Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive113

Powerful User is Rude to Many Users


A user called User:Ohnoitsjamie is rude, won't give reasons why he's rude, clams up and won't talk and basically is a bit of a nuisance. I'm fed up with him now. 138.253.48.190 (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Where is this happening? Do you have an article or diffs? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * IP got reverted by Ohnoitsjamie. A discussion on Jamie's talk page was civil but didn't come to the resolution that IP wanted.  I dont see the purpose of this report nor what the IP hopes to get out of it.  Ohnoitsjamie's comments were well within WP:CIVIL and the edits were indeed not encyclopedic or really that appropriate.  Calling them test edits is a nice way of saying that the IP essentially vandalized the article even if it wasn't their intention to.  There isnt anything WP:WQA can do here, especially if Jamie doesnt seem interested in participating.--v/r - TP 21:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation. The discussion on the talk page was well within CIVIL which was why I was confused. Without the diffs, I think this is closed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Assuming good faith and taking into account that Wikipedia is very attractive to people whose brains work in slightly non-standard ways, it seems entirely possible that the 138.* is simply unable to get certain subtle clues in this radio programme (such as the presenter claiming to be "Professor of Ignorance" at Buckingham University), and made this contribution in good faith. I think in cases in which failure to understand humour and irony could explain an editor's behaviour, it is important to communicate very clearly and explicitly, without relying on any overtones, and explaining certain things that one would normally take for granted. (Example: I once had a very good result when I sent an email to an editor who took an obvious self-depreciating April Fools' joke at face value and got outraged. I explained the joke as well as I could, and the editor calmed down immediately.) However, not everybody is able to explain things that most people only understand intuitively, so it's hard to find fault with editors who don't do that. Hans Adler 11:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers Hans. As a Catholic, I've forgiven User:Ohnoitsjamie his trespasses (whether he made any or not) and the matter can be closed (see below). With respect to your remarks about the "Professor of Ignorance"; as far as I know, the "Burial at Sea" jokes by Admiral Lord West (First Sea Lord) were represented in a verbatim manner, and a cast iron reference was made to them to guarantee their authenticity. I put the material in because it is backed by one of the very few solid citations in this article. The fact that they are amusing, silly or whatever is wholly immaterial to me – they come from an impeccable source who has witnessed (and even ordered) death on a grand scale at sea. Many a true word is spoken in jest, as we say. Like I said, I have no more interest in these musings because I've proceeded in another direction anyway. Good luck to you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.190 (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I don't think the IP is exaggerating without cause, it's not just them. As much as I've seen, Jamie often can't be bothered to properly explain his moves, probably because he thinks they're obvious, but new and new-ish users will just remain clueless and get the impression that he's rude. — Jean Calleo (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This user has been politely asked/warned regarding his or her behavior, and had these same edits reverted by other editors aside from Jamie, and yet they continue to act in a belligerent fashion. When I reverted an edit where the OP cited Wikipedia as a source on the article for Deceangli I got these replies.. While Jamie rarely handles vandals and new-ish editors with "kid gloves", he's hardly out of line here. And considering that this editor continues to badger him, even today posting on his talk page likening his warning for re-adding the material in question to being "savaged by a poodle", Jamie's restraint should surely be noted.--Yankees 76 Talk 19:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't talking about this case. — Jean Calleo (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jean; thanks for your (semi)-support. I've made a final conciliatory statement below, to summarise the position. It think you'll find that it tallies fully with your own observations. Great minds think alike! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.190 (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Why wasn't Jamie notified about this thread? I'll do it so that he knows that it is here but I don't think there is legitimate complaint against him. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  22:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He's aware. The IP who created this attempted to use it as some sort of leverage tool in attempt to get his edit restored and informed him about it a few days ago.. This is another reason why I respectfully disagree when others say that the IP is not exaggerating. --Yankees 76  Talk 22:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi; reading between the lines on this, I get the impression that some of you hold “people skills” in high regard, while some of you don't. I'm now satisfied that you've discussed this properly, and I'm very happy to draw a line under it; I think we all know that Jamie's bluntness could backfire sometimes. It's just something to watch out for. Carry on the good work, all 138.253.48.190 (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance with repeated personal attacks by user WilliamJE
User WilliamJE has a long history of repeated personal attacks toward me and other members of Project Golf. Several of us have tried to reason with him politely, to no avail. The hostility escalated today with name-calling in edit summaries (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beth_Daniel&action=history "Reverted moronic revert by imbecile editor who didn't bother to see a playoff box was put in the article replacing the notes. Somebody should get this person a seeing eye dog") and on my talk page where he calls me "a complete idiot." The user is repeatedly unwilling to work collaboratively as in the case with his edits to Juli Inkster in which he removed 30+ citations, stating that because other articles didn't have citations to this level, neither should this article, and in his wholesale deletions to Lexi Thompson. In both cases, he only resorted to name-calling and refused any overture to work together to reach a compromise solution. Any assistance you can provide with this disruptive editor would be most appreciated. --Crunch (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WilliamJE
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crunch
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tewapack
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow?
 * Crunch fails to note that he vandalized pages on multiple occasions recently either putting up wrong information or removing legitimate information.


 * like here
 * and here
 * and here
 * and here who wrote 'revert non-sensical removal of citationsrevert non-sensical removal of citations' . Nonsensical means foolish and I don't like being called a fool for working over an hour on putting in  a playoff box for the golfer like there is in articles on Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, etc. etc. What he did was either stupid or vandalism and he's did it repeatedly over the last week on perfectly legitimate work. Inline citations aren't done in win boxes. Look at Woods and Mickelson, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, and a couple of hundred other golfers, both alive and dead. He knows that too.

He also insists on vandalizing my talk page, here and hereinstead of replying back to my reply[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crunch#Beth_Daniel.2C_Helen_Alfredsson.2C_Juli_Inkster at his talk page.- William 01:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * William, nothing Crunch has done qualifies as vandalism, please read this before you use that word again. — Jean Calleo (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * WHat he did to the Daniel article isn't vandalism? He took out perfectly legitimate information. The Matthew entries he also failed to note either what the article says or a edit done hours earlier that had corrected the same wrong information he was putting up again. He conveniently forgets article history when it pleases him. William 01:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, its not. Please stop the personal attacks, and take Jean Calleo's advice regarding use of the word "vandalism." Crunch's actions, correct or not, do not change the expectations of behavior for other editors. Gerardw (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

William's recent edit summaries are completely unacceptable, there is no excuse to (repeatedly) call other editors idiotic or moronic or an imbecile. And nobody involved here is a vandal.

I'm not familiar with articles on golf or sports, and on brief review of the edits I can't tell that anyone has done something very obviously wrong. Whatever is happening here, it should be discussed properly, and to save time and energy, without insults and other invalid arguments.

Note: there's a thread regarding William's edits at ANI/edit warring. — Jean Calleo (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * NOTE: WilliamJE is now deleting my comments on his Talk page, claiming they are vandalism, despite the views above to the contrary. I have put them back. I believe his removal violates WP:TPO. --Crunch (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not, please see WP:OWNTALK. Gerardw (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. That's good to know. The accusations by WilliamJE that my additions to his talk page were vandalism will still stand as will the determination by Wikipedia admin above that it is not. In addition, his continued lack of civility and edit-warring has not ceased.  --Crunch (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Accusations by User:Fowler&fowler
Fowler&fowler and have worked together on the Talk:India in past few weeks agreeing and disagreeing on issues. He is a great contributor, but he has outburst or something and I am called disruptive again and again, then is an apology, a formality?. I heard it to my extent of patience and so I am reporting it. I have issues about the following policies WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and may be WP:OWNERSHIP:

Repeated accusations of being disruptive/disingenuous:
 * I'm afraid you are being a little disingenuous Redtigerxyz"; his apology
 * "... At that point if you edit war, I will take you to ANI or whatever else it takes, and let them have a look at the archives.  This is the end of this discussion.  Let me warn you very politely Redtigerxyz and Nikkul, please don't be passively disruptive.   The average person, even one with a surfeit of good faith, is not so stupid to not figure out what is transpiring here."
 * "redtigerzyz please remove yoiur garbage" [sic]: "Redtigerxyz, is it that hard to pay a attention when you select your pictures?... Seriously, do you want this kind of garbage to go on the India page? ...  I am working hard on nominating good images; you are being cavalier and sloppy to the point of being disruptive.  Please remove your garbage."
 * My request to be civil and AGF his apology
 * ":I guess, I am suggesting that you seem to be sometimes pushing grandiose, vanilla or unrealistic images of India and, by persistently so doing, are being disruptive. One doesn't have to be verbally rude to be disruptive ... "

Others: -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * sorry no dice Accusation against photo uploader that the photo is bogus and scanned
 * Removal of comments of another user and mine. "Undo Saravask: Making and saving edits en mass, rather than in their individual sections, and in the process, continually tweaking previous posts, some weeks old, without showing scratched content, is confusing if not disingenuous"


 * Is the behaviour disruptive or disingenuous? Editors should not comment on other editors on talk pages, however, when editors are not cooperating, it may be appropriate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This report may be somewhat academic as Fowler&fowler made it clear in the last 24 hours that they were going to have to take 3 - 4 weeks off from wiki due to some real life issues. As far as I am aware, that period has now started. He did inform quite a few people of this (including on my talk page), and it is also mentioned on his own talk page. I suppose that someone can be shot while they are down but I'm unsure whether it is in the spirit of things. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI given to the user:. User's edit after that. I hope Fowler&fowler can prepare his side. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fowler&Fowler is away till 22 December. His last reply to me . We can wait till he comes back. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks over content dispute


User:Bloodofox has insisted on repeatedly making personal attacks over a content dispute at Occupy Wall Street, to the near-exclusion of actually even mentioning a relevant policy in connection with the dispute. I would like him to stop because it's making me angry and is not contributing to constructive development of the article.

The core of the dispute and this user's main problem with me seems to stem from our disagreement over a critical piece about OWS in the WSJ, starting with this edit, which I made because neither of the cited sources actually makes the analytical claim that was in the article text. (At first I thought it was only the WSJ piece that failed to make the claim, but then I realized that neither source did; rather, it seems to have been a WP editor's synthesis of underlying material in those sources).

Blood has responded with numerous personal attacks, barely bothering to state a justification for reversion other than essentially claiming I have ill intent and shouldn't be trusted. His initial response was to simply label the source as a Fox analyst (thus rendering that source inherently suspect, I suppose), before simply removing the content altogether with the insistence that it be included only if balanced in some way with some other sources he doesn't identify reflecting views he doesn't describe.

After I subsequently reverted and added a textual identification of the source as also having worked for Bill Clinton, and several more reverts went back and forth, things really got ugly and Blood began making personal attacks over this and other edits—first in edit summaries...


 * "Try to feign a little neutrality, 'Factchecker'"


 * "Pulled more of 'Factchecker's' attempted hit job. Those damned Commies and their drums, right, 'Factchecker'? A fact: Drums are loud. Wow!"


 * "Again pulled hit piece favored by ideological poster currently under dispute on the talk page. Your anti-OWS views are obvious enough, but even you should have enough sense to attempt to put stuff like this in 'criticism'."

...then later in a Talk page section apparently created to discuss my purportedly bad faith.

My response: ask him to AGF and not be a WP:DICK, but this was before I saw the paragraph-long attack on Talk, to which I responded by simply calling him a "huge asshole" out of frustration at being attacked in this way.

Yeah, not the best response, I know. But it should be clear from the continuing exchange that only one of us was dedicated to attacking the other as a means of arguing the dispute (attacks against me and another user in the same edit). When I complain about the attacks, he simply notes that I called him an "asshole", then says he's not surprised I mistakenly think he's attacking me, given "what I've tried to pull".

When I point out he's not even bothering to discuss the content or relevant policies, but instead simply insulting me, he refers me back to this paragraph, which, again, seems to contain nothing but character assassination. When I point this out, he argues that I'm "constantly harping" about personal attacks, then proceeds to launch into another tirade about my purportedly malicious intent. He even edited the post to add another accusation of bad faith, saying "I guess the cheap shot was too tempting".


 * My last attempt to shut down the attacks and get the discussion back on topic.


 * His response? Even more attacks (I didn't even notice until now that he seems to be vaguely implying that I am a paid astroturfer here), along with a simply incorrect accusation that I stealthily removed the "Fox News" label (which presumably shows the true, untrustworthy nature of the source) while including the "Democratic/former Clinton pollster" label (which he repeatedly accuses me of adding for malicious, misleading, or other naughty reasons).

I would like it very much if this editor would cease using name-calling and accusations of bad faith as a substitute for legitimate discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Sorry about the rollback, the damn ads threw my touch screen off.) Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Response from Bloodofox

 * Let me first respond by stating that the base name calling here comes solely from the "factchecker" here— being called "a dick" and "an asshole", anyone? Being called grade-school names has so far rendered his complaints about "personal attacks" to be pretty incoherent to me. That said, I will now illustrate why I think "factchecker" is essentially attempting the same ideological dance that he's attempted to do perform with the Occupy Wall Street article.


 * But first, my summary of "factcheckers" "anger": as I see it, essentially "factchecker" is annoyed by nothing more than being called out for his heavily ideological editing. Notably nowhere above does "fact checker" mention that I have repeatedly pointed out that Schoen's anti-Occupy opinion piece in the "demographics" section is classic WP:UNDUE. Now, why would he decide to do that?


 * For example my (current) final reply (posted last night) to "factchecker" reads as follows:
 * I think we hit maximum "huffing and puffing" when you stooped to crude name calling, "factchecker". I'm afraid I won't be able to outdo that.
 * I think we hit maximum "huffing and puffing" when you stooped to crude name calling, "factchecker". I'm afraid I won't be able to outdo that.


 * But anyway, while you obviously have an axe to grind with these protestors (and now me, golly), Schoen's hit piece remains WP:UNDUE in the demographics section, as your cherry-picked Fox News employee's anti-Occupy rant represents only his opinion (his comments about the protestors being "dangerously out of touch" should be a good indicator).


 * And I note that this time you've cheekily not only attempted to extend the piece but, at the same time, removed the fact that Douglas Schoen's main gig is, indeed, Fox News "political analyst". Of course, we just couldn't have that, instead you've tried to pull a fast one by describing him as a plain old Democrat due to his registration status. And, boy, what a big, blue democrat he is known to be! You're quite the card, "factchecker".


 * But hey, perhaps you should consider some kind of anti-OWS blog instead? Tactics like the ones you're trying here will go over just fine there. And there might even be some Koch money in it for you if you're crafty enough, you plucky devil! (diffs)
 * This was from last night. Another user came around and asked that we keep it civil, to which I agreed. "Factchecker" never responded to my post or their own, but simply decided to bring it here. Frankly, in "factchecker"'s case, I refer users to: The duck test.
 * This was from last night. Another user came around and asked that we keep it civil, to which I agreed. "Factchecker" never responded to my post or their own, but simply decided to bring it here. Frankly, in "factchecker"'s case, I refer users to: The duck test.


