, and that has expressed its intention not to edit wikipedia anymore after this block is over.--Cerejota (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:4twenty42o#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FHaplogroup_J1_.28Y-DNA.29
See the links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JohnLloydScharf#August_2011
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:4twenty42o#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FHaplogroup_J1_.28Y-DNA.29

NOTE: I found out he was impersonating an Administrator.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:4twenty42o

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * CommentAmusing... Some how I missed this thread earlier. This user obviously has no concept of a collaborative project. Nor any idea how to assume responsibility or accept criticism. Either way conversations on both talk pages speak for themselves. Cheers - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

user:Arslanteginghazi


First edit warring and next bad language.This user seems to simply does not care or understands the Wikipedia policies.I ask for assistance in limiting him/her.Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No response?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems more suitable for WP:ANI.--Cerejota (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Damiens.rf and User:Marine-69-71


This is prompted by this User_talk:Marine_69-71. I am not providing the diffs at this point, because an exercise of good faith on the part of Damien.rf is called for in which he owns up to scrutinizing the work and editing of User:Marine_69-71 under a microscope. What prompted me to comment was an WP:RFPP un-protect request on an article in the WikiProject Puerto Rico for which Daminen.rf didn't attempt to approach Marine_69-71, citing a self-imposed tool break. His response to me i his talk page, while civil, was disingenuous - even claiming there was no problem between the two of them. When confronted by another user and myself, he claimed defamation. Another user commented in apparent support of Damien.rf's behavior, citing the need to scrutinize admin behavior. I agree we need to scrutinize behavior, but common sense tells us that if you already have a history, it might not be wise to involve yourself, and Damien.rf has a history with Marine of at least several years. This amounts to wikihounding. I am seeking community comment on this situation and how to move forward in here - Marine is a long-time contributor and admin, and a key pillar of Wikiproject Puerto Rico, and while there might be validity in some claims made against him - which he has admitted and hence gone on self-impossed tool break - some of them are due to cultural and even age differences that those seeking to resolve disputes - rather than create drama - should be cognizant of, and hence take caution when dealing with them. The wikihounding and microscope scrutiny is worrying in its scale and methodology and it needs to stop. --Cerejota (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Of particular interest here, is the extensive, varied and relatively recent block log of Damien.rf. While we all do mistakes, and have the right to renew ourselves and learn from our mistakes, I would offer that it is wise to refrain from being a self-styled admin monitor, when one own's behavior is less than stellar. It is, at best, a serious lapse in judgement, at worse an exercise in disruption.--Cerejota (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no incivility here. Damiens posted a polite message on Marine's talk page. Administrator Atama, who is mentoring Marine, responded in agreement.. Marine posted in agreement with that.. There were personal attacks on Damiens, which I recommended that he take to WQA. So I was watching this page and lo and behold, his innocuous post is the subject of a kind of preemptive strike. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing incivility. In fact, I said Damien was civil in this very talk page. The issue I am raising is the wikihounding, which is becoming disruptive of the entire WikiProject Puerto Rico topic area. If there where personal attacks on my part, they were unintended, and I apologize in advance, but could you kindly point me to them? --Cerejota (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Editors need to be able to raise issues with administrators, as Damiens has done, without fear of attack. I have no idea what past history he has with Marine, nor do I care. He raised a valid issue, as the diffs indicate. You really need to desist. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "If there were personal attacks on my part." There were and are. You need to stop accusing editors of "stalking" in posts like this.. You need to acquaint yourself with WP:HOUND, which has most definitely not been breached by Damiens in this instance. You also need to study WP:AOHA: "Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly. The result is often accusations of harassment on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle." ScottyBerg (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the problem. WP:HOUND, in my view, is indeed met - there is tendentiousness, in particular when other editors become involved, and there is disruptive behavior - one thing its catching stuff in RC or somesuch, another is to refuse to act with collegiality in a topic area with a long-standing wikiproject, and basically the only action, beyond a few wikignomings here and there, is the reversion of Marine's edits and the deletion of Marine's file uploads. So saying so is not intended as a personal attack. If sufficient numbers of uninvolved editors tell me it isn't, then I will apologize. You cannot blame me for not just taking your word for it, right? Which reminds me, how did you become involved in all of this? I have many reasons, which I explained in your talk, but what about you?--Cerejota (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Another suggestion: before filing one of these things, try reading the "when reporting" section at the top of the page. I can understand disregarding one requirement, such as not notifying the other party. But disregarding every single one, especially omitting diffs and making inflammatory accusations that are themselves are personal attacks, is a bit much. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought you made the suggestion I come to WQA? Now am confused?--Cerejota (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll leave you to puzzle that out. I think this conversation has run its course. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * there is tendentiousness - well yes there is, but its coming from Cerejota. You've raised the issue and said enough (too much, I'd say). How about you now let it rest and see who responds, without responding to all the responses? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a legitimate complaint. However, Tony didn't do anything seriously wrong. He to "monitor his behavior" and I felt that what he did was a bad idea, but not that big of a deal. Bringing the issue to Tony's user talk page rather than a more public venue was a courteous thing to do on the part of Damiens and was worded in a polite and non-confrontational way, for the most part (though I did point out that a couple of claims, such as one for meatpuppetry or making "demands" of his son, were hyperbole). It seems to me that this latest "conflict" is due to other people contributing to Tony's user talk page, and if it were not for people jumping to Tony's defense, and then other people pushing back against those people, we wouldn't have all of this drama. Everything that was said seems to have been said in good faith, so I won't go so far as to admonish anyone in particular, the only problem is a general inability to assume good faith from other people on all sides. --  At am a  頭  17:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Further investigation shows that in my period of wikibreak, User:ScottyBerg was involved in a negative fashion with Marine Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive710. I will be the first to say that Marine's behavior, in particular the Wall of Dishonor was, put mildly, a serious lack of judgement, but the community expressed itself clearly and rather eloquently on the matter - and Scotty clearly is much more deeply involved in this matter than what I thought - which puts his comments above in context, a context that I lacked and he refused to give me (which he cleared quickly, as is his right). The continued wikistalking of Marine is unacceptable, and if this particular alert doesn't generate any substantial un-involved response, the next incident will have to go higher in the WP:DR process. If Marine misbehaves, that is no excuse to declare open season on him. As an aside, I engaged in a civil but inconclusive thread with damines.rf in Talk:Luis Palés Matos. I think he is civil in speech and approach, but not on editing behavior, and certainly the stalking I recognize that it is nearly impossible to work in the Puerto Rico topic area without bumping into Marine's edits, so I suggested he coordinate with the Wikiproject so that there is no concern of stalking. If he continues to ignore community concern, I will consider it a continuation of stalking behavior, and go further the DR pyramid. This has to stop as it is seriously damaging the project and the quality of the encyclopedia's coverage of the topic area, which doesn't have many editors to start with.--Cerejota (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is no incivility, then this board is not the appropriate venue. Wikihounding is serious, as is making an accusation of wikihounding if no such conduct is actually taking place. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cerejota, I certainly hope you can back up the claim of "Wikihounding". Please note that per WP:HOUNDING, such activity must be done "with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor". That means "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason". That would mean that it would have to not be in response to Tony "misbehaving", as you yourself had stated above. Far too often people misuse the word "hounding" and assume that any extended interaction with an editor constitutes harassment, which isn't the case at all. Only if that interaction occurs for no reason other than to cause distress can it be labeled as harassment. Please also note that another example of harassment can be when "harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment". --  At am a  頭 16:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cerejota is involved in another dispute that has come to this page, and contacted me on my talk page concerning it. In this (Damiens) one he is making accusations without providing support in the form of diffs, which is actually required in WQA for without them we cannot proceed. Without taking sides in any of these disputes, he may benefit from reflecting on his own behavior. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What behavior on my part? In fact, my involvement here is in a case that resulted in a one week block of another editor, in any case I should get a medal for identifying and taking correct action against a truly disruptive editor. In this thread, I got called tendentious for simply replying to specific comments. How is my behavior tendentious? I am open to criticism, but not from involved parties, which Scotty and William certainly are.


 * I just (ec) with you, so let me rephrase. So just to be clear, a user who acts nearly as an SPA dedicated to reverting any editing or admin action of another user is not a wikihounder if some of these actions are justified, even if most are not? For example [] was an attempt at DR when damiens kept constantly saying that Marine used images illegally etc. While some did get deleted, the bulk didn't. Damiens in some of these threads goes as far as calling Marine "my hero" in a sarcastic manner, when he gets OTRS tickets - a regular process. And this goes back years. Yes, the comments appear civil, but taken as a whole, the situation needs to stop. Marine needs to be given a chance to examine his own behavior, but I think some in the community will not be satisfied by this, and just want him out, and try to push all his buttons, that is wikihounding by the letter of the law. --Cerejota (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone close? Its obvious Damiens doesn't want to participate.--Cerejota (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

User: Sheilakissane


On the Rick Perry talk page, there has for a while now been a dispute going on as to whether or not to include information about Rick Perry attending the 2007 Bilderberg conference in the article. User:Sheilakissane, a single purpose account, has repeatedly pushed for the inclusion of this, and for the most part the discussion has been relatively civil. Recently, however, he has broken WP:BLP twice by posting comments on the page that are libelous, where they were promptly removed by User:Dougweller; and WP:NPA twice, where he was warned by User:N5iln. See, , , and for specific instances. While I agree that consensus has not developed yet on the material presented, Sheilakissane has proven to be purely a single purpose account and a WP:TE, and seems to continue base most of his argument on WP:IDHT. He has refused to even address most of the concerns laid out by those editors opposed to adding the material, instead talking about the process as "yellow journalism" (see, ) or a conspiracy (see ).

Relevant sections of the talk page: Talk:Rick Perry, Talk:Rick_Perry, and Talk:Rick_Perry, including its subsection Talk:Rick_Perry.

