Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive115

Jayjg
Hello, I've been having difficulty with a user Jayjg and am seeking advice on how to resolve this. We have had several arguments regarding wiki policy as applied to a page. We've both made same ad hom. accusations. I had labeled him with wp:tagteam, wp:owner, wp:hound and of acting in bad faith. I also brought up some previous e-mails and disputes where he's been punished for demonstrating this behavior. He's accused me of breaking just about every wiki rule I think there is, many of which I feel apply to his behavior.

Many of the accusations and blame go both ways. I feel his is wrong on topics such as wp:synth and he feels I'm wrong. He followed me to wp:nor talk when I was looking for a 3rd party opinion on our dispute and answered it himself without mentioning he is involved in the conflict. I also had added a relevant comment on an unrelated page he maintains, in which he responded with a personal attack and later a border line threat "Unlike what I have done, you are now actually WP:HOUNDing me, and that better be the last time you do it."

I was particularly concerned about two things:

1. When ever I ask for other peoples opinions after he comments (he comments on all my threads), he interrupts claiming consensus already took place (when it couldn't have as the post was very new and there were people on both sides) or that his opinion matters more because he's a "more experienced editor". I've seen him do this to other people as well and I feel it makes for a hostile environment.

2. He followed me to someones personal page when I asked why they believed "aggregation was synthesis" (they had only posted "It is SYTNH.") he interrupted our conversation and accusing me of "hectoring" people which I feel crossed the line. The personal who owns the page can be free to end the conversation.

I'd like to get to the point where:


 * 1. I won't be harassed when having a personal conversation on someones else page.


 * 2. I would like to promote an environment where everyone has a chance to express their opinion ( meaning perhaps a week, not hours or a day) without the conversation being declared "over", wp:IDHT or done with prematurely when there is clearly not a consensus.


 * 3. We can have a discussion without it turning into a wiki lawyer debate, and when wiki lawyering is necessary, we can seek unbiased outside council when we disagree.

I'm seeking dispute resolution because I don't feel we can get through this without a 3rd party. If you can let me know how we can work through it would be helpful.

Thanks, Gsonnenf (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have occasionally contributed at Talk:Circumcision, and I just reviewed current discussions there. I cannot see an issue that needs resolution here. If you have applied terms such as "tagteam" and are wondering what to do about that, just stop doing it. If you believe inappropriate terms have been directed at you, please give some precise examples because in a quick scan I cannot see it. It is standard for editors A and B to disagree at an article talk page, then for A to raise the issue at a noticeboard (you should have used WP:NORN not the policy talk page WT:No original research by the way), and for B to comment at that discussion giving their views on the background. Such behavior by B can be disruptive if they attempt to monopolize the discussion, as that discourages comment by others. I do not see that at Talk:NOR. When editing in a contentious area, editors have to be prepared for plain speaking—I cannot see anything that goes beyond that, and it is very appropriate to give links to WP:SYNTH and WP:MEDRS when appropriate (and the links do seem appropriate). I would suggest that it would be best to avoid joining really contentious discussions at this stage, such as is likely to occur at Talk:Jews. Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Jayjg does need a reminder from time to time about civility. Yesterday I failed to check history or talk before putting some "news" info into an obscure article. It turned out Jayjg had reverted earlier an person's similar entry and reverted me writing in the edit summary: (per Talk: page and WP:STALK) Assuming he's talking about me (or even if talking about the earlier editor) that just seems extremely uncivil. I said in talk Jayjg should go to the individual's talk page and tell them what the problem is, not make such accusations in edit summaries. Jayjg works on a dozen, even two dozen, articles a day, so it's not surprising since we edit often in the same Israel-Palestine area, we're going to run into each other. (Note he then did revert his reversion of my edit for further discussion - so this is ongoing.)
 * In another recent issue there was an error on my part (notifying a Wikiproject not listed on the article talk page - frankly, it didn't occur to me to look at them or that that was the best place to start; mea culpa). Rather than explain I'd overlooked doing so, as another editor later did, he insulted me for defending going to that project and told me I'd "got off easy" - see diff. So the issue of whether Jayjg uses incivility and threats of administrative sanctions to get his way on articles remains. Note that later some agreed posting to that other Wikiproject was in fact appropriate when that became part of a larger issue on Dispute resolution noticeboard and Wikiproject Feminism. So it's not even like he was 100% right in what he was threatening to sanction me for. And this is also part of an ongoing debate, at least on the main article, if not the original one. CarolMooreDC 14:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * thanks for the advice on wp:norn. I was not aware this page existed. Is there a similar page for advice on wp:medrs ( I'm not too worried about the current wp:primary / wp:medrs disupte but would like to know in case another disagreement arises. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsonnenf (talk • contribs) 15:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the only noticeboard relevant to WP:MEDRS is WP:RSN (the generic reliable sources noticeboard). FYI, links are case sensitive apart from the first character, so WP:NORN works but wp:norn does not. The link wp:medrs only works because someone made a redirect with that spelling. Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @CarolMooreDC: The edit summary you mentioned is not a model of welcoming civility, but is it really a problem? If you have several edits reverted by the same user with a similar summary, there might be a problem, but once does not seem anything to worry about. I don't want to take the time to fully investigate The Atlanta Jewish Times but it looks like a case of unfortunate timing where someone added a section to the article, and Jayjg removed it as undue and put an explanation at talk, then 14 hours later you essentially restored the material without commenting at the talk. Since the material is an "in the news" item, you had not seen the earlier edit, and can hardly be blamed for failing to check the talk page before adding what you thought was new text. However, after Jayjg's revert, you might look at the matter from their point of view: I have no idea what the "stalking" comment referred to, but a simple denial is all that's required along with a very brief statement that you had not noticed the earlier edit. Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We really are talking about a long time modus operandi here, of which the above is just a few recent examples. But just knowing people in the community are discussing it here may be enough to change behavior for a while. It would mine if I came up here :-) CarolMooreDC 04:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Gsonnenf has not notified Jayjg of this Wikiquette assistance request. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * . Nobody Ent 10:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from 3 recent edits, the editing of Gsonnenf in 2012 seems quite different from the editing in 2007-2009. Logged-off edits, however, come from the same geographical area. Mathsci (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Boomerang very very strongly applies in this situation.
 * Regarding the first point 2: my talk page is an open environment, the level of aggression from Gsonnenf—of requesting explanations for clearly explained content—is confusing from an established editor. The only reason why I dismissed their hostility and did not respond was that I perceived them to be a newer editor.  Jayjg's description of Gsonnenf's interactions with me on my talk page as "hectoring" accurately reflects what they made me felt, I was sufficiently offended to respond with an "asked and answered".  Failing to sign posts is of course a bonus.
 * Regarding the second point 2: posting hypotheticals, rather than concrete edits; posting a noticeboard issue to a policy talk page, and not a noticeboard; failing to read archives and policy; and being aggressive when corrected aren't good conduct from Gsonnenf. The proposed hypothetical is is a "perennial" way to avoid PRIMARY policy, and MEDRS is really really clear on the kind of crap encyclopaedism being pushed by Gsonnenf.  Gross incompetence over fundamental policy from an established editor is incivil; as is IDHT behaviour when it is explained that their proposed approach to sources is not acceptable.  This is MEDRS for goodness sake, we produced this policy because of the dodgy editing practices being proposed by Gsonnenf. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally, this diff indicates a willingness to sock via IP to force a content issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to present specific examples before editors can evaluate your complaint. Also, you should not yourself violate incivility, which you say you have.  When you post a request to the third party opinion noticeboard, you should mention that fact on the article's talk page.  TFD (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Edits like this (also Gsonnenf) do not look good at all. Mathsci (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to add to this, he has been using personal attacks on me based on my my religious beliefs and where I live. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Jews&curid=1506019&diff=473273960&oldid=473271723 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs) 11:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Rude and non-responsive IP editor


This IP editor has been engaging in a non-responsive slow-running edit war on these articles (and is branching out to other ones). In the listed articles s/he is making inappropriate additions to infoboxes (e.g. this series of edits to Battle of Monmouth) Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. User has never responded to any civil talk page requests to discuss his edits (see talk pages of all the above), and does not appear to have ever edited a talk page. User has also recently been leaving insulting edit comments for which he has been warned.

The first IP is a shared academic address, the second may well be personal, based on editing patterns. User may also be a known offender; I don't know how to go about diagnosing that.  Magic ♪piano 18:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Magicpiano. I believe the editor is someone's sock and the behavior is unacceptable. He is willing to call people idiots in edit summaries but has made no effort to communicate on either his user talk pages or the article talk pages although numerous editors have tried to get him to do precisely that. He is also using these IPs:




 * I've seen his edits back to October and he has been edit-warring ever since albeit slowly. I believe that a non-sock, Wiki newbie would either have been conversing on a talk page by now or would have been asking for an admin by now because their edits didn't stick. Not him...he just keeps pushing his edits back again and insulting other editors. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  22:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Also All the ips are near Pittsburgh, editing the same parts of the same articles. They don't overlap in time. Except the schoolip, they stop during school hours. LeadSongDog come howl!  00:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Lecen bad faith personal attacks


I made a comment on Paraguayan War as it is usually known as the War of the Triple Alliance in English, Paraguayan War tends to be a minority term used predominantly in Brazil - though it does feature in English language histories of Brazil. User:Lecen has been needlessly hostile to innocent comments eg, today after a politely worded notice that per WP:TPG he should not refactor other's comments he reverts with the comment "Removed bullshit" and posted this rant on my talk page  with threats, bad faith attacks and apparently "I should learn my place". I haven't participated in any of the bad faith attacks in the move discussion, I have so far per WP:AGF written his comments off to a misunderstanding but this is too much. Can someone independent please remind him that per WP:TPG he should not refactor talk page discussions and that WP:CIVIL is not optional. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC) His response to the WQA note required per guideliens "removed more bullshit". Wee Curry Monster talk 18:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * These are recurring issues with Lecen, across many articles and pages, aimed at anyone who disagrees with him on any number of issues, articles, or content areas. Unless the folks who frequent WP:WQA are able to do something about this (which I doubt they can or will, because they haven't dealt with Lecen in past reports here), I point out that Requests for comment/Lecen is a red link. By the way, as a result of my post here (a page I follow), Lecen has suggested that I "might try to kill him".   I don't know how such hystrionic language relates to no legal threats or whatever policies we have that cover such things (do we have a "no threat of death threat" policy?), but oh my ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A discussion has been started at ANI about Lecen's bizarre posts about Sandy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am going to begin my comment here in support of Wee Curry Monster for the way Lecen has been treating him these past few days. While Lecen has also made a series of aggressive comments and accusations towards me, I will address these (and other issues) below this message. WCM has kept his cool, been objective, and yet has received as much (if not even more) personal attacks from Lecen than even myself. Why? All due to a simple discussion over an article's title. If Lecen gets so combative over a mere title, one can only imagine how he may get in more serious matters. Sandy provides a bigger record on this editor than even I knew about.
 * Regarding my relationship with WCM. As can be seen in Talk:Falkland Islands, I am not WCM's "friend" (which is what Lecen aggressively indicates in WCM's talk page: ). I do have to admit that this whole discussion has changed my view on WCM, towards the positive, but that still does not make us "friends" by any definition of the word (If a barrel fell on my head, I am sure WCM would not really care at all). Actually, I get the feeling that WCM really does not like me very much (particularly my writing style), and at this time is probably wondering why we're on the "same side" of a discussion (technically, I am arguing from one position while he argues from another, though ultimately both converge in a single conclusion which is that in favor of moving the "Paraguayan War" to "War of the Triple Alliance"). Having stated that, here are some other points regarding Lecen's behavior :
 * Accusations of canvassing and sockpupetry: One user made use of sock puppets in the RM discussion, and for some reason he now swings it at everyone involved on the matter. I made a post at Jimbo Wales' page, and I even took the time to present my defense from his accusation, and yet he continues to accuse me (and everyone else) of canvassing.
 * Xenophobia: I am from Peru, and he is from Brazil. For some reason he thinks that I have something against him because he is Brazilian and I am Peruvian. He also seems to think that WCM and all the other non-Brazilian editors have something against him due to his nationality. Note that I am not accusing him of xenophobia (despite his actions do show some signs of that), but rather he is accusing me of it.
 * Bullying and WP:DIVA: Lecen constantly reminds everyone of his "FA and GA articles", tries to impose his apparent "veteran" status on Brazil-related articles, and thinks he can use such tactics to force other users to agree with him. To me that is clear bullying. He also uses diva behavior, threatening to leave the project (to his "friends") if things don't go his way.
 * More exist, but it's beyond the point. I personally have nothing against Lecen and find his contributions to be fantastic. Perhaps because of his profession (lawyer) he thinks that it's good to always be on a "battleground" when it comes to topics close to them. I don't know. What I do know is that his "friends" here in Wikipedia, instead of guiding him on the right direction (ie, calm him down), either fuel his position or let him continue this aggressive behavior. I wouldn't call them friends, hence the quotation marks, and I do believe that they are as much a part to this behavioral problem as Lecen. Sadly, I don't think WQA is meant for a wide-range "counseling" situation. I hope this problem can be resolved in a peaceful manner. Note: I was writing this when the ANI situation came up; for the sake of expressing my opinion, which may or may not be relevant to the matter at this time, I am publishing it. -- MarshalN20 | T a l k 00:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good summary. Lecen is incapable of taking on board reasonable criticism of his articles and has alienated many reviewers as a result. His responses to those who have had the temerity to oppose one of his FACs ought to have dealt with well before now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed Lecen's work, and got into a battleground-esque fight over source quality. I've reviewed Lecen's work and had a comfortable and friendly discussion over content and historiography.  Lecen is a valuable editor, working in an area of the encyclopaedia that needs more valuable editors.  Many editors need to reduce their levels of combativeness, I wish we could do this better. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Sadowski personal attack
After a disputed edit on Lincoln Capri, he called me an idiot & suggested I read the source. I had not only read the source, I relied on it for the disputed information. He followed with two further insults suggesting I was incompetent to edit on the subject, since the source was wrong & he knew better. He also left an edit summary calling me immature. Notice, I didn't start with the insults, the original edits were both gf & sourced, & the deletions were unsourced & contrary to the sourced material. I don't need this crap from him. TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  07:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * He's also messing around with your talk page, restoring comments you deleted, an action which is against WP:TALK guidelines. I see WP:DICKish behavior by Sadowski. Wikipedia is not the place for abusive editors who think they know more than the sources. Binksternet (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Subject of this thread has been notified. Binksternet (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. I do in fact believe that Trekphiler is totally unqualified to be editing the Lincoln pages. Trekphiler does not display any common sense knowledge of the features or styling that was current during the periods in question. On the other hand I do not have a copy of Flory. But if Flory contradicts these facts then Flory is clearly wrong. One merely needs to consult other sources such as the Standard Catalogs of American Cars or sales brochures or data books or even more simply the actual cars built (such as the one in my garage). Sadowski (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also want to remind people that the abusive conduct is not mine. I have not called Trekphiler an "asshole" and I have not called him a "moron". These are purely his word choices.Sadowski (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sadowski,  you are in no position to say who is qualified to edit an article - you do NOT own the article , regardless of how much expertise you think you might have. You have been warned about such behaviour before and, again, it is totally unacceptable. Both of you are equally at fault, probably need your heads banged together for a while, and probably need administrator intervention. ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   09:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just an update. I have obtained copies of Flory's books. Flory is in complete agreement with the sales brochures and with Kowalke. This does not at all surprise me. I was quite sure that Trekphiler had not actually read Flory (either that or he has serious trouble with reading comprehension). For example, Flory clearly states that AC was introduced as an option in 1955 on page 664 of the relevant volume ("available" does not mean standard). The bottom of page 664 also lists it in a table cearly labeled "Major Options". The problem is thus not with the sources. The problem is with people citing sources they either have not read or cannot comprehend. It is simply wrong to state that a source says something it does not. Unfortunately in my opinion this is a very common occurence at Wikipedia.Sadowski (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how content is an issue on this board. This is about how editors treat each other. You called Trekphiler an idiot. He called you an asshole (I don't much care who started it). Sounds like you both need to cool it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Trekphiler also called me a "moron". But evidently despite being a moron I am actually able to comprehend the sources I cite. If the issue is treatment then the question is why did Trekphiler feel it was necessary to undo the positive changes done by the anonymous editor when that editor mostly correctly cited those changes and Trekphiler's reversals were clearly incorrectly cited? Moreover he has a history of routinely undoing positive additions that are easily cited (or more recently, which were correctly cited) and ironically agree with the single source he has demonstrably incorrectly cited. Is that considered Civil Behavior?


 * By the way I am cool. I'm so cool that unlike some people I'm eager to talk this through without erasing all evidence of the discussion. Sadowski (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been accused of using sockpuppetry and adding OR to a page
I have been accused of using sockpuppetry and adding OR to a page and threatened with being reported for adding cited information to an article by Mabuska. He accuses me of being some other IP user because I havent been on here for a while and got involved with wikipedia again and started edditing again around the same time he was having a dispute with some IP. He threatens me with an investigation, then threatens to report me when all I'm trying to do is remove OR and improve a page. Can someone please help?



Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Odoital25 (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly the evidence that you were using sockpuppets can be found at: Sockpuppet_investigations/Odoital25. Just because you have now started to sign your comments doesn't suddenly make you innocent.
 * Secondly i have only threatened to report you for constant violation of WP:BRD and your failure to properly discuss the issue. You can improve a page if you wish however if you make an edit that is reverted you have to discuss it - not continue on as if you WP:OWN the article ignroing others opinions. Regardless of whether your opinion is right or wrong - you must abide by Wikipedias rules. Mabuska (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Being compared to Hitler


AlphaQuadrant compared me to Adolf Hitler in this. I am horrifically offended by this! I abhor Hitler, the Nazis, and all they stand for. Hail the Dark Lord Satan (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (sigh), I am beginning to see why you did a cleanstart... Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  22:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * HTDLS, please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Thank you.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  22:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Rude/Uncooperative Editor


Editor in question has so far refused to participate (despite being invited to) in the discussion to state his reasons for the edit reversions. A consensus was reached the the discussion regarding the future of the articles mentioned due to WP:NOT. Editor left this message on my talkpage - Don't use WP:NOTGUIDE be the reason, if you can do it, why don't you use this reason to edit for all Singapore MRT stations, if you can't, you're the silly rubbish! and on his edit summaries in the above mentioned articles - Rubbish Planenut, don't think you are correct, don't do any rubbish delete!''- Rgds. Planenut (Talk)  '' 16:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Editor in question has not popped by here despite being invited to. Suggestions? - Rgds. Planenut  (Talk)   11:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Abusive editor


I am being publically accused by this editor on the talk page of "meatpuppetry", and I have done nothing of the kind. This editor is now threatening me as follows: "''Any further attempts to tamper with this page through a mendacious and systematic process will result in me submitting yet another easily proven entry on your to an administrator and a resulting permanent ban." ''

After spending a considerable amount of time researching and finding proper citations, and working with other (more reasonable) editors trying to improve the article, it seems we had reached a consensus - only to be completely reverted by this editor. Based upon past discussions with him, it appears he has a COI, and has consistently attempted to remove or disrupt any negative information on the agency.

As an editor with a couple hundred edits to my credit, Wiki doesn't pay us enough to have to endure this kind of abuse.

Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is a contentious article, and Computer Guy 2 was blocked for sockpuppetry on January 14, 2012, for 3 days. Computer Guy 2 also reported AceD at WP:SPI, and the closing admin note stated, in part: "I do think this is an attempt on Computer Guy 2's part to try to deal with an edit war through alternative means." .--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was blocked - for stupidity in trying to change my identity. In all fairness, you should have pointed out that AceD was warned for Edit Warring against this editor and warned for using multiple accounts in August, 2011.  Nevertheless, Bbb23, I thought we worked together pretty well to hammer out a reasonable section - which has now been deleted.  Computer Guy 2 (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the link to the SPI report has the "warning" you refer to, but it's a bit more innocuous than that. HelloAnnyong said only that he warned AceD about being sure to log in and that he thought that AceD's edit was accidental while logged out. As for you and me, quite honestly, I found you difficult to work "with", but certainly not enough to complain about your conduct. The section in the article you're referring to is messy, and I haven't paid a lot of attention to what's going on since I did a bit of work on the article, mainly because I felt that to do so I'd have to go through it line by line, source by source, and I haven't had the time. However, at a glance, it looked like it wasn't the entire section that was at issue, but that numbered list of agents. To the extent that AceD is trying to eliminate the list and incorporate it into the text, I would - and normally Wikipedia also would - favor that kind of presentation. In any event, this report you've brought is more about the comments made by AceD than by the content war that triggered them, and I must say that his comments are a bit over the top - it's not clear to me that either of you is handling the article neutrally, or each other in a collaborative and respectful fashion. Both of you have a singular interest in the article and in related articles, which often doesn't bode well for neutral editing or calm tempers.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the referenced warning, I simply repeated the heading posted by HelloAnnyong on AceD's Talk Page, "Warning on multiple accounts". Just for the record, there is no "content war" on my part.  I simply posted current, cited and verified information, along with other editors, directly pertaining to the heading and removed unverified material.  Months ago, when it was clear that no progress was being made in discussion with AceD, I just dropped it and walked away.  Since then, I've given considerable thought to this whole process, and personally resolved to be a better editor by not responding to flame-baiting, goading, personal attacks and other forms of incivility.  While I do have a narrow spectrum of interest, it certainly isn't singular, and I've posted to a number of articles.  Computer Guy 2 (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

According to No personal attacks, "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, one who is blocked, or even one who has been subject to action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." Computer Guy 2 (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Some comments as an uninvolved editor: It's clear that there is a long standing conflict between you both (Computer Guy 2 and AceD). The comments by AceD are indeed over the top. And I can't be the only admin who is profoundly irritated by editors proclaiming "You will be blocked when I report you" and the like. Being treated like a compliant standby doesn't dispose me to look favorably upon the wielder's viewpont. It's also clear that you both have strong opinions on the subject and that this may be affecting your respective abilities to work together on this article. I have noticed a clear pattern in both of your talk page edits of 1) discussing the topic beyond what is necessary to improve the article and 2) disrespectful commentary on each other. I urge you both to evaluate your approach to editing and to talk page discussions and to think about what your goals are here. You will not convince each other of your respective points of view. The article will not look the way you would prefer and will probably appear biased to you. But, if you keep your conversations concise, the focus always on the article text itself and not the ATF generally, and have as a main goal finding a wording and form that is mutually acceptable and conforms to verifiability and neutral point of view, you can get through it. Computer Guy 2, it seems like you've already done this to some degree and kudos for that, sincerely. Danger High voltage! 07:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am quite tired of arguing with you about this, that much is true. As far as the content resolution side of it, you and you alone keep promoting this anti-ATF agenda dispite numerous editors on the talk page fundamentally disagreeing with the section you alone are responsible for, it is that simple.

Beyond that, it is beyond debate that you have engaged in meatpuppetry. You have now twice referred to (here, and on the talk page) the "numerous editors" that you "built a consensus with" as support for your point of view, without acknowledging that these "numerous editors" are friends of yours from an anti-ATF message board where you posted this article and asked for support. Not the first time you have done so, either. Subsequently, multiple people registered for the first time for an account and promoted your same point of view to reach your idea of a "consensus". I haven't reported you yet, because I have strong suspicion that such an act will get you permanently banned so close on the heels of your latest sockpuppetry ban, but will certainly do so today if you persist in this action and vitrol. Beyond that, I think the true consensus regarding the content speaks for itself, and I am done with it.AceD (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

With the exception of 9 early postings, AceD has occupied nearly all his time on Wikipedia reverting the undersigned's edits and engaging in personal attacks on the undersigned. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=AceD) To be fair, there was a short period of rational, almost cordial discussion. The AceD account was created on 5 Feb 2006, posted one edit, and was silent for over 5 years. AceD began using the account again on 9 August 2011, made 8 minor posts, then exclusively began reverting the undersigned's edits, edit warring and making personal attacks. He made no posts to any other subject area. When confronted with the evidence, AceD responded that he had "forgotten" about the account and had been previously posting under various IP addresses. Wikipedia specifically forbids this practice; "Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users."

Before changing to the AceD name, he posted almost identical edits as 71.226.23.207 (13 July 2011 - 23 August 2011) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.226.23.207), beginning his postings by reverting the undersigned's edits. Just prior to 71.226.23.207, another ID (71.203.85.14) was used to post nearly identical edits and engaged in vandalism (17 March 2011 - 30 March 2011). When other editors were critical of 71.203.85.14 failing to sign his posts, he responded, "I don't sign things because I do not yet know how." How many other IP addresses were used by AceD is anybody's guess. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with some of the less involved editors that both of you are taking it too far. If you have suspicions of sockpuppetry or other policy violations, report it at the appropriate place and it will be addressed. Instead, both of you seem to be throwing the accusations out there to try to win the argument over the content of the article, which basically just annoys other people and accomplishes nothing. If your suspicions are justified, this conflict could be over tomorrow thanks to banning, or otherwise those accusations can at least be put aside and everyone can focus on improving the article. Since you specifically mentioned article content above, I'll just say that I'm generally closer to AceD's opinions in terms of article content. You obviously have strong feelings about the ATF and its actions, which is fine and maybe even admirable, but doesn't always lead to a better encyclopedia article. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 16:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I brought out AceD's background is because my background was brought out for all to see - and not in a neutral or objective way. AceD's sockpuppetry was previously addressed in a complaint, however HelloAnnyong was unable to make the connection between the various IP addresses and AceD. My background in other articles is irrelevant to this issue. I repeat the earlier quote, "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, one who is blocked, or even one who has been subject to action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." The topic of this request for assistance is personal attacks on the undersigned. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not the place to revisit a 6 month old complaint you made where the investigation found there was no wrongdoing on my part and that you were warned for superficially trying to carry out an edit war. Especially since you are the only sockpuppet in this conversation, and are even now continuing to engage in similar behavior.