 * Now, above "factchecker" finally admits above that he has problems with describing Douglas Schoen as a "Fox News political analyst" after, indeed, stripping it from his last attempt at reintroducing Douglas Schoen's opinion piece into the "demographics" section. The only problem is that this is Schoen's profession; Schoen is, indeed, a "Fox News political analyst" for a living, whether "fact checker" likes it or not. If David Schoen was a fireman for a living, he'd be described as "fireman David Schoen" in our articles, for example. Schoen's interpretation of the findings are also controversial; see criticism and, for example.


 * Another user on the talk page has commented that Schoen's anti-OWS piece belongs, if anywhere, in the "criticism" section, and not in the demographics section, which includes nothing but demographic information and not opinion pieces. I agree. "Factcheckers" actions, so far, however, have been to simply restore it once a day.


 * Personally I've written many articles in the past, bringing somewhere around 50 articles to GA status, and have otherwise been here for somewhere around half a decade now. I've seen many users attempt to do things similarly to "factchecker", but I don't think anyone has ever lost their cool enough to refer to me as "an asshole" or "a dick". But take a look at the actual chronology of diffs and the talk page on the Occupy Wall Street article and I think what "factchecker" has tried to do here is pretty clear. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Bloodofox
Where to begin? It's tempting to simply say that this unhinged rant demonstrates exactly what I'm complaining about, but Blood has made further accusations above, so I feel the need to respond.

Yes, you've repeatedly claimed that including this piece would be "classic WP:UNDUE", but instead of bothering to explain why, you've devoted the discussion almost exclusively to talking about my allegedly malicious motivations. Note that above, I said you've engaged in attacks "to the near-exclusion of actually even mentioning a relevant policy in connection with the dispute", and this is exactly what I mean: briefly mentioning a policy, but then launching into personal attacks rather than actually discussing the policy and its application to the article content under dispute. You've also claimed this piece represents a WP:FRINGE view, without so much as a hint as to how a piece in the WSJ by an established public opinion analyst could possibly reflect a fringe view. Again, you seem to have been too busy insulting me to discuss this.

You even ascribe ill intent to my opening this WQA in the first place. But right here on this page, you continue making comments that merely question my motives rather than attempting a constructive dialogue:

"Now, above 'factchecker' finally admits above that he has problems with describing David Schoen as a 'Fox News political analyst' after, indeed, stripping it from his last attempt at reintroducing Schoen's opinion piece into the 'demographics' section."

Nowhere did I say I have a problem with identifying him in this way. But if you insist on having the text specifically note that he is a Fox analyst, I don't see why it's a problem to also mention that he worked as a pollster for the Clinton administration (and by the way, he is also described as a "veteran Democratic political strategist".) Your response, as best I can piece together from the off-topic rants, seems to be that he's not enough of a Democrat for that to be mentioned? I can't make sense of it. And, if you'll take a step back from the accusations for just a moment, you'll see that I included neither of these identifiers in my most recent restoration of the text—not because of some malicious desire to prevent WP readers from knowing The Truth that he works for Fox, but because I simply copied the text from an earlier edit that didn't include that language because it wasn't possible to revert.

I don't recall other users suggesting the text go into a different section, but perhaps that's because of the insulting textwall from Blood. I certainly don't suppose he's saying that he'd stop these rants if I would only agree to put it in the "criticism" section instead of the "demographics" section. I'd also note that the "criticism" section already contains only a small fraction of criticism on the page, which is very haphazardly organized, and I'd further point out that I simply placed the pollster's analysis directly adjacent to the discussion of the actual poll itself -- right there in the "Demographics" section. And this is where it has been for weeks; I didn't add this material in the first place.

Not sure what else to say except that it seems even your comments here show that you are editing and arguing based on claims about my alleged bad faith and hidden agenda, rather than on policy considerations, and you can't even seem to have a civil discussion about this article content because you're so angry at me and my evil ways. I'm not sure how you can say all of this and yet claim to be surprised when I respond with a bit of profanity and cut off the discussion. Why should I simply sit there and be castigated when every attempt to get the discussion back on track has been met with more insults? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 20:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply to "Centrify"/"Factchecker"
This "asshole" and "dick" (according to Factchecker, but, of course, he does offer excuses for it) has little interest in going back and forth with "factchecker". I find it highly unproductive; Factchecker admits pretty clearly that he hasn't bothered to read most of the thread surrounding his re-additions, including the comments of others, and that says it all. That said, I stand by my previous comment(s) and invite other editors to explore the diffs and talk page thread themselves. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't suppose you could provide a diff of whatever it is you say I've admitted to ignoring? And, could you please clarify whether you feel any of this would justify your continued insults?  (Also, you might want to mention again that I called you a dick and an asshole, just in case it escaped somebody's attention the previous 10 or 15 times you repeated it.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 21:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A diff isn't needed, factchecker, for one may simply have a peek at your comments above; you state "I don't recall other users suggesting the text go into a different section, but perhaps that's because [. . .]".


 * And I'll gladly mention the delicious humor of you coming to the "wikiquette assistance" after those choice names as long as you promise to make another excuse for doing so. :) &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at the only thread you can possibly be talking about, I see a single comment from a single user suggesting it might go into the Criticism section. Everything else in that thread is just more of you accusing me of bad faith.  I have to say it seems pretty dishonest and misleading of you to say "he hasn't bothered to read most of the thread surrounding his re-additions, including the comments of others" based on me missing a single comment comment buried in a haystack of insulting text laid down by you. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 22:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So now you've decided to read the thread. Well, that's a step! Or maybe it was just inconvenient to mention here, considering your responses are all over it? Whatever the case, I might also note that this is the only other user to weigh in there on what to do so far. And since you're commenting on it, I think I format my text pretty well, but that's subjective enough. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I had already read the thread. Thanks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 22:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment
Will you at least agree to drop the personal attacks while this WQA is open? It's great that you decided to start discussing the actual merits of the content dispute after I complained about your attacks, but when you continue to make mocking comments and accuse me of attempting "spin", it's no less distracting than it was when you weren't bothering to discuss policy. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 22:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could help de-escalate this, by striking your this unhinged rant in this report, and striking the asshole comment on the talk page? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but IMO I've turned the other cheek a dozen times now and have shouldered the burden of resolving this properly all myself (and, not for nothing, it's a lot of work), while the other guy has just incessantly repeated the two rude things I said in response to his unnecessary attacks, and he has still continued to pile on even more. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 22:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what a "strike-through" will do what an apology for name calling wouldn't, but I think Factchecker has displayed his ideological approach pretty clearly, and at no point have I called him any names. Further, at no point has he stated that I was incorrect about my observations; he remains an ideological editor with a fondness for lawyering, which seems to have brought him here rather than on the talk page for the disputed article, even in the face of one user calling for a civility agreement. I agreed to this, but he didn't respond. When can one call a duck a duck? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Response has nothing to do with it. Each editor is responsible for their own behavior. Gerardw (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeez, I'm at a loss now. He says he hasn't "called me any names", but I just pointed out numerous instances of him accusing me of dishonest smear tactics, being a paid shill, attempting "hit jobs", trying to "pull a fast one", taking "cheap shots", etc., etc; and he's now basically saying that this is all true because I haven't denied it (when did I stop beating my wife, exactly?).  And now I'm supposed to have given him more chances to play nice before seeking dispute resolution—because another editor called for civility and he casually mentioned, "sure, I can be civil" after having unleashed several paragraphs of invective without batting an eye?  If it's acceptable for him to just attribute some deceptive or dishonest ulterior motive to every single thing I do, then shouldn't I just shut up and let him do and say whatever he wants? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 23:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is saying you shouldn't use dispute resolution, just that focusing on the Wikiquette in WP:Gray Area isn't the most effective. Try to ignore the Ad hominem attacks and focus on content. Perhaps WP:DRN could be of use. Gerardw (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Outdent
Bloodofox, I'm curious as to what relevance Factchecker's "consistent love for the outdent tag" has on the content of Occupy Wall Street. Is there a certain number of indents you would like to see before he utilizes the outdent tag? Gerardw (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, can we get at least five indents before it gets wrapped around? It can be abused just like bolding and caps. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks over content dispute


User:Bloodofox has insisted on repeatedly making personal attacks over a content dispute at Occupy Wall Street, to the near-exclusion of actually even mentioning a relevant policy in connection with the dispute. I would like him to stop because it's making me angry and is not contributing to constructive development of the article.

The core of the dispute and this user's main problem with me seems to stem from our disagreement over a critical piece about OWS in the WSJ, starting with this edit, which I made because neither of the cited sources actually makes the analytical claim that was in the article text. (At first I thought it was only the WSJ piece that failed to make the claim, but then I realized that neither source did; rather, it seems to have been a WP editor's synthesis of underlying material in those sources).

Blood has responded with numerous personal attacks, barely bothering to state a justification for reversion other than essentially claiming I have ill intent and shouldn't be trusted. His initial response was to simply label the source as a Fox analyst (thus rendering that source inherently suspect, I suppose), before simply removing the content altogether with the insistence that it be included only if balanced in some way with some other sources he doesn't identify reflecting views he doesn't describe.

After I subsequently reverted and added a textual identification of the source as also having worked for Bill Clinton, and several more reverts went back and forth, things really got ugly and Blood began making personal attacks over this and other edits—first in edit summaries...


 * "Try to feign a little neutrality, 'Factchecker'"


 * "Pulled more of 'Factchecker's' attempted hit job. Those damned Commies and their drums, right, 'Factchecker'? A fact: Drums are loud. Wow!"


 * "Again pulled hit piece favored by ideological poster currently under dispute on the talk page. Your anti-OWS views are obvious enough, but even you should have enough sense to attempt to put stuff like this in 'criticism'."

...then later in a Talk page section apparently created to discuss my purportedly bad faith.

My response: ask him to AGF and not be a WP:DICK, but this was before I saw the paragraph-long attack on Talk, to which I responded by simply calling him a "huge asshole" out of frustration at being attacked in this way.

Yeah, not the best response, I know. But it should be clear from the continuing exchange that only one of us was dedicated to attacking the other as a means of arguing the dispute (attacks against me and another user in the same edit). When I complain about the attacks, he simply notes that I called him an "asshole", then says he's not surprised I mistakenly think he's attacking me, given "what I've tried to pull".

When I point out he's not even bothering to discuss the content or relevant policies, but instead simply insulting me, he refers me back to this paragraph, which, again, seems to contain nothing but character assassination. When I point this out, he argues that I'm "constantly harping" about personal attacks, then proceeds to launch into another tirade about my purportedly malicious intent. He even edited the post to add another accusation of bad faith, saying "I guess the cheap shot was too tempting".


 * My last attempt to shut down the attacks and get the discussion back on topic.


 * His response? Even more attacks (I didn't even notice until now that he seems to be vaguely implying that I am a paid astroturfer here), along with a simply incorrect accusation that I stealthily removed the "Fox News" label (which presumably shows the true, untrustworthy nature of the source) while including the "Democratic/former Clinton pollster" label (which he repeatedly accuses me of adding for malicious, misleading, or other naughty reasons).

I would like it very much if this editor would cease using name-calling and accusations of bad faith as a substitute for legitimate discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Sorry about the rollback, the damn ads threw my touch screen off.) Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Response from Bloodofox

 * Let me first respond by stating that the base name calling here comes solely from the "factchecker" here— being called "a dick" and "an asshole", anyone? Being called grade-school names has so far rendered his complaints about "personal attacks" to be pretty incoherent to me. That said, I will now illustrate why I think "factchecker" is essentially attempting the same ideological dance that he's attempted to do perform with the Occupy Wall Street article.


 * But first, my summary of "factcheckers" "anger": as I see it, essentially "factchecker" is annoyed by nothing more than being called out for his heavily ideological editing. Notably nowhere above does "fact checker" mention that I have repeatedly pointed out that Schoen's anti-Occupy opinion piece in the "demographics" section is classic WP:UNDUE. Now, why would he decide to do that?


 * For example my (current) final reply (posted last night) to "factchecker" reads as follows:
 * I think we hit maximum "huffing and puffing" when you stooped to crude name calling, "factchecker". I'm afraid I won't be able to outdo that.
 * I think we hit maximum "huffing and puffing" when you stooped to crude name calling, "factchecker". I'm afraid I won't be able to outdo that.


 * But anyway, while you obviously have an axe to grind with these protestors (and now me, golly), Schoen's hit piece remains WP:UNDUE in the demographics section, as your cherry-picked Fox News employee's anti-Occupy rant represents only his opinion (his comments about the protestors being "dangerously out of touch" should be a good indicator).


 * And I note that this time you've cheekily not only attempted to extend the piece but, at the same time, removed the fact that Douglas Schoen's main gig is, indeed, Fox News "political analyst". Of course, we just couldn't have that, instead you've tried to pull a fast one by describing him as a plain old Democrat due to his registration status. And, boy, what a big, blue democrat he is known to be! You're quite the card, "factchecker".


 * But hey, perhaps you should consider some kind of anti-OWS blog instead? Tactics like the ones you're trying here will go over just fine there. And there might even be some Koch money in it for you if you're crafty enough, you plucky devil! (diffs)
 * This was from last night. Another user came around and asked that we keep it civil, to which I agreed. "Factchecker" never responded to my post or their own, but simply decided to bring it here. Frankly, in "factchecker"'s case, I refer users to: The duck test.
 * This was from last night. Another user came around and asked that we keep it civil, to which I agreed. "Factchecker" never responded to my post or their own, but simply decided to bring it here. Frankly, in "factchecker"'s case, I refer users to: The duck test.


 * Now, above "factchecker" finally admits above that he has problems with describing Douglas Schoen as a "Fox News political analyst" after, indeed, stripping it from his last attempt at reintroducing Douglas Schoen's opinion piece into the "demographics" section. The only problem is that this is Schoen's profession; Schoen is, indeed, a "Fox News political analyst" for a living, whether "fact checker" likes it or not. If David Schoen was a fireman for a living, he'd be described as "fireman David Schoen" in our articles, for example. Schoen's interpretation of the findings are also controversial; see criticism and, for example.


 * Another user on the talk page has commented that Schoen's anti-OWS piece belongs, if anywhere, in the "criticism" section, and not in the demographics section, which includes nothing but demographic information and not opinion pieces. I agree. "Factcheckers" actions, so far, however, have been to simply restore it once a day.


 * Personally I've written many articles in the past, bringing somewhere around 50 articles to GA status, and have otherwise been here for somewhere around half a decade now. I've seen many users attempt to do things similarly to "factchecker", but I don't think anyone has ever lost their cool enough to refer to me as "an asshole" or "a dick". But take a look at the actual chronology of diffs and the talk page on the Occupy Wall Street article and I think what "factchecker" has tried to do here is pretty clear. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Bloodofox
Where to begin? It's tempting to simply say that this unhinged rant demonstrates exactly what I'm complaining about, but Blood has made further accusations above, so I feel the need to respond.