Help on determining the next step would be greatly appreciated. Kessy628 (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I notified Sheilakissane on his talk page, but should I notify the other editors from the discussion who have been actively involved on their talk pages or should I just make a note on the Rick Perry talk page in the area where this has been happening? Sorry, this is my first time doing 1 of these, and I don't want to come off as canvassing or breaking any such rules. Kessy628 (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not wanting to pass the buck, but this editor seems to have a problem with the subject of the article. Shouldn't it be dealt with on the BLP Noticeboard? Sanctions and blocks are not immediately obtainable here, but may be warranted if there are repeated BLP violations. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't the debate going on. Like I said above, consensus hasn't been developed on the material. The reason I brought it here was due to the NPA violations, and brought up the BLP violations as further support of his behavior. If you think it'd be better on the BLP board though, I'll trust your judgement and gladly repost/move it. Kessy628 (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I've overlooked something, but the BLP concerns seemed more important. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As per your recommendation, I've reposted this on the BLP noticeboard here. Thanks! Kessy628 (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Spiker 22
attack & vandalism edits to correct spelling or grammar.

and initially here Oldspammer (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * User has been warned. Feel free to come back if it continues. Swarm  u 17:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

User:McAusten


At Talk:2011 AFL season there was considerable discussion over whether Australian football teams should be described as "their" or "its". This discussion seemed to have wound down with a seeming consensus towards "its".

Shortly afterwards McAusten, who had initiated the above discussion but would have seen opinion swing away from his preferred position, changed portions of the article to his preferred usage of "their". This was reverted, then re-reverted by him, despite requests to him to discuss the matter (see, ,.

Since then, many efforts have been made on the article's Talk page and at User talk:McAusten.

The problem we now have is that McAusten is ignoring all requests to communicate further on this. He will not post on the article's Talk page, and simply deletes comments on his Talk page without responding. For example, and.

(Please excuse any errors in process here. It's my first time.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I must now add that McAusten has just blanked his User Talk page, removing my message advising him of this action, and edited my post above. While his edits of my post could be seen as corrections, I don't regard editing other's posts as ethical behaviour at all. HiLo48 (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To refuse to communicate except for screwing around with your posts is not at all appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally I would argue that McAusten is right on the content issue. "their" is more usually used in the context of sports teams. Having said that edit warring against consensus is not a good thing, but you only have a very very small number of editors involved. I suggest you open an RfA on the question which should settle it.  If "its" wins then you can seek enforcement against McAusten if he makes changes after an RfA. In the mean time its a very minor issue so there is no great problem which is used.  -- Snowded  TALK  10:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the US, at least, it would be "their" rather than "its". I don't know what the customary usage is in Australia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I really didn't want to tackle the "its" vs "their" issue here. Those of us involved have already presented our views at Talk:2011 AFL season. While I'm happy to be made aware of other opinions on that matter, and even be convinced that Wikipedia's policy differs from my view, if that is the case, that's not what this is about. The real issue here is the behaviour of McAusten. We have an unresolved issue, with Edit warring, and an editor refusing to participate in all normal forms of communication. That's the problem I'm seeking a solution to. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My point was that an RfA would make the position clear and allow you to ask for sanctions. For the moment while I think McAusten is acting badly, s/he is not actively disrupting Wikipedia. If you want sanctions then you need to make a 3RR report. Remember that does not have to be strictly three reverts on one article in 24 hours.  If you can show reverts over multiple articles and link to the discussion and the refusal to discuss you would have a case. Anyone can delete anything (bar a major sanction) from their talk page so I would leave that out. If you delete it, you've read it is the rule -- Snowded  TALK  11:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, read it, and very pointedly, not responded. (I agree the deletion is not in itself an issue.) What we have is a small group of editors trying hard to follow the rules and act in good faith, and someone else acting disruptively, very poor faith. I will also add that, as I pointed out above, this is my first attempt at seeking help of this kind. Throwing around suggestions of an RfA does not help me. At my stage of education that's just another piece of Wikipedia jargon of which I'm unfamiliar, with a big learning curve in front of me. And I'm not the sinner here! Why is it all so hard to get a silly editor to do better? HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect Snowded means RFC (request for comment) rather than RfA (which could stand for "Request for Arbitration" or "Request for Adminship", neither of which would be appropriate for this dispute). A request for comment through talk pages is a way of asking the wider Wikipedia community for assistance in settling a content dispute.  It's not at all clear to me that it would be much help in this case, but it might be worth a try.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Correct, I shouldn't come here after reading Jimbo's page where RfAs are under discussion.  HiLo48,  I have left a note on the editor's page.  If s/he doesn't engage I'll happily help out if you need to know how to raise something.   I'm not sure that asking for a sanction on such a minor issue would really be successful, hence the suggestion of formalising the content issue. Although as I say I think you are wrong on that.  -- Snowded  TALK  14:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not really looking for sanctions. I would rather find a way to simply get McAusten to re-engage and follow the rules. I just don't understand his behaviour (pretty confident of the "his"). I'm a teacher, and have this constant belief that education can work better than sanctions. Clear advice to him, such as yours, from independent parties, would be my preferred approach. So thank you for that comment on his page. Maybe more from others would help. HiLo48 (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "McAusten, NOT User:McAusten", let's take a look here. We all know you're watching the page here, and I'm going to quote you one of the 5 PILLARS of Wikipedia.  Its pretty much the highest rule we have here.
 * Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner. Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, and remember that there are 3,723,187 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming. When conflict arises, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.
 * Messing around with text when people say User:McAusten isn't really in line with that PILLAR, is it? So, get the corncob out your butt, and start behaving like a reasonable guy and I'm sure people will do same to you.  The alternative is that you get to say 'game over', and that's the end of the joke.  The decision is going to be yours. -- Avanu (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (As a note, User:McAusten was indef blocked with talk page access revoked.) - SudoGhost 04:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin


From what I can tell after being involved in this page discussion a little over a day now, several editors, most apparent to me, SlimVirgin, have hijacked the page discussion and are intent on moving discussion aside and squashing disagreement.

There are a couple dozen changes which span several related pages, and amount to a pattern of edit warring in order to keep discussion supposedly 'on track'. From what I can tell at this point, such behavior has failed to produce results.

I have come into the discussion as a result of someone mentioning it on Jimbo's page, and after a few discussions with editors, it seems apparent that SlimVirgin is acting both as Admin and Editor in this page.

I attempted to personally discuss things with SlimVirgin, who merely brushed me aside. Discussions on the WP:Verifiability Talk page are similarly pushed aside, mostly by SlimVirgin.

Attempts at WP:BRD have met with mere dismissive comments, however, in reviewing the page history, I see that SlimVirgin has felt free to do as she wished. diff 1 - diff 2 - diff 3.

Attempting to implement the wording that Jimbo suggested also met with a dismissive revert by SlimVirgin.

I'd like an opportunity to have a real discussion and real collaboration, but the impression I am getting from SlimVirgin is that she is unwilling to allow other editors to collaborate as they see fit, but merely imposing her will on the discussion, with the disclaimer that it is intended to improve the discussion. From what I can tell in other editor's comments, this has created resentment and a feeling that there is a bit of police state type atmosphere at this point, rather than a free and collaborative exchange of ideas.

While I can see that some of the editors have been dealing with this issue for some time, I feel that there is a developing attitude of WP:Ownership among some of them, most prominently in my mind SlimVirgin.

I'd like her to back off from acting as both Admin and Editor and choose a role for her actions in this page. Her last comment to me was that I was acting like a troll, and yet when I have tried to personally have a dialog with her, it is met with a dismissive attitude.

This comment simply reinforces my belief that she is overly involved and owner-ish at this point, rather than simply trying to engage editors in collaboration.

I'd like SlimVirgin to stop moving and deleting other people's Talk page comments, and to back off from biting people who are also trying to see that some progress gets made in this *minor* Policy amendment. (FYI, not one person is proposing an actual change in policy, but merely a change in phrasing for clarity). -- Avanu (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)




 * You might want to look at SlimVirgin's history. I *did*, in fact, notify her, and she almost immediately removed it with the edit summary of 'no more'.  So I *also* notified her via my own Talk page, since she recently posted there calling me a troll. I believe that I've done more than what is asked in order to ensure that she's been notified. -- Avanu (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, failed to catch that. I am involved in those talk pages, so I will refrain from further comment.--Cerejota (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite all right. -- Avanu (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. I have looked at the diffs you have provided and there is no evidence of incivility by anyone there that I can see.  Please provide diffs for the actual uncivil behaviour you are complaining about.  The rest of this is a content dispute and WQA is not the correct forum for that discussion. -  Nick Thorne  talk  01:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Recommend closure. This is a long, long, long, long, long-running content dispute.  In any case, Avanu did not ask SV for permission to edit the policy pages. :) Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless SlimVirgin is the Owner of those pages, I don't see why I need her specific permission. (and yes, I acknowledge that its a policy page, but none of these editors want to change how policy works, only clarify its phrasing)


 * SV has felt the need to edit that same page (while summarily reverting others), and between her and Unscintillating, its like a little domain for the two of them. I'm simply looking for progress in this but with what I saw in Slim's recent attitude, it really is not conducive to collaborative editing.  Silly semantic arguments and bitey inferences are not helpful.  I'm trying to introduce a little blood flow into the debate, which seems to have stalled with 12 polls running and at least two dozen threads just about the first sentence.  Rather than getting people moving toward a resolution, this just seems to have been allowed to continue, with people yipping and scratching over something that really is rather inconsequential.  I want to be able to expect good faith and receive the same in return. -- Avanu (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What you expect is never what is or what you get. What you receive is usually based on what you give.  Are you going to make me quote The Beatles?  There is nothing for WQA to do here.  If you want to reach your goal, if you want to achieve a desired outcome, you will need to change your approach.  That means avoiding the trap of editorial behavior and focusing solely on building bridges and forming a consensus.  This is not a WQA issue. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Snowded