 * For the record, I have exclusively used only one username- not three like yourself- on wikipedia. Before that username I exclusively used a single IP address at a given time.  I have never presented myself as different entities in the same conversation, unlike what you have done on multiple occassions.  And never will.  But I can't fail to see the irony of being consistently accused of sockpuppetry by someone who has been banned from editing this article for months on end and is within two weeks of coming off a ban for multiple sockpuppets.


 * Further, to Hazydan's point- this is no attempt by me to "win" an argument or debate on this issue. Indeed, I do not see a present issue as over the past year not a single individual (outside of the meatpuppets that registered yesterday) have supported Computer Guy's well documented attempts to enumerate each and every issue with ATF.  Numerous people, in various different venues, have explained that the section is unbalanced, redundant, uncalled for and/or crass NPOV.


 * Now back to you, Computer Guy/Ike/Solo I Fatty- your history DOES matter. Even a cursory glance at your history shows that EVERYBODY seemingly has a problem with you.  Even the people who do "work" with you subsequently explain the difficulty in dealing with you.  This is very telling.  I can honestly say that you are the ONLY person I have EVER had an issue with on wikipedia.  You mention that most of my posts have been edits on your material, and in some way try to cast that in a negative light.  However, by your own admission now, you recognize that the very same material you blasephemy me for editing did not belong in the first place and you, as the original editor, were wrong for posting?  How in ANY way is that an indictment on my history?AceD (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, "The only reason I brought out AceD's background is because my background was brought out for all to see - and not in a neutral or objective way." Now, we have yet another personal attack. I have no intention of responding to flame-baiting. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Query: how is a mutual focus on each other's editing history and behavior helping improve Wikipedia? Are you closer to finding a resolution to any disputes over content than you were yesterday? Danger High voltage! 01:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Answer. My purpose in bringing this situation to Wikiquette assistance is to clearly demonstrate the personal attacks upon the undersigned.  AceD's continued speculation on my off-site identity is a clear and flagrant violation of No personal attacks and Harassment.  AceD's threat to continue disrupting my work on Wikipedia is a clear violation of Harassment.  AceD's continued personal attacks upon the undersigned on this page consist of prima facie evidence of Harassment.   Further, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment....whether any such information is accurate or not."   Other editors have engaged in Wikihounding and continuing the personal attacks.  None of these violations contribute to constructive editing nor finding any resolution.  Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, yet another bait and switch on your part....and another outright lie. Please read these policies you so flippantly throw out.  "Personal information" is defined by wikipedia policy as "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other personal contact information".  Kindly link where any of these items have been posted by this user or any other.  You won't though, because you can't.  I didn't respond to you last comment, because there was nothing to respond to.  Just leave it alone.  You have made your "point", and repeatedly changing the issues that you have with me literally from post to post is only going to provide the opposite effect that you intend.AceD (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wiki-policy isn't a legal code. Repeatedly referring and linking to to a user's undisclosed off-wiki identity may be seen as harassment, regardless of whether that specific type of information is listed in policy. I see that you have not responded or apparently listened to either of my comments. What exactly do you hope to accomplish here? Danger High voltage! 02:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * First, I have "listened" to your advice. I do not see the need to verbalize my acknowledgment, though maybe that was an error.  However, the essence of your advice has been received and acted on- I am not posting anymore in the article, not engaging with Computer Guy, etc.  I didn't even respond to his penultimate comment earlier today, but I did feel his most recent remark and false accusations merited a defense, without overly vindictive personal remarks or verbal comments that expanded the scope of the discussion beyond a defense.  I was done with the "content" some time ago, as I also mentioned earlier.  When viewed through the prism that I am not the reason that we are here and did not initiate this action, I can only say that I can truly answer your question "what do you hope to accomplish here" with...Nothing.


 * Beyond that, there is no "repeated" action here- I posted the complaint and have been done with it. Computer Guy 2 is the only one bringing it up now.  And the "off-wiki" identity isn't "undisclosed", in fact Computer Guy 2 is who disclosed that previously unknown website to this editor and into one of our previous discussions, while acknowledging his postings here there.


 * Now, I will certainly be done with this issue....if allowed to be. And truly, thanks for the advice.AceD (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Both of you should really pay attention to Danger and Hazydan and just stop. Rehashing the bad blood, fighting about the content of the article - none of that will accomplish anything. Computer Guy 2, I suggest you end this topic. AceD, I suggest you be a little less strident in your language; regardless of whether you think it's supportable, it's not constructive. Both of you should pay more attention to the good of the encyclopedia rather than your own viewpoints. And if you can't edit the article neutrally, then don't edit it at all. Edit other articles you don't feel strongly about.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur. Nobody Ent 02:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems I posted this on the wrong assistance page. I was looking for administrator intervention rather than any rehashing of bad blood. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * CG2 has copied all of the posts here to WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, you beat me to it. Thanks for the help. I opened this discussion, and am closing it by moving the entire discussion to WP:ANI. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Borgy


I encountered Borgy back in September at Neighborhoods (Blink-182 album) and again this week at Crash Love. On both occassions I was very put off by his edit summaries and left him warnings about personal attacks:. Considering the length of time he's been on Wikipedia I found his incivility unacceptable, so I took a look at his history to see if there were more examples. It appears he's not very active, having made only about 1,400 edits in his 6.25 years here — He'll pop in for a bunch of edits and then be absent for months, which has probably allowed his uncivil comments to go unnoticed.

Initially I wasn't going to bother coming here because many of the offending comments are old, since he edits infrequently, but relative to the span of his contributions and the length of time he's been here the edit summaries are rather intolerable. Here are some highlights. These go back 8 or 9 months, but keep in mind they're all from his 60 most recent edits & this is someone who's been active on & off for over 6 years:
 * "Fuck Off idiot."
 * "Yeah nice editing, clearly you're a Vines fan in the know..."
 * "don't mess up my work."
 * "I don't care about the technical shit. My design looks better."
 * "stfu (shut the fuck up) if you had any brains you'd have realized the other cover is the Future Primitive single"
 * "Stick to your disposable 'American Idol' thanks"
 * "stfu you ego tripper"
 * "Bon Appetit Douchebag

I don't think I'm off-base in saying this kind of behavior is unacceptable, particularly from an editor of over 6 years (on and off) experience. Because he tends to disappear for a few months once he seems to have gotten his way, I doubt the warnings I left him will elicit any sort of response or change in behavior. What action, if any, should the community take in a situation like this? IllaZilla (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * IllaZilla, you should just report him to an admin and get him blocked. His personal attacks are bad enough that he deserves it. Waste of time bringing it here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My initial thought was to go to ANI, but they tend to just direct you to a more specific board if there is one (the "Are you in the right place?" list at the top of ANI), & I thought this would be the most pertinent board since it's about user communication. I also thought the situation a bit fuzzy since Borgy is such an intermittent editor, so the problematic comments aren't all recent (though they do show a pattern IMO) & ANI sometimes dismisses problems that aren't obviuosly recent or where a recent pattern isn't readily apparent. I can move this over to ANI if that would seem a better avenue. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, this board is a place to get editors with disputes over Wikiquette issues to discuss things; looking at Borgy's edit history, though, it really doesn't look like he wants to discuss anything. So yeah, a waste of time. If you don't want to bother people at ANI there's always AN instead. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The WQA notification was only recently presented -- let's WP:AGF and give the editor an opportunity to reply. Nobody Ent 02:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF is fine in principle, and I agree, we should wait a bit. But frankly, with Borgy's edit history, I think the outcome is predictable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In general, WP:CIVIL isn't enforced for lots of reasons. But in this case, I believe it should be reported an WP:ANI.  No harm in waiting for a response here from the editor first though, see what the editor has to say.  --HighKing (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I concur with the responses you've been given above, since as far as I can tell, the most recent absurdity was last September. Has she/he repeated same? If not, perhaps you're better off to have someone from here issue a warning, and then escalate to ANI if there is a another instance of. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oopsie ... wrong (it helps to put dates on diffs): I see this was on January 29. I agree; take it to ANI, and hope that some mature competent admins will weigh in. It happens occasionally :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Actually the most recent absurdity was just 3 days ago. Check the last diff above. That's the reason I brought this here instead of straight to ANI: Borgy doesn't edit very often, disappearing for months at a time. But when he is here, he tends to be uncivil and make personal attacks. I don't think he should escape scrutiny just because he edits infrequently. The attacks are chronologically far apart, but relative to the frequency his edits they're statistically close together (8 attacks within his last 60 edits). This demonstrates a pattern: When he is here, he's uncivil, and he's apparently escaped censure because he strikes & then vanishes. If someone is uncivil every time they're here, that merits some scrutiny, even if they're not here all all that often. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't bother taking it to ANI. Blocked. Danger High voltage! 11:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Viriditas Purpose redirects
See: User_talk:Viriditas

Viriditas has redirected Purpose multiple times.  I've asked the user multiple times to undo their redirect. This would be helpful to proceed with the talk page discussions. The user is taking a break now and the over 12 sources contributing to an article with about 400 hits per day, have been disrupted with a single redirect. I would appreciate it if someone else would look at Viriditas' behavior and contact Viriditas to correct the redirect disruption. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the disruption is coming from ZuluPapa5, who has refused to recognize the discussion at Talk:Purpose or the third opinion offered in that discussion by an outside party, or the previous consensus at Talk:Purpose. Because ZuluPapa5 will not use the article talk page to discuss this, I have requested that he use either the RS or NPOV noticeboard to make his case.  I've also asked him to stop using my user talk page to ask me the same question over and over again. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ZuluPapa5 is advised to read WP:BOOMERANG, as their behaviour appears to be blatant forum shopping. They posted a request at third opinion which I answered at the talk page. They must not have been satisfied with my comment, but this is not disruption on the part of Viriditas. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 03:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing just content dispute, not any wikiquette issue. Issue was already discussed on article talk. Open WP:RFC if more eyes on topic are desired. Nobody Ent 03:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or use DRN. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 03:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Severe personal attacks


In the edit of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARind_et_al._controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=474272867&oldid=474226276 the user resorted to insinuating/accusing another user of pedo-POV pushing, which is highly untrue statement. Comment was attempted to first be striked out, then removed but user refuses to have comment striked out or removed.

I'm hoping for a temporary block and personal attacks removed if possible. Juice  Leskinen  22:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Rind et al. controversy too. All I did was comment on the nature of this editor's edits, and I have the right to say that these edits are typical of a certain type of editing. Another editor also called out Juice's biased editing. Juice's editing is typical of the type of problematic editors that have plagued this article since its existence. 194.170.28.241 (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the reviewer can make up his own mind. So let him do so in peace. I will abide any decision without discussion. Juice   Leskinen  22:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with giving my side of the story. 194.170.28.241 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been watching Talk:Rind et al. controversy but am avoiding it due to the extremely unhelpful nature of messages from a write-only editor (not named here). Likewise I have not followed what is going on in the article (in a month or two, when the excitement has died down, established editors will evaluate all the changes and will remove anything inappropriate). While the talk page comment by 194.170.28.240 (diff above) is phrased to avoid saying "X is a bad person", the comment is not acceptable because "X is doing POV-pushing that is extremely typical of bad people" is just a wikilawyer's version of an obvious attack. Everyone at the article and its talk page are showing far too much experience for new editors and should know the ground rules: if there is any advocacy (as I say, I have not looked at the edits), the editors concerned, and their edits, will be removed from Wikipedia; attacks without evidence are not acceptable, and must not be made. The IP can email the Arbitration Committee (see that link for how), if they have evidence (do not post without good evidence as that will cause any future correspondence to be discounted). The IP should post a new section at the talk page (without naming any editor), and simply identify text in the article that they think is inappropriate, and why. Being combative will not help—just identify any problem content. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a block evader who has made similar personal attacks in the past. He has been blocked at least 6 times, including range blocks (check User:DeltaQuad's talk page for evidence). I will now attempt to semi-protect all his most frequented articles. Pass a Method   talk  18:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now look who's stalking who. No doubt you saw my most recent post to User talk:Herostratus. Well, as I said there, I was right and DeltaQuad was wrong, as evidenced by others seeing and reverting the same edits I reverted. The only reason I keep getting blocked is for being a proxy-IP and because I stalk you. So what? Others have agreed that your edits are generally bad. For example, how's the deletion debates regarding a few of your articles going? LOL.


 * By the way, I have to laugh at your threat to get my most frequented articles semi-protected. I don't have any frequented articles, other than the ones you visit, because I follow you. Duh. And you can't get any article I edit semi-protected. That's not a valid reason for semi-protection. My edits have to be problematic, and they haven't been. Besides that, as recently shown, I can get other editors to clean up dirty work. So you might as well face it that you're stuck with me.


 * P.S. If what I said about Juice's edits was actually considered a severe personal attack, administrators would have acted by now. 194.170.28.239 (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh well, seems your behavior is acceptable here. Keep on trolling man, good effort so far! Juice   Leskinen  20:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Request help
The folks with an agenda are editing Kinetic Sculpture Race again. Here's the latest diff:. Please notice the personal attack in the edit summary. Additionally, they're making very nasty comments on Facebook, where they claim that me, User:Nytasi and User:Chzz are the same person, which we obviously are not.

What she added is what User:Ebenezercore added several times before, to add his name to the Wiki page to attempt to "own" the event his father started. Here is a news reference about what they are attempting to do:. Regardless of how unpleasant these people are to me personally, I still don't see that her boyfriend's name has any relevance, nor is he notable, and I'm really sorry they feel a need to take this personal. However, I don't feel I'm the one to make any changes to the page due to their comments. I would appreciate any assistance in this regard. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I strongly feel that the first step to be taken here is to discuss the content issue on the article talk page. I also don't think that "include hobart's sons name, needs no "noteability" as it is part of an entry not it's own entry, get away from this page Ellin" is a personal attack as I define it.  It certainly does look like they're accusing you of WP:OWN while being guilty of it themselves, but other users may have a different take on this. Colon el  Tom 07:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this a rude personal attack?
HLGallon had edited this article here saying (Removed absurd amount of detail for an article of this scope. An article for the Battle of Nablus should be created for a worm's-eye view.) Is this language acceptable in Wikipedia? Rskp (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say calling an amount of detail 'absurd' is a personal attack. I don't think I've ever heard the phrase "worm's-eye view" but unless there is some cultural/language issue, that seems fairly mild too. It might be rude, though I think even that's pushing it, but I don't see any personal attack. --Onorem♠Dil 05:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Now I know what sort of language is acceptable. --Rskp (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A "personal attack" has to be about a person (or, at least, about an editor). This remark, though brusque, is about the content. It's not a personal attack. I don't necessarily agree with the remark, but am no expert in the area. Bielle (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, both examples are acceptable. The poster is suggesting that the detail should be incorporated in a separate article for the battle itself, which would allow a worm's eye view - a view that takes a close-up look at lots of detail - to be employed. Think of it as the opposite of 'bird's eye view', which would provide a good overview.  It's not meant to be rude.  As to the use of absurd - that's hardly a wikiquette issue either.  Colon el  Tom 07:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

User refusing to retract accusations of vandalism.


Topgun has in this section called me a vandal for removing unsourced content and a probable BLP violation from the article. I have asked him to retract his comment and he has refused twice. The probable BLP vio is This. I can find no other record of this anywhere. As I said on the talk page, ''It was sourced to a TV show. Something called geo.tv. I looked on Gnews and Gbooks for verification that this was said, now given it was supposedly said only last year I find it a little suspicious that no other news agency picked up on such a controversial statement. Based on the massive misrepresentation of sources already found in this article I have little option but to believe it is a fake citation''. I would like him to remove his accusation of vandalism as I am most certainly not a vandal. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He is also accusing me of removing sourced content, which is obviously untrue. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Evidently, DS didn't look too hard. The deleted Musharraf quote can also be found via google news archives, at . This of course does not justify the accusation, but there's blame enough to go round here. AGF, folks. LeadSongDog come howl!  04:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point, he asks me for good faith without extending the same to the user who added the source with complete information going against WP:SOURCEACCESS. And I didn't call him a vandal, but his reckless blanking of sourced content can surely be categorized in that and that is what I said. He has been making unambiguous personal attacks on me since last two months, stalking and hounding me.  Just a glimpse of his most recent response to my clarification for his WP:SOUP attempt to an admin with cherry picked diffs (even those including sourced content). He has been using false pretext of BLP as a justification for editwar (noted by the same admin). I have more than enough diffs to open an RFC/U on him, but I was advised to let him have the WP:ROPE. -- lTopGunl (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never asked you to show good faith, it would be pointless as you have repeatedly said you would not. The diffs were not cherry picked, they were in response to your lie that I was removing sourced content from the article, the same diffs are right up above for anyone to check. Magog most certainly has never said I was edit warring under false pretexts, another lie. I have not been hounding you, I had been checking your edits due to your habit of edit warring unsourced content into articles. And for the hideous bias you exhibit in your editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * His comment on you is clear. And assuming good faith is not mandatory, I would have done it though if you did the same.. and I have given you benefit of doubt everytime inspite of that. Anyway, I'm not going to waste my time here anymore... the comment above is clear about who makes the personal attacks. -- lTopGunl (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Edit wars unsourced POV WP:OR onto an article. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Abusive language


Abusive language in edit summary. "User is a nigger" Jim1138 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * User has been blocked indefinitely, edit summary redacted. In the future, abuse this blatant can go right to the admin's noticeboard. Danger High voltage! 21:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil editor
Editor has been rude on the Paranormal Activity 3 page and when I asked them not to be on their talk page he has been uncivil and we have been bantering back and fourth as a result. Odoital25 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * One instance (a diff would have been helpful on your part) where he states that two editors are lazy. Not acceptable, but neither is the attack on his talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Warning left, although calling someone lazy isn't the worst offence I've seen in the past 24 hours. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As one of the editors accused of being lazy by Charlr6, I'm far less concerned by his rather childish lashing out than I am by the fact he's been on Wikipedia for over 4 years and doesn't understand that the onus is on the contributor of information to prove that it is accurate via reliable sources. I haven't been inclined to respond on his talkpage as it's clear he thinks his actions beyond reproach. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 00:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't start using Wikipedia properly until the past few months and I only added information in occasionally. And maybe you should take a look at my comment/question back to Walter on my talk page and see if what I am saying is childish and uncivilised. You don't have to comment back to it if you don't want to, but I do have a clear point. Charlr6 (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Walter, just informing you that I have asked you a question on my page. Would ask on here but don't know whether it would be allowed or not. Thank you. Charlr6 (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nflfacts2k2 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WILKEPEDIA PAGE being Abused by Administrator. Keeps deleting! PLEASE HELP!


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Nflfacts2k2 (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

To Whom It may Concern:

Wilki administrator Eagles247 has modified AND DELETED Routt, Stanford statistics from his wilkepedia page. His stats have been online for the past few years and deleting it in attempt to minimize Routt's career is wwrong. I need the help of A Wilkepedia administrator that is NON SUBJECTIVE to either go through Routt's OLD page which went untouched for months. I would like to leave everything that was on the page other than the latest breaking news from February 2012. Any assistance would be helpful.

This is very unusual and also decietful to people who come on wilkepedia to get the facts about an individual. Deleting Posts that have existed for years is in very POOR taste.

Feel free to view the edit history from Eagles247. I would appreciate if someone can help me. Thanks in advance.
 * Eagles comment on the edit history -- copyvio -- is Wikipedia shorthand for copyright violation. They're saying that it appears the content was cut and pasted -- maybe from here? -- which is illegal and not consistent with the intellectual license Wikipedia operates under. If you think that is not the case the place to discuss the issue is Talk:Stanford Routt Nobody Ent 23:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a Wikiquitte dispute by any stretch of the imagination. Besides, your version of the article grossly violates WP:MOS and is completely unsourced.  Take your objections and suggestions to the article's talk page, not here. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well a few things. It's not abuse by an admin, it's just an ordinary editor who is removing the material. Second, it's not stats, it's copyrighted material from http://www.carolinahuddle.com/forum/carolina-panthers/77262-stanford-routt-released.html and possibly other locations that you're adding and that is being removed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanford_Routt&action=historysubmit&diff=476034116&oldid=476033889 Third, you might want to read WP:COPYVIO. Should the editor tell you that more directly? Sure. Should you be surprised that you can't break copyright laws and get away with it? Probably not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So why delete his college statistics and stats and records from the NFL. What exactly is the issue- please explain in detail. NOTHING WAS ADDED other than the release. The Administrator DELETED Routt's entire wilkepedia. All of which are verified by the Associated Press, NFL.com and ProFootBall Talk. I didn't ADD anything other than the fact that Routt GRADUATED with a BSc in Kinesilogy from University of Houston in 2011. Please explain why the editor is CLEARING everything. This is insanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nflfacts2k2 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The exact phrasing used elsewhere is copyrighted. If you want to use the data provided, it's certainly allowable to write your own words in the article. Just be should to include a reference to where you got the data from (see WP:CITE ) Nobody Ent 00:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is still the wrong place for this discussion. Take it to the article.
 * They're all copyright violations. I checked every paragraph that was removed and they're all lifted, letter-for-letter from another source. I may be wrong, it's just that there are a lot of Google hits on the material. Also, I don't know about American football articles, but in association football articles, we don't list the stats for players before entering international competition or professional leagues, so it's a bunch of trivia or possibly fan cruft. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I just EDITED it AGAIN in MY own words that DONT violate copyrights and its been deleted. What gives? Where do I take this discussion??? I addeded in my edit link to verify data. I really need help with this- can a senior editor email me please. It's very frustrating to deal with someone basically CLEARING out stuff without reason. Copyright violation you stated and I removed it and added ORIGINAL words and sentences. Please help. And also how do I reach this particular administrator to see what exactly the ISSUE is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nflfacts2k2 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Take it here Talk:Stanford Routt. Nobody Ent 03:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Instead of being notified of this discussion, I get slapped with a 3RR warning. That's a Wikiquette violation in itself.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  05:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've finally read over this discussion. I stumbled upon this article after learning of Routt's release from the Raiders. Immediately I removed copyright violations of his Raiders bio (among other edits). Within minutes, an IP user (undoubtedly this user here) added back the full copyvio here. I reverted and left a warning on the IP's talk page. Seven minutes later, I was reverted again, this time by User:Nflfacts2k2. I assumed good faith and did not block immediately, and instead left another warning for the user. Apparently Nflfacts2k2 changed the text to his own words (or somewhat close) here, but I assumed it was the same text as before, as it appeared very similar, and I reverted again. Of course, I also did not receive notification of this thread, so I could not have known the user was thoughtfully edited after that. The user has since reverted my revert, and the text is still similar to that of his Raiders bio under "College". FWIW, the two above links (one to a forum and one to a fan site) include text copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  05:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Three reverts is bad news. You shouldn't sweat repeated additions. Take it to WP:ANI instead, and in this case you have WP:CCI. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Erm, I know policy and where the notice boards are, thanks. I'm not a new user by any stretch.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  12:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note that removing clear copyright violations is a 3 revert rule exemption. If an editor is adding copyrighted text, anyone may revert them more than three times in a 24 hour period. The 3RR warning given to Eagles247 was not appropriate. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  16:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, guys, we've missed something very important here... Nflfacts2k2 was modifying Wilkipedia, not Wikipedia, so obviously Wikipedia's rules about WP:CITE, WP:3RR, WP:BRD, and WP:AGF would don't apply. I don't know what Wilkipedia's standards are on those issues, but if it was on Wikipedia, someone needs those policies and guidelines beaten into them. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Way to stay classy, Ian.thomson. Even though Nflfacts2k2 is in the wrong here – and more than a little over the top in his use of SCREAMING CAPS – it's not necessary or helpful to mock him for a typo.  Particularly on a board that's supposed to be for resolving issues involving failures of basic courtesy between editors.  I understand that it's socially acceptable on Wikipedia to abuse and deride new editors who don't quite understand how this project works after they've embarrassed themselves on a noticeboard, but do you think it's a good idea? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of Wikipedia's rules, Muphry's law "would does" apply. Ian.thomson may be mocked in return. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahem "would don't apply".... ohrly? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that irony, or sarcasm? Sometimes I have trouble telling the difference.LeadSongDog come howl!  17:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps its a huge misunderstanding. I apologize to those offended by my ALL CAPS Our team is working deligently to fix the copyright issues by professionally rewriting in OUR words and listing references to support what is written. This will be an all day process so I ask you eagles247 to relax with the reverts as changes are being made to include facts deleted. Someone else mentioned an article souding like it was written unprofessinally. I assure you it's not the case. Eagles247 made the change that contained a typo yesterday so I guess we aren't all devoid of error. I please ask administrators to wait 24-48hrs as we adjust everything to include what was deleted. I just want all the accuracies kept. I appreciate all the feedback and thanks for helping to solve this problem. My intent was not to harm anyone. I will ask questions should I run into any issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nflfacts2k2 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I've blocked Nflfacts2k2 indefinitely per her comment immediately above in which she purports her account is operated by a "team" of individuals in violation of WP:NOSHARE.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: Nflfacts2k2 has stated that she "runs the publicity for the aforementioned Stanford Routt" here.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Carlaude continues to move/delete my comments despite repeated requests not to
User:Carlaude continually disregards my requests to stop editing my comments. I request that someone else intervenes. User:Carlaude has twice moved my comments and once deleted a request to stop doing it. Each time Carlaude has done this I have asked him/her not to do so. Below is the history.