Yes, you've repeatedly claimed that including this piece would be "classic WP:UNDUE", but instead of bothering to explain why, you've devoted the discussion almost exclusively to talking about my allegedly malicious motivations. Note that above, I said you've engaged in attacks "to the near-exclusion of actually even mentioning a relevant policy in connection with the dispute", and this is exactly what I mean: briefly mentioning a policy, but then launching into personal attacks rather than actually discussing the policy and its application to the article content under dispute. You've also claimed this piece represents a WP:FRINGE view, without so much as a hint as to how a piece in the WSJ by an established public opinion analyst could possibly reflect a fringe view. Again, you seem to have been too busy insulting me to discuss this.

You even ascribe ill intent to my opening this WQA in the first place. But right here on this page, you continue making comments that merely question my motives rather than attempting a constructive dialogue:

"Now, above 'factchecker' finally admits above that he has problems with describing David Schoen as a 'Fox News political analyst' after, indeed, stripping it from his last attempt at reintroducing Schoen's opinion piece into the 'demographics' section."

Nowhere did I say I have a problem with identifying him in this way. But if you insist on having the text specifically note that he is a Fox analyst, I don't see why it's a problem to also mention that he worked as a pollster for the Clinton administration (and by the way, he is also described as a "veteran Democratic political strategist".) Your response, as best I can piece together from the off-topic rants, seems to be that he's not enough of a Democrat for that to be mentioned? I can't make sense of it. And, if you'll take a step back from the accusations for just a moment, you'll see that I included neither of these identifiers in my most recent restoration of the text—not because of some malicious desire to prevent WP readers from knowing The Truth that he works for Fox, but because I simply copied the text from an earlier edit that didn't include that language because it wasn't possible to revert.

I don't recall other users suggesting the text go into a different section, but perhaps that's because of the insulting textwall from Blood. I certainly don't suppose he's saying that he'd stop these rants if I would only agree to put it in the "criticism" section instead of the "demographics" section. I'd also note that the "criticism" section already contains only a small fraction of criticism on the page, which is very haphazardly organized, and I'd further point out that I simply placed the pollster's analysis directly adjacent to the discussion of the actual poll itself -- right there in the "Demographics" section. And this is where it has been for weeks; I didn't add this material in the first place.

Not sure what else to say except that it seems even your comments here show that you are editing and arguing based on claims about my alleged bad faith and hidden agenda, rather than on policy considerations, and you can't even seem to have a civil discussion about this article content because you're so angry at me and my evil ways. I'm not sure how you can say all of this and yet claim to be surprised when I respond with a bit of profanity and cut off the discussion. Why should I simply sit there and be castigated when every attempt to get the discussion back on track has been met with more insults? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 20:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply to "Centrify"/"Factchecker"
This "asshole" and "dick" (according to Factchecker, but, of course, he does offer excuses for it) has little interest in going back and forth with "factchecker". I find it highly unproductive; Factchecker admits pretty clearly that he hasn't bothered to read most of the thread surrounding his re-additions, including the comments of others, and that says it all. That said, I stand by my previous comment(s) and invite other editors to explore the diffs and talk page thread themselves. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't suppose you could provide a diff of whatever it is you say I've admitted to ignoring? And, could you please clarify whether you feel any of this would justify your continued insults?  (Also, you might want to mention again that I called you a dick and an asshole, just in case it escaped somebody's attention the previous 10 or 15 times you repeated it.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 21:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A diff isn't needed, factchecker, for one may simply have a peek at your comments above; you state "I don't recall other users suggesting the text go into a different section, but perhaps that's because [. . .]".


 * And I'll gladly mention the delicious humor of you coming to the "wikiquette assistance" after those choice names as long as you promise to make another excuse for doing so. :) &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at the only thread you can possibly be talking about, I see a single comment from a single user suggesting it might go into the Criticism section. Everything else in that thread is just more of you accusing me of bad faith.  I have to say it seems pretty dishonest and misleading of you to say "he hasn't bothered to read most of the thread surrounding his re-additions, including the comments of others" based on me missing a single comment comment buried in a haystack of insulting text laid down by you. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 22:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So now you've decided to read the thread. Well, that's a step! Or maybe it was just inconvenient to mention here, considering your responses are all over it? Whatever the case, I might also note that this is the only other user to weigh in there on what to do so far. And since you're commenting on it, I think I format my text pretty well, but that's subjective enough. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I had already read the thread. Thanks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 22:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment
Will you at least agree to drop the personal attacks while this WQA is open? It's great that you decided to start discussing the actual merits of the content dispute after I complained about your attacks, but when you continue to make mocking comments and accuse me of attempting "spin", it's no less distracting than it was when you weren't bothering to discuss policy. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 22:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could help de-escalate this, by striking your this unhinged rant in this report, and striking the asshole comment on the talk page? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but IMO I've turned the other cheek a dozen times now and have shouldered the burden of resolving this properly all myself (and, not for nothing, it's a lot of work), while the other guy has just incessantly repeated the two rude things I said in response to his unnecessary attacks, and he has still continued to pile on even more. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 22:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what a "strike-through" will do what an apology for name calling wouldn't, but I think Factchecker has displayed his ideological approach pretty clearly, and at no point have I called him any names. Further, at no point has he stated that I was incorrect about my observations; he remains an ideological editor with a fondness for lawyering, which seems to have brought him here rather than on the talk page for the disputed article, even in the face of one user calling for a civility agreement. I agreed to this, but he didn't respond. When can one call a duck a duck? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Response has nothing to do with it. Each editor is responsible for their own behavior. Gerardw (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeez, I'm at a loss now. He says he hasn't "called me any names", but I just pointed out numerous instances of him accusing me of dishonest smear tactics, being a paid shill, attempting "hit jobs", trying to "pull a fast one", taking "cheap shots", etc., etc; and he's now basically saying that this is all true because I haven't denied it (when did I stop beating my wife, exactly?).  And now I'm supposed to have given him more chances to play nice before seeking dispute resolution—because another editor called for civility and he casually mentioned, "sure, I can be civil" after having unleashed several paragraphs of invective without batting an eye?  If it's acceptable for him to just attribute some deceptive or dishonest ulterior motive to every single thing I do, then shouldn't I just shut up and let him do and say whatever he wants? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 23:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is saying you shouldn't use dispute resolution, just that focusing on the Wikiquette in WP:Gray Area isn't the most effective. Try to ignore the Ad hominem attacks and focus on content. Perhaps WP:DRN could be of use. Gerardw (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Outdent
Bloodofox, I'm curious as to what relevance Factchecker's "consistent love for the outdent tag" has on the content of Occupy Wall Street. Is there a certain number of indents you would like to see before he utilizes the outdent tag? Gerardw (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, can we get at least five indents before it gets wrapped around? It can be abused just like bolding and caps. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

MarcusBritish on WebHamster
MarcusBritish on WebHamster: -- and all those within a single message. I realize that indefinitely blocked editors (presumably blocked for good reason) who are less than polite when blocked (and indeed drop the occasional "F-bomb") may seem fair game, but this is overdoing it. I'd have a word with him myself, but I've been identified as belonging to the same "clique" as the blocked WebHamster, I've recently written amicably to and about WebHamster, and I've recently written with some irritation about MarcusBritish, so all in all mine would not be the most persuasive voice. -- Hoary (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * he is a prime nut
 * his "Godfather" persona
 * (an example of) mental cases
 * (among people of whom one can say that) society rejects them


 * Yes, yes my hands are up, I'm guilty of voicing the opinions of the people, including those 60–65% who supported his block. Get a clue Hoary, you few, you "special" few who kiss his feet and the ground he treads on really do disgust me, and these tactical manoeuvres to darken the name of those who oppose your precious group are hardly subtle. I stand by every word I say without remorse. Apologise? Honour? Are you trying to be funny or condescending? Honour is between gentlemen, which he is far from, especially with his gutter language. Your "irritation" is somewhat misplaced, as are your loyalties to one disruptive blocked, by majority consensus, editor rather than to the wider Wiki community. You're wasting admin resources here, and are looking for retaliation. I'm amused, because you can't justify your support the sockmaster without even taking my words out of context: "...respectable contributors, who are trying to create an encyclopedia, not a bloody forum for mental cases to..." Note: "cases", plural, WH is one person. Silly, silly. I was referring to the "Wiki is not therapy" in my own words. You knew that though.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 04:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether a user is deservedly blocked, saying "the only good thing that could ever develop in what little brain he does have is a tumour." strikes me as just hateful. Gerardw (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I hate what he is, what he stands for. I hate his language, rhetoric, arrogance, manipulation, dishonesty, cunning and persistent distasteful attitude. He's not a "good guy", not likable, nor does he feel he has to co-operate with Wiki policies, editors or anything. He is a law unto himself. I admit that I do not believe his "autistic" claims. I think he's playing for sympathy, and I refuse to AGF that he had any condition other than "gutter mouth". I don't feel the need to defend myself for standing up for Wiki policies or the 60–65% who want him gone, in the face of his supporters, or anyone who endorses his presence. Perhaps I shall request a consensus to block, blank and protect his talk page altogether in light of this "Save the WebHamster" campaign? See how the community responds to that, shall we?  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 04:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you advising me to get a clue. (I hadn't realized that I kissed anybody's feet or the ground anybody treads on, but I live and learn.) I am not trying to be funny or condescending. -- Hoary (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "I hate his language, rhetoric, arrogance, manipulation, dishonesty, cunning and persistent distasteful attitude" could also describe MarcusBritish. Two wrongs don't make a right. 86.169.227.208 (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Clichés don't make a strong point. Also, you failed to identify what I'm supposed to have done "wrong", so there's little to be gained from your empty words. Although I'm sure the answer would be subjective, anyway, so you'd only be wasting your time.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 13:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Refering to someone as a mental case is a PA. As is calling him a prime nut(and if he has aspergers is also very offensivew). He got blocked for not keeping his gob in order and so should you if you continue in this vein.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No Steven, it isn't a PA. "Mental case" is no different to saying "wheelchair bound". And "nut", derivative of "nut case" is an everyday insult – someone in his position better be prepared to get as good as they give, with his potty mouth. Being British yourself, you should understand our cultural self-deprecation by now. Please don't waste your time with "it is!" remarks either, the matter is subjective and I'm not interested, we could argue the point until 2012 and still not agree. And do keep up with the times, the "aspergers" thing changed, he now claims to have "autism" – and let's keep a very open mind about the fact that anyone can claim to have anything online in order to gain sympathy or feign offence to gain retribution. Note that at one point he implied to have Tourette's then repudiated the claim when it didn't work out, which suggest to me that he games to garner sympathy – AGF policy abuse. You cannot prove anyone's age, colour, religion, sexuality, mental or physical condition, political beliefs, or claims to have been in prison, raped, molested, orphaned, traumatised, etc etc, unless you actually know them in person – even then, several of those bear no physical characteristics or medical evidence (i.e. no blood test can prove someone's religious, political or sexual leanings). Only when people apply a stigma on mental health issues does "mental case" become a PA. Just as using the term "gay" to express disapproval is not an actual homophobic attack – political correctness is not required on Wiki, not is it uncivil. And thank "God" for that, liberal-minded editors are stifling enough. I find it amusing that someone should find "Godfather persona" a PA. Yet if you called them "Einstein" they'd be chuffed to the chuds. Hoary is making a meal of this case and only giving me a vast playing field on which to throw out more of his mate's troublesome past, whereas I have no past to offer. So these sly attempts to debase me by his chums are futile.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 15:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Disagree, slightly. The offensiveness of calling an editor a prime nut is independent of personal characteristics of the editor. Gerardw (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also say that calling someone a mental case is not the same as calling then wheelchair bound, its more like calling them a spastic (especially given the context). Also self-deprecation, means you take the piss out of yourself, it does not mean taking the piss out of others.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Times change fast and frequently. "The Spastic Society" is now SCOPE. "Queer as Folk" would once have been considered an offensive title. Black people calling themselves "nigga". The list is endless, because some people still use "spastic", some gays still hate "queer", some blacks hate "nigga". There's no standard for what is acceptable to who. "Nut" to me, is mild, like "git". It is used more often to suggest someone is crazy (mad, deranged, prone to anger, bad-tempered), rather than actually mentally-ill. Self-deprecating is cultural – most British comedies are based on it... Black Adder, Gimme Gimme Gimme, Dad's Army – those take the mick out of well known British traits and events, not just individuals.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 15:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be because they are British, taking the piss out of the British. As such I can only assume that your insults were aimed at one of your own accounts, are you therefore the same person who used the WebHammster account? If not you are not taking the piss but of yourself but someone else. In fact your attitude and actions are so similar that I think a block for this may be the only answer.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You've convoluted the matter into a circular argument. He's him – the nut. I'm me – the git who called him a nut because he's in the habit of spinning out of control rapidly. He says so himself.. some crap about "poke the bear and it'll wake up" on his talkpage. To be frank, I've yet to see it in hibernation. No self-control.. though perhaps that's his "autism". Who truly knows? Blocks don't scare me, btw. Blocks used to "get even" are against policy. And your hasty judgement is ill-conceived.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 15:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You claimed its self-depreciating, that can only be true if you are the same user who created WebHammster. The fact you say you are not mean its not self-deprecation (and thus is an invalid excuse for your tone). Moreover I fail to see how my calling for a block is getting even with you, as (to my knowledge) we have never interacted until now. Also what hasty judgement is ill conceived?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Go read the instructions atop the page. If you want a block, go motion one an AN/I or wherever. Your judgement is ill-conceived because you don't appear to understand the full picture or history of this case. Your remarks are baseless. Ciao for now,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 15:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The intructions at the top of the page are about filling a request for assistance, as I did not request this how does it apply to me?Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because you didn't open the request doesn't mean you can make motions contrary to the purpose of this board – there are purpose-built boards for such requests. You're barking up a telegraph pole instead of a tree. Now, unless you have some kind of OCD, you're not providing any "assistance" here, in which case.. go do something else worthwhile with your time.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 16:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Marcus; if WH bothers you that much just ignore him, simple. Go do something constructive & related to building an encyclopaedia. Long, immature and wearisome rants are only going to encourage admins to block you. I am not sure what point you are trying to prove with this continuing screed, but what it is doing is prolonging a tedious issue that seemed put to rest. --Errant (chat!) 16:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I could have told you that. It's these people siding with a blocked troublemaker who are provoking the issue. I reply to them, not them to me. Fact of the matter is, we have too many turncoat admins more willing to support a long-term deviant of Wiki policies, a sockmaster, an aggressive wiki-lawyer. Editors who take joy in allowing him free access to talk page, which he now uses as a forum, almost therapeutically, as well as seeking leverage to overturn a block agreed by a consensus, which he and several other just cannot accept. I have already indicated this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for blocked people to prolong the pain of their disruptions and seem sympathy and compassion. And admin who blocks me is going to open a whole new can of worms, because it's a simple matter of requesting a consensus to block WH's talkpage for good, and prevent his pet-admins from reverting the block so that he can continue to offend the community and spirit of Wiki.
 * And here's something else for you to consider. WH says "well if you block me, I'll just sock with IPs that can't be banned due to mass use" – seems like he holds all the Aces. But ANYONE can make that claim. So why doesn't someone call his bluff, and get him to post with a few of those so called "invulnerable" IPs, then we can have an admin verify them and confirm that he is "unblockable". Until then, his claims are empty, and he's simply trying to get his block over-turned with idle threats. I'm not as naive as some, I think things through and see deception. And not as willing to see Wiki overrun with persistent constant foul language users, uncivil attacks across all of wiki, offensive edit summaries, and such. So people can shout "MarcusBritish is uncivil" all they bloody like. But if you dig deep enough into the matter, you will find it couldn't be further from the truth and will also find my comments all follow one underlying motive unwaveringly – the prevention of free access to Wiki by long-term "shit stirrers", via recognition of their trends. I put WH in the same bag as that TreasuryTag character who got away with murder, manipulated many a good editor, changed his tone to suit his detractors, and all along one thing applies, to him and to WH: A tiger can't change its stripes! Problem I see, is too many people are willing to turn a blind eye, abandon the community, and support the bad guy. Like wanting to let a wasp lose indoors, so it can sting again. But hey, you go ahead and dismiss all that as "immature" if you like, because everyone on Wiki is such a good faith assuming flock, that WH might as well be given an admin mop, WMF grants and presidency, because he's such a marvellous guy! Right?  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 16:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are totally correct (although I haven't checked each post to see whether any might have breached CIVIL), however my suggestion would be to ignore the issue for a couple of weeks. Wikipedia is a big place, and contributors include a wide range of people, some of whom have ridiculous ideas about what is helpful for the encyclopedia. We all know that CIVIL applies to everyone, and we are not allowed to point out the obvious, so that should not be unduly repeated. However, participating further in debates over the issue would be pointless as it is merely amusing the onlookers. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Nice to see someone who doesn't have an axe to grind against the wrong party!  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 01:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I susgest you look at the history of Webbys blocks and ask yourself why would I (of all people) have an axe to grind over this issue. I would have more faith in your intentions if it was not obvious that I have no time for Webby or his childish games.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. You say you have no time for WH and his games, which I agree with. The only reason he is active, even with a block, is due to support from a handful of enablers and toadies to his will, which depends on your POV. The only way his childish games could possibly end are if he was blocked indef, which he is, but with his talkpage fully blocked so that he could no longer communicate with anyone. And pp-talkpage to prevent communication with him. Two way block, no crap in, no support out. That seems a simple solution, the only solution, which you could agree to would result in 100% end to his games, via that account. The same solution, if you read everything I've ever said on him, that I've been asking for all along. Yet, for some addlepated reason, you want me blocked instead of him, despite the fact I'm virtually campaigning on behalf of your apparent distaste for him. That's a bit like those who support reforms to the British economy, but then want the anti-capitalist protesters in London removed, instead of the bankers who cause economic misery fired. So either get your mind in order as to where you stand, or if you don't have time for the full matter, period, why don't you refrain from commenting here on your time, because your comment above is hypocritical. I don't see any connection between you and WH's blocklog – so if he's been blocked before at your request, you'll have to give us a hint, i.e. some diffs, instead of a nob in one general area. And FYI, the top of this page reads: "Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance from other editors in resolving a situation. The goal is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution. It is designed to function by persuasion, reason, and community support, not threats and blocks ." At the moment, you and I are also falling into a fresh spiral of disagreement, because you don't stand on firm ground, you just talk meaningless talk and just appear to want "in" on this circus act promoted by Hoery. So unless you want to fall into the "uncivil trap" also, whether intended or not, I suggest you get your camp organised, instead of speaking for yourself.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 17:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When have I sadi I don't want him blocked?Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * More pertinent a question: When have you said you do? No table turning mumbo-jumbo here.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 18:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "you want me blocked instead of him" is what you have acused me off, where have I said that? Also try cheking the history of the case Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 *  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 18:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do forgive me, but I fail to see there where I say I want you blocked instead of Webby, I belive I say that you should be blocked as well as Webby. If your going to gob off at least be accurate about whatever you claim someone has said. Also do a little research next time, you only had to check webbys history to see that I have been in conflict with him.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't weasel out of your own remarks – just because you didn't say you "don't want him blocked" doesn't mean you said "you did" either – you've made no motions on supporting my proposal to block/protect his talkpage indef, you just seem to enjoy arguing for arguments sake, yet you don't seem to have a position. Placing yourself a in ambiguous "safe" position so that you can "escape" any form of challenge is deceitful and undignified. As for "a little research", July 2009 was 21⁄2 bloody years ago. Seeing as you were already aware of the date and event, wasn't it so much easier for you to simply point to the page in the first place, than expect me to dig bag through 21⁄2 years of yours or his edit history in the hopes of spotting that trivial tit-for-tat? Think I've got nothing better to do than chase your old ghosts? But regardless, you have a history with WH. So where do you stand: should he be allowed free access to his talk page to engage with editors, make subtle and not so subtle snide remarks, attempt to overturn a block than was reached through a ~65% consensus? Or are you going to make an enemy of me, by suggesting that I'm in the wrong for suggesting he should be banned outright? This ain't no death penalty campaign you know.. putting his account on the block doesn't stop him breathing and going elsewhere to continue his aggressive existence!  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 18:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop putting words and intents into my mouth, Where have I said you are in the wrong for suggesting he be banned outright? What I have said is you have no right to insult other users. As to why I have not asked for him to be blocked from editing his talk page, if you check the current talk page you will see I have in effect been warned of any interaction with him. As such if I were to 'support' your aim I might myself face sanction for 'kicking a user when he is down'. As such I have had to disengage from webby (and regardless I don't agree he should have no right of appeal).Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#MarcusBritish I feel there is nothing more to say.Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Okay, that's how you want to play it.. fair game.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 19:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "What I have said is you have no right to insult other users." So now you're here: "The goal is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution. It is designed to function by persuasion, reason, and community support, not threats and blocks."
 * "I have in effect been warned of any interaction with him". So really, by interacting with me, whilst effectively "topic banned" from him, you have a COI, a bias, to "wipe the slate" so to speak with regards you history with him. So your interaction with me is little more than.. what? A chance to have a whinge? Thus far, having failed to "help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution", due to a) Webhamster is blocked, he can't come here. b) You can't interact with him. c) I don't interact with him, and never have directly, afaik.
 * So in conclusion, the issue, raised by Hoary, is invalid. There is no interaction between myself and WH. There never has been. The matter has been discussed on ANI, and two talk pages - Roger Davies, and mine. And here. Given that Hoary has not been willing to participate in this conversation, and is potentially a WH supporter, he too has COI concerns that make his position unattainable. Which leads to the added conclusion that he simply created this page, in the false hopes of luring, entrapping, whatever, me into becoming genuinely uncivil, into telling people like yourself to "F--k off!" etc, so that he might have some more solid grounds for pushing his POV through ANI. Clearly he has failed in his mission, because I'm not the type to dismiss people in such manner. I'm a thoughtful guy who has more integrity than he. You may question my civility, perhaps my motives. But if you cross the line and question my honesty, you step into dangerous ground, contrary to everything wiki stands for. The concerns of WH's clique do not interest me, nor do their attempts to force me to back down in my opinions.
 * Seems you have nothing more to gain by rattling on here, and I have nothing to defend, as you have no case - your "ban" with WH means you are in no position to resolve anything. Not that you attempted to "assist" anyway, though. You can get off your high horse now. I know I can't insult other users. However, if my raising someone's history as proof of incompetence and demanding their outright block is "insulting" then so be it.