Not sure if this is the correct forum so please advise. User Snowded continually makes disparaging remarks about me and I'm pissed off with it:

          

I haver not been uncivil to him and would welcome normal debate but all he does is refer to me as an SPA or an SPI and I've had enough of it. Van Speijk (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Its an accurate statement. This is an SPA, following the same pattern as other SPAs on the various British Isles controversies.  THe latest case is tagging an article while admitting s/he knew the material was validly sourced.  Also reopening a question which was done to death and resolved a few years ago.  In the River Shannon case above disrupting a long standing compromise.  Its worth noting  this exchange involving another editor with experience of this area.   We have sock puppets, long term sleeper accountsand accounts that use multiple minor changes and wikipedia forums  such as User:Irvine22 who after more than a year was finally blocked and has since become a minor sock farm.  If you check the edit history  of this user you will see a start up period of a couple of months in 2010 in BI issues,  A reemergence in 2011 to support a now blocked editor, then after the two main editors are variously blocked or banned this one becomes active again.  The solution to being identified as an SPA is to broaden your editing.  -- Snowded  TALK  03:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but editors have to discuss difficult topics openly, and when an SPA edits in a troubled area they will receive the sort of attention shown in the diffs of this report. Participants should always assume good faith, and always welcome editors, but if an editor wants to avoid discussion concerning SPA and SPI, all they have to do is demonstrate an interest in developing the encyclopedia without always pursuing the same interest. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

All sufficiently new editors (few edits) are likely to be "SPA" pretty much by definition (Solution: Edit in a bunch of unrelated articles)... if there is any real suspicion of being a "sock" then the issue should be raised at WP:SPI and not otherwise. In the case at hand, an order of trout for each with a cup of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a solution to not being described as an SPA. It is not a solution to the rudeness and incivility currently at issue, but you're right about SPA - I expect most editors start out as one. Van Speijk (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Check my edits and you'll see that I'm not actually an "SPA". This label is just being used as an excuse for ill feeling. As for "receiving attention", fine, I don't mind, but that does not excuse the type of incivil comments made by Snowded. There is no excuse for the incvility he uses, SPA or not. I have done nothing against him. I have merely won an argument at River Shannon which he clearly takes exception to. The incivility continues . Yes, he can do what he wants with his talk page, but the edit summary is insulting and aimed directly at me. Van Speijk (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * More . This user can't seem to interact without being incivil, at least not with me. I won't respond to his baiting remarks but maybe someone could actually look objectively at this. Van Speijk (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Snowded has not been uncivil in any of the diffs you have posted here. He has no case to answer for stating the bleeding obvious. Beware the boomerang if you persist with this issue. - Nick Thorne  talk  14:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, you're wrong. He has a history of incivility and even a casual glance at his current talk page confirms this. And what, pray, is "the bleeding obvious"? The "bleeding obvious" that perhaps over half my edits are concerned with one fairly broad area of interest and therefore an editor like Snowded is given carte blanche to direct abuse in my direction? Boomerang? Oh yes, that's the procedure whereby someone raises an issue (like here) and it's ignored in favour probing the activities of the person making the complaint - as here. Waste of space, this page. It implicitly condones the type of activity Snowded engages in. So no help here. I'll just ignore him, completely, as if he doesn't exist. Van Speijk (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might like to read WP:boomerang a little more carefully. Your post above is a typical example of the sort of thing disussed on that page.  You have assumed bad faith by Snowded when none is evident to an uninterested third party.  Why did you bring this to this page?  If you were after sanctions agains Snowded you have come to the wrong place, you might like to try WP:AN/I, although I suspect you will get no satisfaction there.  No, you have come here and exhibited an incredibly thin-skinned reaction to the comments of an established editor who has in actual fact been quite polite considering what he has been responding to.  You refuse to consider your part in the exchange.  You object to having your own behaviour examined.  None of these reflect well upon you.  It is time for you to drop this, and just maybe you should consider changing the editing practices you have been using that have led to all this.  Or not, I don't really care, but should you continue as before you may eventually find yourself on the receiving end of the sanctions you apparently want applied to Snowded. -  Nick Thorne  talk  22:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want sanctions against him I just want him to act in a civil manner, nothing wrong with that, is there? I'm obviously not going to get it. Firstly because of the type of person he quite obviously is, and secondly becauase of the type of person that hangs out here. As I said above, examine my editing practices by all means, but I can't see what I should do any different - I already edit in more than one area. I've no real wish to continue this fruitless exchange but I can't let yet get away with the absolute shite you've oozed above when you say "who has in actual fact been quite polite considering what he has been responding to". Just what has he been responding to? Allow me to answer: Nothing. That's what he's been responding to. I haven't engaged him in any dialogue save that which is directly concerned with article content and in so doing I have not been incivil with him in any way. You show me one thing I've done or said that could be considered provocative or anything else; there is nothing. So why does he make insulting remarks about me? Simple; because he can, and places like this, which are supposed to deal with his type of problem just don't, maybe because he's an "established editor". Van Speijk (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Snowded here has spoken to you no different than in the in the DIFFs you provided, and I see nothing uncivil. However, I disagree that that badgering you is something to be dismissed - as Collect said, there is plenty for both of you to consider:
 * You (Van Speijk) need to assume good faith and also examine your own behavior. The invitation for you to edit outside of a given topic area is in good faith. Consider doing that.
 * Polite disagreement is not incivility, even if these disagreements address your behavior directly, in fact he is being honest about his concerns, that's something we encourage as part of good faith. Claiming they are incivility, however, can be uncivil. Consider your own behavior before considering that of others.
 * Now, Snowded, please read WP:BITE again. Van Speijk is a new user by any measure and it can be scary to be accused of being something that as new user can be scary. Even if it isn't a personal attack or uncivil, it can feel that way to new users. That's why we don't bite them. Have some compassion for the noobs. So a trout for you.
 * Also, while he might be in-artful in wording, he is asking you to focus on the content not the editor. That's a legitimate request made in good faith. I think you should consider it.
 * Without prejudice to your spidey sense, and without looking at the evidence much, I don't see much quacking here about puppetry, an SPA is an SPA and they are allowed. I recently made an error in this regards, and while the SPA was indeed a problem, the editor I suspected as puppetmaster was not. So unless you are willing to take it to SPI, try not to bring this topic up again, and focus on the content, not the editor. If the editor needs focus, instead of discussing it directly, go to the appropriate DR forum, it is clear that you both need to get off each other's backs for a while. There is no better policy than common sense in this regards. --Cerejota (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * S/he is not a newbe Cerejota, three periods of editing over a couple of years and knowledgeable about process. We also have a long term pattern of socks and meat puppetry around this subject.  One group are adept at using different IP addresses and the only way they have been flushed out is on behavioral evidence.  Part of that is how they respond when the SPA point is made.  Its not a simple SPI investigation.   -- Snowded  TALK  05:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 157 edits is a new editor, even if they span years. It shows insignificant quantity of contributions, so it is unlikely the user has been involved in deep policy disputes. It is a noob in that sense. I understand your point on the "behavioral evidence", but CU uses much more than just IP evidence, so if you open an SPI it might give results. A lesson I learned from the recent SPI I recently opened is that similar patterns of behavior can be a legitimate indicator of good faith agreement, rather than meatpuppetry or socking. So, if you feel you have strong evidence, go to SPI and get the matter cleared up, or don't use the unproven claim as a trout, because it is unproductive. How would you feel if every time there is a disagreement with you, you would be accused of being a puppet simply because you are an anonymous user?--Cerejota (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We may just have to agree to disagree Cerejota, and as you said above you have not really had time to look at what is going on in the area. An SPI requires some identification of who is the sock master, and there are four or five major ones operating here with similar approaches.  Sometimes its obvious and an SPI can be made, mostly its not until you start to find the repetition of key phrases, time zones etc.  A couple use periodic editing from different physical locations to maintain different accounts and prevent range blocks.  Its a mess of sock puppetry, meat puppetry & sleeper accounts.  173 edits or not, three editing periods over a few years primarily as an SPA is going to raise suspicion and challenge.  I also note that this editor has not been remotely intimidated or disturbed by reference being made to their SPA nature.  They know enough about wikipedia to come here at the first excuse for example, to wax indignant theny go back to very similar edits across a range of articles.  The scope for this editor is extended from the RIver Shannon to others since this report was lodged.   I understand and respect the lessons you have learnt from your previous experience; please do the same for those of us who have to live with the problem in a controversial area.  -- Snowded  TALK  05:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't really disagree. I am saying, get it over with to cut the noticeboard drama down. I am a battle-scared veteran of some highly controversial areas, and I have found that dealing with persistent SPAs is very difficult, but not ultimately impossible. A CU check if you compile good evidence could be illustrative. You do not need to identify the puppet master, just a potential puppetmaster, usually the first account created from a set. What I am saying is that unless you are in a noticeboard, refrain from saying "you are an spi" or "you are an spa". The only real situation were being an SPA is a bad thing is in !votes and closing admins usually take that into consideration. Its kinda of a Pascal's Wager, if you cannot prove beyond any doubt that they are puppets, better to treat them as they are not. Nothing pisses legit users more than being called puppets (and certainly understandable), so this accusation almost always is disruptive. So go to SPI or just don't bring it up as much.--Cerejota (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment noted Cerejota and for IP based puppets an SPI is fine, for the type we deal with on BI issues you have to work to behavioral evidence and that often means pointing out that an editor is an SPA. You then wait to see what they do.    They can say OK, I'm an SPA and lots of SPAs make valid contributions which is fine, its a description whether its good or bad is contextual ; (ii) they can change their pattern, although if that is just trivial edits to create a smokescreen its more dubious (and we see some of that here);  (iii) they can run here or ANI (I can tell you the story of the false racism charge that got one experienced editor blocked for a period before common sense prevailed).  If they take (iii) it generally says "watch more closely".  Personally (and I know this is not wikipedia policy so its an opinion) I think controversial areas should have semi-protection and also some constraint on SPA accounts particularly intermittent ones as with a very few exceptions (and none on the BI pages that I can remember) they are disruptive.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What happened to commenting on the edits and not the contributor? Why were those remarks made on the talk page instead of at ANI regarding troublesome SPA? The only reason it was mentioned was to take something away from the validity of the edits s it was a personal attack. That did nothing but detract from the actual editing and stir trouble. I agree with the filer though: This is a waste of time. The community has let Snowded do whatever he wants and I doubt that is changing anytime soon. Cptnono (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes Cptnono I remember, three different panels including ANI and you finally had to give up on your changes to an article. -- Snowded  TALK  05:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are deflecting again. You "won" by using underhanded tactics like arguing against editors and not their edits, forum shopping, and filibustering to get what you want with no regard for NPOV. So you can enjoy that but at least I am not the only person that sees you for how you are.Cptnono (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's delusional Cptnono. I argued for the established position and that was backed by by the reliable sources and NPOV panels as well as an RfA via ANI.  In all those cases the forum shopping was done by people on your side of the argument and I and others responded.  If its underhand to argue your case on those forums and refuse to accept edit warring failures to abide by WP:BRD well fine I plea guilty.
 * Actually, this IS a problem. "Any argument you have is invalid because I think you are a SPA" - is an Ad hominem logical fallacy.  When discussing an article, it is the content of the article, the reliability of the sources, etc, that should be discussed.  What I see is a lot of "this person can't be right because of who they are" arguments, which shouldn't be valid discussion topics on Wikipedia. Denaar (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed Denaar, you should never say that an argument is invalid because someone is an SPA. Fully agree.  On the other hand to say that one should not accept a silly compromise that few other editors want just because an SPA is pushing an agenda, well thats a different thing.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not necessarily true. WP:DUCK and WP:HONESTY suggest that being an SPA is problematic, in particular from the perspective of POV pushing. While focusing on the content is best, often it is inevitable that the context of behavior comes forth - and there is nothing wrong in that as you seem to suggest. My point is that Snowded does have recourse, which are SPI investigations, and he not going for it and instead just making repeated declarations were no enforcement can happen is not helpful. This however doesn't excusse possible puppetry and SPA pov pushing.--Cerejota (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised this debate is continuing here (I have no wish for it to do so), and I'm even more surprised that the idea of an SPA is still being considered. I invite you all who have bothered to offer your opinion to examine my, albeit short, list of contributions and explain how you think it constitutes an SPA - with emphasis on the 'S'. Van Speijk (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You edit only mostly in articles related to Britain, British Islands and Ireland, and to the nomenclature debate this creates. That is SPA behavior as per Duck Test. There is nothing wrong with being a well behaved SPA, but there is with being a puppet. In case it is not clear, at WQA we cannot tell if you are a puppet or not, at SPI they can, and am simply telling Snowded to take it to that venue. I am not saying you are one, just that he continuing to imply so without taking it to formal venue for resolution is not helpful, which is what we try to do at WQA.--Cerejota (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When someone accuses you of something, your best bet is not to get mad, but to "get even" by proving the allegations wrong, i.e. by providing neutral, well-sourced editing and comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but - Snowed has been told all this information before. He's a repeat offender.  It isn't that he calls someone SPA - it's that he uses it over and over in a harassing manner.  Instead of arguing the sources being presented, he argues the ideas the users are presenting.  It doesn't matter what users think - what's important is what reliable sources state. As I stated in the last discussion - this use of SPA is unacceptable and is not civil behavior.   Denaar (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Denaar, I fully accept that there are editors who think its wrong to use the SPA label but I  and others disagree.  You could raise that at the appropriate forum and see if there is a willingness to change the rules.    In the case you reference its worthy of note that the editor who brought the complaint was subsequently blocked for disruptive editing around the BI issue, as have been several other SPAs in that area, I think (but have not checked) we also saw a few socks subsequently; the subject matter area is plagued with them.  Bringing a complaint to this place is, as I have said, part of a behavioral pattern.  Thanks for finding the link to that by the way -- Snowded  TALK  17:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This report on Snowded is quite weak. SPAs & Socks have a history of hovering around British Isles topics. The MidnightBlueMan farm comes to mind. Let's close this report as being merely revenge seeking in nature. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, this is the sort of shit I now find myself up against, simply because I choose to specialise in a particular area of Wikipedia: . Van Speijk (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Clashes are inevitable, when other editors specialize in the same areas. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * apologies to whomever started this thread for my defense of Snowed, at times even i have suffered the sting of his sharp tongue.  la ditty da, you may wish to have a tutor explain history to you, bla bla bla blahh etc.  with a little humor we have come to a civil discourse, while disagreeing on almost every subject that begins with a consonant.  i find him to be a well education, informed, alas even friendly, once the thick crusty veneer of wikipedia is cracked, revealing an actual humanoid behind the keys.  Darkstar1st (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