 * 1. User:Carlaude split one of my comments into another discussion thread at Talk:Christian ethics. I requested here that not be done again, noting that it is normally against Wikipedia's talk page guidelines.
 * 2. After this request, Carlaude again split one of my comments into a new thread; my comment lost the original context.
 * 3. At User talk:Carlaude, I reminded Carlaude for a second time that this was not normally allowed, and requested that editing of my comments stop.
 * 4. User:Carlaude summarily reverted/deleted my warning and request without comment.

After three violations, two of which occurred after requests to stop, it is clear that User:Carlaude will not listen to these requests ... at least from me. I request an administrator intervene in whatever manner she/he sees fit. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm - some people will "refactor" comments, but should stop if asked to. Most things posted on a user's talk page can be removed by the user, so point 4 is not really an issue as I see it. Has the behavior stopped after the second request? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I thought that the following at WP:Talk applied to deletion as well: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page" (emphasis in original). That deletion on Carlaude's talk page took place after the second request. The second request was actually what was deleted from his/her talk page. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OWNTALK Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages ... The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. If the behavior continues I will leave a note on his/her talk page. Hopefully the issue is reolved. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, many thanks!! --Airborne84 (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

IP very upset with warnings
From the comments made by the IP, it would appear that someone else is using his/her computer to edit articles adding "It was a stupid show, hosted by a bunch of trendies.". After the first revert and warning by me (via Huggle), I got this message user talk:Jim1138. I left a talkback on his page after my reply on mine. Another change was placed on RI:SE and I warned him a second time (for a total of four warnings by others and myself). He added a "Harassment" section to his page. I am not looking for a any judgement or banning. As he threatened to call the police, I am concerned if I should do something. Any comments? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like trolling to me. Don't respond and report it to WP:AIV if the account vandalises again. Danger High voltage! 22:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Mkativerata
User:Mkativerata referred to me as as wikipedia's class clown in an edit summary. I have attempted to discuss and resolve it on his talkpage but he has just repeated the comment. I find his references to me as "a clown" and " a class clown" to be demeaning and rude and would appreciate some assistance towards a resolution here. I have notified the user -  You really can  23:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As the user has added - retired to his talkpage, I will put this awaiting any return or not as the case may be.    You really can  00:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Mkativerata was a valuable editor and admin and it's a shame he felt compelled to turn in his tools and leave over this nonsense. 28bytes (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You have to ask yourself - as this nonsense is such a minor issue - that the user was requested, in good faith to resolve on the first, most minor level of dispute resolution, perhaps there are other issues that we are unaware of, and this minor issue is not the reason behind his actions at all. -  clearly calling me a class clown is not a reason, or could ever result in such recriminations and repercussions to require anyone to request removal of their advanced privileges and retire.   You really can  00:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Having read the exchange that lead to all this, it strikes me that there's plenty of blame to go around. I would encourage Youreallycan to see his/her own role in the exchange, and to review WP:BRD as well as WP:3RR and WP:EDIT.  --Drmargi (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no justification for personal attacks. YRC is not responsible for any other editor's actions. Mkativerata's decision to retire is theirs and on one else's. Nobody Ent 12:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please reread my comments carefully; I suggested neither. That said, I find YRC playing the aggrieved innocent is disingenuous at the very least, and I reiterate my position that he/she should see his/her own role in this and reflect on the policies mentioned above, none of which absolves Mkativerata of anything. --Drmargi (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what the motivation was, but User:Hipocrite opened this section on Mkativerata's Talk page before YRC complained about the clown comment. Like 28bytes, I have trouble believing that Mkativerata would retire because of YRC's complaint (I wouldn't have characterized it as "nonsense", though).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we close this please. In addition to the above, the user has requested removal of their admin bits and there is no need to work out who was right and who was wrong. Whatever the cause, the best thing now would be to quietly close discussions like this. Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

cliques with an agenda


I do not want to name names or articles, but there seems to be some cliques who get their way when they should not. I am going to be intentionally vague because nothing I have done to date has worked, and only made it worse for myself. In general, this is what has happened:

There is a hot button issue that seems to lead to a lot of debates on wikipedia. This particular debate seems to have at least one administrator as the ringleader of a clique. Individuals associated with this person make edits which violate wikipedia rules, not because of the words used, but because they are done because of preference and not for reason. For some people, these edits may be minor, and they are probably overlooked most of the time. However, when someone does restore these edits, the administrator swoops in and warns/blocks them. They then use the advantage of a ready-made group in order to win if numbers are necessary--even if their arguments go directly against wikipedia rules. When one person sought help through the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, every single comment from outside their small group agreed that they were in the wrong. There was a clear consensus, yet in the end, they said it needed to go to another board. On that board, the same thing, yet it got passed on to yet another non-binding noticeboard. Is there not a place on wikipedia where wikipedia's own rules can be enforce? You cannot win on a topic that goes up against a clique with one or more administrators. A group of 4 or 5 people should not be able to bog you down so they can get their way. That is not a true consensus. Faw05 (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What would you like us to do about it? Nobody Ent 12:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Why have you brought this here? This is a forum about civility. And this is the only edit you've made since registering your account.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Danjel and school AfDs/improvements


User has continually affirmed the notability of primary schools. That would be perfectly fine...except that he has repeatedly called users who disagree with him "incompetent", "flat-out wrong" and "trolls". This when Purplebackpack89 cites WP:COMMONOUTCOMES vis-a-vis schools; a perfectly acceptable reference that has been reaffirmed numerous times. True, common outcomes can be ignored, but it's a bit of a stretch (to say nothing of being quite incivil) for someone who's ignoring common outcomes to call someone who's abiding by them "flat-out wrong'. Danjel also suggested Purplebackpack89 follow BEFORE...on articles he didn't even AfD.  Danjel would also bring up Purplebackpack89's stances on deletion in discussions where his stance was tangential (for example here and elsewhere; note that the so-called "non-existent" consensus is actually what is said at COMMONOUTCOMES); virtually always to mock or berate them.  Another issue is his attitude at school articles that are being improved; this often with Users Fmph and Epeefleche.  This involves content disputes over the use of maintenance tags for articles that need to be improved. The most recent example of this was Lyneham Primary School. Another user had first suggested this be brought to dispute resolution, but an admin informed me that WQA was the better place.  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  22:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The suggested course of action I am looking for is for it to be mandated that Danjel be asked to step away from school-related articles, and maybe Wikipedia in general, for a time; and perhaps also that he be forced into mentorship  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  23:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this recommended action. Danjel is a helpful and courteous editor. He has been responding in sheer frustration at the school AfD campaign launched by Epeefleche and supported by Purplebackemperor, both of whom mistakenly seems to be of the opinion that all primary schools are non-notable which is not at all the case. Epeefleche nominated over 150 schools for AfD within the space of a few weeks. The sheer scale of the nominations has created endless problems for Wikiproject Schools. Regular editors have not had time to contribute properly to the debates and notable schools have been deleted in the process because editors haven't had the time to add the appropriate sources to articles. The discussions can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. Dahliarose (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dahlia, going out of his way to slight me, as he has repeatedly done (there are edits where he starts talking about something else, then digresses into criticizing me or Epeefleche) doesn't suggest "helpful and courteous". Also, my name isn't "Purplebackemperor"  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  01:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Purplebackpack89, I'm sorry for getting your name wrong. I shouldn't edit Wikipedia late at night! I've now corrected the spelling. I've looked at the Lyneham Primary School article and I think you've completely misinterpreted the situation. Epeefleche's edits to this article were not at all constructive. He added a ref improve tag to an article which already had 11 references, far more references than many other articles on Wikipedia. The other editors on the article quite rightly reverted his edits. It is not surprising that Danjel got somewhat annoyed, especially as Epeefleche's entire edit history currently consists of tagging articles and nominating articles for deletion, often with only minutes between each edit. It would be more helpful if there were other editors like Danjel who spend time adding content and sources to articles. Dahliarose (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Purplebackpack89, it seems to me that you've ignored the whole WQA process which is listed in the table near the top. You're not going to get what you want, which is having Danjel topic banned, since WQA "is to request assistance in moving disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour". To me you wanting Danjel to be topic banned or wanting him to have a Wikibreak, seem more like removing someone to make the AfD noms more successful. Bidgee (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There's not much here for me to respond to. Purplebackpack89, you've quite failed to represent the situation neutrally. And you have gone further to suggest bans from school related discussions (i.e., the primary area in which I edit, according to my userpage), from wikipedia generally and asked that I be "forced" into mentorship in direct contravention of the text at the very top of this page which states: "Avoid initiating a request if: ... You want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures." That you have completely stepped out of the guidelines of WQA and the measures you call for are outrageously disproportionate for anything less than severe disruption to the project shows that you have, from the get go, acted in bad faith.

To respond to your complaint about my view of the way you interpret WP:OUTCOMES (that you also raised at DRN: ): (1) WP:OUTCOMES is an essay, not a policy; (2) WP:OUTCOMES details the outcomes that have occured in the past and therefore talks of consensus in the past, and Consensus Can Change; (3) Your stance, that you say above derives from WP:OUTCOMES that primary schools are "inherently non-notable" is a "flat out" incorrect understanding of the sentence: "most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD" (quoted from WP:OUTCOMES; emph. added) where, you will note, that it does not say anything about the notability of primary schools; (4) Most of this has been said before when I tried to discuss this (and other issues with your conduct at AfD) with you at your talkpage ; (5) and, yet, despite all of this you still persist in your belief that that sentence given above equates to saying that all primary schools are non-notable; and (6) because you vote delete at all Primary School AfDs on the basis of this completely flat out wrong interpretation, there is a significant WP:COMPETENCE issue in your conduct at AfD. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 13:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, this just illustrates the problem. The problem is that you keep saying I'm completely wrong and incompetent over and over again.  You respond to my thread by saying...I'm completely wrong and incompetent.  That completely illustrates the problem, as a) I'm not completely wrong and incompetent (recall that many editors have agreed with me in Epeefleche's AfDs; and that <<10% have been closed as keep, indicating that consensus hasn't changed); and b) even if I was, you shouldn't be bringing it up hither and yon like you're doing  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  14:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right that "this" illustrates the problem. It's been pointed out to you ad nauseam that your interpretation of WP:OUTCOMES is fundamentally flawed and that this impacts on the process at school related AfDs. So this is a situation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
 * There's nothing further for me to say here. There's nothing productive to be gained from continuing to participate. So, again, I'm out. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 04:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain why it's acceptable for you to say I'm wrong, wrong, wrong over and over again, preferably with policy? Your assessment of the situation is quite biased, and you seem to be the one who's not hearing it.  If I was flat-out wrong, how come almost all the AfDs I'm participating at where you claim I'm wrong are closed in favor of the arguments I put forth (i.e. not kept)?  And even if I was, I'm entitled to my opinion and you saying it so fervently and so often (ad nauseum by your own admission) is disruptive and in violation of several policies.  You keep missing the point that even if someone is wrong, it's not OK to say it over and over and over again!.  So you and Dahliarose (who I might add is embroiled in a heated argument with Epeefleche and Fmph on Epeefleeche's talk page) need to keep assailing me, Epeefleche, and Fmph.  Or you should be forced to step away from Australia-related articles  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  22:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Saying it over and over again" is exactly the situation, but it is Purplebackback who is doing that. There is absolutely nothing wrong in challenging established consensus in a reasonable way, or in bringing an AfD to test whether the consensus still holds. At least I hope there's nothing wrong, because I've done it a number of times myself. But to continue insisting, after the great majority of decisions supports the consensus and runs against you, is not productive behavior. It's hard to keep equanimity when confronted repeated with an editor doing that, I think Danjel has dealt with this pretty well. That Purplebackback should come here and ask that his opponent in AfDs, especially his successful opponent in AfDs , stop participating in them seems an attempt to intimidate opponents, and to when by specious complaints what cannot be accomplished otherwise.  I consider this not a good faith WQA--which is not unique at WQA, and why I rarely come here. However, even one like this does usually indicate a behavior problem, and , as often, it's   the behavior of the complainant. Not just IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but BOOMERANG.   DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * and btw, how does Australia related articles come into this? `  DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute on German cruiser Emden
Moved from ANI per (tentative) consensus it belongs here Nobody Ent 13:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I realise problems of inappropriate behaviour are not normally aired here, but this problem concerns one of Wikipedia’s sysops. Sysops are fully familiar with Wikipedia’s code of conduct so I have bypassed Wikiquette assistance and come here directly.

On 20/21 January User:Parsecboy nominated two articles for Good Article. On 5 February I volunteered to do the GA Review on both articles. Both articles contained numerous minor errors and omissions; I noted these on the Review pages and Parsecboy repaired them. See Talk:German cruiser Emden/GA1 and Talk:SMS Nürnberg (1916)/GA1

I also used the Review pages to make suggestions and point out problems that I saw as worthy of repair in order to elevate the articles to GA status. Parsecboy has been reluctant to discuss my suggestions and has become increasingly diverted away from the task in hand. When I saw THIS post I realised Parsecboy was unlikely to help me resolve one particular problem so I decided to ask for a second opinion. I left a message for Sturmvogel 66, asking for his assistance. Sturmvogel 66 is one of the co-ordinators for the WikiProject Military History and has not been involved with German cruiser Emden. Here is the thread I started for Sturmvogel 66: User talk:Sturmvogel 66.

Parsecboy has become increasingly angry at my attempts to resolve the problem I see. He used Sturmvogel’s Talk page to leave an angry message for me: diff

The GA process does not run on anger and intimidation. I am a volunteer. My objective is the same as Parsecboy’s – to raise these two articles to GA. I would appreciate it if one of Parsecboy’s fellow sysops or admins would leave him a message reminding him of the things he should be aware of about the GA process, but has apparently forgotten. Dolphin ( t ) 11:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you would stop playing games, we can have a perfectly polite discussion. If that's not something you can do, then I suggest we clear the board and let someone else review the articles. I refuse to entertain someone who apparently has no grasp of Wikipedia's core content and requires blatant violations of WP:V and WP:OR to satisfy their requests. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * *blink* That little piece of WP:ABF is really what you want to reply with here? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly pointed out the policy problems of what Dolphin is insistent I change, and s/he has consistently failed to address them. I see nothing wrong with pointing it out. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if Dolphin has behaved badly (I haven't looked at the evidence in enough detail) you should still be responding as calmly and courteously as possible. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The diff you provided does not reflect proper conduct for an admin or any editor. However unless Parsecboy has used his admin tools to gain advantage during this dispute, then this is not an admin matter and should be raised via WQA. Manning (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, on both counts. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Further, the 13:04, 10 Feb edit clearly rises to the level for which civility/disruption warnings are given. We simply cannot speak to each other in that manner.  Further2, Dolphin51's opening of this thread was a thing of beauty: clear, concise, courteous. *tips hat*  Is there further backstory at all? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Caveat:Have not looked further than those diffs yet.
 * How about this:
 * I point out that what Dolphin is requiring is OR
 * Dolphin completely ignores it
 * I state as much a second time
 * Lecture about dealing with contradictory sources, nevermind that there is no contradictory source, and still no comment on citing his claim
 * I point that out
 * Dolphin goes to Sturmvogel with a similarly one-sided summary like the one above. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you take a moment and re-read those diffs as if they were someone else's, and see if they match the descriptions you've just given? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please point to where Dolphin engages with the issue of original research?
 * His objection is that the Germans could not have installed a degaussing coil on the ship between the outbreak of World War II and the operation the ship participated in on 3 September 1939, since Wikipedia states the war began on 3 September. Nevermind that many historians use 1 September as the start date, which easily explains the imagined discrepancy, because Dolphin summarily dismisses it. What this dispute boils down to is that Dolphin thinks Williamson is wrong and wants me to change it, despite not having any sources to back it up. How is that not violating OR and V? Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What you're calling "original research" is actually good GA review. He's correct, that the 1st-to-3rd chronology is a remarkable claim.  Remarkable claims require a higher standard of evidence.  He's actually being very calm and kind in this discussion. - Aaron Brenneman (talk)
 * Please, do explain how requesting that something be changed without a source is anything but OR? In what manner is it a remarkable claim? It's the installation of a degaussing coil, not a complete overhaul. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There are five WP pillars and editing requires balancing all of them. WP:V does not mean we print untrue things (as the perennial discussion on WT:V regarding rephrasing "verfiability not truth" indicates). Dolphin appears to be trying to reconcile different sources; when it became clear Dolphin and Parsecboy were just not going to agree, they requested help from additional editors, which is the right thing to do per consensus. This is the wrong thing to do per our civility pillar. It's okay to disagree and strongly argue a position but personal attacks are wrong. If parsecboy truly thinks the situation is unsalvageable then a new reviewer for the article should be appointed.
 * Parsecboy, will you strike your personal attacks coments from sturmvogel's talk page?
 * Dolphin, would you be willing to withdraw from the GA and let another reviewer finish? Nobody Ent 13:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Swearing =/= personal attack. Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The swearing shows that you aren't being calm and courteous, but the swearing isn't what makes it a personal attack. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Explain where I insulted Dolphin or made threats. I'm all ears. Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This diff -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, where did I insult or threaten him? Where did I use an ad hominem attack? Perhaps you need some familiarization with WP:NPA. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware as to what a personal attack is, "Have you ever even read WP:OR, WP:V, or WP:CITE" and "Fail the article, I don't really care. I will immediately re-nominate it so someone with a basic grasp of Wikipedia content policies can review it." stand out to me as being a personal attack, and "Too fucking bad, you don't make the rules. I'm getting sick and fucking tired of this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT bullshit." is certainly a violation of our civility policy, one of the pillars of the project.
 * PS from your link These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dolphin repeatedly ignored my objections and carried on as if I had not made them. The issue then becomes that Dolphin was either playing games or can't handle discussion effectively. I doubt it's the latter, in which case, WP:SPADE. Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you have understood Dolphin's, quite legitimate, concerns. The policy is not as black and white as you think it is.

We all make mistakes from time to time, I think User:Nobody Ent's suggestion above that you both take a step back from this is the most productive way forward. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I do understand Dolphin's concern, and it is not legitimate. We as editors do not get to decide what is and is not correct, at least so far as only one source is concerned. That is a textbook definition of original research. If there was a contradictory source, then yes, we would have to exercise some editorial discretion, but that is not the case here. All we have is Dolphin's insistence that Williamson is wrong, with nothing substantive to base it on.
 * I don't have a problem with disengaging and starting from scratch on a new review. Parsecboy (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest we agree to disagree on whether Dolphin's concerns are legitimate. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dolphin made a proposal which sounds reasonable to me. He suggests switching the order of the first two sentences. This proposal does not challenge the current sources in any way (to my interpretation). Since the exact date of the modification ("After the outbreak of World War II") is currently rather vague in comparison to the precise date of 3 September 1939, I believe that the poposal would adequately address both positions in this dispute. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is Williamson puts the degaussing coil before the minelaying operation in the text. That doesn't support reversing the order. Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain whether the discussion here is to resolve the content dispute, or the complaint over Parsecboy's incivility. I have no view on the former but the latter is disturbing. The question of him being an admin is moot as he is not using admin powers - except that if these diffs had occurred prior to an RfA I have no doubt it would have failed. Admins (I speak as one) SHOULD meet higher standards of behaviour. Parsecboy has failed to meet them, or even to recognise that he has failed (which is almost worse). Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  18:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Parsecboy is saying that I am insisting on inserting original research; and that I am insisting Williamson is wrong. I want to make it clear that I am doing neither. Wikipedia is opposed to original research, and so am I. Williamson is one of the few sources we have on the subject and we must work with the information available.

Wikipedia must present its information in the best way possible. It must not only be grammatically correct and of sound syntax, it must be arranged in such a way that it can be read easily and well, is not ambiguous and does not confuse the reader. I am looking for someone with whom to have a dialogue about the best way to present the information we have about the Emden. At present, I think the information is not presented in the best way because we don’t know the exact date on which the degaussing coil was installed. Insisting that the coil was installed on 1, 2 or 3 September is probably original research because we simply don’t know the date. Apparently, Williamson says nothing more than it was installed after the outbreak of the war. A problem I have had with Parsecboy is that he doesn’t seem to do dialogue; he seems only to do angry monologue. I was hoping to have a dialogue with someone on this subject but so far that someone hasn’t appeared. I have exercised my mind on the matter and I can say that my difficulty with the current wording would disappear if either of the following forms were used. I’m sure there are others that can be found, but these are two I have found:
 * 1) Emden's first wartime operation saw her participating in laying a minefield off the German coast in the North Sea on 3 September. (Source: Rohwer, p.2) After the outbreak of the war a degaussing coil was installed just above the waterline to protect the ship from magnetic mines. (Source: Williamson, p. 10)


 * 1) Emden's first wartime operation saw her participating in laying a minefield off the German coast in the North Sea on 3 September. (Source: Rohwer, p.2) Prior to that, a degaussing coil was installed just above the waterline to protect the ship from magnetic mines. (Source: Williamson, p. 10)

Dolphin ( t ) 04:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I do plenty of dialogue - it seems you are the one who doesn't. I have repeatedly brought up the objection that what you're asking me to do is OR, and this is the first time you have engaged the point.
 * Here are the problems with your suggestions:
 * As I have noted elsewhere, Williamson presents the material (the degaussing coil installation and the minelaying operation) in the order I have it in the article - he's the only source that mentions the degaussing coil, so there's no support for reversing the order.
 * Williamson specifically mentions that the degaussing coil was installed after the outbreak of war. To leave that out that would be omitting relevant details.
 * Changing something to contradict what a source says without another source to justify the change, or to omit information solely because one editor thinks it unlikely is a textbook definition of OR. I honestly don't know why this continues to be a problem. Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Parsecboy! Are you saying it is my failure to do dialogue that caused you to post an offensive message on Sturmvogel's Talk page?  If your answer is yes, please let us know whereabouts in Wikipedia's Code of Conduct there is provision for suspending the usual requirement for civility in order to administer therapeutic incivility to Users who fail to do dialogue?  Dolphin  ( t ) 07:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And here we are, back to avoiding the issue.
 * Did I phrase things in a less than ideal manner? Yes. Whoop de freaking doo. Grow up. People use obscenities. What is more concerning, at least as far as I see it, to the fate of the project is the fact that none of you are apparently concerned with the fact that Dolphin is set on making changes to the article based solely on his opinion that something is wrong. He has absolutely no hard evidence to back up his assertions, and continually deflects the issue. Let's just throw our editorial policies out the window because I said "fuck". This is what drives productive editors away from the project: pointless hand wringing about obscenities while actual content policies are being wantonly violated. Since none of you are seem to be interested in resolving the actual problem here, I'm done with this discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason we are not having the conversation you want is because this is WP:WQA. It's not a board for content dispute resolution (in which arena you may well be in the right) but for discussion of collegiality, civility and the disruption that is caused when they are absent. Editorial policies are not weakened when civility is enforced. On the contrary, it is easier to edit in a collaborative way when senior editors such as admins behave in a restrained, polite and respectful way. If you're done here then that's fine. I'll place a warning on your talk page and will issue a short, protective block should you disrupt WP again with similar outbursts. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  14:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You can leave my talk page alone, thank you. Parsecboy (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Too late, I'm afraid . If anyone here thinks my wording is too strict, by all means post to that effect. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  14:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In perhaps simpler terms, source A says "X, then Y." Without a source B that explains it was actually "Y, then X", what is the justification for making that change? Parsecboy (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite concerned that we've yet to see any acknowledgement from Parsecboy that there was a problem? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see the goal of WQA as to help editors move forward productively and that seems to be happening; as the conversation is remaining civil now that's good enough for me. Nobody Ent 11:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have thought of a third possibility that I can accept: Leave the sentences exactly as they are at present, and add an Explanatory Footnote explaining what the sources say, so that interested readers can see exactly what the situation is, and can resolve the paradox for themselves. Dolphin ( t ) 07:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that Parsecboy has withdrawn his GA nominations of German cruiser Emden and SMS Nurnberg (1916), and closed the associated discussions that I initiated. He immediately re-nominated both for GA. This has the benefit that in this thread we don't need to be distracted by the details of the article, and can concentrate on the primary issue, which is Parsecboy's resort to incivility. Parsecboy has defended his incivility by complaining about technical errors he perceives to have been committed by me. Critical readers of this thread will immediately see that this does not constitute a legitimate defence because technical errors by one User don't allow another User to resort to uncivil behaviour. In Wikipedia's Code of Conduct there is no provision for the requirements for etiquette to be suspended so that a User, or even a sysop, can administer some incivility. Dolphin ( t ) 04:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I’m pleased to be able to report that this thread has now fulfilled my expectations. I have no objection to it being closed.

I began by asking for a sysop to leave a message on one User’s talk page, reminding him of the need to operate in an appropriate way. Kim Dent-Brown has now DONE that. Thanks Kim!

I want to acknowledge the following Users who devoted some of their time and intellect to grappling with this problem, and trying to resolve it:
 * Eraserhead1, who isn’t a sysop but who contributed much wisdom to the thread,
 * Aaron Brenneman, the sysop who supplied the intellectual horsepower behind the assault on the problem,
 * Nobody Ent and MisterBee1966, two reviewers who displayed courage in supporting what they believed to be right.
 * Bwilkins, a sysop and regular on this page who hit the nail on the head as soon as the starter’s gun fired.