Editor is following my edits and canvassing


Well, all that has transpired explains it all then. I hereby retract my accusation. I do not back away from one single statement of mine, I'm simply dropping it. You won, E. There's clearly not enough room in the known universe to argue with British Markus and Walter Goorlitz. Djathink imacowboy  16:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My report is against User:Erikeltic, who has been stalking mewatching your contribs and following you around and canvassing editors to do the same. They in turn are either edit warring or simply following up my edits. I would love it if that editor could be warned to stop doing this to me. He thinks I am a sock of some old enemy of his. I'm sorry if I formatted this wrongly. Djathink imacowboy  06:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You should have informed him when opening this discussion. I have done that. If he strongly suspects you are a sock, he needs to go via WP:SPI and state his case. No point in arguing "if" you are or not between each other. Admins have the tools to check. Simple as that. If admins confirm you're not, his case is closed and he should stop claiming you are socking. If you are, they will deal with it as necessary.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 06:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, what you suggest has been done - and I trust the admins. who are investigating in the SPI he opened. I know they have the tools, and I know I am innocent. Not to beat a dead horse, please forgive me, but I am most interested in stopping him canvassing. It is not something I myself can successfully do - he will obviously delete all pertinent posts of mine, and he will claim ignroance. He has done that heretofore. I have noted that my favourite subjects are being monitored for my edits only, and more often than not the result is edit warring by the other party. Do you think I can advise him to stop and be successful, having advised him of it already to no avail? I have even raised this subject at the SPI. He's making my life horrible. Editing on Wikipedia was something I used to enjoy. In any case, my humble thanks to you. Djathink  imacowboy  08:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would first suggest you list some diffs that support your claim. To me it sounds like paranoia, but if you can present proof of this behaviour with your edits being closely followed by reversions or rewrites, it may be considered disruptive behaviour that you can present to AN/I.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 08:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to wait for the SPI to conclude, and I would also like to see what Erikeltic has to say as well. The diffs would also be useful. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sir, that is a great deal of work, trouble and time. Might I suggest, to begin: User:Erikeltic has a sordid past of his own sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting. See here:1 and here:2 (I believe the incident is #41 or #42 in the table of contents). With the small amount of time I have got, I'll try to gather links to prove my point - first see the 2009 charges against that editor, then you'll know how difficult it will be to prove most of what he's doing. Djathink imacowboy  09:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You may find this of interest: Sockpuppet investigations/Erikeltic


 * For information purposes: Sockpuppet investigations/Jake Fuersturm

Don't remind others of past misdeeds - i.e. holding grudges is counter-productive. An SPI dating back 2–3 years means nada now. Maybe if it were less than 6 months old it'd matter. But more than that, you're just digging up old skeletons.

As for this "stalking" claim, I only found one example on Spock:


 * Djathinkimacowbut adds names of Spock actors ("young" Spocks in III):
 * Erikeltic removes name without leaving edit summary:

Hardly a big matter, though.

Seems to be a lot of petty squabbling, condescending remarks at one another, and such.

Still, need to await Erikeltic's side of things too. But 2–3 year old SPIs.. forget it.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 09:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"Sir, that is a great deal of work, trouble and time." – You want to make a case, you make the time and prove your case. We don't react so hearsay, POV, or "cos I said so". Diffs, evidence, support your accusations. Erikeltic seems to be good at getting diffs, which could tip the scales in his favour and leave you dangling on a rope just because it's "too much effort". If you want to make an issue of this, then do it be the book. Identify the problem with diffs, not tell-tales. If we consider it serious, you will need this diffs for any AN/I case. If you go rattling off an unsupported story to them empty-handed, they'll dismiss you also, or consider you uncivil. No point bringing a case here then not being willing to follow it through.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 09:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Any moment I might be blocked if this thing is decided rapidly. So here you are, for starters:

Changes via stalking & planned edit warring to Zucchetto by User:MikeWazowski whom you will see in the old matters is an old meat puppet for User:Erikeltic: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zucchetto&diff=prev&oldid=462757821

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MikeWazowski&diff=prev&oldid=462760165

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zucchetto&diff=prev&oldid=462760184

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zucchetto&diff=prev&oldid=462761325

...and I quit editing after this, suspecting entrapment.

Interference by Wazowski at my talk page (harassment): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Djathinkimacowboy&diff=prev&oldid=462760281 and may I add that I resent your intimation that these problems are "because I said so". These problems are because of the malfeasance of User:Erikeltic. Did you not bother to read the earlier materials? What use is that? They provide evidence of what that editor does! Or can he change in 2 years into an angel, whilst I cannot even defend myself? Djathink imacowboy  09:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 2 years.. almost 3. It means nothing. And there is no "intimation" so you can resent 'til the cows come home. Either you can prove your story, or you can't. That's called "fact vs theory". Also, "malfeasance" is an "official misconduct". Wiki has policies and guidelines. Nothing is "official" they are simply various levels of standards. There seems to be some hyperbole on your part, I advise you remain objective and refrain from throwing "old news" into the ring. If Erikeltic has been harassing you, we need recent examples, that relate to you. These 2/3 years old cases aren't worth looking at. Attributing past behaviour to present behaviour isn't how we do things.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 09:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Will you read what new diffs I am offering now, or won't you? Here's all of it - that which remains of what I can give you on Wazowski and User:EEMIV: Changes via stalking & planned edit warring to Zucchetto by User:MikeWazowski whom you will see in the old matters is an old meat puppet for User:Erikeltic: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zucchetto&diff=prev&oldid=462757821

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MikeWazowski&diff=prev&oldid=462760165

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zucchetto&diff=prev&oldid=462760184

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zucchetto&diff=prev&oldid=462761325

...and I quit editing after this, suspecting entrapment.


 * These "examples" are different editors, in different subjects. OR warnings are not harassment, they are there to advise you of a breachof policy. Tagging is not harassment, they are there to serve as cleanup messages for other editors, to aid improvement. I suggest you read WP:OWN. No one owns an article, no matter how hard they work on it. Expect other people to tag articles when problems are found, mercilessly. As for those top tags - they are right - references are given but no in-line citations. I'd have tagged it myself, I had seen it first.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 09:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spock#Request_for_assistance_in_addendum_to_lead_photo_info -This is where the trouble with User:Erikeltic began. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EEMIV#Spock_2 -This is where User:Erikeltic began his campaign and his canvassing, at User:EEMIV talk page.

Interference by Wazowski at my talk page (harassment): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Djathinkimacowboy&diff=prev&oldid=462760281

Wazowski covers his tracks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMikeWazowski&action=historysubmit&diff=462771364&oldid=462761322

Erikeltic attempts to harass me on Wazowski's page (note both diffs): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMikeWazowski&action=historysubmit&diff=462760165&oldid=462759725 Djathink  imacowboy  09:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, you'd have tagged it yourself if you had been canvassed just sufficiently enough. That article hadn't been touched in I do not know how long. And as I said, this is only the beginning ... and I am TIRED. It seems you are not carefully reading the rest of the diffs, especially User:Erikeltic's. Forgive me, but the attitude here is making me smell something burning. Djathink  imacowboy  09:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? If something is burning, it's probably the axe you keep grinding. I don't see anything in these diffs that support the definition of "stalking". Stalking lasts for months, is a malicious act and usually subtle. This guy seems to think you're a dick, and you think he's a dick. There is nothing of substance in these diffs. At most he is being uncivil by remarking on talk pages that do not concern him. I see no major disruption to articles, however. You seem angry at these people because they challenged your edits. Nothing more. Time doesn't matter on wiki. People can add articles to their watchlist which never get touched for months. Then you come along, make an unsupported edit, and they remove it. That's not stalking.. it's part of the system. Anyone can monitor anything, if it interests them enough. Anyway, I've looked at your POV, I suggest you wait until Erikeltic comments and, without interfering, allow me or others, to consider his comments. Then we'll know what the situation is, and where you stand. Of course, if you intend to "quit editing after this", the outcome won't bother you. Right? This page aims to resolve a dispute, not to take sides. So please don't come all cocky with me because I don't instantly take your word for granted. I haven't heard his story yet. Even then, I will only advise you both.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 10:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully you shall excuse me. Point well taken. I was overtired - and no axes here except perhaps the one Erikeltic placed close to my nether regions. I do not mean to be burdensome now, but you will want this:

At Ring (jewellery) previously uninvolved user IP 69.152.169.56 (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.152.169.56) suddenly removes a line for no reason, leaving a gaping space, and cites that the edit is due to the line being uncited. This type of edit warring will begin to look familiar soon: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ring_%28jewellery%29&action=historysubmit&diff=462804665&oldid=462722258

At Slouch hat, previously uninvolved user IP 70.160.31.50 (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.160.31.50) does this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slouch_hat&action=historysubmit&diff=462724461&oldid=461033582

At Faleristics, previously uninvolved User:Giraffedata, who apparently is on a crusade to eliminate all uses of the term "comprised of", does this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faleristics&action=historysubmit&diff=462842034&oldid=462056352 and this is the funniest of all because this one shows little activity prior to my editing there.