User:OpenFuture
User:OpenFuture has accused me User:R-41 of soapboxing and original research on the Nazism discussion page here: and heres the quote of what I found to be a personal attack: ''"Stop soapboxing and OR:ing. National Socialism as a concept did not appear out of a vacuum in 1919. Give up." OpenFuture''. I view these accusations as false. OpenFuture has also told me to "give up" trying to make my argument, even though other users have similar views on recent material that is proposed to be added to the article. Earlier, OpenFuture used sarcasm in what I view a demeaning manner against me, I politely told OpenFuture to rescind and keep a calm head and cooperate and did rescind then and acknowledged the sarcasm. OpenFuture asked me to prove that "national socialism" as an ideology did not exist as a coherent ideology before the prior to Nazi use, with OpenFuture's contention that it existed for a long time before. I found this indirect to search for a negation, but told OpenFuture to review sources that I earlier had added to the ideological origins section of the Nazism article on Johann Plenge, who created a "national socialism" during World War I that was authoritarian in a manner similar to Nazism. A number of scholars can verify that Plenge's arguments for a "national socialism" were the origins of the ideology now known as Nazism. OpenFuture claimed this did not resolve the question, that I did not find the negations. I responded that since the material that was being debated to be added was material predating Nazism, such as references dating to the 19th century, I could not possibly examine them because they were sources predating Nazism and thus any attribution or disattribution of them to Nazism would be original research. After this, OpenFuture accused me of soapboxing, of refusing to acknowledge the "obvious" - that national socialism as related to Nazism dates back into the 19th century, and that I should "give up". I considered these accusations and demands to be aggressive and false (in the case of accusations), and asked OpenFuture to rescind these because I considered it highly offensive - as I have never been accused of soapboxing before, nor blocked, nor reprimanded for anything on Wikipedia. Considering OpenFuture's previous use of sarcasm and now accusations of wrongdoing, I told OpenFuture that I would report these accusations if he/she did not rescind. OpenFuture refused to rescind. OpenFuture claims that WP:STICK applies to her/his claim for me to "give up", but two other users have also challenged the claims of the new material and one has provided a source to disprove some of the material. I think it should be beared in mind that me and OpenFuture have not held any longstanding disagreements or grudges as may be the case in long-term cases. This summarizes what happened as I view it.--R-41 (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Some diffs would make it a lot easier to assess the relative reasonableness of the claims and counter claims. Also, have you notified OpenFuture of this thread? Also what exactly makes this a wikiquette issue? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You will need to provide more specific diffs, as this is hard to follow without context.--Cerejota (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I informed OpenFuture of this thread. I was unsure as to where to put this, it seemed to be an issue of etiquette for me. It's been a long time since I reported a personal attack, so I am unfamiliar with what to do. Moreover it was a very sudden incident, though it began with use of sarcasm by OpenFuture. The particular quote I showed and the link I gave for it was what I found to be extremely offensive. Prior to that I was bringing up challenges to OpenFuture's claims, they were logical, I don't understand how they could have caused OpenFuture to lay the accusations. Here is the diff where OpenFuture was adding the offensive material, you also will see that he / she is removing an initial sarcastic remark that he / she made involving accusing me of circular argument saying "How lovely circular" .--R-41 (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as if you are making a claim contradicting sources provided by others (that National Socialism meant something different before and after WWI), and that you need to provide a good source to back that claim up. While OpenFuture is clearly not acting as the apostle of civilty (although he did voluntarily remove the snarky comment about the circularity of your argumentation), reminding you of the policies is not incivil - whether or not you agree that you need that reminder or not. I do not see evidence that OpenFuture has broken and civilty rules. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The main issue to me is that OpenFuture accused me of soapboxing, my edits meet none of the criteria of soapboxing - I am not trying to sell something or produce propaganda. I did not soapbox and there is no evidence of me soapboxing. That accusation by OpenFuture is false and in my view slanderous.--R-41 (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * .:::There are no clearcut criteria for what is soapboxing and what isn't - so there is no basis for saying that it is slanderous. I think you would do well by interpreting his comment as saying that he feels that you are soapboxing by providing arguments without sources - which you are. You can convince him that you are not soapboxing by providing adequate sources in support of your view.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I did provide referenced sources, they were the ones I added to the Nazism article's Ideological origins section on Johann Plenge, who is considered by scholars to have developed the first Nazi-like "national socialism" ideology during World War I. The Wikipedia page on Wikipedia's policies on soapboaxing appears has five criteria for soapboxing, see here: . What I done does not qualify for any of the five. As I hope Wikipedia goes by innocent until proven guilty, OpenFuture has to present a case to accuse me of soapboxing.--R-41 (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you post directly from Plenge's writing, or from others commenting on his writing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * apologies to R-41, even though you and i disagree on Nazism, and i understand your frustration with this editor, i humbly ask you withdraw this complaint. I think you will find Openfuture reasonable and fair, even if he can be a bit dismissive, obtuse, and wrong at times.    this specific exchange made me have to call my mother.  she patiently listened as i explained how unfair and wrong he was, and could not see he was tripped up in his on words, yet convinced it was me who was confused.  Mother lead me in an incantation of a demon to whom we both recited a hex on Openfuture, which will most certainly cure him of this style of commenting.  Darkstar1st (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