Thanks guys! The sysops on the white horses won this one. Dolphin ( t ) 02:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil and Unhelpful Conversation in MMS Talk Page - Need Help
Greetings, I hope I am in the right place. I am hoping to defuse a volatile situation on the MMS talk page. Being newer to editing on wikipedia, I have made many mistakes myself in the past few days, including unknowingly taking part in edit warring and adding fuel to the fire of arguments. I have officially apologized on the page, and have attempted to turn the discussion into something more constructive, though it appears that there are still a few whom have taken it as their personal goal to be insulting, disruptive and controlling of the information on the page. In particular, AndytheGrump has continued to use rude and uncivil language, and refuses to look at the subject from any view point other than his own. There are others as well, in the past and in the current conversation, who refuse to consider any alternative points of view and instead of contributing, they are simply reverting the page back to it's unsatisfactory condition.
 * User:AndyTheGrump
 * Miracle Mineral Supplement

I understand the controversy of this subect, but this sort of behavior seriously undermines what wikipedia is all about, and as a newbie editor (but no reader), I find that it makes it very discouraging to want to try and help out. I would prefer to avoid banning or any other serious situations, especially since I have up to now, been a part of the problem.

Can anyone help out? It would be nice to have a moderator or admin be on the talk page, to help defuse this sort of behavior so that the discussion can become constructive and relevant again. I really don't want to add anymore fuel to the flames, nor do I want to continue anymore disruptive behavior myself. So if anyone knows what can be done, or where I should go with this issue, I would surely appreciate your help. Thanks Bema Self (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * AndytheGrump is no stranger to these pages. Could you please provide diffs of the behaviour? We're not admins, we're only editors, but we can offer support. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the reason I would like diffs is that I've checked the talk page and I don't see anything that is worth reporting or acting on, but I could be missing something. The fact that he's removed the comments of others, and doing so without comment, is the only really bad offence that I see. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for offering help. Being new, I'd like to resolve this without going higher up if that's possible. Can you tell me though, what are "diffs"? Do you mean the specific ways in which he's been uncivil?


 * There is this statement that he left after I attempted to site WB:BITE


 * "Then stop trying to sell toxic snake oil.


 * I would like to cite WP:NEWCOMERYEAHRIGHTJIMHUMBLESTOOGEMORELIKE. I'll choose biting 'newcomers' over allowing crackpots to push bleach as a cure for AIDS, any day of the week. I have morals, unlike you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC) "


 * It looks like I made an error, as there is another comment, though not by AndytheGrump, but by Andy Dingley, is there a chance he's using another account? It was in the same fashion as thegrumps other comments and says:


 * ""Research?" You mean "Drink bleach, if it doesn't kill you, it might kill something else more useful"? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I might have taken this one out of context, but I feel rather demeaned about this comment, because it suggests that I am not worthy of citing wikipedia sources because they don't fit in with his beliefs.


 * "You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. We do not delete articles on notable subjects because of expressed concerns over neutrality - though your understanding of what constitutes 'neutrality' is in any case contrary to that of Wikipedia policy. And neither do we consider attempts to evade our policy on appropriate sourcing regarding claimed medical products (see WP:MEDRS) to be a legitimate 'compromise'. MMS is a notable example of a bogus 'medicine' that has never been proven to do anything other than empty people's pockets - except when it makes them ill. This is what the sources say, so this is what our article is going to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)"


 * It only seems to continue the more I try to inject any reason into the situation.


 * My other issue, is that I feel like I'm being surrounded by a pack of hungry wolves. AndytheGrump, Novangelis and Six Words refuse to see reason on the subject. I don't sell MMS, I don't promote it or encourage it's use. I am simply a regular reader and fan of wikipedia, because I can usually find comprehensive and unbiased information on whatever subject I am looking for. AndytheGrump, Novangelis and Six Words, keep trying to cite the NPOV, but at the same time they are violating it by not allowing even the simplest of changes to the article unless it fits in with their POV. Even just reorganizing the info seems to be a crime, and no matter how well I try to play by the Wikipedia rule book, it seems that I can do anything to get even the smallest compromise. By WB:COMPREHENSIVE and WB:CENSOR, shouldn't we have all the information about a subject in a wiki page regardless of our personal opinions on the particular subject?


 * I have tried to offer that we delete the page because of the imbalance and horrible formatting, or that we redirect or merge the page to pages like the one for Chlorine Dioxide which already has a small blurb about MMS. I have searched for various experimental uses of Chlorine Dioxide (MMS when activated), that were from reliable sources, and they still chastised what I put in there, only citing their beliefs that it shouldn't added because they perceive that to be in promotion of MMS.


 * Not to mention that there has only been one recent event where one of them added a small section to further the one sided bias, there has been no good faith attempts from any of them, to work with the information I provided. They just keep reverting it, which got me into my first edit war, which I stopped and attempted to talk it out with them, which has so far done no good. They keep accusing me of wanting to sell the product, when I have no affiliation with it. I'm on the fence about it. I can't say it's not dangerous, nor is there any proof it is dangerous. I just want the article to reflect that.


 * Is there anything I can do to help gain a compromise? I feel like the MMS article seriously undermines the corner stones of wikipedia's values to be about information and not bias. I feel horribly out numbered and frustrated, cause I don't know who to talk to or where to turn on the subject. They are being very unreasonable and unhelpful about it.


 * If I'm in the wrong place with these complaints or maybe I'm viewing the situation wrong, please let me know. I don't want to give up, as everyone else has done. I really feel it's worth making sure wikipedia stays as unbiased as possible, but it seems like someone has gamed the system on that page, maybe not on purpose, but that's what it looks like. I'd hate to think that would be allowed on other pages to. Any ideas? --Bema Self (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Bema Self has failed to notify me of this thread, as is clearly stated at the top of the page - I only saw this by chance. WG, you say I've removed other's comments without explanation - I don't recall doing this, but if I did, and it wasn't an obvious case of reverting vandalism, I apologise, as this is clearly inappropriate. I'd note however that there has been a long stream of 'contributors' posting on the relevant talk page, all seemingly intent on promoting this ineffective and potentially-dangerous 'miracle', and all either unaware of basic Wikipedia policy, or intent on subverting it. Several have been proven to be in gross breach of WP:COI policy, and none have seen the slightest interest in complying with WP:MEDRS regarding claims on the effectiveness of this miraculous application of toxic industrial bleach as a cure for AIDS, cancer, toothache, the common cold, and no doubt any other affliction its proponents can think of. If I have been my usual grumpy self on the talk page, and this is seen as less than helpful, I'd ask that other uninvolved contributors step in by helping keep the article in compliance with policy. This 'supplement' isn't just ineffective snake-oil it is downright dangerous, and may very well have been directly responsible for the death of at least one individual. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note. Bema Self writes that "there has only been one recent event where one of them added a small section to further the one sided bias" - this 'one sided bias' was addition of material (not by me) regarding the death of the woman in Vanuatu. Since when has reporting the fatal consequences of bleach-drinking been 'bias'? I think this attempt to misrepresent the reality of the situation is explanation enough for my grumpiness (though admittedly I can usually find one as needed anyway ;-) ). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not having yet notified you AndytheGrump, I only just posted the request for help a little while ago, and then it took me a while to write out the reply to GW question. And as for WB:COI, how is it that I have a conflict of interest? You can't assume everyone who wants the article to show both sides, has a COI. In what ways do I need to prove that I do not have a COI so you will know I am not jim humble or any one of his followers? And I don't want to go against the WP:MEDRS, while I also want the article to comply with WP:COMPREHENSIVE and WP:CENSOR. There is perfect reason and logic in what I am trying to achieve and you and the others in that talk page are running a monopoly due to personal opinion, not objectivity. Why can't their be a compromise? We don't have to promote a thing, as that is not the intention of wikipedia. --Bema Self (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Why can't their be a compromise?" WP:MEDRS. We don't compromise basic policy, end of story. In any case, this isn't an appropriate place to be arguing about such matters. You claimed that I've been "Uncivil and Unhelpful" - the only person who has commented so far seems to think that this isn't the case (or at least, it isn't the case enough to matter). We are discussing the promotion of potentially-lethal unproven 'cures', and I see no reason to let petty issues regarding 'civility' divert us from the real issue - which is that, COI or not, you seemed keen on 'balancing' the reliably-sourced evidence that MMS is dangerous with dubious anecdotal evidence and hype (diffs:  ). Now, having failed to spin the article your way, you seem to be arguing for its deletion, on the bizarre basis that "By slamming MMS, you only encourage people to try it".. I'll leave it to others to comment on what this implies regarding your 'neutrality'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I came here to figure out if there is a way to resolve the conflicts going on with the conversation on MMS talk page. As you so pointedly showed, this is not the place to discuss what is already being argued over in the talk page. I am here because it seems that you and the other regular watchers on that page refuse to even consider trying to achieve improving the article or the NPOV on the grounds your POV, and are being uncivil, including "Civil POV pushing", which is just as demeaning.


 * According to the five pillars of wikipedia known as WP:IGNORE (which includes ALL rules and guidelines), there can be compromise on basic policies and guidelines and we should strive for it. No one owns any wikipedia pages, anyone is allowed to edit and contribute, no rules are set in stone and no one should be made to feel as though their work is pointless because it doesn't fit in with someone elses opinion of the topic or interpretation of the policies and guidelines of wikipedia.


 * That being said, I came here for third party opinions about how this dispute can be resolved, and that is what I am going to continue to seek. It is my hope that others that are not already involved in the conversation may step up and offer some help in getting some civil and constructive conversation going on in the talk page so that the page can be improved and the talk page can stop going around in circles attacking everyone. It is clear that there have been others whom have also attempted to do the same (not including those only out to further the promotion of the product), and it just keeps going on in the same endless circle. It's a long term dispute that clearly isn't going to be resolved regardless of how much logic, verifiability or neutrality that I or anyone else can offer. I have all sorts of other ideas for improving the page, that have nothing to do with promoting it or violating any policies, but I feel it's useless to attempt to put them in until the issue of civility is resolved.


 * That is why I came to this conflict resolution, to get help for a long term problem that should be able to be resolved without so much hostility. --Bema Self (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't a 'conflict resolution' page. Issues regarding article content are not dealt with here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: For instructions on diffs, see "Include diffs that show the situation" at the top of the page. There are other instructions there as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the info Gorlitz. --Bema Self (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I hope I am adding these right.... I feel that while the other contributors may be acting in good faith to "protect" others or to make "point" about the dangers of MMS, that they are refusing to see any potential ways to improve the article and are being rude about it.
 * ::::This is the one where I added fuel to the fire when I shouldn't have, and while I don't excuse my own behavior, the comment wasn't helpful either and I feel it should be noted and


 * Did I provide this diffs right? I followed the instructions on the page for newbies... Also, should I include the other contributors in the users section at the top of this request for resolution? And should I add diffs from older conversations on the talk page that have discouraged others from attempting to contribute to the page in good faith and have been treated in the same manner I have? --Bema Self (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You have provided two diffs to edits made by individuals not mentioned in the complaint - I suggest you notify them of this thread, along with anyone else you are going to comment about. In any case, only one of the four you cite could remotely be construed as personal rudeness - instead we have repeatedly explained why your attempts to provide a synthetic 'balance' to the article are against Wikipedia policy. The first diff, which I suppose might be seen as impolite, was in response to your repeated earlier attacks on the integrity of other contributors ("It makes me wonder if this page isn't left up, not for it's value, but simply as a fish hook to lure in unsuspecting people who have no idea the kind of nonsense they're going to have to deal with in order to try and help out." "That's redundant, childish, and only going to result in the continuation of problems with this page." "Is that the best rebuttal you have andy [Dingley]? Really? lol" "I would like to cite WB:DBN, because I truly feel that those of you whom have been on this page long term, especially Andy [which Andy?] and Novangelis, whom are not benefiting this conversation or the page with insults to the information and zero objectivity." ). The simple facts are that you have had multiple contributors telling you the same thing, and you have either ignored them, or replied with personal attacks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand what you are saying. I agree that I have contributed to the inappropriateness of the conversation on MMS, as well as on this thread. Everyone has made mistakes and quick judgments, which can happen with digital conversations. That being said, it is my hope that we can cultivate a better environment for everyone involved, which I don't feel can be properly achieved without outside assistance. The issue isn't in the correction of mistakes or any attempts to preserve the integrity of the article or wikipolicies, which we are all trying to do. The issue is the manner in which we are all handling each others responses and actions through misinterpretations of those actions and responses.


 * I feel our problem exists mostly with the amount of controversy and personal beliefs involved in how the subject should be written about. In such controversial situations, a certain amount of care needs be taken in order to preserve mutual respect for each other in the process of improving the article, and that doesn't appear to be happening naturally, even though we've all tried to correct ourselves. I feel that a good way to minimize misinterpretations and to positively impact the article, might be to bring in a neutral third party (or a few) to suggest ways in which we can work with each other better. I am unsure of any other way that I or anyone else currently involved in the matter can better respond and contribute to this controversial subject, in a manner that won't create even more unintentional misinterpretations.


 * I wish I could have stated the incident in this way, from the beginning, and I apologize for the manner in which I reported the incident originally. My intent was to get help, not to create more problems. I can see where I can improve my incident reporting in the future to give a better understanding of the situation, and I hope that this (way to long) explanation will create less misinterpretations about my goals. I will let the others know that I have included them in this conversation. I hope some more responses will come in from uninvolved third parties soon, as they might be able to see ways in which we can improve, that we might not be seeing ourselves. --Bema Self (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so I have been uncivil in pointing out that the sources you added weren't in fact about MMS and the rest of your rewrite wasn't sourced at all. I'm sorry that you feel hurt by this, but from my standpoint these are facts. Given that your very first interaction with me was a threat to edit-war “until we are both flagged for violation”, I think you already knew that this wasn't the kind of dispute resolution expected from Wikipedians and that it could lead to both parties being blocked. At that point, I had reverted merely once and given an explanation on the talk page. I would have reverted a second time on Saturday, and explained this on the talk page (in the diff you provide for my alledged incivility), but while I was typing Novangelis had already reverted. Above you claim that I, among others, don't allow “the simplest changes to the article” - none of your edits could be construed as such, each was a major rewrite, and they all had one thing in common: adding “balance” by conflating the “uses” of MMS (which is advertised as a treatment for AIDS, hepatitis, herpes, cancer, malaria and other serious diseases) with the legitimate uses of chlorine dixoide. You seem to complain that you spent a lot of time on those rewrites, but it's pretty much your own fault for continuing on your own when I advised you to discuss and gain consensus on the talk page first. --Six words (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Special:Contributions/Bema_Self 62 contributions, almost all highly pro-product and pro-Jim Humble edits to Miracle Mineral Supplement and already confidently verbose at WQA? Drinking bleach still isn't a medical cure for anything, but it sure washes socks clean. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think Bema Self genuinely believes that in order to have a neutral article, one needs to give as much credence to the proponents as to the opponents. That's a common sentiment among journalists that unfortunately leads to a lot of bad science reporting; it's not what NPOV stands for at all. --Six words (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SPI is the appropriate place for sock accusations, not here. Nobody Ent 11:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I should also note that WP:IAR needs to be read in the context of What "Ignore all rules" means. There are some 'rules' that are pretty firm - eg copyright, our policy on the biographies of living persons, etc. Bema Self, you've encountered another of them. Dougweller (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Rather than discuss the thread so far, I'm going to offer my take. This article has a long history of single purpose accounts trying to promote MMS. The last, / had been blocked for edit warring and made the last a day before Bema Self entered. When a new account enters the fray, quoting, but misapplying, NPOV like so many accounts before, it is difficult to distinguish WP:Wikilawyering in order to promote a product from a good faith misinterpretation to "balance both sides". That said, even giving the new editor the fullest possible assumption of good faith, at no point was the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle discussed with the editor, and if it had, tensions might have been diffused. There are signs of restraint by the editors. No one invoked WP:IDHT which is often taken as biting, and no one quibbled the point that in the thrown onto the page, that WP:BEANS is not a content policy but a humorous essay reminding editors not to tell people how to disrupt Wikipedia. On the upside, I see strong indications that we are not dealing with a tendentious editor who will not back down, but merely headstrong and needing to learn the ins and outs of collaborative editing. At this point, my recommendations to Bema Self are:
 * 1) Consider the possibility that when half a dozen editors who have numerous edits under their belts (on multiple articles) are all telling you roughly the same thing, they might know something you don't.
 * 2) Instead of insisting, phrase as suggestions or ask questions until you have a better feel for policies.
 * 3) Make discrete suggestions, not sweeping generalizations. Discuss one issue at a time and make sure the policies you invoke are applicable. For example, address Wikiquette as Wikiquette, and content disputes as content disputes. When issues are entangled, none get discussed well.
 * 4) From the standpoint of Wikipedia, some things are one-sided if all the evidence in reliable sources goes one way. The Earth is not flat.
 * 5) I you feel like you are surrounded by a pack of hungry wolves, there is no reason to assume that you are not a hungry wolf.

The editors at MMS (myself included) could be less brusque with new editors.Novangelis (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WEaPOn
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WEaPOn&action=history, Wikipedia_talk:WEaPOn – Should this be moved to the userspace? Buster7 has been targeting Joedesantis for a while now:


 * Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_55
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Buster7/Sandbox-Campaign&action=history
 * Talk:Newt_Gingrich_presidential_campaign,_2012
 * User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_96 (canvassing at least six editors:, , , , , .)

Buster7 has been forum-shopping in an attempt to generate an anti-Joedesantis lynch mob, and he was failed every time. I feel that this is a case of "not knowing when to drop the stick." I don't believe that a page devoted to Buster7's vendetta against Joesantis belongs in the Project namespace; it should be moved to the userspace. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with this forum?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Likely should be PRODded as "attack page" from what I see - it is almost entirely about a single named editor. And it "conlicts" with WP:COI to boot <g>. Collect (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All claims above are a one-sided partisan view of my intentions. I have always and repeatedly praised Joe, not set out to lynch him ((which is quite an outlandish claim). I have no vendetta against Joe. When the general election arrives and the Democrats have a Paid Operative orchestrating edits to all the Obama articles there will be a history of what is expected and what has been experienced. BTW, one of you should point out to Joe that he is required to put a tag before he requests a change, as noted at WP:COI. The above editors were notified of a conversation developing at User talk:Jimbo Wales which is canvassing but is permitted under the auspices of Jimbo himself. The were asked to reply. They were not given instructions on HOW to reply. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL! I did not express a "partisan view" about your "intentions" - I stated the simple fact that the entire page is based on a single editor.   Cheers Collect (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The intemperate "lynch mob" accusation is really rather silly here and not at all useful. The diffs show a lasting and, IMO, legitimate concern with transparency and accountability. For instance B7 suggested, IIRC (I tend more towards ADD than OCD so I can't be arsed to check the edit histories but perhaps another user will feel compelled to do so), that as De Santis is only here to work on Wikipedia's Gingrich-related communication he might disclose his job as communications director for the Gingrich election campaign in his sig; a suggestion which, I note, to his credit, De Santis has taken up.


 * Just to be clear. Mr. Suarez and Collect, are you both saying that the statement at WP:WEaPOn here, which rather clearly says the page is not about Joe De Santis ("Note--- This is not about User:Joe DeSantis") but about undeclared "Paid Operatives", and that De Santis's work here on behalf of the Gingrich presidential election campaign is "transparent and...available as a "template" to guide other self-identifying Political Paid Operatives" is a personal attack on Joe De Santis?


 * Ditto the page's inclusion of this February 2 conversation with deSantis. Are you saying B7's "As I'm sure you are aware, I don't and will not attack you [...] I respect the fact that you came forward [...] I have no gripe against you [...] I have no beef as long as you remain transparent" is a personal attack? Writegeist (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk:Newt_Gingrich_presidential_campaign,_2012 – You have a February 2nd conversation, but here's a more recent, February 7th conservation. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First, TY to Editor Writegeist for defending me against these unfounded attacks. And TY to Editor Suarez for adding the 2/7 conversation which surprisingly shows my attempt to be broad-based. (Surprising that it supports WG's defense rather than the Users claim). My problem is this. Editor DeSantis is the only Political Paid Operative WITH A NAMETAG. If these editors know of other political operatives that are paid to edit Wikipedia I will be more than happy to include them.....If User:JoedeSantis is going to be the only official Jimbo sponsored template for future paid operatives, then there needs to be a record of what that "template" did. All i am doing is collecting it in one place.```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  22:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's something from Jimbo to remember....```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  21:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

When a page says it is not about someone - but pretty much every ref in the article is related to that person, something is likely amiss. A person who makes more than two dozen edits about another editor in a short period of time, on a variety of noticeboards and talk pages, may reasonably be deemed to have a pre-occupation with that editor. In the case at hand, I invite any editor to read that page, and note its precise contents. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Due to Collects continued participation in this thread, I must, in good conscience, vacate the vicinity. Our history prevents any meaningful, forwarding, "good-for-the Encyclopedia" conversation. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  22:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Likewise, more or less. Writegeist (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Exercise for the outside observer: Why would any person "vacate the vicinity" except as a show of intense dislike for another editor evinced on user talk pages?  I doubt it shows a great deal of "collegiality" in posts.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Equalization payments in Canada
February 2012 (UTC)

User has removed sourced content from page, no consensus for removal, and has decided to insult instead of discuss. --UnQuébécois (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You should have notified the editor; I have done so. Neither of you should bandy about the term WP:VANDALISM unless what you're referring to is clearly vandalism. See your reversion. What you reverted was NOT vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted and slightly tweaked a peacock term and pov statement to which the references mentioned nothing about. But all this can be discussed on the articles talk page. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverting instead of cooperating
I wanted to add here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Leahy some figures on fundraising. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Leahy&action=history Xenophrenic broke the Three Revert Rule. I assume that Xenophrenic is in a good faith but I cannot get him. I have invited Xenophrenic to edit directly the article (and in particular the paragraph on fundraising) instead of reverting. I'm sure that with his help the paragraph can be improved. Ipvariabile (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xenophrenic&curid=9309471&diff=477072546&oldid=477071831 allowed? Ipvariabile (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * AS Nick says below, it is allowed, but it often considered unhelpful, as it can appear dismissive. Rich Farmbrough, 12:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC).


 * Firstly, Xenophrenic has not broken 3RRR, he is at 3 reverts but the rule applies if a user makes more than 3 reverts, with some exceptions either way not applicable here. Secondly his reverts are not without explanation, he has provided rationale in his edit summaries and quite correctly referred you to the article talk page to discuss the edits before re-inserting them in accordance with WP:BRD.  Thirdly, yes Xenophrenic is perfectly entitled to remove any post you place on his talk page.  Doing so is regarded as acknowledgement of having read the content of such posts and users are not required to give reasons or enter into any discussion on their own talk page.  Finlly, there is no incivility here.  Xenophrenic has not engaged in personal attacks he has not crossed any lines regarding appropriate interaction with other editors.  Last of all, you have not followed the correct procedure here by not placing a notice on the user's talk page as required - please read the instructions at the top of the page about how to use this board. -  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  22:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have placed a WQA notice on Xenophrenic's talk page - Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  22:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

With Extreme Prejudice
The entry below (in bold) was taken from User talk:Joedesantis. I had informed UserJoe of a speedy deletion of a project, WP:WeaPOn, now an essay titled[WP:Paid Operatives]] that, in a round about way, was about Joe De Santis. I informed UserJoe as a courtesy, thinking he may wish reply or have input. Absoltuely no animas was intended. I had "canvassed" my 7 or 8 wikifriends, including Jimbo, for their support and/or comment to stop the Speedy and was just beginning to "canvas" the few editors that may have been in support of the Speedy. The following edit was left after mine by User:Kenatipo. The 'BS' in the entry refers to me, B uster S even. This is the type of conduct I am repeatedly required to put up with from this editor. Administrator Will Beback advised that I ignore the editor. But, an attack like this is very hard to ignore and needs to be dealt with ASAP. Nothing I say or do will appease him. His replies and conversations with/to me are condesending, sarcastic and mocking. Talk:Callista Gingrich The hate he is directing toward me is palpable   and surprisingly gaudy. His smiley face does little to hide his aggression. I have asked for the advice and input of Admins Will BeBack, Chet Davis and Casliber. Maybe one of them can put a stop to it. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  01:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (If BS had been a Roman soldier, he would have asked Jesus to hand him the next nail!)  --  Kenatipo    speak! 16:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ruud Koot is rude


I prodded Wizard (band), which seemed fairly uncontroversial. User:Ruud Koot remove the prod without comment. I asked him, "Please do not remove prod tags unless you explain why." which got a very rude response of "As you clearly are incapable of determining whether a nomination is uncontroversial or not, please do not use the PROD template in the future." I could do without the attack. Further attacking at Articles for deletion/Wizard (band), saying I have a "bad track record" when it comes to finding sources. Cherry picking fallacy much? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this is enough of a violation to belong here, especially since you told him "don't be stupid" on the same page. Both his comment there and yours are vaguely rude, and not of such entirely different magnitudes for scolding one user and not the other to be worthwhile. Kevin (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I redacted that, but he has continued to attack me in the AFD. Saying things like last.fm is more objective than my search skills. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I withdraw this WQA; can someone close it? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Abusive Telekom Malaysia user
I guess my talk page speaks for itself. The user in question logs in from these subnets 60.48.0.0/14, 60.52.0.0/15 and 60.54.0.0/16. I would like to ask for an intervention to stop the abuse from his side. —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

Hounding admins and uncivil admin-shopping after AE result

 * Pages concerned
 * User talk:Mkativerata#Topic ban of Tom Harrison
 * Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests
 * User talk:Timotheus Canens
 * User talk:Wgfinley
 * User talk:Tom harrison
 * Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests
 * User talk:Timotheus Canens
 * User talk:Wgfinley
 * User talk:Tom harrison

This has been dragging on for the past four days with no signs of these editors relenting. Basically, ever since this AE result the three editors above have been letting loose at several places. They have all been making repeated mentions to the admins who supported the result of a 30-day TBAN I received back in November and accused me of filing the AE request in "retaliation" for Tom's comments at the AE request that led to it. Two of the editors, Toa and AQFK, have repeatedly been saying they want to get me banned. The first instance was Toa suggesting on the talk page of the 9/11 CT article that editors shun me. When I asked Toa to rescind that suggestion and mentioned the possibility of going to WP:DRN, the response was Toa and AQFK going to my talk page to insist that DRN was unnecessary and insisting that they wanted me banned. At the time it was because of a disagreement about a category concerning Jews being included in the article that AQFK was actually suggesting be renamed to "Antisemitic conspiracy theories" to reflect a belief about antisemitism being a common characteristic of the CTs. That discussion saw several editors other than myself saying the category about Jews should be removed, and one even took the step of trying to remove it. All the same, Toa and AQFK insisted that those opinions weren't relevant because I was the only "active dissenter" on the issue so they argued I should be banned.