All examples coincide with User:Erikeltic's extensive canvassing. And how coincidental that they suddenly appear simultaneously at many of my favorite articles. All I ask is you contemplate the page histories when you review this evidence. They hold the key, because they prove that these edits are particular and suspicious.

As to the mysteriously appearing IPs, who knows who they are; it is easier to canvass when only IPs are used in reply. And Erikeltic has done all this before, as I have already demonstrated. It is your wrong-headed choice to ignore that evidence, which has direct bearing on what Erikeltic is doing now, in this case. Djathink imacowboy  12:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry! When I wrote that "I quit editing after this, suspecting entrapment," it was in reference to the diff link immediately above that phrase. I hope you did not think I meant you or this page! My reference was to being snared into an edit war at Zucchetto. Did you really not understand that bit? Djathink  imacowboy  12:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You've got to be kidding me. There is no foundation to this report. I would suggest that Djathinkimacowboy should let the issue drop. Someone disagreeing with you is not uncivil. I stopped reading about halfway down after looking at the sockpuppet accusations and the first set of diffs, which were not only civil but correctly implemented. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Not so hasty, if you please. Djathink imacowboy  15:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your addition here was a desperate attempt to remove someone whom you perceive as a competitor. It's inappropriate to be an ongoing discussion. You've been discovered and it's time to drop it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, "discovered" doing what? Stop what? "Wikihounding, as you accused me of doing at the SPI? Thanks, loving ally of Erikeltic, but you're doing yourself no favors either. Djathink  imacowboy  16:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And to make a counter claim: this is uncivil. Please stop attacking editors who disagree with you. It doesn't help your case here or anywhere. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Having read all of the responses, only one editor, the original nominator, seems to think this is a valid case. Time to close. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You were being asked a legitimate question. Who are you? What is your keen interest here? It's strange the way I keep hearing from my opposition's supporters. I wondered who you were and why you find this all so laughable. And I'd appreciate it if you kept your lies about my "wikihounding" off this discussion! Djathink imacowboy  16:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * First, calling me names by intentionally misspelling my name doesn't impress me.
 * Second, check the edit history of this page. I have been a watcher on Wikiquette assistance for about a month.
 * Third, you are a reprehensible little man. You just called me a liar but at least I don't come to several pages, which in itself is against policy if not common sense, and make accusations because someone accuses you of adding information without references. That's worse than wikihounding, but it is a form of it. When you go to my talk page and make veiled accusations there, when they belong at the appropriate discussion that's clearly wikihounding. You disgust me. You represent the worst part of wikipedia: hypocrites; those who can't see their own faults but jump on others for what they perceive as faults when it's just a disagreement. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Response from Erikeltic
First, I want to say thanks to MarcusBritish for letting me know about this discussion. The irony is that I'm being accused of canvassing and I had no idea this discussion was taking place. Second, I want to state to everyone that this will be my one and only response to all of this nonsense. Djathinkimacowboy appears to be a sock puppet for the indefinitely banned Jake Fuerstrum. The details of that ongoing SPI can be found in this link. I will not rehash all of that in this place, as it would be inappropriate. The allegation of canvassing that Cowboy/Jake is making is just another example of his long history of WP:NOTTHEM. Repeatedly Cowboy/Jake starts Wiki-wars, then feigns innocence, and wears the victim's cloak by accusing other editors of the very behavior that he is complaining about. A quick look at both of his editing accounts' histories demonstrates that fact. Let me be clear about something -- I have not canvassed Jake/Cowboy at any point. I offered him an opportunity to explain why he appeared to be a sock puppet (upon our "first" meeting) and he became unnecessarily belligerent. As he made more edits and continued making ad hominem attacks I became more and more convinced that Cowboy was Jake Fuerstrum. Cowboy himself wrote on my talk page (after having been asked more than once to stay off of it) "If you have proof, produce it."  So I did. I gathered the proof, opened an SPI, and alerted two other editors that were involved in the Spock article. One of those editors, EEMIV actually asked that I alert him if I opened an SPI. Since I opened the SPI, Jake/Cowboy has been canvasing. The allegations he is making here is just another example of his own bad behavior and is laughable at best. Again, the irony is that I am being accused of canvasing. Erikeltic ( Talk ) 14:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that explains it all then. I hereby retract my accusation. I do not back away from one single statement of mine, I'm simply dropping it. You won, E. There's clearly not enough room in the known universe to argue with British Markus and Walter Goorlitz. Djathink  imacowboy  16:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments
This is an open and shut case.

Djathinkimacowboy – you came here to resolve an issue. Instead of accepting the investigation of editors, you are attacking their conclusions. How does one resolve uncivil behaviour, if you're only going to extend an uncivil attitude towards them? Lighten up...

There are over 10 million registered members on Wiki, and millions more anon IP users. You cannot feasibly attribute them all to Erikeltic. That's paranoia, and leads to highly disruptive reactions, first from you, then from those you're accusing, resulting a battlefield. Admins could swiftly consider you a risk to the project if you continue to aggravate parties without substantial proof.

I suggest you both keep away from each other. Respect each others edits. Do not track each others edits on talk pages and come interjecting. Do not endorse or support other editors giving warnings on one anothers page.

In a week or two it'll all blow over.

And FYI my username reads MarcusBritish – that order, no space, 'c' not 'k' – your childish renaming does you no favours with me. Grow up. You're not here to argue, anyway. You're here to present a case and look to resolve it!

 Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 16:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for seeing this nonsense for what it was. I don't know that it will blow over though, as the editor clearly has a grudge against me.  Once the SPI comes through and reveals that Cowboy is actually Jake, I suppose I will need to wait until his next regeneration comes calling to cause more problems.  Both of their histories read like a guide of what not to do on Wikipedia.  ~sigh~  FWIW, Jake also refered to me as "E" and did petty name stuff like above.  It's interesting, but the more he edits/flames/rages, the bigger the hole he's digging for himself.   Erikeltic ( Talk ) 16:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with MarcusBritish. Time to close. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, feel free to close. Djathinkimacowboy, I suggest you distance yourself from the matter for a while. If your "suspicions" still exist in a few weeks, try WP:AN/I, but with what you've presented here, it won't get far, and with your self-defeating attitude, could get yourself a block. Erikeltic, don't give cowboy any reason to imply you are stalking him by commenting on any user talk pages he has, unless it's vital to the improvement of an article or a serious dispute resolution manner. i.e. no chit chat to upset him. There have been some minor snide remarks from you also, I will note, but either way, I suggest you both stop your interaction and let the matter drop. If he persists in accusing you of things, you too can use AN/I. Thanks all for your time.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 17:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Doug Guetzloe biography

 * []
 * []

Just edited and reworked biography of Doug Guetzloe to clean up, add credible links and refine for neutral view. Original tags still remain. I believe article has been improved. Any advice on how to remove these tags, which are now misleading? Jerosaur (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Repeated Personal Attacks by Brewcrewer

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YehudaTelAviv64&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YehudaTelAviv64&action=history

Brewcrewer is attacking me on my talk page, even after posting a warning (User_talk:Brewcrewer) on his talk page. In his original attack, he accused me of being an editor who I have never heard of -- User:Supreme Deliciousness. Please, stop him from attacking me on my talk page. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't see this because of the melee below.
 * Yes, this edit and this edit are not at all civil. One should not allude to or accuse another editor of being a sockpuppet. It's a personal attack. "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." YehudaTelAviv64 did the right thing in placing a NPA warning on Brewcrewer's talk page. Similarly his religious/ethnic attack is not acceptable. However, YehudaTelAviv64, you didn't notify Brewcrewer of this discussion. I can see, though, that he is aware of the page and had ample opportunity to respond. I would like to see his response here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Brewcrewer is attacking me again -- see . YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks over content dispute, reopened

 * Regarding reopening, it is really beyond WQA's remit to do what you're asking for. If actual admin intervention is required, then WP:ANI is thataway. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. All I'm asking for is that an admin ask the user to stop making personal attacks and explicit assumptions of bad faith, which the user continues to make, both in edit summaries and on the talk page. If a request for such seemingly minor intervention is beyond the scope of WQA, what is within the scope of WQA? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 19:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While I've some evidence admins occasionally stalk this page, it's mostly mostly non-admin editors who help out here. The first diff you present is a very mild personal attack, as these things go, and the second diff not a personal attack at all. I went to Bloodofox's talk page to ask him to rejoin the discussion but I see that before you initiated the WQA you called him a dick? Twice? That's certainly more offensive than 'ideological user.' I'd advise you to tone it down and focus on the content dispute resolution. Gerardw (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Relentlessly accusing another editor of dishonest motives as a substitute for simply arguing about content and policy is not even in the same neighborhood as merely calling somebody a couple of names in two brief comments, spanning about 10 minutes, complaining about those persistent personal attacks (which continue even now). It's a little hard to focus on a content dispute when the other participant insists on making pointless accusations about my character, motives, etc. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 13:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:Gray Area. While not unsympathetic to the situation, in my experience, few editors are willing to audit the history of two somewhat uncivil editors to ascertain which is being more uncivil than the other. My advice is to first ensure your own behavior is scrupulously correct and civil and to ignore the pointless accusations. Gerardw (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Uh, now I wonder exactly why I wasn't notified of this being reopened? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It was never "reopened" because it was never "closed"; just archived by a bot. And I didn't say anything new, just asked for comment on what had already been said.  Not like this could have somehow taken you by surprise, so plz. don't pretend I was trying to ambush you or something by making new complaints that you had no opportunity to respond to. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You "reopened" it and didn't notify me. And I was supposed to find that how? That speaks volumes. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't reopen it. No one ever closed it. I didn't add anything new.  I didn't ask anything new of you. I asked for comment on what already had been said. The fact you're now trying to paint me as dishonest for seeking comment on an arbitration that I notified you about, after already having persistently accused me of dishonest motives, speaks "volumes". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 19:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You absolutely did "reopen" it, and days went by before I found out about it. Nice. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Days"? Try again -- more like 1 day, 10 hours.  Stop trying to trump up trivial nothingness into something you could conceivably have a legitimate right to complain about.  It's appalling that you would nitpick on silly details like this (and quibbling about how often I use the "outdent" tag, and reposting a comment from your Talk page on article talk) after making dozens of uncivil and snide character attacks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weaseling around your lack of notification will get you nowhere. Equating crude name calling (which you blame me for) to referring to you as ideological also isn't helping your case. My "quibble" about your usage of the outdent tag, again, referred to your using it every few posts. Your spite post on my talk page was also very dubious. It's all here for the world to see, there's not much more I need to say about it. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I tolerated numerous insulting and rude comments from you, going beyond merely saying I'm ideological, before having a moment of anger and calling you a profane name and referring you to a Meta article that is redirected from WP:DICK. Since that brief outburst, I have said nothing about your character yet you continue to speak to me as one would speak to a dishonest and vile con artist.  And yes, you quibble about trivial junk in an effort to make it look like you have anything legitimate to complain about other than the brief outburst in which I called you a profane name.  Ask yourself: whether or not I "blame" you for making me angry enough to use profanity, do you really think it is in keeping with core WP policy—on how we're supposed to be polite to one another and ignore our differences—to constantly berate and act uncivilly towards someone you're having a content dispute with?  Do you recognize that this treatment is going to do nothing productive, but merely make the other person upset and angry? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 19:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never called you any names. I've referred to you as ideological and accused you of heavy POV; that's hardly a personal attack in my book, but I have agreed to refer only to your actions. Your anger is your own issue to deal with, and there's no excuse for calling others names, no matter how angry you get. Nobody pressed those keys for you. I have the right to call you out in a Wikipedia-acceptable manner; i.e. I did not appreciate that you called me base names, that you did not let me know about this reopening, and I did not appreciate you spite-spamming on my talk page. Further, you should have taken the olive branch on the talk page when it was extended by another user (which I immediately agreed to) rather than coming straight here. In addition, you've repeatedly violated the revert rule you've placed on your talk page. All of this says something about where you're editing from and you need to really consider adjusting your approach for when you come across an editor who won't simply roll over. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to name a couple instances, it should be obvious to you that it's not "Wikipedia acceptable" to tell another user to "try to feign a little neutrality" or say "I guess the cheap shot was just too tempting for you", or accuse another of an "attempted hit job", or suggest I am a paid astroturfer, etc. Yeah, you made personal attacks; even now at the OWS talk page you can't even say 10 words on the subject without talking about my alleged political leanings, which you have no clue about, and which are irrelevant to the discussion.  And what the hell is "spite spamming"?  It seems you don't even realize how uncivil you're being and how far all of this is from being an acceptable and normal discussion of a content dispute.  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 21:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop referring to Factchecker as ideological -- comment on the content not that contributor Gerardw (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can agree to that for civility purposes, albeit I believe otherwise, and I think other users should be aware of his strong pro-Fox, anti-"far left" stance, and I don't see that as a personal attack, but rather a neutral observation.


 * So what happens when a user refers to another use as a "dick" and an "asshole"? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually an editors own actions make any biases apparent to the community so labeling the user isn't necessary; in any event, simply referring to the edits is a far better option in the long run. e.g. "Remove POV edit"
 * As for the personal attack, see ]. Gerardw (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing dispute


About two weeks ago I opened a debate discussing whether this page should be merged or not. Controversy surrounding the Occupy Movement and questioning of notability has made this somewhat heated. Both "merge" and "don't merge" have about the same amount of supporters.

Near the beginning of the debate several users voted for merge. They never contributed again afterwards. Naturally this discussion attracted large amounts of don't merge users; OSW is a pretty popular page due to its real world relevance. I was practically left by myself to argue with the endless amount of don't merge users. I proceeded to post these messages on the original merge user's talk pages:


 * User_talk:Kelly: "Opposition to merge is rising. Would appreciate your continued participation in this debate"
 * User_talk:Arzel: "Would appreciate your continued support for pro-merge."
 * User_talk:Amadscientist: "Would appreciate your continued support for pro-merge."
 * User_talk:Reywas92 "Would appreciate your continued support for pro-merge."