dude, this seems to be a good case of WP:CHILL - I empathize with you, no one likes being called names etc, but you will have to find a way to collaborate and ignore comments like "go away". Something I try, not always successfully, it to simply focus on the content, and ignore the editor - so if he says "go away", simply don't reply and continue editing. If the behavior goes from the current borderline comabtivity, to actually being disruptive, take it to WP:ANI, in particular because OpenFuture has not participated here, in spite of being notified - you have made a good faith effort to mediate the situation, and he has made the choice to ignore it. Good luck... --Cerejota (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, Soapboxing is when you try to use Wikipedia to promote a particular political standpoint. R-41, and several others are intent on trying to eradicate the influence socialism had on national socialism from Wikipedias articles. There is also a user Darkstar1st, who are a radical anti-socialist is intent on pushing the opposite viewpoint, namely that national socialism simply is a form of socialism. What he is doing is also clearly soapbxing. In short, there is a lot of soapboxing going on on that article. If R-41 doesn't want to be accused of soapboxing he needs to stop pushing a particular political standpoint, and look at things cooly and rationally and go with what the sources say. That would solve it. Both sides in this conflict is extremely prone to original research with to be frank, absurd logic. I don't know how to stop that, although I do my best. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you ignore issue of soapboxing as given in these types of articles, and in fact analyze the sourcing and defend it in its merits - that is, focus on the content not the editors? Around here we do the opposite, because, well that's what this page is for - but in article space? Also consider this: having a middle ground position doesn't make you free of soapboxing either - in your zeal to defend what you feel the sourcing is saying, you might be soapboxing a little yourself. We are not unthinking robots, capable of divorcing ourselves from the beliefs we hold dear - and while I share with you trying to find the truth in the sources (rather than in original research), it is inevitable this will happen - it doesn't mean it is right, and of course egregious examples should be called out, specially if disrupting, but I have found that often the disruption caused by soapboxing is not so much the original comment, but the fact it is not ignored to focus on the content. Hope that is helpful.--Cerejota (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I do. Your response seems to assume that this was one of the first things I said to R-41. It wasn't. I do feel that after somebody makes a claim over and over, and I request sources to back that up, it's OK to tell people to stop making the claim they obviously can't back up, in an effort to put the issue to rest. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there an actual complaint here? I think R-41 should examine the number of times on that article talk page that "OR" has been bandied as a claim (albeit often with the implicit meaning "I know it is not the truth, therefore it must be OR no matter the source.") This is not really the right noticeboard for the implicit issues. Anent this, with "National Socialism" appearing in print in the 19th century, one editor said the OED was "wrong" in giving dates before 1931 for the usage because (essentially) "Webster's says it was first used in 1931"! Well, Literary Digest used it before 1931 as well -- but to that editor, that fact is OR -- and Webster's must be the WP:TRUTH. Well - it takes all kinds to make a Wiki. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is false that I am trying to "eradicate" references to socialism on Nazism. I added a reference to the intro that said that Nazism was a form of right-wing socialism and I added material to that article as well on material related to Nazism. So as you can see there is no evidence for me soapboxing. I am not pushing a particular political standpoint at all, nor denying socialist influences on Nazism. I would be the first to acknowledge that there were revolutionary socialists in the Nazi party such as Ernst Rohm, Gregor Strasser, and Joseph Goebbels, not to mention Hitler's own revolutionary socialist leanings in his anti-bourgeois and anti-capitalist beliefs. So the accusation is false. Now the User TFD has informed me that OpenFuture behaved in a similar manner to her/him and posted a similar complaint, there seems to be a pattern and it needs to stop.--R-41 (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As I never said what you assert to be false, I wonder just what the intent here is. As for editors who seem to routinely accuse others of bad faith - I think that sort of behaviour is, itself, more of a problem than what you are upset at. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am responding to something that OpenFuture added to the discussion board a few sections up, I am not saying that you claimed this.--R-41 (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure bringing complaints here and boycotting further content discussion is the best way to respond to claims of OR. In my experience the best way to refute claims of OR is to cite a published reliable source. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OpenFuture accused me of soapboxing - which means promoting propaganda and advertising a cause or product - that serious accusation is false. I think that discussion with a user that I am currently in conflict over claims that he/she made, will not help the overall discussion, as it could easily become inflamed with more accusations. I am not boycotting further discussion, other users are welcome to contribute and put their points forward, but my discussions with OpenFuture will be minimal until the issue of these serious accusations is resolved. However with that minimal level, I have provided the sources of the claims I made about Plenge to OpenFuture to review and have directly posted them to his discussion page and the talk page of Nazism.--R-41 (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And of course, Plenge is not the issue at all, so the sources he provided did still not support the claims he made, just as they didn't the first time. Can we keep this discussion in *one* place, namely Talk:Nazism instead of there, here and on my talk-page? I don't see how repeating everything three times helps us get forward. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Looneymonkey
Looneymonkey is in violation of WP:HOUND. He has been disrupting the edits of Starbucksian on Lee Fang and Ruben Hinojosa. Tommyboy1215 (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to document this with links to specific edits and explanations of how they are hounding. TFD (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Don't be ridiculous. Interacting on a grand total of two articles is not in any way hounding. I patrol WP:BLP violations of political figures.  Starbucksian has a real misunderstanding of what is appropriate in a BLP and has already been blocked for edit-warring over this.  Are you actually going to defend their recent edits to the Ruben Hinojosa article?  Any experienced editor would tell you that adding disparaging material (sourced only to blogs) is a violation of WP:BLP.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌. —  Kudu ~I/O~ 22:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * He has yet to say what the BLP violations are, follows me around after each edit I make, and reverts them. I then complain and then he hits me a three-edit rule violation. Other users notice. He lost the Lee Fang debate and refuses to engage in WP:Consensus.Starbucksian (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Starbucksian#September_2011 Using wiki rules to intimidate other editors. Threatening Starbuckian with a block for edit warring. Tommyboy1215 (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats not a diff, that's a template. To warn against edit warring. That we all use. You have to do better than that.--Cerejota (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Hrafn


My very first time running across long-time editor Hrafn was the occasion of him wholesale reverting five of my edits to the Meyer BLP, where he sits as a primary editor, with his edit summary only mentioning the first edit he reverted (see here). It wasn't long after that that he started resorting to personal attacks. Here he calls me "willfully ignorant." Later on, he calls me a "fanatic" here, and in the same edit also makes what appears to a mocking comment about what he perceives to be my religion ("kindly stop nailing yourself to that cross -- you make a very poor martyr"). Those are the personal attacks I happen to remember. Now, he continues his tradition of personal attacks by using the scare-epithet "creationist" (see here for the essay "Creating Creationism" by leading historian on creationism Ronald Numbers, where he refers to "creationist" as an epithet: "Since at least the early 1840s Darwin had occasionally referred to "creationists" in his unpublished writings, but the epithet remained relatively uncommon." Even if he happened to know my personal views on creationism--which he doesn't--and my views were supportive of it, he would find himself in trouble with the very first item in WP:NPA policy that is considered to be a personal attack:
 * Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse

He neither knows my views on creationsim, nor has any evidence of my views on it (remember, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"). Actually, this is at least the second time he has called me a "creationist," but like previous personal attacks, I didn't care. Now is different as he has made a personal attack in a heavily-read BLPN venue, which attracts a lot of influential admins and non-admin editors. Drrll (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any personal attacks. These are legitimate (although not necessarily true) appreciations of your own behavior and that of others. Please read WP:BOOMERANG. Trust me, if there was anything untoward, any uninvolved admin on the noticeboards you mention would have taken action. At best, Hrafn should focus more on the content and less on the editor, but I see no evidence that his behavior is disruptive and uncollaborative, even if he might consider cooling the rhetoric down a little. Making judgement of other people based on their editing patters is a natural reaction for anyone with a heartbeat - it is up to you to convince the other editor he or she is wrong or to ignore the claims and to concentrate content. Calling some one who is not a "creationist" is unfair if you are not a creationist, but it is not a personal attack, and if its true it is an objective description. --Cerejota (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If "ignorant" and "fanatic" or not personal attacks, I'd sure like to know what you actually regard as a personal attack.
 * "it is up to you to convince the other editor he or she is wrong or to ignore the claims and to concentrate content": it's not up to me to convince anyone of anything in order to head off potential personal attacks. And while I have largely ignored his namecalling, he went too far in doing so at a very visible venue. Keep in mind that WP:NPA is a policy, not a guideline or essay. Drrll (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Same thing at Leonard Brand with user:DonaldRichardSands. If you don't concede his points he becomes rude, condescending and patronizing.– Lionel (talk)
 * Same thing at Generation of Youth for Christ, Southern Adventist University and other Seventh-day Adventist affiliated pages. I could post possibly 50 quotes very much like the allegations above.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I can find nothing at Southern Adventist University recently at least. Nor at Generation of Youth for Christ but I do see some praise for him on the talk page. So yes, maybe we do need to see those 50 quotes. I'm not defending any of his comments, just noting that I can't find a problem in the last 250 edits for those two articles. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They are in the archives of the pages (primary Southern Adventist University) and occurred between 2-5 months ago. I do not know, however, how to access the Talk page archives.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a different example on a User talk page from a few months ago.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Warnign users of copyright violations is not a bad thing if its true. --Cerejota (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct that warning users is not a bad thing, however warning users using mocking phrasing like "the complete newbie he's acting like" and "having a hissy" in the title of a section on a user's page in inappropriate and not professional. The problem with Hrafn is that he easily veers into personal attacks that aren't relevant to the issue at hand. There are many nicer ways to say an do things than the way he does, even if he is making the correct editing call.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Forgot a few other personal attacks on me. From his user Talk page:
 * "idiots"
 * "will he start arguing with himself?"