MONGO became involved after the AE case against Tom resulted in an indef. As can be seen in the old version of Mkat's talk page Toa, AQFK, and MONGO all went to the admin who issued the ban accusing him of a conflict of interest because him being involved in ARBPIA (based on Mkat's willful declaration due to contributions to an RfC on settlements). On Tom's talk page MONGO made an even worse comment claiming "manipulation" of AE among other things. I advised them to stop going after Mkat like that, but they were insistent. Ultimately, Mkat has retired and turned in his tools in apparent response to this activity. Despite this all of the editors in question have continued by making comments at the pages of the other two admins involved in the case to make repeated accusations against me and Toa went so far as to blame me for Mkat's resignation. At the same time, MONGO has been going to several places insisting Mkat's resignation indicates that the AE request had been in error, while calling on all the admins involved to "resign" or get "topic-banned" from AE. He has even left a comment at Jimbo's talk page implicitly taking a swipe at these admins. Now these editors are converging on WgFinley's talk page repeating the accusations against me and with AQFK commenting that the sanction against Tom was "more disruptive" than the edits insisting that had Tom not been given that sanction the "sh*t storm" could have been avoided. At the same time they have once more repeatedly brought me up, insisting that I was acting in retaliation. I have asked all of them to stop going after the admins involved in this decision and to stop making accusations of me filing the report in bad faith, but this has continued unabated and I think some outside intervention is the only real option at this point to get them to cool off.The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Time heals. Tempers may be frayed right now, but TH, MONGO, TDA, AQFK, TN et al. each have something to contribute towards improving 9/11 coverage on WP. Space is needed for that to happen. Geometry guy 23:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Devils Advocate seems to be having problems with editors all over the place.--MONGO 00:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * MONGO, are you going to present your side? Do you have any defense for the diffs that TDA has posted above?  Do you feel that what you have said or done since the AE closed is justified or appropriate?  Do you have any evidence that TDA has behaved in a similar fashion? Cla68 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for using all caps when spelling my username...some people write Mongo...that is annoying.--MONGO 01:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is the discussion on Wgfinley's talk page. I have been involved in some content discussions on the 9/11 pages before.  Although Tom Harrison, MONGO, and AQFK were polite and civil with me, I noticed that they all seemed to share an intense animosity towards the 9/11 conspiracy theories.  The diffs that Devil's Advocate has listed above appear to show that this animosity is still influencing the way they interact with other editors and is interfereing with cooperation, collaboration, and compromise on the 9/11 topic articles.  I don't know if Devil's Advocate has been responding in kind, and await MONGO, Toa, and AQFK's response to see.  Either way, the behavior in evidence needs to stop. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Abuse from Night w
I am a new user and not familiar with all of the WP process and I explained this to him and he acknowledged it. Despite that he is acting in an aggressive and peremptory manner. Just because I am involved in an controversial topic, surely this is not justification for his behaviour. Please view my talk page where  Night w   apologises for his conduct but then continues to attack me.

Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You (AnkhMorpork) do not appear to be listening and/or understanding policy. Any reversion is reversion, it doesn't have to be the same edit. There are special sanctions WikiProject_Arbitration_Enforcement/Israel-Palestine_articles for that article. You are going to need to discuss any potential edits on Talk:Israeli–Palestinian_conflict before editing. There is also an essay explaining how Tendentious editing may be considered disruptive. I'm not seeing any evidence of incivility by Nightw.  Nobody Ent 19:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that I do not understand policy, hence my questioning. But why is this relevant to to his conduct, e.g. calling me "stupid" etc Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They didn't. They said your actions were stupid -- and this is acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. Language is not censored here; so as long as other editors are describing either edits or content it can become quite direct and blunt. If you find this objectionable editing Wikipedia is probably not for you. Nobody Ent 19:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing to my concerns. At the very least you have provided some assistance. Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You might want to revisit this issue. Personal attacks such as are extremely helpful. 213.220.233.192 (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The diff provided does not contain a personal attack. Nobody Ent 04:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read the edit summary? Calling another editor an "idiot" seems like a rather agressive personal attack to me.  213.220.233.192 (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You've never edited that page, nor anything remotely related to it. While you're free to join whatever discussions you like, you should be aware of what constitutes harassment. If you feel slighted after our conversations together (which are well and truly concluded), I suggest you let it go and move on. Continuing to follow my edits is quite childish.  Night w   12:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, didn't see the edit summary. Yes, I'd call that uncivil. Nobody Ent 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg Personal Attacks


Jayg has been using personal attacks on my religions beliefs to discredit my opinions on talk pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Jews&curid=1506019&diff=473273960&oldid=473271723 yisraeldov (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That does not seem to be a personal attack. Note that Yisraeldov resumed editing four days ago after a two year break and has not informed Jayjg of this request. Mathsci (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't remember seeing where it said that if you don't make edits every day then you are vulnerable to personal attacks ? If you read the article on personal attacks it state
 * "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."

Jayjg has repeatedly launched personal attacks against me in Talk:Circumcision. Some examples include, 'Regarding whether there should be a tag, the views of Wimp O'Pede, a banned sockpuppet, are not relevant. Also, when it comes to broad policy and the proper use of tags, the views of Therewillbefact, tftobin, Robert B19 and Chevara, four editors who essentially joined Wikipedia this month, edit exclusively from an anti-circumcision POV, edit essentially one article (this one), and have a combined total of 9 article edits among them, carry little weight. In addition, Carlossuarez46 hasn't stated the article should be tagged. Finally, there's no "pro-circumcision argument for "cost-effectiveness" in the lead". "Perma-tagging" an article because one cannot insert policy-violating POV is an old tactic, and this article has been a particular target for it, but it's WP:DISRUPTive, so you'll have to come up with an actual and specific policy issue, because this won't be tolerated for much longer. Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)'

'If I were to speculate, I would guess that people who hang out at "intactivist" fora, and who come here as a result of encouragement to do so in those fora, would be far more likely to be "true believers" promoting a POV than regular Wikipedia editors who are here because they support Wikipedia, and who have edited thousands of different articles besides this one. And given the persistent sockpuppeting on this article, the "unless" you mention is a significant concern here. Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)'

'Perhaps they do exist, I wouldn't know. However, they don't really seem relevant to what happens in this article. Whenever new editors show up at this article, they inevitably edit from an strongly anti-circumcision viewpoint, so the scenario you suggest contradicts the reality of this article. And when I "take a hard look around me" and "check a little", I find literally thousands of posts on various fora made by various anti-circumcision activists, maligning one specific editor here - saying (as one random example) conspiratorial things like "He trolls the internet late at night, looking for vulnerable parents to influence, to surgically alter their kids, while pretending to be neutral. This is a technique he picked up from feigning a neutral point of view with Wikipedia, all the while slanting it to a pro-circumcision position, but not enough so that those protest against his manipulations have arbitrators come down on their side. He collaborates with other circumcisers worldwide." These are the kinds of comments that indicate a profound misunderstanding of both this article and how Wikipedia works, and seem more like personal vendetta than anything else. Jayjg (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)' Another exammple is, 'I'm sorry you feel that way - although I must say, what happens on this talk page is not one-hundredth as hostile and vitriolic as the stuff I've seen over the past few days looking through various anti-circumcision fora and postings (random example provided in my posting above of 16:31, 3 February 2012). Jakew is extraordinarily patient. Jayjg (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)' I also find this reply rather snide, in its original context. 'Wikipedia welcomes all people who are willing to edit in accord with its policies. Having to edit in accord with Wikipedia's policies makes some people feel very unwelcome. Jayjg (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)' Additionally, I am not the only person who is experiencing difficulties with Jayjg.

'Jayjg, you mentioned the "literally thousands of posts on various fora made by various anti-circumcision activists" In your opinion, do they offer any evidence that is currently not in the article?Chevara (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)' 'I can't vouch for everything they say, but based on a small random sample they mostly seem to contain a) personal opinion, often of a quasi-religious "good vs. evil" nature; b) personal attacks; and c) highly selective (and often misinterpreted) use of primary or non-scientific sources. Jayjg (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)'

'I would appreciate it if you both refrained from putting words in my mouth going forward. Jayjg said HIV-related content once consisted of 25% of the lead, and also mentioned that this percentage has drastically reduced since. Allow me to quote it: "Beejaypii spent literally weeks arguing that the lede devoted too much attention to HIV, because 25% of it (since significantly reduced) was on that topic (...)" Did Jayjg not just say here that 25% of the lead was previously devoted to HIV, and has "significantly reduced" since? Now what I was saying is that HIV coverage still consists of roughly 25% of the lead. The previous coverage of HIV content in the lead was actually closer to 30%, for what it's worth, and is now about a quarter. Jakew, the next time you ask someone who informs someone to get their facts straight, I politely ask that you've also done the same. '

This sets up a totally hostile atmosphere to anyone who comes onto the Talk:Circumcision page, in a way I don't see with the other editors. Thank you for your attention. Tftobin (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

How should I go about informing him? I requested that he refrain from using personal attacks and referenced him to this link. --yisraeldov (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That diff isn't a personal attack --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  14:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * From the diff
 * Please accept that the view of American Jews held by a haredi Jew living in Israel will be narrow at best.
 * better than the personal viewpoint of any individual whose knowledge of Jewish history and culture apparently begins and ends with late 20th and early 21st century Haredi Judaism.


 * There are other such comments on the same page that are belittling my opinion because I am a Haradi that lives in Israel. Why is that not "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" ?14:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs)
 * There is nothing belittling in his comments. He simply was trying to explain that your view may not be shared by others outside of your own scope of experience. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "better than the personal viewpoint of any individual whose knowledge of Jewish history and culture apparently begins and ends with late 20th and early 21st century Haredi Judaism."
 * That is extremely belittling, he is assuming because of my affiliation, that my knowledge is limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs) 10:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can someone please close this thread before it goes into an infinite do loop? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Entropy and Miszabot terminate all WQA loops. Nobody Ent 13:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I find this wikipedia snobbery very troubling. First that some one continually used my religious affiliation to belittle my opinion, and second that everyone here seems to agree with him, and no one is willing to address my comments seriously.  yisraeldov (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not saying we agree or disagree, just that you haven't provided evidence of personal attacks requiring sanctions. As of the time I'm writing this, I'd say that Wikipedia is barely civil but not overly polite. (The Arbitration Committee has accepted a case regarding the issue, so it's possible there may be some changes.) Each editor has to decide for themselves if this is an environment they wish to participate in or not. Nobody Ent 16:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't understand. He said that because of my religion I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic ? Why is that not a personal attack yisraeldov (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because decisions made on Wikipedia are determined by consensus. Multiple editors have volunteered their time to reply to your request and we've explained the policy to the best of our ability. Nobody Ent 12:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's good to provide a link to the Arbitration Committee case which I assume is about general civility and not this dispute, as an FYI. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 00:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement Nobody Ent 03:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying link. @Nobody Ent wrote: Each editor has to decide for themselves if this is an environment they wish to participate in or not. The problem I see is that there are a few Admins who really push the envelope on incivility, but if one were to be half as uncivil back, one would get "in trouble." (Not in this case but in other past ones involving this and other admins.) Admins really do have to live up to a higher standard of civility, and be careful of the threats (no matter how subtle) they wield when in contention with other editors on an article, or it makes other editors feel like second class citizens. This evidently has been an issue with User:Malleus Fatuorum, who is subject of the civility enforcement, in the past; though not clear from his user page if he's still an admin. CarolMooreDC 16:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He is not an admin .--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not hard to understand the complaint. Yisraeldov is complaining that Jayjg is construing as minimal Yisraeldov's "knowledge of Jewish history", and this is certainly a legitimate complaint. In fact Jayjg does not know the extent of Yisraeldov's knowledge of Jewish history consequently Jayjg should not be commenting on Yisraeldov's knowledge of Jewish history.


 * WP:TALK applies here: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."


 * I am referring to "Google is not a great metric, but it's a starting point, and certainly better than the personal viewpoint of any individual whose knowledge of Jewish history and culture apparently begins and ends with late 20th and early 21st century 'Haredi' Judaism." Jayjg should not be commenting on another editor's "knowledge of Jewish history." Bus stop (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Asking if someone is qualified to edit an article (or implying they are not) is an example of WP:OWNER behavior and should not be done.


 * I ended up here exploring options for dispute on circumcision pov tag. Jayjg has accused people of being disrupted 3 times for support of a NPOV tag, and claims he does not see any relevant POV disputes. Though, Jayjg has made contributed to 3 topics active in the past 5 days [ 1 ], [ 2 ] and [ 3 ], where WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE are under discussion. there are more of these in the archive (the talk page archives at 5 days old)). I can't possibly see how Jayjg could have read and contributed to these topics and not seen that authors have POV disputes, when he himself is arguing to correct a POV or that someone else is adding POV. I find his disregard very uncivil if not a breach of policy. Gsonnenf (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Jayjg is famous for doing as many as 60-70 edits a day, though looking at hist last 500 contributions, he seems to have slowed down. It's hard to properly work toward consensus on articles when one does that much editing. It's easy to get into incivility and edit wars when one doesn't listen properly to others. I've done it from time to time when doing only 15 or 20 edits in a day. Jayjg needs to slow down. This is supposed to be a fun diversion, not a job where one is under pressure to produce, civility and consensus be damned :-) CarolMooreDC 00:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This was the situation here too, most of the changes were made when I was unable to be on the computer, and I also have a job, so I can not invest the time answering all of his repeated claims. 16:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs)

I just looked at the given diff (in original report and repeated above): Mathsci, Guerillero, OhNoitsJamie, and Nobody Ent have indicated above that the diff does not show a personal attack. I confirm that it is not a personal attack—in fact it is not a wikiquette issue at all. It is much better to speak plainly at Wikipedia because hiding a problem with circumlocutions or euphemisms does not help the encyclopedia or any of its editors. Please respond to the issues raised, not some imagined insult. Jayjg took some trouble to explain their point, and did not violate any guideline or policy. There is no evidence of a problem due to frequency of edits. The long post above regarding issues at Talk:Circumcision does not show any wikiquette issue either (suggestion: it would be better to show a single good example of what you think is a problem, and briefly explain why it is a problem). Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are confusing my complaint ( Disregarding my opinions because of my religious affiliation ) with the other complaint. Please don't mix them up. yisraeldov (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please be specific as volunteers cannot spend time decoding hidden messages. Are you talking about your first diff posted in the report above? What text in that suggests that your opinions are being disregarded because of your religious affiliation? Bear in mind that while editors add their opinions to a discussion, what counts are reliable sources. What text have you suggested for the article, based on what reliable source, that has been disregarded because of your religious affiliation? Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This thread has been going for over three weeks. It's time it was archived. Mathsci (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could a Haredi Jew living in Israel not be an expert on the subject? I would have thought such could be. Writing: "please accept that the view of American Jews held by a haredi Jew living in Israel will be narrow at best" seems to me to therefore be clearly an ad hominem attack. Why this protection of Jayjg and rush to archive without properly adressing this?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In the context given by the full message from Jayjg, there is no problem—the full text clearly explains a position and the words quoted above are consistent with the point being made. No one is claiming the language is warm and embracing, but what is the attack? If the person addressed happens to be an expert on Jews in America, they merely have to reply that Jayjg is mistaken (however, scanning the article talk page suggests that Jayjg is on the side of consensus and common sense). Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The context clearly was that PRECISELY BECAUSE of the editor's ethnic origin and their country of residence they therefore can not know what they are talking about. That is a classic ad hominem attack as it does not deal with what the editor (in this case yisraeldov) is writing but is directed only at who is writing it. It is in effect stating that the ability to have any knowledge on this subject of ANY AND EVERY "haredi Jew living in Israel" can only be "narrow at best", that being a logical corollary of who they are and where they come from. Which is an obvious logical fallacy. C'mon. This is serious. And its not a one-off from Jayjg. Ad hominem attacks should have no place in Wikipedia and condoning and justifying this merely adds to the transgression and emboldens the perpetrator.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argument would make sense in some other discussion where, for example, it would be uncivil to suggest that an editor does not know something because they are a haredi Jew living in Israel. However, the discussion in question is quite different: the whole point is that an editor wants to insert certain information in an article about Jews in America, and Jayjg is claiming that the proposed changes are undue, and that a haredi Jew living in Israel may only have a narrow view of the general picture concerning Jews in America. That argument can be refuted (as the user proceeded to do, with a hint that they might have lived in the US for over 20 years), but in the context of the discussion at Talk:American Jews, the comments are not an attack. Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So by that logic, I should be able to have ultimate authority over articles about haradi jews in israel ? A chinese persons view should be considered less informed about the civil rights movement in the US ? A persons religious, ethnicity, and country should be irrelevant to the discussion. This is really absurd. The comments are clearly an attack, and it was repeated. Scanning the article only gives you the impression that he is on the consensus because he has the time to make many edits a day and continues the thread before the original poster has had a chance to read the replies. I don't know how you define common sense, but at least 1/12 of the jews in the us is a haradi, common sense would dictate that one of the boxes should be for some one recognizably haradi, but here is not the place to relive the argument there. The fact is that my personal information was used to marginalize my opinion, and this is not acceptable. I should not have to provide credentials to make edits on wikipedia, it should be enough to backup my arguments with facts ( in the end the consensus was with my suggestion) 16:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs)


 * Exactly. Personal information should not be used to marginalise anyone's opinion, and attempting to do so really isn't acceptable. Editors should not have to provide credentials to make edits on wikipedia, it should be enough to backup arguments with facts from reputable secondary sources. And as the perpetrator is an administrator, doesn't the offence become much more serious? Administrators intimidating editors with ad hoinem attacks! Is that what we want here at Wikipedia? Shoudn't some kind of warning or reprimand be passed onto Jayjg? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg and 'cognitive issues'


User:Jayjg seems to think that suggesting that another editor has "cognitive issues" and "disordered cognitive or thought patterns"  is appropriate for his talk page. I'd appreciate some input on whether this is considered appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am more put off by the tone and style than by his oblique/euphemistic way of saying you're not as smart as he is. The posts read like court orders.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, my opinion of this board never recovered after I asked for assistance at Wikiquette assistance/archive100 about an editor who was using an article Talk: page to repeatedly call another editor a hypocrite and liar, only to be told that it wasn't a civility issue if the accusations were true. My pointing out that the name-calling didn't belong on an article Talk: page regardless of its veracity (per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES) appeared to make no impression.
 * In any event, the posts on my Talk: page were the culmination of a rather lengthy series of exchanges between Andy and me (and others) about this list, most recently in the past 24 hours. During that period, aside from our disagreement, Andy several times explicitly refused to answer my questions to him regarding the list, starting with "I don't have to explain anything. You do." and deteriorating from there. He then pursued the issue on my user Talk: page. Editors are given considerable leeway regarding what they allow on their user talk pages, and I made it clear that if he didn't want to answer my questions he didn't have to, but in that event his posts there were not welcome.
 * Regarding the rest, I was expressing an honest concern, because I really and truly cannot understand the reasoning behind many of the things Andy is writing. I also apologized if my speculation was incorrect. I didn't mock or belittle Andy - for example, when he misspelled "cognitive" - and in no way intended to insult him, but since he's taken this as a personal attack, I've just deleted the entire discussion from my Talk: page, so no-one has to have any more misunderstandings or bad feelings about this. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So your response to me objecting to you suggesting that I have "cognitive issues" is to repeat it here? And yes, I've refused to answer your off-topic questions regarding my editing habits, and my opinion of other articles, while you refused to actually address the issue at hand, and explain why the lede section of a list shouldn't explain its criteria for inclusion, as Manual of Style/Lists seems to require where there is room for ambiguity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't "repeat[ed] it here", and I'm not sure what you want at this point. I don't understand the reasoning behind many of your posts, and it's not an insult for me to say so. I've deleted the entire section containing the material. I don't know what else could be reasonably asked of me. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A statement that you don't understand my reasoning is of course entirely proper - but suggesting that you cannot understand them because I have "disordered cognitive or thought patterns" isn't. In any case, I see little evidence for you actually asking me to explain my reasoning regarding the issue in question (though I think I've made my reasoning clear - there is self-evidently ambiguity as to what the criteria for inclusion in the list are) - instead, you go off at a tangent by asking questions about other subjects entirely - and repeatedly failing to explain the reasoning behind your assertions that a list shouldn't explain its criteria for inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly, Andy, I don't see this as a big deal. You had a dispute with Jay. He used some mildly offensive language. He says he didn't intend anything offensive. He's removed the discussion that contains the language. Yet, you're continuing the dispute here. I don't see the purpose. I suggest you let it go, cool off a bit, and move on. I also don't see that he "repeated" the "accusation" here. I don't read what he says that way.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have come to this noticeboard to see if it's the right area for discussing issues I have on three or four articles, all of which involve Jayjg as the key protaganist. So I was intrigued to see these two other current cases where editors have complained of his behaviour. Bbb23, you wrote originally : "I am more put off by the tone and style than by his oblique/euphemistic way of saying you're not as smart as he is. The posts read like court orders" Yet you now say its not "a big deal"?! May I ask why the apparent change of heart? As I see it, when Jayg wrote here: Writing "I didn't mock or belittle Andy - for example, when he misspelled "cognitive"" that was also is a subtle form of ad hominem. It does appear to me that in these two instances here, he is being allowed to transgress wiki policy WP:NPA without rebuke or a warning. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't have a change of heart. I didn't like the tone of Jay's post. I didn't say the tone rose to the level of a policy violation. I also agree with Andy that Jay's statements about cognitive reasoning were at best poorly crafted. As for the stuff about misspelling, really, even if Jay intended that to be another jab at Andy, it was hardly the stuff to justify continuing the complaint here after Jay apologized and removed the offending material from his Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if it seems tiresome me continuing this, but I have also been the object of what I regard as an ad-hominem attack by Jayjg over a period of a month or two, which I have hitherto chose to ignore. But it has reached a point where I feel I should bring it to the attention of the Wiki community in some way. I'm not sure which is the best venue for that. And in searching for that I came across these TWO complaints of the exact same transgression here that are in my opinion being allowed to pass without any action . I do not think this is one-off behaviour by Jayjg. Plus his apology was done in a "walking back" way that further repeated the ad hominem by implying there really might still be something mentally wrong with the editor, "but if you are in fact OK, sorry". I must confess to being rather surprised and dismayed that this standard of behaviour is being allowed and excused like this.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What concerns me more is when editor A has a series of content disputes with editor B, and after failing to gain any support for his views, editor A uses other boards like Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance to get revenge, by jumping in and trying to stir the pot, and smear editor B. In this case, your editing history here shows a series of editorial disputes with me - in none of which have you been successful - followed by your appearance here. It would have been better if you had not come here with unclean hands. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If I'd had three different people complain about me here in a month, I might consider at least moderating my tone, especially if I was a big stick administrator. I've certainly had a number of disputes lately with Jayjg that have come to a draw (IMHO), usually with me promising to provide more WP:RS info to prove my point. But the problem is that the thought of MORE such contretemps does make the various articles in question keep falling to the bottom of my Toodledo list. (And then there's the issue of his popping up on other articles I'm working on and making contrary comments when we're having a problem on another article, the excuse no doubt "administrative oversight" or some such thing.) However, perhaps it is getting to the point where someone has to do a RfC/User for him to at least take more seriously the various complaints that doubtless would be elicited. CarolMooreDC 16:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "unclean hands"? You appear to have got this back-to-front, Jayg. It is your behaviour that is under discussion here.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Carol, as usual I don't understand much of what you have written, but you and I have had editorial disputes for years, not just "lately". Your post, filled with vague accusations and odd epithets (e.g. "big stick administrator"), is exactly the kind that brings this board into disrepute; an attempt to use the board to get your licks in against someone with whom you've had lost of editorial disputes. And Mystichumwipe, if you think this board is the place you can finally get your revenge for Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714, then I submit that you have misunderstood this board's purpose. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Other administrators have in the past attempted to "talk down" to editors in an attempt to perhaps get them to behave or act more rationally. Being condescending (God, I hope I spelled that right) is so far as I know not necessarily a violation of any sort. On that basis, although I myself do think Jayjg may have crossed the line at some point, like virtually any other editor of his long standing, I question whether this criticism is entirely appropriate. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the fact that you indeed spelled "condescending" correctly, I think we should close this discussion (I thought so a long time ago).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jayjg wrote: CarolMooreDC 22:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree w/Carol's reasonable suggestion that we seem to be at a (though she didn't use those words) more heat than light phase of the conversation. Editors all said what they had to say, many of them are seasoned and "get it" though they have different views, and there is now a record of their positions, but this doesn't seem to be moving in a particularly linear direction at this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Assumptions of bad faith about ARS concerns

 * Deletion review/Log/2012 February 10
 * Deletion review/Log/2012 February 10
 * Deletion review/Log/2012 February 10