They continued to not reply or contribute. By that point I had given up and wished to move on. Several days later an IP accused me of canvassing to those editors, claiming "they expressed anti-OWS sentiments and were therefore likely to vote his way". I knew of no such agenda when contacting them; I simply wanted them to contribute to a discussion which they already voted in. I attempted to justify my actions though to no avail.

Came here to verify whether this violates canvassing policy. If I have, it was an honest mistake. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC))
 * Please ask at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ingresar entrada Horacio González (diputado)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 190.190.96.136 (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC) My user Zaratoga is bloqued so I can't enter here to edit this page. I don't know if I have to write in english. A previous page in spanish redirectme here. I will write in spanish but plese feel free to ask me to write my request in english if it mandatory.

Hace aproximadamente 2 meses se creo la página Horacio Gonzalez (diputado) La misma tuvo varias ediciones, incluyendo algunas mias. La usuaria bibliotecaria Miss Manzana consideró que la misma hacia referencia a auto promocion y la borro. Si bien mi usuario es de 2007, al no estar al tanto (por no leer las normas de wikipedia) lo que hice fue reestablecer la página nuevamente. Esto derivo en mi bloqueo como usuario "para siempre". Accion llevada a cabo por el usuario Nixon.

El motivo no es recuperar mi usuario sino establecer que la entrada era valida.

Tanto Miss Manzana como Black Beast argumentaron "Auto promocion" en el articulo

Algunos argumentos que puedo profundizar (no quiero ser extenso) Horacio Gonzalez es actualmente el presidente de la cámara de diputados de la provincia de buenos aires ademas de ser diputado. Es por 2do mandato consecutivo yesta proximo a un tercero.

Dentro de lo que considera Wikipedia "Autopromocion" se menciona "Autopromoción: Definitivamente, no se considera relevante para una enciclopedia un artículo que trate sobre grupos de música, empresas, organizaciones o personajes que carezcan de conocimiento público." Claramente Horacio Gonzalez TIENE conocimiento publico, basta buscarlo en los portales de noticias. Es decir este requisito lo cumple ampliamente. Puedo suministrar cientos de noticias de diarios nacionales y provinciales que hablan sobre su persona.

La otra politica de autopromocion hace referencia a personalidades "politicas": "Un presidente, un gobernador o incluso un alcalde de una ciudad importante son relevantes, pero no todos los políticos lo son. No es relevante para una enciclopedia una persona que amerite cargos políticos que se encuentren por debajo del cargo más alto municipal ni tampoco cada uno de los diputados o senadores de un país. Para ser estos considerados relevantes debe existir un factor que determine que van a permanecer en la historia del país."

Para argumentar, recuerdo que Horacio Gonzalez es el presidente de la cámara de Diputados de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, que es la mas importante del país. Amerita cargos mas altos que un intendente.

Asi mismo Wikipedia aclara "Para ser considerado un diputado o senador debe existir un factor que determine que van a permanecer en la historia". En el caso de la hisotria de la provincia de buenos aires, el presidente de la camara de diputados queda en la historia del cuerpo legislativo. Es el cargo mas alto de diputados. Como prueba que quedara en la historia se puede ir a ver el sitio oficial de la camara de diputados provincial http://www.hcdiputados-ba.gov.ar/index.php?id=presidentes donde encontraran la lista de los presidentes desde 1880 aprox hasta hoy. La mayoria de los cuerpos legislativos tiene el apartado Historia y puedo suministrar links. Asimismo si se dirigen al site oficial del partido de Ituzaingó, en la sección historia apartado "creación del partido" se menciona a Horacio Gonzalez como primer presidente del cosejo deliberante de la historia del partido http://www.miituzaingo.gov.ar/CdelPartido.html. Es decir tuvo dos cargos que perduraran en la historia de la provincia de buenos aires y en la del partido de ituzaingó Probablemente si fuese solo un diputado raso, no aplicarian estos conceptos, pero las argumentaciones anteriores considero que son de peso para que amerite una entrada. Por último como contraejemplo, la entrada del diputado "Arian Perez", que es un diputado raso y que no ha quedado aún en la historia del país, esta totalmente aceptada por wikipedia.

Recurro a esta via luego de entender mi error (restaurar varias veces la página) e intentar dialogar con los usuarios. Lamentablemente al estar bloqueado, algunos entendieron que el pedido era por el desbloqueo, en realidad yo solicito restaurar la entrada Horacio González (diputado).

Saludos y gracias!

Can you help in dispute resolution for an entry in spanish wikipedia?
190.190.96.136 (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Hi, briefly cause there is a lot information pretty confusing. I wrote an entry in spanish wikipedia. Some user consider it was an autopromotion page so she deleted it I restored that page many times (that was a mistake i know but reviewer does not explain me or guide me) I ask a review, some other user rejected i I read that there is some kind of assistanse for this situacion. Can you help me for an entry in a Spanish Wikipedia? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.190.96.136 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 4 December 2011


 * Sorry, no, we can't help you. Each Wikipedia is autonomous, and the English-language one has no say in what goes on in the Spanish one (or vice versa). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor becoming increasingly uncivil
Editor has become increasingly hostile and uncivil during Talk Page discussions and in edit summaries, resulting in unwarranted personal attacks against me. Diff links:
 * Diff 1
 * Diff 2
 * Diff 3
 * Diff 4

This seems to have started when I spoke out against the editor's use of forum shopping and Wiki-lawyering when not getting the answers he was looking for at two forums. On his talk page, I asked him to step back for a bit and allow things to progress naturally at the noticeboard RfC's he's filed today rather than trying to force them to progress. His responses are in the diff links above. The latest personal attack from him that was the last straw for me: "I don't think I want to be a bullying editor who assumes bad faith like you are and reverts as a way of life."

The incivility from this editor has gone beyond anything appropriate and/or necessary, in my opinion. In the future, I want to be able to edit cooperatively and collegially with this editor, but the hard feelings and atmosphere he's creating and perpetuating as demonstrated by the above diffs are making that more and more an unlikely scenario. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there anything more? The four diffs show pretty ordinary back-and-forth on a user talk page. When I did a quick skim of User talk:MathewTownsend I was surprised to see MathewTownsend say he is new as he seems to be discussing the BLP issue in an appropriate manner. If there is an article accusing living person X of having caused the death of Y (yet X has never been charged), it is highly inappropriate (laughable actually) to respond with "There is no deadline in Wikipedia". I do not think it is a WQA issue for an editor to talk about "your article" after reading "If you change the article right now, I will be forced to take this whole thing to another level". It may well be that some inappropriate behavior is going on somewhere, but WP:CIVIL is not a guarantee that editors will not face frank opinions when raising an issue at a user talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (1) Yes, your comments do sound "grumpy" (as you stated in your edit summary) and aren't exactly helpful. But I can overlook that. :-)
 * (2) There's more, but thanks to your astute observation, you already found the "more" I was hoping someone would notice. He does seem to be not so new, actually......
 * (3) There's nothing in the article in question (Natalie Wood) that suggests/implies/names anyone as being culpable in her death. This is - essentially - a fabrication by the named editor above and another editor who are reading way more into the article than actually exists.
 * (4) Charges of ownership by this editor have no basis in fact. I'm not the only editor who feels MathewTownsend is being hyperbolic and too quick to react in regard to the article in question.
 * (5) WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are standards to be adhered to at all times.
 * (6) I came here in an attempt to get the air cleared and give the above named editor a chance to rethink his own "grumpiness" because I want to be able to work with him now and in the future in an atmosphere of collegiality and cooperativeness. The direction he's going is making that less and less a possibility.
 * Lhb1239 (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Response from MathewTownsend
 * I agree with Johnuniq's comments above.
 * Lhb1239 has filed simultaneous charges against me at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and Dispute resolution noticeboard
 * Who are the other editors who feel that I'm being hyperbolic and too quick to react, as Lhb1239 states above? On the noticeboards I have received nothing but support, except from Lhb1239.
 * If he feels my comments violate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, why does he edit war and revert my attempts to redact and withdraw my comments?
 * Lhb1239 has bombarded my talk page 29 times with threats and warnings within the last day or so. I am very rattled by this and don't know what to think or how to handle this antagonism. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're misrepresenting, Mathew. In so doing, you're only making more of a case for your personal attacks and incivility. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Lhb1239 should drop the WP:STICK, stay away from MathewTownsend's talk page, stop reverting MathewTownsend's talk page comment, especially trivial reversions like, and listen to the advice given by AussieLegend on the 3RR report. Gerardw (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! Lhb1239 (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Active "hunt & attack" by editor
Attacker Battlefields

''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?''

User:Guy Macon doing a lot of misbehaviours, angry editing
 * "Plan of attack..." - explicit edit warring
 * "Drop a hammer on him..." - explicit edit warring
 * "Pizza connection fancies..." - the Italian conspiracy
 * "I'm going to allow..."  - enforcement-like editing
 * Witch hunting through Wikipedia
 * Reverting-only interaction , rejecting even grammar fixes.
 * Involving admin User:Qwyrxian in active reverting-only interaction.

''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?''


 * Brief neutral advices about misbehaviours, direct dispute avoidance.
 * Floppy_disk_hardware_emulator - Failed dispute resolution

How do you think we can help?

Get attacking user understand that "which hunting" and "worst faith assumption" are "wikipedia time wasting". 137.204.148.73 (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you stating that you are not ? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

List of recent administrative actions regarding IP Address 137.204.148.73

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blackvisionit

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive173#User:137.204.148.73 reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: No action right now.)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Floppy disk hardware emulator (Closed)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Active "hunt & attack" by editor

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The complaints posted above by 137.204.148.73 (which, by an amazing coincidence, faithfully mirror the writing style of Blackvisionit) are simply a result of my attempts to protect the encyclopedia from an editor with a severe conflict of interest and ongoing behavior problems. When he was given some quite reasonable COI restrictions by an administrator, his response was to engage in blatant sockpuppetry. The biggest behavior problem is a total refusal to work collaboratively, a refusal to discuss controversial edits despite being asked again and again to do so (instead choosing to re-revert without discussion), and a refusal to seek consensus. The sad part is that he obviously believes that the rules don't apply to him, that he doesn't need to explain his edits, and that the real problem is anyone else who questions his ownership of the pages he edits.

As always, I welcome a close examination of my own behavior, and I will take any criticism or suggestions to heart. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're definitely being uncool. As previously suggested to you, the only place you should make an SPI accusation is the SPI page. And it does appear you're following 137 around tracking their edits. Let's AGF and be more welcoming to a new user. Gerardw (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe my monitoring of 137.204.148.73 is within policy. I have read WP:HOUND very carefully, and it says "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." To that end, I have limited myself to only fixing those edits of 137.204.148.73's that are clear violations of Wikipedia policy, such as being unsourced and controversial, and I have consistently invited 137.204.148.73 to discuss these edits on the article's talk pages.  I do the same whenever I see a clear violation of policy such as adding spam links or changing British English to US English on a page against policy - I look for other pages where the editor may have done the same thing. It certainly is not my aim to "create irritation, annoyance or distress" to 137.204.148.73. Given his pattern of behavior, there are several things I could do that I know would either totally piss him off or bait him into more misbehavior. I have carefully avoided doing any of those things, because my goal is to get him to stop being disruptive, not to become more disruptive.  I bear 137.204.148.73 no ill will, and sincerely hope he will decide to start following Wikipedia's rules on consensus and discussion of controversial edits.


 * As for the claim that "the only place you should make an SPI accusation is the SPI page" I have carefully reviewed Wikipedia's policies (primarily WP:SOCK, but there is also a wealth of information in the archives at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations) and I don't see where it is forbidden to point out that two accounts pass the duck test. While it is an essay rather than policy, Signs of sock puppetry says "The more signs that are present, the more likely sock puppetry is occurring, though no accusations shall be made unless, beyond a reasonable doubt, one is really certain."  Well, I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt.  I would also note that, as suggested, I opened a SPI. Alas, I got no answer.  If there is a policy or guideline that specifically says that one cannot mention suspicions of sockpuppetry other than on the SPI page, please supply a link to the policy. It certainly is possible that I missed a policy, but I have looked. Sometimes  an obvious sock is obvious.--Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You asked for criticism or suggestions. I said you actions were uncool; I did not saying they specifically violated any policy. WP:AGF and WP:Civility suggest limiting SPI accusations to SPI.  That said, I do think the admin community is not being very timely on the SPI. Gerardw (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that's a fair criticism (the part about me -- I have no opinion regarding the criticism of the SPI admins). --Guy Macon (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll concur that it's appropriate to keep discussions in the right place. I also think it would be extremely helpful if another admin took action on the SPI, as I believe that Guy Macon's following of these edits is completely appropriate if, in fact, another admin agrees that they are the same person. I have now doubt, but I'm not sure if I've crossed the line over into WP:INVOLVED territory, so I need a second pair of eyes.  If Guy Macon is correct, than we have an editor intentionally editing under an IP to avoid scrutiny.  Blackvisionit proved very conclusively that xe cannot edit pages on this topic neutrally, and I told xyr quite clearly I would block xyr for attempting anything other than the most trivial edits on this topic.  If the IP is the same person as Blackvisionit, they've violated that several times over, and thus need to be blocked in order to prevent disruption to the page.  And, furthermore, if this is Blackvisionit, this WQA is an attempt to distract other user's from the problems xe has as an editor, to get criticism leveled at the person who is legitimately trying to protect these articles from POV inclusions.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I would add that, even if 137.204.148.73 and Blackvisionit have no connection at all, there is a consensus among the other editors that the undiscussed edits by 137.204.148.73 to Floppy disk hardware emulator, like the previous edits by Blackvisionit, bias the article towards one particular type of emulator. 137.204.148.73 refuses to discuss his reasons for making these changes (or anything else: his claims above in answer to "Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?" are fabrications). If only he would discuss why he wants to make changes when another editor challenges them, the possibility exists that a consensus could be reached that satisfies both parties. His refusal to discuss breaks Wikipedia's cooperative editing model, and leaves the other editors no path that could possibly lead to agreement.


 * The same problem with 137.204.148.73's edits can clearly be seen in the edit history for San Severo. He removed what appears to be relevant and properly sourced material, and when asked to explain, engaged in edit warring while refusing to discuss his edits. I don't know anything about San Severo, while we know from geolocation that 137.204.148.73 either lives there or in a nearby town. His insight could be very valuable. Could it be that he correctly identified something that should have been removed? It's possible, but we will never know because he refuses to discuss his edits.  All I can do is what I would do any time I see what appears to be relevant and properly sourced material removed without explanation on any article; revert with an edit comment encouraging discussion and place a warning -- also encouraging discussion -- on his talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see new content at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Blackvisionit#28_November_2011 ].