I was also curious about personal attacks there on other editors. Going back to July:
 * "Twit"
 * "ignorant"
 * "DEADHORSE editor" (edit summary)
 * "Please don't evoke the all-too-strong argumentative side of my personality by reminding me of your, and its, existence"

Also, he regularly calls me and other editors various names playing off on our usernames, such as "Deadhorse Drrll" Drrll (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

How did admin Dougweller handle this complaint? By even giving Hrafn a warning? No, but by giving him some sympathetic "advice". In his advice to Hrafn, he referred to me and other regular targets of Hrafn's violation of the WP:NPA policy as "rav[ing] on". Dougweller, which dictionary definition of "rave" were you using?: Maybe someone needs to take a looksee at your violations of WP:NPA policy and keep you away from a noticeboard where instead of displaying an interest in enforcing policy, you don't mind engaging in some policy-breaking yourself. Drrll (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "to talk irrationally in or as if in delirium"
 * "to speak out wildly"
 * "to talk with extreme enthusiasm"


 * I was talking about myself (and in fact about experiences off-Wiki although I didn't specify them - Usenet in fact). I was definitely not referring to anyone here, although I guess it's possible to read that into what I wrote without the whole context. What I wrote was "You really need to avoid giving anyone a reason to take you to WQA - I've always felt I get a lot further by trying to be as polite as I can (hard at times) and let the others rave on. It just gives others ammunition against you. Take the high road, see the error of your ways. Not as satisfying at times of course but it will make you a better Wikipedian and I think more productive at what you are trying to do."  If you want to take me to ANI to get me banned from this board, go ahead. Right now though I haven't said anything about you although you certainly have said something about me. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dougweller, I applaud the spot-on advise you gave Hrafn. (I would call it "diplomatic" rather than "sympathetic.") As a new editor I found Hrafn to be unacceptably offensive; since then I have seen there is much knowledge beneath his curmudgeonly exterior. After learning to ignore his frequent rudeness that for some reason WP tolerates against its own policy, I have come to appreciate his editing skills. He really should work on his people skills, though!
 * Imho, and deviating a bit, WP needs to enforce its civility policy because there are many long-standing editors who do not adhere to it and without a doubt this is one reason there are fewer contributors. Yopienso (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your edit summary for the response to Hrafn at his Talk page was "advice." Thank you for giving out the whole context of what you said here, although I provided an easy way for anyone else here to see the whole context by providing a diff link to your remarks. I hope people do read your whole comments in full context. And then ask themselves if it comports with your claim above that "I was talking about myself." Drrll (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Drrll, Doug goofed on that. Try to focus on his intention and, more importantly, on how you can be part of the answer instead of part of the problem. Just letting trivial stuff go is often a good idea. Yopienso (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The continuing concerns about Hrafn's behavior as raised in this report by Drrll, Lionel Fountainviewkid and others are legitimate and need to be addressed. My experience with Hrafn in late 2010 mirrors their own and brings up that incident for review.  At the time, I was working closely with User:Dbigwood, a new user who had a professional knowledge and interest in space science (employed by the Lunar and Planetary Institute), but wasn't familiar with the intricacies of  Wikipedia.  The user had correctly created a stub out of a redirect with the intent to expand it.   Hrafn had been maintaining this redirect and when he discovered a new user had created a stub and was working on expanding it, Hrafn reverted all the work by the new user.  The user reverted, and I stepped in to help, at which point Hrafn showed up and began to disrupt both the article and the talk page for the next several days. The disruption and attacks he waged on Talk:NASA Astrobiology Institute were noted by several different editors, and his behavior there was about as bad as it can get.  At no time did he actually attempt to collaborate with and help the new user at all.  Instead, he spent days wikilawyering on the talk page, making rude and angry comments and fighting a maintenance tag war for no known reason.  In the above discussion, Cerejota says "I see no evidence that his behavior is disruptive and uncollaborative".  For that exact evidence, please see: 1, 2.  I realize this is old evidence, but there is a pattern of bad behavior here that needs to be addressed.  I recommend that the editors compile their best evidence and file a user RfC. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Being curmudgeon or harsh might not be a good idea, and might lead to misunderstandings and in general a digression from discussion, but here WP:BOOMERANG applies. People are not assuming good faith, or figuring out that they do not have to focus on the user, rather than the content.

Hrafn at most deserves a trout with a generalized appeal to be less harsh with other editors:



But they do not constitute WP:NPA violations. Just because its offensive, it doesn't mean its a personal attack. A personal attack is saying "your head is full of filth" or "you are a pedophile" or "I fuck your mother, and then stand in line for your sister". It is not "Please don't evoke the all-too-strong argumentative side of my personality by reminding me of your, and its, existence" or "twit" or "idiots". These are harsly expressed but legitimate and WP:HONESTY expressions. Hrafn should probably be WP:CIVIL but other editors should also grow thicker skins and ignore his personality and focus on the content. It takes two to fight, and it doesn't help anyone if unless a real pattern of disruptive editing emerges, and unless he doesn't address content at all, you will have to tough it out. He is not getting a pass on the rules, he is following the rules. And not hearing that is a problem in itself.--Cerejota (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He is following the rules? I guess in the loosest general sense, yes possibly. Reverting all the work by a new user and disrupting both article and talk page for several days are not exactly working "collaboratively". And I'm sorry but that goes beyond WP:HONESTY. If I could figure out how to pull up the archive from Southern Adventist University talk page, there is a trove of sentiments and statements very much like what has been posted on here. And you wonder why this fewer contributors is happening? It's editors like Hrafn that have almost led me to abandon Wiki...him and Bello Wello who thankfully went to far and got blocked.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cerejota you have not been listening. Hfran's behavior is completely unacceptable. For an example see talk:Leonard R. Brand. For 10 days Hfran and a new editor, DonaldRichardSands were the only editors there. The abuse leveled at Donald was excessive. So bad in fact an admin, Bishonen, warned him with this: "Please refrain from being funny on Wikipedia. People may spill their coffee all over their keyboards. If you continue to make me laugh, you may be blocked from editing." Bishonen was being facetious. He was referring to the abuse of Donald.– Lionel (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. As it was a bit hard to locate: This seems to be the "abuse" for which Bishonen "warned" Hrafn. I can see how the ludicrous ANI section title Hrafn has personally attacked my faith community, calling it incestuous would have attracted her. Probably knowing Bishonen a bit better than you do, I am pretty sure that this "warning" was no such thing. Shall we ask her? (Or we could ask User:Darwinbish.) Hans Adler 06:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * She wrote on her talk page that she read the entire talk page at Brand. I assumed she found it disturbing, as I had. I assumed her comment on Hrafn's talk was a facetious warning, not approval. I left a note for her to join us.– Lionel (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In case you have trouble interpreting her response: I think it's safe to say that Bishonen is not a fundamentalist American, so if she was disturbed by anything then it was probably by the blatant anti-reason pushing – something we are simply not used to here in Europe. Hans Adler 17:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Hans, we understand that Americans could not possibly attain the level of reason and sophistication that Europeans have ascended to. By "fundamentalist" do you include those evil evangelical Christians, or just those evil fundamentalist Christians? Drrll (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in hair-splitting on fundamentalists, and I never said that I consider the obstinate refusal of some Christians to use the reason they were so generously granted by God for anything other than conclusion-based arguments and arguments from authority to be evil. I am pretty sure that some American "evangelicals" are what I would consider to be fundamentalists. Presumably there are also those who are not. I have no idea on the relative proportions. Hans Adler 04:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a note to say that Drrll did take me to ANI asking that action be taking against me (which would be either a block or a ban from here) and that "admins with whom I have had content disputes not involve themselves in this matter". . Admins have every right to be involved in such discussions so long as they are not threatening to use their tools. This looks like an attempt to stop someone (me in this case, but not just me) who disagrees with him from commenting here. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dougweller, I was in no way wanting to keep you from defending yourself at ANI. As far as I know, I have never had a "content dispute" at an article with you and that's specifically who I was referring to in the quote of mine you just provided. My primary concern was that admins who have had content disputes in articles with me might not be the most objective arbiters in deciding the outcome of the ANI. Likewise, I said there that I didn't think it was appropriate for admins who regularly work with you or Hrafn to decide the outcome of the ANI.
 * My concerns ended up not being unfounded, as admin Black Kite, who regularly works with you and at the least knows Hrafn well, endorsed numerous unfounded accusations against me at the ANI thread by Cerejota, then gave his opinion, but not official decision, that "I think this, and the WQA, can be wrapped up now" (without closing the thread or marking it resolved). Then the editor Mathsci, who regularly works with you decided that it was time to close the discussion at ANI with the brief declaration that no administrative action is required, but no further explanation. And Mathsci took that action even though he is not an admin--at the Administrator's noticeboard no less!
 * Please also see my response to you at ANI at 21:43, 28 August 2011 Drrll (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Drrll's actions, however, must be interpreted in the light of his frustration with an uncivil editor and the fact that WP refuses to curtail his habitual incivility. DonaldRichardSands 08:17, 27 August 2011 and Viriditas 08:58, 27 August 2011 clearly laid out the problem at ANI. On his talk page, Hrafn basically rejects your fine advice, defending himself and not agreeing to change his attitude or habits. "I will attempt to tone down the rhetoric -- but do not guarantee that my underlying argumentative nature won't show through." He is, no doubt, unaware that his "underlying argumentative nature" is not something that, to use DRS's words, everyone else needs to stomach--although DRS and myself and countless others do--but is something that he needs to curb. I believe he is capable of doing so. If he isn't, WP should not continue to tolerate his incivility despite the fact that, otherwise, he is an excellent editor. WP can help him be a better editor and improve the WP itself by insisting Hrafn adhere to policy. Yopienso (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ther eis not a single rule that bans " "underlying argumentative nature". There is however, a rule that tells you to stomach it called WP:AGF. I hate wikilawyering but if people are going to bring up "rules" I am going to bring them up too. Yes, Hfafn needs a trout on the head - but ya'll ned to grow thicker skins. This isn't a support group or a safe space. This is an ecyclopedia. You are bound to meet people you don't like, whose style you don't like, and who disagree with you. Trying to use our dispute resolution process to resolve these disagreements, without any evidence of disruptive behavior, to essentially shut another editor up, is reprehensible, and in fact, disruptive. WP:BOOMERANG--Cerejota (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The rule is against letting it "show through." Yopienso (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Belated response: Talking with Hans, Lionel wrote above that " She [Bishonen] wrote on her talk page that she read the entire talk page at Brand. I assumed she found it disturbing" etc. I'm lost. Lionel, where on my talkpage did I write that I'd read the entire talk page at Brand? I don't recognise the claim, I can't find it, and it wouldn't be true. Am I too sleepy to be editing Wikipedia right now, or did you get me mixed up with someone else? As for my spilling-coffee comment on Hrafn's talk, which you're reading in the light of the post I can't find, that comment was .. a compliment, I guess. I don't know Hrafn, but I thought he sounded understandably rather stressed and bored with the interminable "discussion", and I figured to cheer him up a little by saluting his good jokes. If I'd known my own rather childish witticism was going to be quoted all over the place, I would have tried to be a little funnier .. but at least Hrafn's response showed that he didn't have any trouble understanding what I meant. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Bishonen, I think Lionelt was referring to your remarks here. Drrll (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I need to clarify on Hrafn's behalf that when I referred to his "habitual incivility" I did not mean to imply he is continually uncivil. Ignorance and stubbornness annoy him. So does agenda-pushing that runs contrary to his opinions. Besides his useful contributions to articles and talk pages, he is often helpful to editors who he knows are editing in good faith. My hope is that he will recognize and correct the particular behavior of giving rude answers, including shouting (the use of capital letters and bolding) and "belittling fellow editors" when he perceives ignorance, stubbornness, or agenda-pushing. I think what may be missing isn't so much AGF as patience. Yopienso (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: when provided the opportunity several weeks later to retract his personal attack on me in calling me "ignorant," Hrafn instead responded with "I'm certainly not going to disavow the adjective." here. Drrll (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Put together a list of the most egregious diffs (personal attacks, etc.) and find another editor to certify a user RfC if you wish to pursue it. Otherwise, there is nothing else to discuss here. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * However Drrll, if you do, be prepared to have your own behaviour under the spotlight. Make sure your actions in the matter have been exemplary before you file, lest you find yourself hit on the back of the head by the boomerang. -  Nick Thorne  talk  03:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you for the advice. Viriditas, when I first came here I was looking for nothing more than a strong warning for Hrafn. I thought I was in the right place since at the top of this page it says, "Avoid intiating a request if: You want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures." After the incident with Dougweller, I changed my mind and wanted a short block of Hrafn, so I headed over to ANI. So far, it seems that the admin sentiment there is about the same as it is here--yawning about his behavior.
 * Nick, I don't know much about an RFC/U, but what I read at the top of that page is that it is an "informal non-binding process." How can such a process result in anything but a warning or rebuke? (though I wouldn't exactly want either at RFC/U or my Talk page. Drrll (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hrafn is one of a large number of users who gets a "free pass" when it comes to civility. There are many reasons for this that I don't really want to go into, but it isn't any one thing, but rather, a combination of many different factors that contributes to the situation.  The only way you will ever get the desired response is if your behavior is beyond reproach.  The only person you can control with any effectiveness is yourself. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He doesn't get a free pass, he just hasn't violated any rule. There is nothing uncivil in telling the obvious truth. --Cerejota (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The truth can be told civilly or uncivilly. Examples I am NOT attributing to Hrafn but made up to illustrate the point abstractly:
 * I beg your pardon, but you are blocking my view.
 * You contemptuous pinhead, if you had half a brain you would realize that ridiculous excuse of a hat you're wearing doesn't let me see a $%@$$ing bit of the #&*%@ stage.
 * Civility is our rule, and no one should get a free pass to violate it. Yopienso (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Those comments are not uncivil. They are sarcasm. We are allowed, as far as I know, to have a sense of humor...--Cerejota (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hrafn may be occasionally incivil, but Drrll's reports have become near-boomerangs because they started with lists of diffs that did not contain any incivility by Hrafn. It's a bad idea to quote another editor out of context and then hope that those reacting to the report don't read the diffs in context and don't realise, e.g. that the word "idiot" actually occurs in quotation marks in Hrafn's supposedly abusive post, because he quoted it from a different editor. However, anyone reading the context of those diffs must get the impression that Drrll and associates are WP:IDHT artists. Hans Adler 04:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If "willfully ignorant," "fanatic," and "idiot" don't constitute "any incivility by Hrafn" in your mind, I feel sorry for the people who cross your path in the real world. Yeah, I provided diffs rather than just quotes because I knew no one would bother looking at the diffs. Apparently you did think that no one would bother looking at the complete exchange between Hrafn and that "different editor," where yes, he quotes the other editor in referring to the same person, Thomas Nagel as an idiot, but then later in the same post, unequivocally calls editors idiots and with no quotes:
 * Yes, but if we keep letting the opinions of 'idiots' into the article, won't we (i) end up with an idiotic article & (ii) end up looking like idiots ourselves? But then, if we idiot-proof the article I suppose natural selection will tend to mean we'll simply get smarter idiots trying to break into it. ;) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do tell me who my "associates" are. I sure could use some backup in a world where many admins seem to be disinterested in enforcing policy against certain editors. Drrll (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:KETTLE (or the equivalent John 8:7, if you prefer). In this very WQA thread you have several times written "w* i*", "f*" and "i*". If I were as delicate as you appear to be I could report you for the very post to which I am responding. What you are quoting is banter between Hrafn and another, consenting editor on Hrafn's talk page. The strength of the word idiot is reduced by far by the way it came up and is used in the dialogue, it is not a personal attack because it can at most be seen as targeted at a very vaguely defined group of people ("smarter idiots" trying to "break into" the article -- the other appearances of idiot cannot possibly be interpreted as applying to you). And editors generally get more lenience on their own talk pages even in conflicts with others (which the dialogue with Jim62sch wasn't even). You have read banter that wasn't meant to be read by you, chose to interpret it in the worst possible way so you could complain about it, and now you are complaining that people mention WP:BOOMERANG. Well, it's not a boomerang yet, but if you continue to exhibit the kind of obstinacy here that seems to have led you into this conflict, then it might well become one. Hans Adler 07:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "it is not a personal attack because it can at most be seen as targeted at a very vaguely defined group of people ("smarter idiots" trying to "break into" the article": I didn't actually think I would have to do this, since anyone can look it up, but for the record, here is the entire exchange between Jim6sch:


 * Be careful, amigo, Missy is trying to provoke "bad behaviour". Soon, either he or Drll will be screaming "edit war". I'm not sure that Hagel's comments much matter other than to prove that he's a nutter. :) •Jim62sch•dissera! 13:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've followed Nagel since his endorsement of Signature in the Cell. He's basically a philosopher of mind having a hissy fit because scientific empiricism keeps encroaching on his freedom to pontificate on the 'Mysteries of Life™' (shades of the Deep Thought scene from Hitchhikers' Guide). It's difficult to see how any mention of him is merited, let alone expanding it. I don't intend to give them an edit war -- but I certainly don't intend to let their ludicrous claims go unchallenged. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. My thing is that I read his quotes and assign him to the category of idiot. But, maybe young and impressionable minds won't.
 * And yeah, sience is a bitch -- I keep hoping that someone will invent a "transporter" and the the uncertainty principle tells me it can't be done and I too throw a hissy fit. Damn. ;) •Jim62sch•dissera! 13:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but if we keep letting the opinions of 'idiots' into the article, won't we (i) end up with an idiotic article & (ii) end up looking like idiots ourselves? But then, if we idiot-proof the article I suppose natural selection will tend to mean we'll simply get smarter idiots trying to break into it. ;) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ROFL. Unfortunately, natural selection doesn't object to idiocy. At least not today. Maybe tomorrow. :( •Jim62sch


 * Drrll (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Cerejota, apparently you're in the same club as Hrafn with regard to many admins. What else could explain your eagerness to lob a list of evidence-less accusations at me on the Administrator noticeboard of all places? If you had a reason to believe you might get called out or worse for your personal attacks and incivility, I think you would have restrained yourself a little more. Instead your baseless allegations actually got the endorsement of yet another admin there.


 * WP:NPA policy, in answering the question "What is considered to be a personal attack?," includes the following: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."