This editor has been repeatedly accusing me of bad faith and trolling ever since I posted an ANI report about the Article Rescue Squadron's rescue list. I have asked several times for editors such as Toth to stop making such accusations. Toth has been the most blatant about it, suggesting essentially that I am trying to stir up some sort of war between inclusionists and deletionists and I have repeatedly tried to explain my good faith reasons for trying to get this issue fully aired. Most recently when I commented on his user talk page asking him to stop accusing me of trolling and to assume good faith Toth hatted the discussion with WP:SPADE and points 3, 13, 17, and 55 at WP:OWB. All of those seem to indicate that he does not accept that I am acting in good faith and is insisting his behavior is perfectly acceptable. One other thing is that several of the points at OWB mention banning and driving a "troublesome" editor away, which is essentially what Toth has suggested several times at the ARS talk page since I brought this up recently on ANI. The fact is, several editors, including admins, have agreed that my concerns are legitimate with some also endorsing my evaluation of the canvassing issue. Yet Toth is persistent in accusing me at the ARS talk page and more recently implying at the DRV that I have some heinous motive against not just ARS, but Wikipedia as a whole. I would like to see these uncivil assumptions of bad faith stop so I am requesting that someone persuade Toth to stop making such accusations.The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) User:The Devil's Advocate is misrepresenting the facts and attempting to put words into my mouth.
 * 2) He has also been repeatedly cautioned by others against continuing these very behaviours.
 * It would appear that because The Devil's Advocate has gotten nowhere with his claims and tactics of targeting ARS, he has decided to target me instead. These are of course a common tactics when it comes to disruptive editors who have been called out on their behaviour, so I'm really not surprised at all to see it here. cf. WP:OWB and Cyberstalking "False victimization" I also note DA has chosen not to link to any of the comments made by others who have openly questioned his "good faith concerns", nor has he included links to any of the comments from others cautioning and warning him against continuing with his current behaviour. Not once have I mentioned "banning" DA (although if he continues the behaviours he has been exhibiting, is it highly likely the community itself will ultimately put a stop to it), and it seems he is attempting to use some of the WP:OWB links that I left on my own talk page as justification for making this WQA post. DA further apparently does not like some of the discussion which has occurred at DRV which is actually a lot more general and didn't even name him. The irony is despite DA's claims above (and he certainly can't provide diffs where they don't exist), I've not even commented on the ARS talk page in several days. In fact, the last comment I made there was 03:19, 11 February 2012 where I mentioned the possibility of filing an RFC/U for User:The Devil's Advocate concerning his behaviour, which others agreed that an RFC/U looked to be the direction to take things. This specific discussion thread can be found here. [Edit: I've now left a comment there regarding this very WQA report.] I did indeed hat the comments DA left on my talk page. His comments on my talk page, while on their face appearing to be "civil", were a clear attempt to bait me into something he could try to report me for. Rather than remove them, I hatted them. Had I simply removed them, DA would have made a similar post to what he posted above while claiming that I was "being uncivil" because I had removed his comments to me from my talk page. (see also: Disruptive editing) I've seen this very game attempted by other editors in the past and none of them had good outcomes. I would strongly caution DA not to continue down the path he is attempting to follow. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You went to DRV and suggested "some people" are trying to "stir thing up" between ARS and its opponents, the exact same claim you made against me at the ARS talk page just two days before. When I asked you to stop at your talk page, your response was to hat it citing WP:SPADE (an essay about "calling it as you see it") and several numbered points at OWB that repeat the references to "bullying", "harassment" and other behaviors that you surely understand are severe accusations that result in hefty sanctions. Also, while you make no explicit reference to banning, point number 13 says enough:
 * As the primary job of Wikipedians is to write the encyclopedia, any user whose principal activity is to interfere with the writing should be removed from the project, as painlessly as possible. The best way is to persuade them that they will be happier elsewhere, and to wish them well; the worst is to beat them up and make them angry: but however it happens, it must be done.
 * You referenced all this in hatting my comment asking you to stop accusing me of trolling. How else exactly am I supposed to interpret that?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * How many times do you have to be pointed to WP:STICK. You have been trying for the past month to rid Wikipedia of the Article Rescue Squadron. Time and time again, you have been told to drop the issue, yet you continue to drag this issue up. Enough is enough, this continued behavior is disruptive. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  21:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: After a recent discussion with Toth, I believe the issue between us has been settled peacefully.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Concern about hounding; edit warring, Twinkle abuse, and violations of wp:v/wp:or; Night of the Big Wind
Night of the Big Wind and I had a difference of opinion. Perhaps he felt slighted by it. I had tagged an Irish sports article, pointing out that it only used primary sources. Night addressed the problem, but left an edit summary saying: "stop you witch hunt".

Over the next hour, Night singled me out. He just now followed me to over a dozen articles which I had PRODed this past week (all of his immediately following edits were to articles I had PRODed). In each case, I had only PRODed the article after I performed a wp:BEFORE search. The articles were in various places on Wikipedia, on articles ranging from sports (including Irish sports, such as here), to malls (including Canadian malls, such as here), to music, and to a medical institution. He de-PRODed them, often with zero explanation. He admits following me to these articles. I am concerned that this could be an effort by him to repeatedly confront or inhibit my work, or cause me to be annoyed or distressed. His singling me out and de-PRODing my articles is disrupting my enjoyment of editing, and I feel it is disruptive. I requested that he stop, but received a non-conciliatory response.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Prodding a lot of Middle Eastern and Asian articles with as arguments that there were no sources on Gnews and Gbooks is in my opinion dodgy resource. It is wel known that both are strongly focused on the Western World. So if you start looking at a place that is guaranteed to yield nothing, the changes are big that you find nothing. Using that as a reason for a deletion nomination is plain nonsense. The angry and aggressive way Epeefleche replied on my talkpage and now here, robs me completely from every sympathy for him. It is a rather pityful way to get rid of someone who is in your way. Is it immediately houding when you use a critical approach? Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  00:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming that I am hounding him, is plain bad faith. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  00:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * when I check prods, and see one I think unjustified, I will usually check other recent work of the prodder, for the same reason I would check the recent work of someone who had contributed an unacceptable article. If I see other errors, I'll follow up on them. Though it won't be personal, I recognize it can seem that way. If the other party takes it amiss, I try to explain, but it can be a difficult situation. It's not wikihounding, but getting annoyed at it isn't bad faith either.  DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Apples and oranges. DGG, in his discussion of his personal practices, simply reflects the difference between appropriate editing (his) and inappropriate editing (what we have here, I believe).


 * It is wikihounding when an editor singles out another editor, and follows the target from place to place on wp, joining discussions on multiple pages they edit or multiple debates where they contribute (as obviously was the case here), in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work with the apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor.


 * While many users such as DGG track other users' edits for administrative purposes, it is clear this should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that the target's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight (such as reflected in the edit summary immediately preceding these PROD removals). Most of this series of removals had no rationale or no reasonable rationale (see, e.g., here, here, here, and here). There was no "good cause" here.  An important component of wikihounding is disruption of another editor's enjoyment of editing, or of the project generally, for no overriding reason.


 * The difference between DGG's edits and these is that I expect DGG's edits were both administrative in nature and supported by a reasonable rationale, reflected "good cause", and did not follow (immediately, as here) an edit summary indicating that the follower felt a perceived slight. What DGG describes as his personal behavior is clearly distinguishable.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If i remove a prod which i feel either has no substance i routinely have a check for others they may have nominated. It appears that night has done that and felt that they hadn't been looked at enough for a prod to remain uncontested and i agree Gnews and Gbooks isn't the best for searches for non western articles and as far as I'm aware he does not have to give a reason to contest it. We can all do that everyone of us. He also looked at other nominations that you made and agreed with you as he pointed in reply to the message you left on his talk page. I don't see it as wiki hounding. Im not an admin and some others may have a different view. Edinburgh  Wanderer  23:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that: a) this followed directly the aforementioned dispute; 2) the prods were made after precisely what wp:BEFORE calls for; 3) his PROD removals ranged all over wp, including western articles -- it was one such that started his activities -- as I indicated above; 4) the wp:BEFORE search that was done is not contested. Given that this followed the indicated dispute, and given that it ranged over Canadian malls and Irish sports articles (however Night may be seeking to confuse matters), it is precisely the sort of matter that wp:WIKIHOUNDING is meant to prevent.  If we cannot find wikihounding here, then we would be giving license for anyone -- say, after a dispute with DGG -- to without reason de-PROD the lot of them. Thats why wp:WIKIHOUNDING states clearly that tracking for administrative purposes may be acceptable but this should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that the target's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight.  Night's series of de-PRODs failed in that respect. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And — just now, another example. A few hours ago, I deleted the red-linked, non-referenced name of an American from List of speed skaters.  With the edit summary: "per WP:LISTPEOPLE. There must be an article on the subject, or a ref--or the entry is to be deleted".

Hours later, Night (apparently again following me across the Project) restored the redlinked name, without any ref, and without creating an article. An act directly contrary to wp:LISTPEOPLE (which I had cited). And wp:CHALLENGED. This was manifestly yet another example of wikihounding. During the pendency of this discussion. And certainly did not meet the standard of only tracking another's edits "for administrative purposes" with "good cause", to avoid raising suspicion that the edits are being followed to cause distress or out of revenge.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And — now, another example. I had deleted uncited text at an Irish sports article; one Night had never edited.  Night reverted me hours later, and restored the text.  Without supplying an inline citation, as required by WP:CHALLENGED.  Again -- that fails to meet the standard of only tracking another's edits "for administrative purposes" with "good cause", to avoid raising suspicion that the edits are being followed to cause distress or out of revenge.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Come on, stop this nonsense. Are you really unable to see that on table, with the winners by county, is derived from the second table, with the winners by year? Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  00:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And yes, I check all your work by now. Too many dodgy edits to believe you without checking. Like this case] on St Peters Dunboyne GAA, where you axe out an redlinked player, but failed to see the vandalism one edit earlier. And you have been told earlier that GNews and Gbooks are unsuitable sources to find references for non-Western subjects. Still you PROD a mall in West-Kalimantan just based on that. And in the following AfD, you just start fingerpointing on that evil Night of the Big Wind. Again, my friend, improve the quality of your work and I will have no reason to check your edits and interfere. But as long as you come up with dodgy work, sorry, I have to check them. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  00:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And — now, another incident. It is discussed in detail here.  In short, after again (as he admits) following me around the Project, he confronted my work by edit warring.  By again reverting me in violation of wp:CHALLENGED.  By reverting me in violation of wp:OR.  And by abusing Twinkle, to level an unfounded accusation of vandalism at me.


 * He then left me a taunting note. Accusing me of not doing my "work properly" but rather doing it "dodgy".  A completely baseless falsehood.  I routinely do a wp:before search.  And as my AfD record shows, the vast majority of my AfD noms and !votes are in-consensus.  In fact, they are far more so than are his.  About 4 per cent of my AfD !votes were non-consensus over my last 250 !votes.  40 per cent of his !votes were non-consensus over the same span.  His !votes at AfD are against consensus ten times as often as mine are.  And yet he is following me to confront my edits (in the aforementioned manner) based on his loud assertions that my AfD work is not "proper" and is "dodgy".


 * He then asserted, on the basis of his false accusation, that I "force" him to do what he is doing. He closed by leaving me a taunting smiley face -- .  This is disruptive and uncivil.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * N.B.--I just noticed there is a recent history of Night being accused of hounding, and being warned by sysops not to hound editors. Night's block 2 months ago followed an AN/I hounding complaint that:

"'[Night of the Big Wind has started to follow my deletion nominations around.... This guy is escalating, and frankly is getting to be a little ....]'"


 * And then there is this AN/I, entitled "Hounding", from 4 months ago. Night was accused of hounding. He admitted following the complaining editor around, writing "Yes, I follow ClaudioSantos around. That is necessary".  Night was advised by sysop Qwyrxian

"'stay the **** away from ClaudioSantos. It's fairly obvious that ... your 'criticism' doesn't even serve any purpose, even if you mean it in a good way. And, to be honest, I don't think you do. Take CS's page off your watchlist. Don't look at CS's contributions. If CS is a terrible POV warrior who cannot collaboratively edit, others will notice and action will be taken. You don't need to act like some sort of a personal police officer. Additionally, you are edit warring ... Seriously, back away. ... Don't go searching out CS--no good comes of it.'"


 * And sysop TParis wrote to Night:

"'I think the consensus here is don't even watch. Take CS off your watchlist, don't visit his talk page, and don't review his contributions. Not only should you not watch closely, you shouldn't watch at all.... Follow the advice here, just steer clear of CS.'"


 * And in July, sysop Shirik wrote to Night:

"'calling an edit 'vandalism' when it is not (repeatedly) can be considered a personal attack, and your actions in general today seem to be borderline hounding. Take a step back and remember that you are supposed to be contributing to an encyclopedia, not finding places to pick fights.'"


 * Perhaps there is a pattern.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha, you go historical! So what about your concern about hounding and harassing if you start digging through my older edits? Sorry, mate, but I have nothing to hide. I follow my own brain and that clashes sometimes with POV-pushers and guidelines. And I like to challenge guidelines, as they are not always up-to-date and/or correct. You will not be able to bully me into a corner, I am too stubborn for that. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  15:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Night of the Big Wind, no one needs to, or should be following and check all another contributors edits, not unless they are a vandal, such is harassing to a good faith contributor and referring to a users good faith contributions repeatedly as vandalism is also as stated here, a personal attack - I understand you are stubborn and your back is up here, but I suggest a good course of action for you here is to stop investigating all of the users edits and remove them from your watchlist completely for a few weeks. - the ambition in dispute resolution is to resolve and de-escalate, not to continue on in the exact same manner that is causing the friction. You  really  can  19:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It should not be necessary, indeed. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  19:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It does look like its happening the other way around as well now though. Edinburgh   Wanderer  19:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @Ed—Not at all. I'm not (as he is, in reverse) following Night around the Project, to repeatedly confront and inhibit his work.  Breaking rule after rule as I undo his edits and !vote against him, to cause him distress and disrupt his enjoyment of editing.


 * All I did was check to see if he had been warned for hounding before over the past few months. He has been warned, a number of times.  By a number of sysops.  His current hounding is against this background.  Apples and oranges.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, just a personal attack. A blatant action to disgrace me and save a critical look at your work. But I don't accept your baiting, how hard you try it... I want to stay a happy editor and you don't fit in that plan. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  22:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Could I just put this discussion in perspective. I think Night of the Wind has some justification for his concerns. Epeefleche has been on our radar at WP:WPSCHOOLS for a while because he mass nominated over 150 schools for deletion within a very short space of time a few weeks ago. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. He's also tagging mass of articles for a lack of references which is fair enough but he now seems to be following through by deleting material simply because no one has got round to citing any references. I've just been involved in a discussion at Talk:Karachi Grammar School. We want to help to build a collaborative encyclopaedia and encourage editors to contribute, and actions like this are unhelpful and counterproductive. Dahliarose (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dahlia -- it is interesting that you come here directly after this interaction, in which you were just warned. I think that you are confusing matters.  Night's behavior is, as reflected above, unquestionably inappropriate on a number of levels, and follows sysop warnings for much the same behavior.  The issue that you refer to is a wholly separate one -- another editor and I have tried to address it with you collaboratively on a talk page an in edit summaries, without bringing it to a noticeboard, but it did involve you being warned.  Please don't confuse the two. There is nothing "collaborative" and "encouraging" in Night's behavior.  Hounding, taunts, abuse of Twinkle to call an editor a vandal when that is not the case, failure to abide by wp guidelines -- all of those are non-collaborative and non-encouraging, which I would think would be self-evident.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * These are relevant points to raise in the current discussion because it is an example of the nature of your editing behaviour which has provoked the reaction from Night of the Big Wind. All your edits consist of tagging, prodding and deleting articles, often at very high speed. You do not appear to read articles or understand them, and you are applying WP guidelines over-literally which is not constructive and is discouraging other editors from contributing. Dahliarose (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, an editor's misbehavior -- even if it exists -- would not as you assert excused rampant misbehavior such as that by Night identified above. Second -- I did not engage in misbehavior, and your assertions that I do not "appear to read articles or understand them" in my AfD behavior is a baseless assertion (as well as being irrelevant), given that my positions at AfDs are not in-consensus with the close only 4% of the time in my last 250 !votes.  Especially, when you own record over the last 250 AfDs is that your !vote is non-consensus 17% of the time; far worse.  I understand that you may disliked the consensus, and that you may dislike have been warned a few hours ago at another unrelated page by me in a completely unrelated matter.  But that no reason for you to assert Night's behavior is anything other than inexcusable.  And no reason for you to make broad-based false assertions as to whether I "appear to read or understand articles" as reflected in my AfD behavior, when the objective evidence shows quite the opposite.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop your personal attacks, Epeefleche? Conform WP:NPA and so. I consider a rant as above as an unprovoked personal attack and I friendly request you to stop them immediately. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  17:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The AfD outcomes are irrelevant. My AfD votes are usually in accord with the consensus. On the few occasions when this has not happened I have not had time to add relevant sources to articles. The problem with your mass nominations was the sheer scale of them so that no one had the time to investigate them all, check for relevant sources and bring the articles up to the relevant standards if required. Those of us on Wikipedia who do spend time contributing content and adding sources know that it is a time-consuming process. I've said enough on this issue and will not respond further. Dahliarose (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dahlia -- please focus on the issue at hand. The editor has engaged in the misbehavior described amply above.  For which he was warned many times, by a number of sysops.  You -- after edit-warring with 2 editors, and being warned for it by me, in a completely unrelated incident -- hours later parachuted in here.  With irrelevant and unfounded character accusations Writing as to AfDs: "You do not appear to read articles or understand them"; while the objective evidence suggests that your participation at AfDs is 300%-more out-of-consensus than are yours.  Even had that been true -- and it is clearly not -- it would not at all excuse the above-described behavior.  And yet you make the foregoing wholly unsupported, baseless, irrelevant, character assassination statement? Your are raising a red herring discussion, apparently trying to deflect from the issue at hand ... as to school AfDs, if you have any concerns re my !voting, all current ones are viewable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools, but I fail to see any basis there for your off-topic accusations as to my ability to read or understand school articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And that is unprovoked personal attack number two... Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  18:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Would you be willing to disengage from Epeefleche, Night of the Big Wind? --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  22:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats a loaded question night should disengage but Epeefleche is certainly not faultless here some gf the comments here have been pointy at best and he has clearly done what he accused night of. The best thing would be for them both to step away because its just making things worse. Edinburgh  Wanderer  23:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that Epeefleche was accusing me of hounding and digging through his edits. Now I try to disengage a bit, before I get really angry (and I admit, his harassing and PAs are getting me angry), he is showing that he is digging through my edits. Going back 7 months for that in an attempt to damage me. Defdinately, he has no real arguments to solve this disagreement. And in the mean time he still goes on with his dodgy PRODs, nominating Asiatic subjects based on Zero RS gnews hits/gbooks hits. Yes, for a Pakistani album Gnews and Gbooks are the best places to guaranteed find nothing. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  03:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am of course not hounding you in the least. All I have done is provide the information needed for sysops to examine what is happening here, in light of the fact that "Editors may be blocked for disruptive behaviour, which can include repeated or extensive violations of the civility policy, refusal to work toward consensus, or repeatedly ignoring community feedback."  The above multiple warnings to you for parallel behavior are relevant to that.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that there is a difference of opinion on what constitutes WP:N. It seems that  is acting in good faith that certain types of articles (examples provided with initial statement) do not meet WP standard. Upon cursory review, I agree with this opinion and his actions. It seem that  feels that for certain topics, where WP:RS are hard to dig up and may even be non-existent, the standards for WP:N are so different that general WP:N should be largely disregarded. I have never seen a policy in support of this belief.  These two editors have taken actions consistent with these conflicting viewpoints of WP:N.  If this matter is merely a difference of opinion of WP:N, I side with Epeefleche.  However, it also seems that there may be a bit of hiding behind a hard to believe interpretation of WP:N.  I think either voluntarily self-imposed or community-imposed interaction restraints should guide Big Winds future actions in this regard. In terms of personal attacks, I think they are either the result of the difference of opinion of WP:N or a difference of opinion on WP:N is being used to cover personal attacks. The long and the short of it is that if we revert the articles to the PRODed state the namecalling should stop. Thus, I encourage the involved editors to either source articles or have them PRODed and cease ancilary huffing and puffing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not so much as you think, TonyTheTiger. The problem is far more his high-speed serial nominating combined with substandard research for those nominations. I am trying to disengage from on the, I guess 15 or 20, nominated GAA-articles. He has annoyed enough people by now to get them in action, so I can walk away from it. He has been serial nominating schools, if I am correct (this is based on comments from others), about 200. Again according to others, just because there name contains "primary school" or "middle school". I not or hardly involved in that, although I am running a RfC at the moment about schools and notability. Bigger problem are his PRODs of African and Asian subjects. He comes up with a reason that, in general, reads like No references found on Google News and Google Books. I don't question his results on GNews and GBook. On the other hand, I question the very use of GNews and GBooks in these cases. With the strong focus of both on American, Canadia and West-European sources, it is highly unlikely that you will ever find a mention on any Asian or African subject not covered by Western newspapers or books. So it is far more related to WP:V then to WP:N. And yes, Tony, I am trying to disengage but without giving him a free hand in continuing this way. Living strictly by a narrow interpretation of the rules, conflicts with the spirit and goals from Wikipedia. And with conflicting rules and guidelines on Wikipedia, a conflict is close by. See for instance WP:LISTPEOPLE versus Red link. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  12:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There might be Asian and African sources in Gnews and Gbooks but you won't find anything if you search for the English transliterated name instead of the name as spelled in the local language. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 15:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevant essays are Systemic bias and Recentism. To check sources for a school, for example, you have to know not just the current name but the previous name(s). Dahliarose (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Civility. I wonder how Night's comment to me that: "you can stick that hurling article straight up in your" (later redacted) fits into all of this.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And — now, another incident. I PRODed an album article, and Night arrived at it to de-PROD it.  After another editor beat me to nom'ing the article I had PRODed for deletion, Night !voted against the deletion I had supported — on what appears to be a fictitious basis, as discussed at AfD Hum Sab Ka Pakistan.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And - another current incident. I just nominated a small Irish mall for deletion.  Night arrived at the nomination to confront it, mis-representing its prior AfD record (and then not responding when his mis-statement was pointed out), at AFD Letterkenny Shopping Centre (3rd nom).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And - another current incident. Since I posted the above, I tagged 2 refs that 3 editors believe are non-RSs as "unreliable source?" in the above-referenced Hum Sab album article.  Night reverted.  Saying only, in his edit summary, "If you want me off your back, then you should not be baiting me."--Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * jaysus, man. Don't you have anything better to do then whining? Stop assuming that I act in bad faith with everything we meet. Stop digging through my history/assume bad faith/baiting me if tou really want me to disengage. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  13:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that everyone is acting in good faith even if opinions differ. There is no vandalism.  The standard of research being carried out by Epeefleche on some articles is poor.  For example,  Letterkenny Shopping Centre is well referenced.  At least as well if not better than similar articles on shopping malls e.g. Streets of Chester or Burlington Center Mall.  It would help if Epeefleche kept on one topic rather than nominating articles from a wide range of interests.  It would also help if his PROD noms detailed why they were being nominated rather than a generic explanation.  --HighKing (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now at ANI.. Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, forum shopping. No success here, so lets go to another one. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  19:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As someone said over there at ANI, it's not forumshopping if Epee isn't the one who brought it up there. (And he didn't.) Sergecross73   msg me   20:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * IMO, Night of the Big Wind is out of line, and Dahlia's comment that because Epeefleche AfDed some articles he wanted kept justifies Epeefleche being hounded, is outrageous. Night of the Big Wind should be forced to disengage, and perhaps even be blocked for his disruptive, incivil behavior  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  19:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Short version

 * Edit to Wikiproject Paid Advocacy Watch, added comment about Facebook group, saying they were "Widely regarded as a pressure/PR group than any real attempt at neutrality, as the writer of the previous article has admitted to the Wikimedia Foundation", and had edit summary of "CREWE is not ethical, that's well, PR..! -- Added King article actually encouraging people to act ethically".
 * Wikiproject Paid Advocacy Watch talk page, said CREWE was "not about ethics, they just want to try bully Wikimedia into doing things their way."
 * Long comment on CREWE talk page, making a number of accusations about me.
 * Edit to User Doctorow's talk page, saying "There's also some discussions around the WP:PAIDWATCH related stuff you might be interested in, basically some groups supported by Silver seren above trying to bully Jimmy and Wikimedia into relaxing the rules on paied editing it seems like while whitewashing it all as "cooperation"... I do not know Silver Seren's real name or if he is part of their group: User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Wikimania_Panel".
 * Comment in regards to this WQA, saying, "I think "Silver Seren" who started the Wikipedia group is trying to stir up trouble to try silence opposition".

This feels like a situation that will eventually escalate to ANI and I want to stop it before it gets there. I guess the place to start with this is to explain that i'm the creator of Wikiproject Cooperation, which tries to facilitate the addition of proper, neutral information from users with a rather large COI, specifically paid editors and corporations. Wikiproject Paid Advocacy Watch is a similar group, though I think is a bit opposed to mine. But, anyways, yesterday I made the talk page section here, requesting that the Paid Advocacy Watch members remove the comments on their main page regarding the Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE) group, where it says next to a link to the group, "Widely regarded as a pressure/PR group than any real attempt at neutrality, as the writer of the previous article has admitted to the Wikimedia Foundation", added by User:Mistress Selina Kyle with the edit summary "CREWE is not ethical, that's well, PR..! -- Added King article actually encouraging people to act ethically".

I explained in the above linked talk page section that the statement is completely incorrect, as the "evidence" was stated by a member who was removed from the group previously. Mistress Selina Kyle ended up responding, saying that the CREWE group is "not about ethics, they just want to try bully Wikimedia into doing things their way."