Talk Page Sections Retitled as Personal Attacks


I and another editor have expressed concerns to User:Goodwinsands about his editing history and possible multiple accounts since he started editing in January 2011. He now has renamed all those sections of his talk page to mock our concerns. He collapsed the entries under one title: Under the green bars: documentation of a tag-team harassment campaign. He renamed our section titles, per below. I think someone needs to explain Wikipedia policy on personal attacks and misuse of talk pages to Goodwinsand and encourage him to either revert to original comments or archive the whole mess. Needlesstosay, this kind of mocking behavior discourages people from trying to deal with real concerns. Anyway, since he has barred me from his talk page I can't announce this notice. Thanks for any help. CarolMooreDC 05:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * POV Warrior #1 tries: false accusation of sock puppetry (Was at this diff “Your editing history?”) Details of why I was suspicious are in a later WP:SPI link below.
 * POV Warrior #2 tries: don't call a Holocaust denier a Holocaust denier (Was at this diff “BLPN Israel Shamir”) Regarding Goodwinsands adding a category to an article when that subject was currently under discussion at BLPN.
 * POV Warrior #1 tries again: bogus redefinition of 'revert' in attempt to pin a false 1RR. (Was at this diff "Gilad Atzmon: Edit warring notice".) Per this discussion (at this diff) Goodwinsands inaccurately stated and perhaps still holds that "No, a revert means undoing the actions of another editor within the last 24 hours."
 * POV Warrior #2 tries again: false allegations of sock puppetry (Was at this diff "Multiple accounts.") User:Off2riorob asked him about the possibility of multiple accounts.
 * POV warriors #1 and #2 tag team in false accusation of sock puppetry, no not sock puppetry, erm, er, er, give us a sec and we'll come up with it... (Evidently Goodwinsands split up the "Multiple accounts" section.) Seeing I was not the only with suspicions, I decided to investigate further and at this diff discussed which editors on one sock puppet plagued article Goodwinsands possibly might be a sock or multiple account of. I was told by an administrator at this diff that if I had suspicions I should take it to Sockpuppet Investigation.
 * POV Warrior #1 tries: another false accusation of sock puppetry Per administrator's comment I did so, whole discussion here. I guess it didn't present enough details and an admin closed it calling it a "fishing expedition."
 * There's a very easy solution to this problem, though I strongly suspect you will not want to go along: Stop bothering him on his talk page. Make whatever comments you want about him on other talk pages (like this) where he can't change the section header. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Civility says "It applies to all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages..." This is the civility noticeboard. I'm just asking for someone to clue him in so the next person who has a legitimate concern isn't driven away by the mass attacks on those who have had past concerns. CarolMooreDC 05:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're worried about the next person, perhaps you should just wait for the next person to have the same problem.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So, just to be clear here, because I have kept the evidence of your campaign of harassment against me on my talk page, and because I have labeled it for what it is, you continue your campaign of harassment here by complaining that I have dared to complain about your campaign of harassment?

One more for the list, then, isn't it. Goodwinsands (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please ignore Brewcrewer as his advice is neither helpful nor appropriate. One does not tolerate uncivil behaviour until it bites another user. We talk to the editor and inform them of their behaviour in order to avoid future confrontations. Brewcrewer also appears to be involved with the accused having left a welcome message on the user's talk page. Not sure what the association is.
 * With that said, have you notified Goodwinsands of this discussion? The behaviour described, and some other behaviour not mentioned, is not at all civil, but I would like to hear the editor's side of the story. I went to the talk page and did not see a notice there.
 * Also, the behaviour of the other two editors is not civil. One does not allude to or hint that another editor is a sockpuppet. With that said, incivility does not call for further incivility.
 * As a result of the edit conflict, I see that Goodwinsands knows what is happening here and continues to attack rather than comment on his own behaviour. This is for discussion not attacks. There was no campaign of harassment so there's nothing to complain about to. They were trying to engage you in conversation, which you don't seem to like to do. Perhaps a cool-off period would be a good first step--walk away from the article you're having contention over and come back in a week or two. If you're still planning on editing the same articles, discussion would be a good second step. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Walter Görlitz is correct. I looked at this report earlier but decided not to post because the refactored headings at User talk:Goodwinsands were not knock-out examples of incivility, and I thought my comments would be misinterpreted. However, the "One more for the list, then, isn't it" shows that involvement is required. A good way to understand why Wikipedia's procedures is as they are is to contemplate what the inevitable outcome of not having those procedures would be. For example, if a civil and relevant comment at a noticeboard can be dismissed as "one more for the list", what is to stop those on the other side from responding in kind, with a downward spiral into what is seen at all unmoderated Internet forums. Please just stick to discussing issues related to improvement of article content. If unwelcome comments appear on a user's talk page, that user is entitled to simply revert them (and if wanted, a pointy but polite edit summary such as "misguided" can be used for the revert). But it is not helpful for community collaboration for editors to refactor the headings of posted comments and to add commentary about those who posted them. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The talk page headings are personal attacks and it would be best if Goodwinsands changes them. 11:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardw (talk • contribs)
 * Just to clarify, as I wrote above: Anyway, since he has barred me from his talk page I can't announce this notice." I should have asked someone else to. But frankly he monitors all my edits so I knew he'd find out. CarolMooreDC'' 16:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No editor can bar anyone else from commenting on that editor's talk page. Only an admin can lock a talk page and they have to have very serious reasons from doing so. The "barring" in an of itself is not civil. The best one can do is request that an editor not hound you on your talk page and open a case for hounding. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As Goodwinsands' reply here indicates they are aware of the discussion, it's a moot point. I concur with both the interpretation that a "ban" is not supported by policy and the wisdom of respecting a request not to post a notice. I periodically post the WQA-notice myself if a poster has missed the instruction to, or, as in this case, made a conscious decision to avoid escalating the conflict. Gerardw (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note on no provision for "banning." I certainly comply when it's a matter of just discussing things on their talk page. But when it is a matter of alerts that need to be made, I'm glad to see we still have that right. (I also just remembered that "Retired" User:Spaceclerk also banned the same two editors as Goodwinsands because of our suspicions and an SPI. Will have to write that factoid down somewhere.) CarolMooreDC 21:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment As the issue of a user "banning" another user from their talk page seems to be a perennial issue, I've created WP:NOBAN to link the existing policy statement. (It's easy to miss as it's on WP:User pages instead of WP:TPG. Gerardw (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll refer to it should the need for some official notice to User:Goodwinsands arise again. CarolMooreDC 14:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Protection from two editors who are rude and degrade articles


These two editors have a rude and threatening style which is apparent in all their posts. They have repeatedly made edits to the pages listed above which have for the most part degraded those articles. I have tried to incorporate as much as I can of their work but so much of it limits general readers' understanding of these quite complex battles. For example cutting 'infantry' from the name of a unit makes it difficult to know whether they are infantry regiments, brigades or divisions when both infantry and mounted units were involved. Both these editors have also been rude, made threats, attempted intimidation and harrassment. This has occurred on the talk pages of these articles and on my own talk page. What I need is some protection from their negative edits and rude behaviour. Rskp (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I notified the two editors. I do see one edit where what is obviously not vandalism being called vandalism when it appears to be a content dispute. And this edit where discussion is made about an editor. Both incidents would require a discussion, but RoslynSKP, you will have to provide diffs to show what you think the uncivil behaviour is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing further, we can't offer you any protection, but we can suggest that the editors cooperate with you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. What are 'diffs'. --Rskp (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:DIFFs are the differences between two versions of a page, such as this one which shows an edit I recently made to "talk page guidelines." Simplest diff guide gives instructions for how to make them. Gerardw (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are some links to my talk page

Anotherclown (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC) this one is threatening Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC) while these two are bullying

On the Battle of Romani talk page Anotherclown (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC) is rude.  Anotherclown (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC) and totally fails to grasp my argument. 

Anotherclown had contributed a couple of edits in September before Jim Sweeney's first edit of Battle of Romani when he started an edit war on 30 November 2011 making 45 edits before the article was protected on 6 December. Anotherclown had contributed a couple of edits in September before making 8 edits between 1 and 3 December 2011 to this same article. Jim Sweeney had never edited Battle of Magdhaba until two days after I submitted it for a GA review on 15 November 2011 and then he instigated an edit war making 49 edits which resulted in a failure.

Jim Sweeney started a similar attack on 29 November 2011 making 28 edits on the First Battle of Gaza article, again he had never contributed before to this article.

I don't know what has caused these two editors to target my work in this way. But their bullying and their lack of knowledge of the area has resulted in three errors being added in by them, that have been found. They have targeted the word 'infantry' in a lot of their edits wanting to take it out from these all arms engagements. But when this happens its difficult for readers to identify the units.

I hope you can help. --Rskp (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the diffs. I'm not seeing evidence of significant incivility. Some of RoslynSKP's replies seem to convey a sense of ownership. You should try to come to consensus on the article talk page, and if that fails, consider an WP:RFC. Gerardw (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You can also bring this to WP:ARBPIA since serious editing problems in Israel-Palestine related articles can lead to sanctions against offenders. However, sometimes the complainant also gets "in trouble" so it's best to go only if your own editing behavior has been above reproach. CarolMooreDC 19:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc, There is no Israel-Palestine problem in these pages. The articles describe WW1 before Israel existed.

Gerardw, Your comment regarding ownership is curious, because I have happily welcomed all improvements made to articles I have an interest in, since I began editing Wikipedia almost 18 months ago. These two editors' work in the last few weeks, is the first and only exception.

How would you suggest I go about a reasoned approach to these editors, when the best answer I get is 'rubbish'. Why do you put the onus on me to approach them, when they are rude, and its their insistence on their substandard, uncited edits, which are the problem?

What would you do if a military unit was called one thing in the literature and an editor came along and renamed it? Wouldn't you want to see a citation?

Yes, I've had a look at WP:RFC but a recent experience with the consensus approach uncovered a weakness. Unfortunately there are not many editors working on these articles on Wikipedia and so there are few peers who could come to an informed consensus and a consensus of uninformed editors can be problematic. --Rskp (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I previously started an ANI about this user here: Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive174. I'll leave it others to draw their own conclusions. Anotherclown (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Could someone else talk to this editor?


I think I may have started things out on the wrong foot with this new editor. I was trying to be civil by using standard warning templates on the editor's talk page (I know I'm not very good with social situations), but they have failed to respond to any of them and have gone on with what I, at least, view as problematic behavior on the referenced article (not having a lead section and removing any that I put in; removing a template asking for a more-maintainable citation format than 42 manually-done references; not using edit summaries; not responding to talk page messages either on their own talk page or on the article's talk page). I fear this editor doesn't want anyone else's input on this article, but am hoping it's just that they don't want to listen to me in particular. If that isn't the case, it'll probably require a block for them to pay attention, but I don't want it to come to that - for one thing, I want to avoid biting a newbie (I fear I may already have done so inadvertently); for another, they've done valuable work on the article in question. Help, please? Allens (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If the user keeps messing up the formatting of articles even after many warnings, it's bordering vandal/disruptive behaviour and may need a short block. Alternatively you may want to go down the WP:RFPP route. If they continue again, you could try WP:AIV seeing as you've filled their talk page with warnings already.--Otterathome (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have the article on my watch list and will take it to WP:AIV if it continues. I left a nice personal message on his talk page -- some folks don't respond well to standard warnings. Let's hope he straightens out and becomes a productive contributor. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see my talk page for a discussion I had with him. It really does look like he wants to do the right thing, so let's all make sure to pitch in and help him. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly agreed! We've been talking a bit on my talk page and also that of . Allens (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

encounter with Jess
User talk:Stephfo

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Stephfo (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC) I'd like to report an encounter I just had with user Mann jess (at my talk page) who is constantly trying to attach a wrong behaviour to me while he/she is able to accept even a false claim if others performs deletions of my edits. First, I'd like to acknowledge that I run out of control, but please note that it is very difficult to me to accept a critique especially from him/her due to the history of our relations. Since he/she seems to got strongly upset, I'd like to ask for advice how to calm things down. Please, help. Thanks in advance.--Stephfo (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * From their last edit, it appears Jess would be willing to leave you alone and may intend to do so. Not sure what else can be done to calm things down. Usually doing nothing -- i.e. just waiting for time to pass -- is helpful. Gerardw (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait... what? My last message to you said that I was retiring from your page and opting to not help you any longer. Given your accusations, I think I phrased myself fairly civilly to boot. How does that qualify as "trying to attach a wrong behaviour to [you]"? The implication is that I've been harassing you, which I think is without merit. I believe I've been fairly generous with my time over the last few months, offering advice and help, and I could say the same of at least a dozen other editors too. However, it doesn't appear any of us, for all our trying, has helped you at all, and you seem to be on the same path back to ANI you've been down more than once before. I mean seriously, it's been months! In all that time, how many editors have you worked collaboratively with? My time is valuable, and I simply don't have enough to spare, obstinately trying against all hope to steer you another way. This is particularly true when, for all that help, all I get are accusations of wrongdoing.


 * I don't know why you took this here. There is clearly no civility issue, except the AGF breach which started this discussion, and no one needs calming down. If you want me to come back and help out again, then show me some improvement first. Work productively over these next 6 months with other editors, without getting into disputes with every one. Make some headway. Until then, you have plenty of other editors offering solid advice, and a mentor who's available to answer all your questions. That should be enough. I want you to contribute productively, Stephfo... but you need to show me you can.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, you seriously must stop running round accusing everyone of bad faith all the time. A number of editors have tried to help you, and you have steadfastly treated all of them as attacking you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No incivility on the part of Jess that I can see. However the amount of conflict that Stephfo finds seems to warrant some oversight from a patient editor and potentially some warnings if Stephfo doesn't start behaving better. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He's been warned many times, blocked several times and recently topic banned. He has a mentor, but does not seem to consult him when he has a problem like this before acting rashly. The main problem is that Stephfo still isn't clear on what WP is and on how he should behave here because he has never read the pertinent policies. I just gave him yet another reminder, but there are major competence and temperament issues here. He's highly defensive and takes any criticism or disagreement as an attack against him, and responds "in kind", so to speak. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've found it strange that the case is closed before I even got chance to react on arguments presented. I did not suggest that Jess have done anything especially wrong but I reserve the right to claim that they are not fair in his/her judgements towards me what is causing lots of tensions and I perceive for the best solution the one proposed as "From their last edit, it appears Jess would be willing to leave you alone". I posted here only to try to do my best to calm down the situation. I appreciate their effort for mentoring me but for me it would be perhaps better if I could use for that purpose someone else w/o the record we have in our mutual relations with Jess. For example, if someone declares something like this: "I most strongly disagree with this proposal. It would essentially enable enforcing administrators to decide content disputes, because they would have to determine which of several contested versions of an article is of higher quality. This necessarily requires a judgement about the merits of the contested content. Consequently, this proposal runs counter to what is practically a constitutional principle of Wikipedia, i.e., that administrators do not adjudicate content disagreements. Apart from that, of course, this sort of catch-all exception could be used to contest almost all applications of 3RR, and would therefore enable many more edit wars and substantially weaken what may be our most important safeguard against disagreements getting out of hand" such person seems to me to have qualities of mentoring that I would find worth of following. I also feel sorry that Jess regard the time they spent with me for waste of time, but also do dare suggest that to prevent such disappointment in the future, the best for them would be to find someone else to spend time on, and I will try to keep with those advisers that I feel more compatible with when it comes to fair unbiased assessments of acts. I hope my effort to calm things down and looking for solutions consisting in involvement of 3rd party would not be perceived negatively. Thanks for your help and understanding. --Stephfo (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Stop. This is over. I spent considerable time helping you, and you've consistently thrown that in my face with accusations. I'm done. I've now repeatedly told you that, as have Gerard and others. I don't know what continuing to harp on this is intended to accomplish. I don't know if you're trolling, or if for some reason you have an inability to let things go, but either way, the section is archived. It's time to move on.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally always felt that this is what wikiquette assistance is here for and find no fault in Stepho asking for assistance. That said, in a admittedly brief scan of Jess's comments on Stepho's talk page, I don't see anything he did wrong. While it's unfortunate the the mentor / mentee personalities did not mesh, calling Jess's behavior unfair isn't justified. As noted previously, it appears both parties were ready to move on and I don't think there's any else the community can do to help. Gerardw (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've unarchived the section to avoid WP:LASTWORD syndrome. No one is required to continue to discuss, but neither is anyone prohibited.Gerardw (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Update, OP indef blocked for continued disruption. Gerardw (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Stevewake1962


Diffs
 * - Discouraging editors using the edit summary
 * - Possible COI
 * - Discouraging editors
 * - Accusation of ownership/thinly veiled insult
 * - Accusation of ownership
 * - Insult
 * - Belittling comments
 * - Accusation of ownership/discouraging editors

Following a content dispute on List of channels on TVCatchup, Stevewake1962 was warned about their inappropriate use of the edit summary by Evalowyn, the user then appears to have lost their cool and has been unwilling to discuss the content issue beyond saying I'm wrong and owning the page. I left them alone for a few days to hopefully cool down, however they have renewed their comments. Another user named S.wake has exhibited similar behaviour in the past at Talk:TVCatchup. The user's intentions appear to be basically good but their behaviour shows a complete lack of respect for others, only offering the justification that "It's the internet guys, get real...!!!" - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it appears the new editor totally does not get Wikipedia. That said, you've been on their talk page too much (see WP:BITE). I'll leave them a note on the talk page. Gerardw (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Incivility, (personal attacks?) by User:MarcusBritish Closed
{{discussion top|closed.