 * No WP:BOOMERANG references this time? I guess it would have been forthcoming if you were addressing me specifically. I'll ask it here, after mentioning WP:BOOMERANG six times to me in a 24-hour period, do you have a particular fascination with that essay, or do you intend for it to be a threat against me? Drrll (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Viriditas, I think you must be spot on about certain editors getting a free pass with many admins. Otherwise, editors like Hrafn and Cerejota (see above) would think twice before practicing incivility and personal attacks on the very venues that are heavily scrutinized by admins (not just ANI, but BLPN, where Hrafn engaged in namecalling against me without fear of reprisals and in my response there I pointed to several of his personal attacks). Drrll (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to fail to understand, that unpunished behavior means it is "ok" behavior. If something violates rules warranting a ban or block, action is always taken. There is no impunity here, in fact, there is swift summary action in most cases. The problem is that your accusations are patently false in the eyes of most editors, and you have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary, as Hans Adler explained. Take it from me, one thing is to suspect something, take it to the appropriate forum, and be proved wrong and dropping it, another is to insist in obtaining horsemeat by any means necessary and continuing to repeat the same accusations hoping for a different result. You should accept the community has not found your accusations credible or warranting action beyond a trout, and move on. Failure to do so, and to continue to forum shop trying to get a different answer is indeed disruptive, and will indeed eventually result in action, perhaps in a few weeks or months or even years. Please read and understand WP:IDHT and WP:BOOMERANG (7th time). If you have evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, make a report. Otherwise, kindly strike out an empty accusation in the interest of civility.--Cerejota (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I will strike out my accusation that you violated WP:NPA policy by making numerous accusations against me without evidence after I see that you have stricken your accusations at ANI. Drrll (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidence with full quote:
 * Yes, as further exploration of all the allegations show strong disagreements but no NPAs. Drrll seems to be seeking to advance his or her position by eliminating effective opposition via bureaucratic means. Hrafn needs to tone it down a little, and give a little less of a fuck but as I said in the WQA, there has not been a single diff given that shows any personal attacks, or shows any pervasive edit warring, and as such, no admin action is needed.


 * I think WP:BOOMERANG applies. An examination of this discussion and the one at WQA, and of Drrll's editing behavior shows a worrying pattern of disruptive behavior and the meatpuppetry and pile-on of empty accusations (including attacking an admin who has not misused his tools of wrongdoing) are worrying too. Perhaps community action is needed to protect the integrity of the wiki? Perhaps I am over reacting, but I think the idea that we all need to get along and if we don't we need to be blocked or banned is very dangerous, and we need to make sure it is understood that assuming good faith is not optional. --Cerejota (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Drrll (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Cerejota just keeps piling up the evidence of incivility and personal attacks. In the midst of challenging editors who see Hrafn's incivility as a problem, Cerejota called those editors "dense" here. Drrll (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * None of those are personal attacks - you have a serious miscomprehension as to what a personal attack means in wikipedia. I will give you an example of a personal attack towards me that did lead to blocking. Now, compare that outburst to anything anyone has said to you. You are over-reacting. Period. And saying so is not a personal attack, it is warning you that crying wolf will get you nowhere. Lets put it this way, at this point the well is so poisoned by your actions, and your credibility so low with the community, even actual incivility you report might be ignored because you have cried wolf so much. This is not because there is any conspiracy and cabal, it is because when you cry wolf and there is no wolf, when the actual wolf shows up people won't believe you. Its your own doing. Consider that. My "dense" comment was not particularly directed, and that you feel it was directed at you points at your problems, not mine - it was simply a result of looking at Hrafn's talk page behavior and seeing hilarity after hilarity and not being able to stop laughing. Not everything is about you. Your lack of capacity of understanding that is what leads people to ignore you. As I said, I came is here as a neutral observer with no prejudices, but looking at the behavior of both you and Hrafn shows that you are the problematic editor, not him. --Cerejota (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see my response to you below. Drrll (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this thread has run its course and should be closed. Anyone interested in the big picture would enjoy reading The No Asshole Rule (2007). However, at the end of the day, we are faced with the conclusion that we really can't change other people. We can only change our reaction to them. And it is in that reaction that we can set the stage for real change to occur. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me wrap up my input here by giving a little background on my history on Wikipedia. I started editing about two years ago. For about two years I nearly exclusively edited politically-oriented articles. During that time, I thought that politically-oriented articles were a contentious place to be involved in editing on Wikipedia. In recent months, I started to edit articles that were related to the issue of intelligent design. Political articles are actually rather peaceful places to edit compared with what goes on in articles dealing with intelligent design and apparently also articles dealing with creationism. In these articles, one encounters much higher levels of article ownership (even from long-time WP editors) and incivility toward anyone who asks questions that may challenge the status quo of the articles. If the person questioning the status quo doesn't go away or back down, they are subjected to increasingly higher levels of incivility, including questioning motives, intelligence, honesty, and good faith.

It is in this context of having worked for nearly two years with political articles, seeing how vastly different things were with articles dealing with intelligent design, including even BLPs of individuals associated with ID, being subjected to incivility by several editors, not just Hrafn, that after numerous instances of incivility in increasingly public WP venues, that I decided to file a WQA complaint against Hrafn--understanding that filing at WQA could not result in a ban, block, or any other formal sanction against Hrafn. After seeing what looked to be a second admin yawning about Hrafn's repeated incivility against multiple editors, I decided that it was time to file an ANI complaint.

Cerejota:
 * In my two years on WP, this was my very first WQA complaint filed and my very first ANI complaint filed, so your charge that I "have cried wolf so much" is nonsense.


 * While the example of personal attack that you provided is a much clearer and less subtle example of personal attack, I still contend that some of Hrafn's incivility directed toward me (or that included me with other editors), and some of your incivility directed toward me constitute personal attacks. Not because what you said to me (and I'm not including the "dense" remark; that's simply incivility) are along the lines of the example you provided, but because they fit under what WP:NPA policy language specifies what constitute a personal attack:
 * Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.
 * And what were the accusations about personal behavior that lacked evidence did you direct toward me?
 * that I seem "to be seeking to advance his or her position by eliminating effective opposition via bureaucratic means"--where's the evidence of my history of doing so?
 * that there is "a worrying pattern of disruptive behavior"--where's the evidence of my history of doing so?
 * that there is "a worrying pattern of" meatpuppetry--where's the evidence of my history of doing so?
 * that it is my "idea that we all need to get along and if we don't we need to be blocked or banned"--where's the evidence of my history of doing so?
 * You go on in the same post suggesting that "Perhaps community action is needed to protect the integrity of the wiki?".


 * "your credibility so low with the community": on what do you base this assessment? Obviously, from the conversation here and at ANI, it is low with you, two other non-admin editors, and two admin editors.


 * "As I said, I came is here as a neutral observer with no prejudices": and as I said, I came to the BLP article Stephen C. Meyer with no preconceptions about Hrafn, I came to WQA with no preconceptions about you and Dougweller, and I came to ANI with no preconceptions about Black Kite and Mathsci. Drrll (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am referring to examining your behavior, not your reports - this includes blocking for edit warring and generally boomerang stuff in talk pages - it takes two to tango and you tango well. The cry wolf situation is that it is clear you didnt get what you were seeking to get at WQA so you forum shopped over to ANI. --Cerejota (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Rewinding back to the original complaint, Hrafn definitely engaged in personal attacks, but I'm not seeing much of a pattern of offensive conduct. It appears to be a content dispute with deep roots. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not seeing any personal attacks here. Try not to be so hypersensitive to other people's criticism of you.  Get over it, change your diaper, and move on with your life.  &mdash;SW&mdash; confess 22:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully endorse the sentiments expressed by SW (User:Snottywong). I only wish I had the time to cut & paste his excellent choice of words to 90% of the petty nonsense that is brought to these noticeboards by thin-skinned whingers.  Deterence  Talk 10:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right that the vast majority of complaints to this board either don't involve personal attacks at all, or involve borderline breaches, as here. FYI, calling people, even unnamed "thin-skinned whingers" isn't civil. The purpose of this board is to resolve problems, but very often the discussions inflame them, as is happening here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

@Figureofnine WP:NPA would not describe any of the actions by Hrafn as "personal attacks" - and best they are bit uncivil. A "personal attack is serious accusation or insult, like calling someone a "faggot" or "nigger". Around here those nuances do count. --Cerejota (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Cerejota, actually, WP:NPA, after providing examples of personal attacks, says the following:
 * These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.
 * While Hrafn's personal attacks don't clearly fall under the specific examples given in WP:NPA, they do fall under that language. On the other hand, Cerejota's personal attacks fit both that language and, as a clear example given in WP:NPA, the other language I quoted above at 16:32 on 31 August.
 * Let's suppose for one moment that there were no personal attacks by Hrafn or Cerejota. This is the Wikiquette assistance noticeboard, not the Personal attack assistance noticeboard. Its description at the top of this page says that it is "a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance from other editors in resolving a situation." So incivility in general is what matters here, not just incivility involving personal attacks. Drrll (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But the incivility was minor, perhaps borderline. The point I was trying to get across was that this appeared to be a content dispute, primarily. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Drrll, have you really not realized yet that:
 * No one agrees with you that there were any grossly inappropriate personal attacks made on your behalf.
 * Hrafn isn't going to contribute to this discussion.
 * Nothing is going to come of this complaint, or any other similar complaint you make anywhere else on Wikipedia about Hrafn's interactions with you.
 * So why don't you just save us all some time and drop it, get on with your life, and do something constructive like write an article. &mdash;SW&mdash; converse 00:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and paste in here something I decided not to contribute several days ago in response to --Cerejota (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Here goes:
 * Two excerpts from our Sarcasm article:
 * "Sarcasm has been suggested as a possible bullying action in some circumstances."
 * "In sarcasm, ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes.."
 * But we're getting off-track. Furthermore, as I've just gone through many of his August, 2011, edits, I see Hrafn has been showing remarkable restraint. I've been aiming at incivility in general at WP, which is not fair to Hrafn. I think he has, in fact, greatly modified some of his past manner of speaking that has lodged in my memory. My apologies, Hrafn. Yopienso (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * After returning to this now and looking at Drrll's initial complaint and examples, I believe he misrepresented some of Hrafn's statements. For example, Hrafn said, "I see no point in 'collaborating' with wilful ignorance." Drrll reported that as Hrafn having called him willfully ignorant, which isn't spot-on. He did not complain about incivility, but about personal attacks, which we cannot discern. For my part, I was prejudiced against Hrafn because of some of his previous expressions, even though our most recent interactions (and) were entirely cordial. I asked not to "shout," when, I see now, he had been commenting to Drrll in lower case. He has borne this discussion admirably, and I have done him a disservice in remembering past unpleasantness while failing to note present collegiality. Once again, I apologize, Hrafn, and hope this is closed out. Yopienso (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)