After that discussion, Mistress Selina Kyle followed me to the CREWE talk page here, making strange accusations, saying I was responsible for the previously mentioned member being removed from the CREWE group, when I have no control in the group and had nothing to do with the member's removal. Selina's strangely formatted rant also included a list of some people from the CREWE group and their locations, copied from their Facebook pages.

Selina then also followed me to User:Doctorow's talk page, where I had left a comment two days ago approving of Doctorow's article in BoingBoing. Selina posted a talk page section here that included the statement, "There's also some discussions around the WP:PAIDWATCH related stuff you might be interested in, basically some groups supported by Silver seren above trying to bully Jimmy and Wikimedia into relaxing the rules on paied editing it seems like while whitewashing it all as "cooperation"... I do not know Silver Seren's real name or if he is part of their group: User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Wikimania_Panel"

These accusations are just patently ridiculous and I don't remember having any real interactions with User Selina before. I can only assume this has something to do with Wikipedia Review, of which she is an active member and where I occasionally post. Silver seren C 22:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Silver seren C 23:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is abusing WQA which is a longterm user you should know, it's not meant to be a form of alternate dramaboard to try points-score or something, it says at the top it's meant to be for resolving issues and that you are meant to at least try to talk to people first. I am going to state for the record that despite everything it says at the top of the page, Silver Seren has left me no other message before, ever, than this:


 * "Hello, Mistress Selina Kyle. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SilverserenC 22:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)"


 * Wikipedia Review is completely irrelevant to this, but thanks for the completely prevaricated accusation anyway for the sake of your apparent dislike of a website I'm involved in? Especially since on said website, which as you say, we have barely interacted before, the only thing I can remember is being nothing but supportive of you the only time I remember talking with you previously? When you said someone called you a fag, and said someone was offended by the accusation and wanted me to remove what you said but I said no I would not because you deserved a chance to provide evidence - I supported you as I have seen real, nasty, harassment of LGBT people, and you then said you "remembered wrong" and said sorry to said user. For the record, I didn't hold it against you, but if you want to bring that up those are the facts as on the thread which I won't link (unless you ask me to) because I don't like trying to stir up drama for drama's sake as you appear to be attempting to.


 * Yes I am a supporter of WP:PAIDWATCH which aims to monitor subversive PR operatives on Wikipedia, such as Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc.. You can disagree with someone whilst remaining wp:CIVIL and I have done nothing but do so. Dragging your opinions onto here using it as a dramaboard with no attempt to actually talk first is showing utter disdain for the people that actually try hard to mediate and discuss issues reasonably with people...


 * Yes, it is my opinion that the CREWE group on Facebook are fairly malign from what I have seen so far, as has been discussed on a Wikimedia Foundation official's talk page previously: User_talk:Philippe_(WMF) and as Jimbo has said, it's a serious problem that cannot be ignored: (I recognise your name from his talk pages attempting to defend paid corporate advocacy editors there, too). As you know from my criticism of them...


 * No, I did not make any "strange accusations" which in itself seems to be an attempt to smear me: Talk:Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement, anyone can see that I was replying to you, as a member of the "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement" group (which despite the name, is a lobbyist group attempting to put pressure on Jimmy to change the rules, per the discussion on Phillipe from WMF's page) who was defending the PR advocacy editors. You chose to defend that argument rather than letting them speak for themselves so as you were talking to me, I addressed you. If you do not wish to be involved in the discussion in your position as a member of the group, then why did you start attacking me when I was not addressing you in the first place?


 * As for my comments to Cory, I refer you to Talk:Websense where I quoted him yesterday and my comments earlier on Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. that I am currently in contact with his employer The Register on a personal basis. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  23:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I mentioned Wikipedia Review because you linked to it at the end of your comment on the CREWE talk page. And you then, here, go on a long paragraph regarding Wikipedia Review where you're essentially disparaging me while trying to make it seem like you aren't.


 * I'm not even going to bother arguing with you here, i'm going to wait for other people to comment. Your response is self-evident for my point.  Silver  seren C 23:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd encourage both Silverseren and MSK to use fewer words and more diffs. Nobody Ent 23:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Better? Silver  seren C 23:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The end of your comment was a paragraph about Wikipedia Review in an apparent attempt to paint me as biased when it's a matter of public record that I have barely talked with you, and the last thing I said was defending you even when you were wrong. It isn't relevant here though, no, so I am not sure why you brought it up. You or anyone else should be able to see that I included Wikipedia Review which is as the article says, a watchdog organisation, in my signature on the CREWE discussion as relevant to why I was bringing up my concerns with them in my reply to them, which you then replied to seemingly speaking for them without being asked to, so I debated with you instead - if you didn't want to be involved in the discussion in your capacity as a member of Corporate Representatives, then why didn't you leave it for the ringleaders to reply for themselves? -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  23:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I made a bunch of links to the various points already Nobody Ent if that helps, is there anything you mean that I missed -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  23:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * and this edit proves that Silver Seren has been wp:wikistalking me after I stated my opposition to the Corporate Representatives group as I had guessed. This seems to be normal tactics of the group Silver Seren founded supporting corporate editing in retaliation to wp:PAIDWATCH to try harass dissenters, as I also had a similar issue happen 2 days ago when I added Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. to the PAIDWATCH wikiproject at 9:23, "bob rayner" arrived at 9:58 along with "Bilby" at 11:13 to talk:Websense to defend the companies' paid PR sockpuppeting — both whom are not members of wp:PAIDWATCH, but apparently founding members (the 5th and 7th respectively) of Silver Seren's previously mentioned Wikiproject working with the Corporate Representatives PR group, which most of them including Seren - as stated on their site - are also supporters of. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  00:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. Actually, I just had a tab open still with the discussion (your reply, really) on your talk page, which I refreshed to see if you had added anything else. Then I saw King asking you to respond on his talk page, so I went there to see what you were discussing and voila. Should I be watching your contributions? Silver  seren C 00:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Expanding your reply after I reply to it rather confuses things. And...um...you realize that you're sounding a little paranoid, right? There's not some sort of conspiracy going on here. Silver  seren C 01:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * wp:No personal attacks... Again...


 * I never said there was any "conspiracy" just wp:wikistalking behaviour in an apparent attempt to silence opposition... You and the other members of Corporate Representatives are behaving like hired thugs. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  01:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Question to both from reading through that talk page - how was the question about King relevant to improving the article? The appearance to me is more like bashing the group than a genuine interest in trying to improve the article. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 01:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought and think too. I just replied to inform Selina about what happened, but it really has absolutely nothing to do with the article. Ocaasi tried to hat that part of the conversation, but Selina reverted it. Silver  seren C 02:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not that you aren't (almost) dead on-target Mistress. Like an archer one inch off the bulls-eye from the 500 yard mark blindfolded. You even cited the exact post that CREWE quoted to me as being "promotional" and it seems many users have been threatened with bans or lectured for being "off topic", which gives the appearance of corrupt behavior to shepherd the conversation. Seriously some impressive digging on your behalf.


 * On Wikipedia these would be some VERY serious issues. We have an ethos for openness, neutrality and ethics, but we can't enforce that ethos on a Facebook group. They have to play by Wikipedia's rules on Wikipedia, but can do whatever they want on Facebook.


 * That being said there are appropriate venues to address your concerns about the CREWE article specifically (the article talk page), CREWE censoring me (the Facebook Group), or concerns about CREWE in general (by collaborating with the community)


 * I think the issue should have (and already has?) been addressed in various Talk pages and I hope you feel the revised article I offered on the Talk page after discussions with Ocaasi is more balanced?


 * King4057 (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This report has nothing to do with what CREWE is or is not doing, but about Selina's accusations against CREWE and myself in a very obvious breach of civility. Silver  seren C 22:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You have been the only one that was uncivil here... I wasn't even talking to you on the page, and you jumped in, and then complained that I addressed you... As I said on the page, if you do not want to be addressed in your capacity as a member of Corporate Representatives, do not reply to messages addressed to the ringleaders of the group then? I was completely civil about it, far more than you have been to me in deliberately trying to start up drama here than actually trying to talk to me like the top of this page says to...
 * How exactly am I not being civil? The only thing that you could possibly bring up is me saying that you're acting a little paranoid. And your comment just below accuses me and others of being "zealots", which is the kind of incivility that is replicated in pretty much every comment you've made to me or about me. Silver  seren C 23:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks King, as I said on the wiki page, I scrolled through their whole thing to look for slipups in their PR line, I know how those types can be :p ;) Hehe. It's cool you seem genuine at least. And that Claire Thompson, you should team up she seems cool too, I wouldn't be surprised if she go banned by them for being far too ethical too.


 * It's good that the discussion is continuing on that, it seems the idea of wp:COOP is being turned sour by a few bad apples turning into zealots, I'm glad wp:PAIDWATCH exists at least though there's a sad lack of interest in the whole thing considering how this type of stuff can be far far worse than obvious vandalism :|


 * I'll go check out the talkpage -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  23:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

HWWilson and "Kip Noll" article


This user keeps inserting the unverified entry about Kip Noll's "death". I tried to convince him that WP:V must be obey, but with no luck. I even reported the article to WP:BLPN; although it was rightfully removed, HWWilson keeps on going, and I keep reverting. I contacted JFHJr, who removed that unverifiable entry. I'm running out of time before HWWilson would violate WP:3RR, --George Ho (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC) <U>WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:OR. --George Ho (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)</U>


 * This user has repeatedly added the unverifiable entry again. By the way, he called me a "petty litte man", accused me for having "emotional stake" with a "tantrum", and told me to get "a real life". (Would this just as "uncivil"?) Also, he has been warned by other users and reported to WP:AIV. --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This user has been blocked. I guess no replies, eh? --George Ho (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This user will be unblocked for several more hours. --George Ho (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

phoenix79


On 4 February, Phoenix79 posted sarcastic comment about the intelligence of another user (myself) in the talk page ("What receiver? Do you even know anything about the products you are editing? Do some research before you make edits"). My response was asking him to be polite to other editors. But then on 8 February he posted this edit summary: "Editing with 0 knowledge of the information", again making an insult against another editor instead of sticking to the article. Could you please look into this?

Also, this is a bit unrelated, but I believe Phoenix has ownership issues with various Bose articles (eg edit summary for Bose 5.1 home entertainment systems: "Find a cite to support this and it can stay" which indicates Phoenix believes edits can only stay if he/she agrees with them). What can be done about this? Thanks, 1292simon (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Knowledge != intelligence != personal attack. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And insistence on following policy at WP:V and sourcing additions to articles != personal attack. Doesn't qualify as WP:OWN either. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs.
 * Please notify editor of the discussion. Nobody Ent 17:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes ... I got as far as the confusion between an asserted lack of knowledge being equated to a lack of intelligence. To my knowledge they are different things.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks everyone for the replies 1292simon (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg accusing me of wikihounding


Links: [|1] [|2]

Jayjg has repeatedly accused me of wikihounding when I have contributed to articles with active RFCs. I recently had an RFC on a page I edit and decided to comment on other active RFCs. I commented on many RFCs. Jayjg was involved in two of the RFCs I commented on. He accused me of WP:HOUNDING, WP:STALK and made other untrue accusations. When i explained what happened he asserted that I took him for an idiot, and accused me of hounding again.

I would like Jayjg to stop accusing me of wikihounding and remove his comments. it is disruptive to the thread and my discussion.Gsonnenf (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah he does it to me too. When all other arguments fail? Also note that the use of words stalking and wikistalking was abandoned. Jayjg is an experienced editor, and him juxtaposing the two terms indicates he is aware of the issues with the latter, and that he willingly seems to accuse people for what IRL would be felonies. -- Honorsteem (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe all these frivilous complaints we keep seeing here regarding Jayjg are just that...frivilous.MONGO 16:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * and maybe they are not Mongo. Dismissing other editors complaints as frivolous is disingenuous and counter productive to this talk page. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I was hoping we could archive the Jayjg threads, but here we go again! He's done it to me too, as here where I edited something in the news and forgot - mea culpa to look at history or talk page where I would have noticed his recent edit. If I had SEEN he edited there was I NOT supposed to edit cause he thinks I'm stalking him? He edits dozens and even hundreds of articles a week, often in the Israel Palestine area. Is everyone editing in that area supposed to be very careful NOT to edit an article without his permisson so he doesn't accuse them of stalking? One finds out about/becomes interested in articles in all sorts of ways besides following Jayjg's contributions list! Sorry, this isn't frivilous. It's just really annoying. CarolMooreDC 17:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please notify editor of discussion. Nobody Ent 17:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is getting a bit ridiculous. What is wrong with this complaint? Let me count the ways It appears that these editors have decided that, not having achieved success in their editorial disputes with me, they can (in the case of Gsonnenf and Honorsteem), instead follow me around and oppose me on other pages, and when I call them on it, bring various at best marginal, at worst entirely spurious accusations about me to WP:WQA, in the hopes that if they throw enough dirt, some will stick. I have no intention of pretending that something else is happening here. I now fully expect any other editors with whom I've had recent editorial disagreements to come here also complaining (and when they do, I will point them to this prediction). In fact, User:Garycompugeek has already done so. This board is supposed to assist with actual "Wikiquette" issues, rather than being another means of attempting to win editorial disputes. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) No-one informed me of it. Gsonnenf knows he should do this.
 * 2) Regarding the complaint about "the use of words stalking and wikistalking was abandoned", WP:STALK and WP:HOUND point to the exact same location. The term that use to be used on Wikipedia for following someone around to oppose them was "wikistalking", apparently in the past couple of years it was decided that "wikihounding" was gentler phrase.
 * 3) I first encountered User:Gsonnenf on January 20 at Talk:Circumcision, where his viewpoints were generally the opposite of mine. Within 3 days he showed up to oppose me at Talk:Jews, an article he'd never edited before, and topical area in which he'd never before shown any interest. He also opened a frivolous WP:WQA complaint here, where he was told that there was no WQA violation - and, in fact, warned of WP:BOOMERANG. Unsurprisingly, CarolMooreDC (an editor with whom I've had many content disputes over the years) also showed up there with her complaint, the exact same one she has brought here again, only to be told there was not violation either. A couple of weeks later, while the discussion/dispute at Talk:Circumcision continued, Gsonnenf showed up to oppose me Talk:Richard Feynman, another article he'd never edited before, and topical area in which he'd never before shown any interest. A couple of days after that, Gsonnenf showed up to oppose me at Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates, another article he'd never edited before, and topical area in which he'd never before shown any interest.
 * 4) I first encountered User:Honorsteem at Daniel Pipes, where I warned him of BLP violations. Three days after I first warned him, he showed up to oppose me at Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates, an article he'd never edited before, and topical area in which he'd never before shown any interest. A few days after that, he showed up to oppose me at Talk:Circumcision, an article he'd never edited before, and topical area in which he'd never before shown any interest. Meanwhile, after a discussion on his User talk: page with me and others about WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, he decided to move the entire concluded discussion, warnings and all, to Talk:Daniel Pipes. When I objected to his edits, which made it appear I had been commenting at Talk:Daniel Pipes, he eventually complained about me at WP:ANI, in this discussion. During the discussion it became apparent that Honorsteem had been banned from Dutch wikipedia, and from what I can tell from the conversation, has at least one other live account on en-wiki. When the discussion there started turning against him, he stated it was now closed, and subsequently disappeared from it.
 * 5) Regarding CarolMooreDC, as noted before, she and I have had many editorial disputes over the years. As a result, I can now rely on her to faithfully show up whenever my name appears on a board like this, to either make vague complaints about me, suggesting I need to be taught some sort of lesson, or to repeat accusations already rejected by this board (see double jeopardy), or both!
 * Ladies, please, do we really need to engage in this much wikidrama? It seems that all the involved parties here are hard at war with each other.  Let's quit hurling accusations at each other, lest others hurl accusations against us.  Amen, sisters.  -- Y not? 00:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Specifically, please do not bring what are essentially editorial disputes (as best I can see through the thick tl;dr) to this Board. Let he who is without stalking cast the first stalk, etc.  I am out of religious mumbo-jumbo.  Just quit the drama.  -- Y not? 00:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This probably is the most serious of the three complaints (the other two still can be archived.) Jayjg wrote: rely on her to faithfully show up whenever my name appears on a board like this Where in WP:Wikihounding does it say you can't comment on someone's behavior - especially when three separate complaints happen on the same board in the same month or so? Of course, I haven't even noticed/participated in all of the complaints vs. Jayjg on all the various boards over the years. But when there are three in a month on the same board, come on??
 * If editors can't work on answering a bunch of RfCs or AfDs or MfDs or BLPNs or RSNs or adding new info to topics of mutual interest without being accused of being a "wikihounder" by some editor they may have had a dispute with in the past, there really is NO hope for civility in Wikipedia, is there? If Jayjg can quit the drama of accusing people of wikihounding he will resolve this issue. CarolMooreDC 05:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to accuse an editor who makes a single comment on a RFC posted article as wikihounding. That said, the most effective and least disruption action is for Gsonnenf to point out the RFC in progress and walk away. Regarding the pattern of Jayjg being mentioned here repeatedly; the focus of WQA is to resolve individual misunderstandings. Discussion of long term patterns would be be handled by an RFC/U. Nobody Ent 11:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Gsonnenf and Honorsteem, please try to stay away from articles or forums in which Jayjg has a stake in the outcome, unless it's an issue you were already involved in.  If you keep at it, you will probably have your editing privileges curtailed at some point.  Jayjg, please don't be so quick to accuse others of Wikihounding.  Wikhounding happens.  If you look at my contribution history over the past five days or so, you will see several discussions in which editors who don't appear to appreciate my contributions too much have suddenly appeared and taken contrary positions to what I was asking or suggesting.  What am I going to do about it, confront them about it every time?  I don't think so.  Please wait until gets really bad before throwing out an accusation and forcing a confrontation. Cla68 (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that some contributors above were too fast to dismiss Jayjg's complaint of Wikihounding as the evidence that he brings above, particularly in point 3 and 4, is strong. From experience I know that it is very unpleasant to be Wikihounded and by speaking out my opinion I know I take a risk to be attacked and hounded myself. It is Jayjg, not his hounders, who ought to receive assistance from this board and from all concerned Wikipedians, who are not afraid to speak out and care for the neutrality of the encyclopedia. That is why I add this reaction. gidonb (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: There seem to be some thin skins around. I think I found the comment Gsonnenf objected to (though it isn't linked well), and yes, Jayjg accused her of wikihounding. (Aside: that's such a better term than "wikistalking", I'm glad it has gained currency.) And it sure looks like Gsonnenf was, indeed, wikihounding Jayjg. Even if it was a bizarre coincidence, it's not out of line at all to say that it looks a lot like wikihounding, and I can't see why Jayjg should be forced to retract his comment as requested. That said, Cla68's point above is a salient one: this kind of minor hounding goes on all the time, especially when one edits controversial topics. We should all probably develop a tolerance for a limited amount of it, until it gets blatant, rather than calling it out or, worse, involving mediation at every turn. – Quadell (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Clear case of wikihounding poo poo'd: Just to show how hard it can be to make a case, obvious sock of someone who disagreed with me on an article started an account and two of his first edits directly followed edits of mine here and here - he then argued for weeks with me on the article in question. When he was threatened with banning for bad behavior it looks to me like he started a new account and three of his earliest edits were directly after mine at here, here and here, before arguing with me for months on the article in question. Yet complaining he might be a hounding sock was dismissed as "fishing!"
 * Maybe I'm just an editor so when I complain I'm not taken seriously, but admins who complain are?? In any case, saying some Admins have first dibs on articles and other editors with whom the admin may have had past disputes should stay away from the article(s) is NOT wikipedia policy is it? If it is, let's put in writing on WP:Wikihounding, WP:Administrators, etc. CarolMooreDC 18:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that has been blocked and is in fact an alternative account of . There is currently a discussion about this on WP:ANI. As pointed out elsewhere, the editing history of  is odd: after a long break, the account suddenly became active as a single purpose editor,  after a brief period editing with the IP . Mathsci (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you are talking issues I can identify with since run into them frequently. Guess someone should check that sort of thing out immediately so that the complainant can confirm or deny - or get appropriately blocked. To save everyone time and energy. (Not that I take back my comments about Jayjg's questionable behavior; but I didn't want to waste time arguing them out here at the time; only other's seemingly legitimate complaints prodded me. Of course, one more in that recent time period and I might have come here with diffs galore or even ad nauseum. And I do have a couple article where we've met up recently I intend to make edits to; just been too busy lately.) CarolMooreDC 21:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On the comment, "stay away from articles or forums in which Jayjg has a stake in the outcome", I will point out that vested authorship on wikipedia is a violation of wp:owner. There are no authors with legitimate stake in a wikipedia article outcome.Gsonnenf (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This thread is about Jayjg's behavior, not the dispute events he has with others, even if they comment in this thread. Jayjg is involved in a great number of disputes, and I have commented on a large number of RFCs. There will definitely be overlap in RFC, this is not hounding. If he disagrees with my comments posted in response to a requested comments, he can explain his disagreement without making accusations. Jayjg has also followed me around in the past, once going to a policy page where I was asked for an outside opinions, and stating his opinion as if he was an outside author. If there is a group of people who have problems with Jayjg, we should look at his past history to determine why. There is clear evidence of his past misbehavior. In 2007 he was caught canvasing and in 2009 he was sanctioned by administrators for bad behavior. In the same way Jayjg claims there is a mob of people following him around to appose him, there is also a core of usual suspects who popup to support Jayjg in his dispute.
 * As for my activity, prior to my involvement on an article in which I have an opposition opinion to Jayjg, I would edit Wikipedia anonymously simply because it was unnecessary to login. I would typically make 5-10 contributions a month. This issue with Jayjg forced me to login in order to defend. I have every right to add constructive comments to RFCs.Gsonnenf (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Within days of resuming this account to edit circumcision after 2 years of inactivity, Gsonnenf filed a report here about Jayjg. He later suggested the possibility of opening an arbitration case to another user, apparently because of POV concerns on circumcision, Now there is a second report here. Gsonnenf's reference in the second diff to "opposition party" and here to "core of usual suspects", plus these references to Jayjg's editing history from 5 years ago, suggest that Gsonnenf's edits related to Jayjg are not being made in good faith, per WP:HARASS and in particular WP:HOUND.  Mathsci (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's far from the first time Gsonnenf's brought up these entirely unrelated events from 5 years ago. He's mentioned them on the article talk page, and on the pages of administrators. Another editor has already pointed out to him that it is not relevant to this article, and questioned whether it was merely a vague attempt at deflection. Gsonnenf has referred to editors he dislikes as "Puppeteers" and "pro-surgery", apparently applying both of these labels to me, and actively attempted to recruit like-minded editors to edit-war with him. I would suggest that these actions are far more serious violations of Wikiquette than anything raised in this thread, and in my view corroborate your view that "Gsonnenf's edits related to Jayjg are not being made in good faith, per WP:HARASS and in particular WP:HOUND". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 08:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Like Garycompugeek, I've been involved with Jayjg and Gsonnenf at the circumcision article. Nevertheless, I'd like to draw attention to a few things.  The "old" Gsonnenf appeared to be interested in computer-related topics, and has been inactive since June 2009.  The "new" Gsonnenf appeared at the circumcision article together with an number of new users following off-site canvassing at Reddit (which may or may not be a coincidence). At the time of writing, the "new" Gsonnenf has made 196 edits, not including those made using IP addresses.  He has shown an extremely aggressive WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing, making frequent accusations, with a pattern of making frivolous, vexatious complaints against other editors; for example he falsely accused me of a 3RR violation, and mistakenly accused Jayjg of miscellaneous perceived Wikiquette issues here and in this thread.  That Gsonnenf is harrassing Jayjg is clear as shown by the evidence above.  For example, Gsonnenf's first interest in Talk:Jews was in the same thread as and approximately 2 hours after Jayjg's comment to that article.  One of his IP edits is particularly disturbing. Jakew (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * comment This dispue further revolves around the circumcision article, so i think we also need to take that part into consideration. Pass a Method   talk  15:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I now fully expect any other editors with whom I've had recent editorial disagreements to come here also complaining (and when they do, I will point them to this prediction). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment I have known Jayjg since I started editing Circumcision back in 2008. He and Jakew have employed WP:TAGTEAM in the last 4 years that I have watched the page and Jakew exhibits the strongest qualities of WP:OWNERSHIP that I have ever come across. Jayjg frequently WP:BITES newcomers dissuading them from participating if they don't have a pro circumcision viewpoint. I have warned him a number of times and tried to have discussions on his talk page however he is always rude and quickly reverts anything I post there. As far as wikki hounding goes... I can do nothing without one or both of them popping up to try and discredit me. If your bored randomly troll my history and you will easily see what I'm talking about. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I now fully expect any other editors with whom I've had recent editorial disagreements to come here also complaining (and when they do, I will point them to this prediction). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's a dispute about content, why not go to WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. If the topic remains behavior, and previous blocks, yes old old blocks should not be brought up on talk pages, except perhaps in the most subtle way as a gentle reminder. Even people being stripped of administrative rights and/or banned from a certain category of articles should not be harassed on a talk page about this, before or after reinstatement.
 * However, once behavior issues are alleged at a noticeboard like this, this information becomes relevant. The five year old blocks are not as important as the May 2009 issues of behavior where Jayjg was "stripped of his privileges". Only in Januiary of 2011 was he reinstated with the note: Jayjg is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.  Note that Palestine-Israel articles is sometimes broadly applied to include articles related to Judaism and Islam, since that is at least a part of the conflict.
 * Depending on where the conflict in the circumcision article is - i.e. Judaism vs. Islam related?? - this might apply. And of course the ArbCom decision is relevant to any WP:ANI on a pattern of problematic behavior.
 * And it certainly applies to articles that I have been having problems with lately where I have loudly complained Jayjg has been uncivil or threatening. So I may have been wrong about editors' first step being taking this to RFC/User. It looks like if there is enough of a problem (and I can't really judge myself in cases above because of possible other issues), editors could take it to WP:ANI or, if related to Palestine-Israel, back to ArbCom -- Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria.  This is what I've been hinting at when telling Jayjg to watch his act. I just hadn't been motivated enough lately to search out the actual links.  I'll be keeping them on file from now on.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolMooreDC (talk • contribs)
 * Carol, neither Richard Feynman nor Circumcision has anything to do with the I-P conflict area. To now spuriously suggest they might be, and that therefore unrelated Arbcom decisions from years ago should be brought up, much less are applicable, is ludicrous. As noted in my earlier comment, "I can now rely on [you] to faithfully show up whenever my name appears on a board like this, to either make vague complaints about me, suggesting I need to be taught some sort of lesson, or to repeat accusations already rejected by this board (see double jeopardy), or both!" You are in no position to tell me to "watch my act", particularly about concerns that have already been consistently and unanimously dismissed by all outside editors commenting at this board (that is, by all editors not currently or recently disgreeing with me about content somewhere). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I carefully said I didn't think these other complaints were related -- though mine may be. However, it would be naive to think that neutral and respected editors don't remember it was just a year ago you had your sanctions lifted, should some editors eventually take you to WP:ANI on other issues.
 * Second, editors in confict with other editors not only have a right to complain about others behavior on noticeboard but are the people most likely to complain, including because they have legitimate cripes. I'm sure it was editors you were in dispute with who got you in to the Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria mess.
 * Third, you are again insinuating I am hounding you when I have edited in areas of mutual interest for innocent reasons. I have a problem with your trying to insinuate otherwise and consider it an abuse. Including when I can't help but comment seeing three complaints here in one month. (Not knowing one was a sock puppet.) So do other editors. That's the real subject of this complaint, as much as you try to turn it back on people. Please stop it.
 * FYI, I always tell people you are the ONE editor I've learned the most from about editing. But I also try to avoid some of your behaviors. CarolMooreDC 19:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Carole, first, this is the Wikiquette board, and the issues here are not on I-P related articles and have nothing to do with the I-P conflict - indeed, they aren't even Wikiquette issues, according to all uninvolved editors commenting here. Thus continually bringing up sanctions related specifically to editing in the I-P topic area is not only unwarranted, but actually a Wikiquette violation itself, whether Gsonnenf or you does it. Second, continually encouraging editors to, for example, "eventually take you to WP:ANI", or continually insinuating that this should or will be done, is needless provocation. Third, I haven't accused you of hounding me; I do note, however, that in the past two months you have only commented on this board on sections about me - no other sections, and no other editors. And finally, the issue here clearly has nothing to do with actual Wikiquette issues, since all uninvolved editors have dismissed the complaints as not being violations of Wikiquette. Rather, they are quite obviously examples of editors trying to win content disputes through other means, as I noted in my comment above of 00:26, 22 February 2012. That's the "real subject of this complaint". You continually fail to address the point that all uninvolved editors have seen no Wikiquette violations. I conclude by saying thank you for the compliment re: learning from me about editing. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC, how is Richard Feynmann connected with the Israel-Palestine conflict? You have been reminded by many users in the thread above that this is not a Wikiquette issue. Please find time to contribute productively by writing articles rather than beating a dead horse. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  20:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, to finish off. 1) I started watching this page in December because I needed assistance on an issue. I didn't bother to unwatch it. 2) I did NOT comment when there was this January issue an editor had with Jayjg. Then January 23 the latest three sections vs. Jayjg were opened and since I also during this period was being treated uncivilly and accused of wikistalking by Jayjg I replied, including to disagree with what I considered inaccurate statements. 3) Again, since I am referring to personal incidents that may be related to Israel-Palestine, it has some relevance to me. 4) Again, if people are constantly brought here because of concerns about their behavior, one does have to wonder. Hopefully, enough of this topic for now so I can unwatch the page :-) CarolMooreDC 20:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The two threads above about Jayjg are as completely frivilous as they get and need to be archived...this one looks just as frivilous. The bottom line is that some articles are going to have people in disagreement and I see no evidence here that Jayjg is a problem. Not to include you on this list, but it does seem that there are several editors trying to misuse the dispute resolution process to gain an advantage in a content dttispute....so if you're also piling, it would certainly have all the appearances to most that Jayjg is indeed being stalked/hounded.--MONGO 01:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Various editors are misusing this noticeboard to make bad faith comments about Jayjg. The articles involved here, e.g. circumcision, have nothing to do with the topics covered by WP:ARBPIA, not even "may be". Mathsci (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Mathsci nails it, above. This really isn't the place for "I don't like Jayjg in general" issues, and it's becoming increasingly clear that's what's going on here. This initial complaint of "He said I was wikihounding, make him take it back!" is unrelated to ARBPIA, as should be self-evident to anyone acting in good faith. I think the main issue above has been adequately addressed, and further "Yes, but I still have negative opinions about this editor!" comments are a waste of everyone's time. – Quadell (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a page about behavior and past behavior is discussed, including the 2009 disciplinary action and the 2011 reinstatement. Discussing behavior is legitimate here, that is what this section is about. Other authors have come forward with issues related to behavioral concerning Jayjg. These are relevant.
 * It should be clear to everyone that behavioral issues almost always accompany editorial issues, and thus those editors that have a different view than Jayjg are often subject to his behavior. It should also be clear that when you are repeatedly uncivil with people, many authors will post regarding their experience. It is only in aggregation that sactioning action will be taken against an uncivil author, and all such posts describing minor infractions help identify this.
 * I have found Jayjg's behavior extremely hostile. He also has a terrible habit of wiki lawyering, then demanding his opponents wiki lawyer. This behavior is discouraged on wikipedia and is often the causes of many disputes. Jayjg's hostile editing extends to articles related to Judaism. Perhaps a discussion should take place about his behavior in this category as well.
 * I have made an effort to good faith for a time, but I am a bit tired of the hypocrisy, wherein Jayjg cries "YOU MUST ASSUME GOOD FAITH!" when others criticize his behavior but then accuses other people of wrongdoing. I think its time for this behavior to stop.Gsonnenf (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I have been watching these proceedings as they have unfolded and have chosen so far not to become involved since others have said what I would have done. However, Gsonnenf, you need to drop the stick right now lest this matter boomerang on you.  You are treading a very fine line and leaving yourself open to very legitimate complaints against you for wikihounding - the very thing you complain about being accused of.  Well, we get it that you don't like Jayjg but that is no excuse for your behaviour which is not acceptable.  If you find that you cannot accept legitimate criticism perhaps you should refrain from doing the things that you are being criticised for.  Jayig has not committed breaches of civility in the instances you have provided and bringing up irrelevant issues from long ago that have been properly dealt with elsewhere does not reflect well upon your willingness to act in good faith.  The best advice I can give to you now is to let this thread die and avoid interacting with Jayig in future.  Further attempts to continue this discussion as you have done so far may cause you to be in the position of having to defend yourself here or potentially at AN/I.  Reflect on that before you bash out your next post to this board.  Oh, and learn how to indent your posts correctly. -  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  06:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To Nick Thorne  I find it surprising and deeply disappointing that you are attempting to reduce this complaint to issues of  mere personal sentiment. And on top of that you threaten people to try and silence genuine grievances. As usual, a complaint against Jayjg has become an attack of the person who made the initial complaint. (Is there perhaps a 'Jayjg supporters' cabal in effect here?)
 * As Gsonnenf very clearly pointed out this is a discussion about behaviour: disruptive behaviour of Jayjg. And we have not just one but THREE editors complaining here. The advice to "avoid interacting with Jayig in future" goes against all sense of fairplay as it would in effect mean being unable to contribute to a great many topics, and avoiding them because Jayjg is allegedly behaving disruptively there. This advice would therefore be rewarding the alleged disruptive behaviour. What sort of fair solution is that?! :-0
 * Finally, this forum is designed to function by persuasion, reason, and community support, not threats and blocks. Therefore please stop threatening editors for legitimate use of this forum.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We cannot here help. Jayjg is not being persuased (as near as I can tell) and there's no evidence of community support. Editors with concerns about Jayjg's long term edit pattern should initiate Requests_for_comment/Jayjg. Nobody Ent 10:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, so I am now looking at two accounts with short editing histories on Wikipedia continuously targeting an established and long-term contributor to the project. There are serious contributor issues as well with one of the accounts. I suggest that interested parties continue discussion by starting an RFC on User:Mystichumwipe. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  12:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Only an idiot would ...
It would be nice if someone warned Rrius that it's not acceptable to refer to the opinion of another user as something that "only an idiot would do." That's what I got from him on his talk page, and it's clearly a personal attack, despite his condescending assertions to the contrary. Thanks. --Gremlint (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments Recommend both editors just tone it down a bit and specifically recommend to Gremlint: This is not intended as criticism: it is good that you disengaged from Rrius's talk page and sought assistance here and we encourage editors to jump in rather than try to learn all the intricacies right away. Nobody Ent 12:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not what I said, and I made it clear to him what I meant. User:Gremlint is merely trying to stir up trouble. My initial comment was that only an idiot would think the "they" in "should they seek re-election" meant "gay couples" rather than Republican state senators in this sentence and that he should give readers more credit. Despite his feigned confusion in his edit summary, the fact that Gremlint knew exactly what "they" referred to is clear from the context. Also, here is exactly what I said: "Only an idiot would have read that sentence and understood "they" to have referred to gay couples. You really need to give people more credit." When Gremlint decided to take my comment as having called him an idiot, I said, "I'm sorry you read it that way, but I didn't call you an idiot. Go back and read it again, and please pay special attention this time to the sentence that comes after it. Done yet? Do you see how I was saying you were assuming other readers would be idiots?" I further explained later that I didn't even mean people who had a momentary miscue were idiots, but that people who were genuinely left unable to figure out which noun the pronoun referred to were the idiots to whom I had referred. For Gremlint to now come here and act as though he still thinks I called him an idiot is disingenuous in the extreme. His initial volley in this was a snippy edit summary. For him to complain about tone is hypocritical and a waste of everyone's time. Finally, his parting shot at my talk page was to say that he was "refrain[ing] from calling you names you deserve". I too will refrain from calling him the names I think he deserves, but "idiot" is not, and was not, one of the words I am straining to hold in. -Rrius (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No evidence Gemlint is trying to stir up trouble, appears to merely be a new editor who expects Wikipedia to be civil.
 * The sentence was bad -- not that couples was the antecedent, but that it was structured as if it was, and the reader therefore had to spend additional effort to parse the meaning of the sentence out.
 * The Excuse Me? edit summary was not good because of a. The unnecessary Excuse me? b. the incorrect statement of couples being the antecedent c. the "if you still have issues." In other words Rrius is correct in describing it as snippy.
 * The reply containing the idiots phrasing also was not good; not because of the idiots phrasing but because of the condescending tone of parts of it I'm not sure if you don't know what "antecedent" means, -- this is especially true because Rrius was agreeing that the edit was good, even if the explanation wasn't technically correct.
 * Be very careful with edit summaries. You have limited space with which to work and, most importantly, summaries can't be edited after the fact, so you're kind of stuck if you find you've come across as too strong.
 * Article talk Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States is the best place to discuss the content (as opposed to the edit summary or another editor's talk page).
 * On Wikipedia civility is best thought of as a goal to for of us to work towards rather something that can be agreed upon or enforced very stringently. Outright attacks (e.g. you are an idiot) are unacceptable, but emphatic phrasing that rubs other editors the wrong is, as it turns out, fairly common. Enjoying Wikipedia requires either editing uncontroversial topics or just let some of the snippy and snarky go by uncommented on..