 * {{userlinks|MarcusBritish}}
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Can_we_break_it_down.3F

Opened up the initial discussion here [], however I was told this was a more suitable area for the problem.

Ongoing incivilty problems with User:MarcusBritish

The following are some examples   

The desired outcome is some disciplinary action (and/or) someone to talk to him to deter this behaviour, he continues to slander me in front of observers, more lor less calling me a racist and an anti-Brit amongst many other things, he brings up past things that I have done, especially on the Ernest Shackleton where myself and the other editor made amends and apologised to one another, brings up my blocks, two I was wrongly blocked by editors who had to quickly unblock me, and another time I was blocked extensively due to an editor wrongly notifying an admin that I was socking to avoid a short block for breaking the 3RR, I do not see how that information is relevant but I know that MarcusBritish and maybe one or two other editors who support him will try to drag that up to divert people from his incivility.Sheodred (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Note:I forgot to notify him of the discussion at the Admin noticeboard, but quickly corrected that, however he removed that from his talk page, I don't know why.Sheodred (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The assumption is when an editor removes a notice from their talk page they've read it. Gerardw (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're looking for "some disciplinary action" then you're in the wrong place, you should initiate a report an WP:ANI. This place is for a little light knuckle rapping. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus is correct that this isn't a place for disciplinary action, including "light knuckle rapping." I don't think ANI would be a good alternative, as AN has already suggested you come here. In any event this edit itself wasn't civil. Marcus's behavior, while not ideal, is WP:Gray Area. My advice is to ignore his outbursts, be scrupulously civil yourself, and focus on content. Gerardw (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree to an extent, MarcusBritish and dick comes to mind, best for me and others ignore him, next time he acts like that though it will not be ignored, you can close this discussion. I am not wasting anymore time on the poor fustrated child. Sheodred (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to say to you, and will be ignoring this thread. So talk away to yourself and others.. probably Gerardw.. without my input it's a one-sided argument, biased, unobjective. Any notifications on talkpages can be removed, just like talkback, so why do I need a reason to keep an AN/I notice I already knew about? Scraping a barrel there, sonny. Anyone posts on my talk about this WQA will be removed, unread, no response. Irish nationalist POV pushing. Read his contribs, see his agenda, topic ban him. That is all. Thanks.
 * {{ec|2}} Disciplinary, eh? Okay, wise guy, I'll gladly prepare a case for WP:ECCN, loaded with your pro-Irish edits, reverts, POV attacks. See you there?  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {{sup|&#91;Chat &bull; RFF]}} 23:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

{{discussion bottom}} {{collapse bottom}}

Requesting assistance regarding difficult communications
Considered simply asking for a third opinion, but it's a bit complex. Jarandhel and I are having a bit of bicker over different things and may or may not have descended to uncomely behavior.

In chronological order:

69.143.182.189/User:Jarandhel removes clinical lycanthropy from the See also section of otherkin, saying that having it there promotes a POV. I undo it. I later discover that mild edit warring has been going on over this link literally for years and there's several discussions about it in the talk page archives. It's somewhat possible that Jarandhel was editing logged out on purpose (WP:SOCK). I didn't raise the issue and I'm not going to do it now, since it'd seem like I'm deliberately picking on every perceived flaw of the editor.

Jarandhel (logged in) starts a topic on the talk page about possible new external links to add. After that, logged out, leaves messages to myself and another editor regarding the lycanthropy link. Of note, the IP tries to appeal to me by comparing Otherkin to Theistic Satanism (my userpage implies that I have interest in the article and IP must assume I'm as personally invested in TS as they are in Otherkin).

I go have a look over the existent external links on the Otherkin article and remove two of them with the edit summary "these do not qualify as "neutral" (WP:ELYES); +we don't advertise specific otherkin communities/sites)". I go and do other things meanwhile, end up on Jarandhel's userpage which looked like this at the time, and I leave them a message regarding the superfluous links on their userpage, some of them commercial and promotional. It was probably not justified of me to add "If I don't hear back from you, I'm going to remove them myself." But it was not because of this specific user, if I did say that then I would've said that to anyone. I do sometimes take the liberty to edit others' userpages.

After that I discover they have (had) made this edit, removing two external links from the Theistic Satanism article with the exact same edit summary I used. I leave them this laconic message. A discussion ensues.


 * Commentary on my own behavior is obviously welcome, though I'd like someone impartial to confirm that
 * editing about the same topic logged out and in is not okay
 * it was okay of me to to leave a message about the links on their userpage, regardless that I was "the first and only person who has complained about them in the six years" (their words), and to leave a personal message instead of a template
 * parroting my edit on a different article was not okay and was exactly what WP:POINT warns against

(And if anyone here can be bothered to look into it, input about the external links and see also links in the otherkin article is still welcome and needed (on the article's talk page). No one but otherkin and their critics seem to care about the article so someone neutral about the topic should take a look.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Editing both logged in and logged out is okay if done inadvertently, but not if done intentionally to deceive. The first step should be to simply ask the user if there's a reasonable possibility it was done accidentally; if it appears intentional a WP:SPI request should be filed.
 * It was fine to leave the message on their user page. There's no correct answer as to use a template or not -- we have both WP:TR and WP:DTR so regardless of which choice you make there's a possibility the editor will complain about it. Best just to ignore that. (Or, sometimes if they go WP:DTR! I just post the WP:TR shortcut and am done with it.)
 * I'd classify the parroting thing as WP:Gray Area and just ignore it. Gerardw (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. It would seem you are going to bring up the issue now, since you specifically did bring it up here.


 * If you must know, I made the edit removing the clinical lycanthropy link (as well as one other edit to the Otherkin article, removing a see-also link to "Fantasy Prone Personality") logged out because a) I hadn't edited since 2008 and it took me a bit to remember my login information (I'd originally been visiting just to read a portion of the article again, when I noticed the Fantasy Prone Personality link that had been added). b) I wasn't sure I really wanted to wade back into all the fighting here.


 * Quite frankly, the Otherkin article has always been uniquely singled out for abusive edits such as people making see-alsos to psychological disorders with no WP:Reliable sources of any psychological professionals claiming such a link. That's in addition to petty vandalism to the article such as the addition of things like boytaurs and werehouses to the list of kintypes, and people attempting to incrementally delete the article when they couldn't delete it outright via AfD.  I didn't know if I wanted to deal with all that again.  So at first I didn't bother logging in.


 * When I decided to add some other material to the article (seeking consensus on the talk page first), I did log in.  I commented on your talk page logged out, however, so that you would know the message was coming from the person who'd made the edits and not a third party.


 * I suppose I could have just mentioned I was the same person too. Either way, a look at my edit history for both this IP and my username will show that I haven't edited logged out to "deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies".  So WP:SOCK really doesn't apply.  If you disagree, by all means file a WP:SPI request.


 * 2. Leaving a message on my talk page about the content of my userpage was fine, and you'll note that I did edit my userpage accordingly. Threatening to edit my userpage yourself if I didn't reply to your message was, IMO, rather uncivil.  While WP:DONTBITE applies to newcomers, I think WP:CIV and WP:EQ would suggest you shouldn't "bite" established editors either.


 * 3. WP:NOTPOINTY. WP:POINT exists to prevent disruptive edits used solely to make a point, usually in order to discredit an existing policy.  Since you yourself admitted on my talk page that my edit was not disruptive, and that you have no problem with the content of my edit to Theistic Satanism, and since I am not advocating for any Wikipedia policy or edit you have made to be changed other than the clinical lycanthropy see-also (which is very clearly not related to the external sources edit you made later), exactly what is it that you are complaining about here?  --Jarandhel (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's usually best to just let WP:Gray Area issues pass. As I said above, there's no problem with the type of both ip and logged in editing you did but I would suggest that a note somewhere (user page, talk page, edit summary) to the effect "forgot to log on" would make life simpler. Gerardw (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I maintain that the edit ''was. exactly. what. WP:POINT. warns. against''. If no one else can see that then fine. But if the editor themself won't admit that it was improper behavior (to make that edit like two seconds after mine with a copypasted edit summary), then they'll likely try similar things again in the future, with the same excuses they've given here (as if it's not obvious they were personally peeved by my edit and tried (and failed) to peeve me in an equal way, assuming I was personally invested in TS). I'm not interested in co-operating with them. (I had some interest in watching over/trying to improve the otherkin article, having been involved in otherkin communities.)

If you've edited about the see-also links in that article earlier from your username and now from your IP (WP:SPI is irrelevant, the connection between the accounts is already clear), it could be deduced that you're trying to avoid accusations of edit warring or the like. I haven't read the discussions in the archives but if you were involved there and there was a consensus to keep the link, then you would indeed be using the IP in a sock-like manner to pretend you're a different person. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think your statement "I'm not interested in co-operating with them." really says it all about which of us is being uncvil.


 * As for your point regarding the see-also links: in September, I edited the Otherkin article to remove a see-also link to "Fantasy Prone Personality". (diff)  At that time, Clinical Lycanthropy was not a see-also on the article, and had not been since April 2008 (diff).  I made the mistake of making my edit summary, in September, "rm editorializing see-also; same problem as the previous see also clinical lycanthropy".  The very next edit, one day later, was DreamGuy adding back the link to Clinical Lycanthropy that had been removed in 2008.  (diff).  I removed it. (diff)  You undid my edit with the comment "s'very obviously connected and it doesn't matter that otherkin people would find it's inclusion here offensive or whatever". (diff)  I undid your edit, and commented on your talk page (accidentally posted to the redirect rather than the actual talk page). (diff + comment).  Equivamp undid my edit (diff) at which point I commented on Equivamps talk page but did not undo the edit again. (comment)  Using either my IP or my account.  I think it's fairly plain that I was not editing logged out to avoid accusations of edit-warring or the like since there hadn't been an edit-war over this since 2008 and since I was clearly trying to handle things on people's talk pages rather than edit-warring.  See, I was (and am) interested in cooperating on this.  --Jarandhel (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Jarandhel, will you agree not to essentially copy another editor's summary in the future? In my opinion, such an agreement from you would be more than adequate to bring this to closure. Gerardw (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Gerardw, as the summary I used was accurate for the edit I performed, and as Jeraphine has specifically stated "I do not have a problem with the actual content of your edit.", I do not see why the language used by one editor would be magically off-limits for another editor to use.
 * Also, since the edit made was nondisruptive, it very clearly falls under the scope of WP:NOTPOINTY. Especially given the fact that, regardless of what Jeraphine has chosen to believe about my motivations for making that edit, I have NOT advocated for the links to Otherkin.net or the Otherkin FAQ to be added back to the article.  I have not reverted her edit, I have not added a discussion to the talk page about it, I have not commented on her talkpage about it, etc.  Jeraphine has chosen to believe that my edit reflects a particular opinion on the subject, nothing more.


 * Because of this, and especially given that Jeraphine has at this point explicitly stated "I'm not interested in co-operating with them", thus demonstrating that this request for assistance has been made in bad faith, I see no reason that I should be making concessions which limit my ability to use appropriate edit summaries for edits I perform. I believe the matter should be brought to closure on the basis that I have not acted in violation of Wikiquette or Wikipedia Policy, especially given the original editor's stated unwillingness to cooperate with me or to accept the advice that this is a WP:Gray Area.  --Jarandhel (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Using your own words to make an edit summary should cost you essentially nothing. The reason you would make trivial concessions would be for the good of the encyclopedia, which is a collaborative effort. Accusing Jeraphine of bad faith for requesting assistance is not a positive move. Gerardw (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You seriously expect anyone to believe that you didn't do that on purpose? And if you did indeed just newly discover the external links policy, why go straight to that and only to that article that you assumed to be of importance to me? It's beyond all doubt that you were trying to "get back" at me, and such behavior is considered disruptive. (The content of your edit may have been in line with policy this time but deliberately trying to upset other editors is still not permitted.) The fact that you're still denying this shows that you won't be easy to co-operate with. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The goal of Wikiquette assistance is to reach a resolution both parties are happy with. , not to referee squabbles. Wikipedia is not a zero-sum contest. My final advice is for Jeraphine to drop the stick and Jarandhel to make a reasonable concession. I regret I cannot be of more help; possibly another WQA volunteer can be more successful. Gerardw (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That wasn't justified. I only want Jarandhel to confirm that they won't use inappropriate tactics again, that's not too much to expect if we're working on the same article. I don't know what kind of edits will be made to the article in the future and if we ever need to co-operate again, so, yes, I can drop the stick now, but then what? For now I'll just leave it and hope I don't have to interact with them again. (By me the case can be closed.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to mention it, or if another Wikiquette assistance thread should be started, or something else, but far from dropping the stick Jeraphine has continued to harp on this matter, even claiming on the Theistic Satanism talk page that my edit was malicious (diff). In my opinion, this clearly does not show either WP:CIV or WP:AGF being exercised and to my mind underscores that Jeraphine is acting in bad faith towards me by trying to rouse negative sentiment against me among other editors.  --Jarandhel (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)