Accusations

 * Articles for deletion/Carmel School Giridih
 * Help desk
 * Articles for deletion/Carmel School Giridih
 * Help desk

This user is repeatedly accusing me of bad faith and using other personal attacks to get past content disputes. All my previous disputes with this user are long idle, however he started the bad faith accusations at the help desk where he was rebutted by another user for this. Later this behaviour was continued at the AfD to try to keep the article. I nominated it at a time when it had no reliable sources present and debated on those given by this user, which seemed to be implying inheriting notability against Wikipedia policies. He in return gave uncivil replies even when I told him how he could actually find sources. Now just because the consensus is to keep the article regardless of the sources and more based on the essay WP:NHS, he's started calling me a liar and repeatedly wikilinking WP:LIARLIAR to it which says the opposite. . I also suspected some meat-puppetry on the Afd, so I opened an investigation Sockpuppet investigations/DBigXray with a civil note... I was met with more severe incivility there by DBigXray. <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by DBigXray

 * 1) User TopGun who had many content Disputes with me in the Past has been Wikihounding me again since my comment on RFC on Indians in Afghanistan (reasons below)
 * 2) The Article Indians in Afghanistan was already on my watchlist and i was not taking part earlier owing to busy schedule in real life. and when i replied the user TopGun Accuses me of coming out  of nowhere and canvassing when i responded about these false allegations the  canvas tags were removed.
 * 3) TopGun blames me of Personal attacks while in fact he himself does it first. When i forgot to login, The User ToPGun has again opened frivolous SPI cases against me  and tries to deface my comments on AFD, RFC and other wiki noticeboards by stating i have old sockpuppetry cases(started by TopGun) against me . (he prefers to mislead others in spite of the fact that earlier SPI cases against me started by TopGun were rejected here) one such proof of such attack against me (accusing me of Meat Puppetry is here
 * 4) about the AFD mentioned above Another editor has already complained about TopGuns behavior on ANI here where he calls this AFD as TG's apparently bad faith nomination for deletion. The Article already had some official and third party reliable source from newspapers which TopGun chose to ignore and i added some more to it after this AFD.
 * 5) The User TopGun was clearly lying when he said The book cited is available online and does not render any results for even the title of the school while the realit is here so i responded by saying https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Carmel+School+Giridih%22 this is in response to the Lies wp:LIARLIAR spread by TopGun the google search clearly gives the address of the school beside the book result
 * 6) The wp:BATTLE ground mentality of the user TopGun and his special inclination in trying to get users blocked for solving his content disputes on wiki article has already been observed by various admins on wikipedia. Due to the aggressive comments and edit warring  TopGun has been blocked a number of times by admins and is currently on 1RR restriction.
 * 7) its imp to note that my name prominently figures in his edits on other editors talk pages      (clealy shows TopGun's canvassing against me)
 * 8) In past he has made a number of failed attempts s by making up false cases and thumping up small incidents, and every time the admins have shot down his complaints, and unlike him so far I have a clean Block log
 * 9) some of his acts directed against me are mentioned here
 * 10) the past history and several other examples show that it is always TopGun who FIRST deviates from the subject matter of the discussion to carry out personal attacks against me by claiming SPI, canvassed, wikihounding etc, (to mislead admins so that they will discount my comment) and so it becomes necessary for me to reply to it and to my reply he takes exception and mentions above
 * 11) I would also suggest the closing admin to get the view of other admins who are familiar with his behaviour while making a final decision.
 * 12) because of continuation of these incidents again by TopGun, I was hoping to complain on wikiquette noticeboard when i get time, but now as its already mentioned i have got an opportunity to bring to light his malpractices.-- Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  17:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I've not hounded this user, he himself agrees that I came to the article through help desk where I was replying... that is not hounding. I nominated it for AfD as it had no reliable sources atleast at that time. He comes out of idle to support any ANI actions against me, these activities are similar to those of a narrow purpose account. The canvassing tag was placed because this user never edited Indians in Afghanistan and yet came to oppose me there like the ANI discussion claiming to have it on his watchlist... I let it be when those tags were removed assuming good faith. The ANI report he has now linked to was outright considered an unfounded report against me... the fact that he linked it here itself shows how misleading his other statements are. Even this comment of his is full of accusations of bad faith and incivility. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of hounding by TopGun as has already been mentioned at the Afd,. (Whether TopGun found the article via tracking DBigXray's contribution list or their note on the help desk isn't important.) No other editor supported the Afd. TopGun made the poor choice to use the inflammatory "other crap exists" shortcut instead of the more civl "other stuff exists." DBXs reference to liar liar, while also not ideal -- "falsehood" would have been better -- was a comment on TopGun's Afd and therefore not a personal attack. It's reasonable to expect that alumni of a school would comment so filing an additional SPI simply on the basis of opposing the delete wasn't justified. DBX, it's not helpful to respond tit for tat to every comment TopGun makes; it would be best to try to stay focused on the content rather than make counter attacks. Nobody Ent 11:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The nomination was completely based on absence of reliable sources... There's no record of me following any of DBigXray's edits. About the shortcut, I didn't know another shortcut existed... the fact that it is still a redirect means that it should not be considered as incivility (add it to RFD other wise so that people don't follow the redirect)... WP:LIARLIAR states something else and is being used to outright blame me of "spreading lies" while I justified all my responses. The SPI is justified by edit timings of the IPs and this user as well as the fact that the article was idle for a long time.. IPs don't have watchlists... The users who added those comments  do this on any discussion they encounter me, one was previously reported for it. Is this not a personal attack? . -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What outcome are ya'll (TopGun and DBigXray) looking to achieve here? Nobody Ent 11:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I want DBigXray to be asked not to make such attacks which go even more vigorous when there's an SPI or a report like this even though I stick to a civil tone. And he should be persuaded to stay focused on content issues instead of copy pasting cherry picked diffs of accusations to get past pure content disputes or unrelated reports such as this one where he's citing my edit war restriction (and this is unrelated to editwar) and the SPI where he's citing content disputes. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you (TopGun) going to do to help avoid conflict in the future? Nobody Ent 11:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The issues about my edits pointed out here were the short cut and the nomination... I explained the shortcut (that was the only one I remembered), the nomination was due to the sources.. I can try to better explain why I nominated an article or my content dispute in future (I'm open to be pointed out to anything that was missing in my nomination summary). However, filing an SPI is a formal procedure and it did not mean that this user was actually involved in socking, rather a request to investigate if he was... I explained it there as well, I can help with the issues better if I'm not met in return with accusations of bad faith and unrelated diffs and personal attacks. If DBigXray stays civil and comments purely on content in future, I can help with resolving the disputes by working towards a consensus - I've had quite some experience towards consensus building by now. An example can be taken from this nomination discussion where I pointed out that he could find dead sources through wayback machine (though that was returned with another accusation anyway). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * the past history and several other examples show that it is always TopGun who deviates from the subject matter of the discussion to carry out personal attacks against me by claiming SPI, canvassed, wikihounding etc, and so i accordingly reply to it and to my reply he takes exception and mentions above-- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  11:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Filing of an SPI doesn't mean a deviation from subject matter or a personal attack. If there's no fault at your side there's no need to be uncivil with me in return, address your concerns in a civil way. This diff cited is another one showing incivility on his part instead of explaining why he wasn't canvassed there. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * if TopGun takes undue benefit of the frivolous SPI (filed by TopGun) and mention all around the talk pages of articles and Noticeboards that DBigXray has an SPI (started by ToPGun) then i am forced to reply to that. -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  11:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not do that, I referred to it here where it was brought up. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Another example of misleading wp:LIE propagated by TopGun one such proof of such attack against me (accusing me of Meat Puppetry is here — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBigXray (talk • contribs)
 * There's no accusation there. I mentioned meat puppetry and opened an SPI. Stop accusing me of lying now. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (in response to nobody Ent) I expect the admins to carefully go through the points i have mentioned and take whatever necessary actions that deems fit either against me or against TopGun.-- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  11:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This page is not for admin action but for voluntary actions. If you thought this was a report to get you blocked and threw in all the diffs (regardless of relevance) because of that, you are in the wrong since start. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have highlighted all the malpractices that i feel is necessary for the admins to see. they are free to get into whatever depth of those incidents as they please, and see whose allegations holds ground and who needs trouting. Truth is sure to come out. -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  12:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't help (see the description of the page on top). You can start by " striking out " uncivil comments at the Afd, SPI and here and address the actual concerns. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * which cannot be done until the False allegations/accusations against me on all these talk pages are removed/struck off first. -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  12:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What are those? I did not blame you of sock puppetry on Afd, I did point out the facts and said that alumni seemed to be socks, and then reasonably opened an SPI. Show me a statement that is a personal attack? You can get the short cut to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS deleted by nominating it if you think the link is a personal attack and suggest your own redirects. Point out anything else that seems to be a personal attack. I'm sure my statements even on the SPI were on the edits and not on your intentions or blaming you of 'wrong doings'. You statement at the SPI, "this is nothing but a case of constant malice against me"... this is a personal attack. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The constant malice part is explained Pointwise on TOP, which the admins can very well see. -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  12:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why I came here... the links are months old and are self explanatory, irrelevant to this discussion and not the excuse for the incivility by you to which you still stand by. I want uninvolved users to convince DBigXray of stopping such behaviour. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * refer point 10 above-- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  12:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As soon as TopGun stops wikihounding me and stops giving baseless allegations/accusations for canvassing/SPI etc aganst me, i feel the problem will be solved -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  13:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also i request the admins to warn TopGun against wikihounding my contributions. (proof of wikihounding)
 * 1) He follows my contributions and replies to my comment on HelpDesk about the article (i created) on school and goes furthur to propse it for deletion on invalid grounds. It is to be noted that there is no history of ToPGuns comment on Helpdesk (apart from  TopGuns own question once )
 * 2) after my comment on RFC on Indians in Afghanistan where he says i am coming out of nowhere(as he clearly seems to be following my recent contributions) while in fact the article was already on my watchlist since long


 * I'm a help desk regular... editors there will know that. And regardless of that, this is textbook Tendentious editing on DBigXray's part not giving benefit of doubt to other editors not to mention that I even explained it. His accusations were rebutted at helpdesk by another editor too. At Indians in Afghanistan as well (DBigXray has never edited that article), he's the one who got there through my edits, but I assumed good faith and didn't reinstate the canvassed tag. DBigXray should be told to keep away from such Tendentious editing and replying to my each comment with a tit-for-tat counter attack to flood the discussion... this is disruptive. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to another misleading comment proof of participating in the India related article indians in Afghanistan which is also on my watchlist and have edited in past. and search result on the helpdesk -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  16:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article does not have any editing history from your account... that's where I looked... and then I gave you the benefit of doubt. The canvassed tag is not there with your user name now, stop beating the dead horse. Your help desk search shows only the threads where some one mentioned my username and not all with my signatures, but you assume me in bad faith anyway. And you certainly don't stop till you have the last word. Is it so difficult to stop making the personal attacks? You keep adding unrelated diffs to that list of yours to suppress the issue mentioned in my first comment. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * TopGun, not discounting any action DBigXray has done, is it possible for you to stay out of conflict? I think I've seen multiple threads where you claim harassment, hounding, violations of WP policy to remove someone who disagrees with you from editing the same articles. You don't have to respond to every single injustice or untruth lobbed your direction, in fact it improves uninvolved editor's disposition to you when you turn the other cheek. I cannot speak for others but in my mind you are quickly traveling down the Drama-Diva path and as such I would be inclined to endorse sanctions strictly against you should they be proposed. Hasteur (talk) 12:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I surely can and try to stay away from all this drama, but I'm not the one claiming hounding and harassment if you read the discussion above. DBigXray is the one who claims hounding here just because I nominated an Afd (which also happens to be my first nomination of an AfD)... I filed a sockpuppet investigation and was returned with personal attacks.... that's why I brought DBigXray here, but this doesn't seem to improve his behaviour. This thread was solely about that. What do you expect me to do? Read my reply to Nobody Ent where I said I could help aviod these conflicts and then DBigXray's replies to that. It is specifically due to the claims you make that I chose WQA instead of ANI... so no, I don't intend to remove him from editing the same articles as me, I want him to be convinced that making personal attacks and accusing me of bad faith throwing in unrelated diffs in what ever dispute he gets into is not the way to go through disputes. Yet here he thinks I'm asking for admin action and is asking for one in reply to Nobody Ent. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * DBigXray, don't change or add links to my comment. See talk page guidelines. Add any links or modifications to your own comment. I opened this section about your actions, so don't change the topic either simply because you don't want to deal with it. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dont mislead others your comments are neither touched nor edited. the section heading is neutral enough and you were supposed to mention your username as an involved editor. plz do not edit war on this. -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  15:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)--15:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You've to put what you want to add with your own signature in your own comment. The starting was a part of my comment. It is not your problem what I was supposed to mention, I added this section, it was understood that I was involved. I'll not comment further on this lame editwar. Don't edit anything signed by me again. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * your comment is not touched. See talk page guidelines. which says avoid using editor names in page headings. and your userlinks does need to be present. Do not assume holier than thou ,unless you are afraid of admins to see your behaviour -- Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  15:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)--15:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

To Both Editors: Your behavior here has been dreadful... Edit warring about the title of a section? Edit warring about the need for TopGun's user links to be also mentioned in the report? As a relatively uninvolved user that I'm looking at this and considering liberal application of an oily fish to both of you for looking at the trees and not the forest. DBigXray, you really shouldn't have implied that TopGun had a personal vendeta for you at the Help Desk. TopGun, your actions after the implication and the screams of abuse afterword do not help your case for abuse to yourself. If DBigXray issues an apology for the implication, will that satisfy you TopGun? If TopGun agrees to stay away from applying extra scrutiny of your articles will that satisfy you DBigXray? Let's put down the clubs and step away from the dead horse. Hasteur (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree to above. I gave normal scrutiny to the article he created, but when he started using the word "spreading lies" for me, I lost good faith... and then there were alumni appearing out of nowhere just as the article got nominated for deletion... I filed an SPI since DBigXray made it public that he was an alumni too. That wasn't a personal attack on him, but an investigation.. there was no need to return that with personal attacks. If DBigXray can refrain from making any comments on me in future, I can help him with resolving any content disputes he would have with me basing the comments on just the content. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * at Hasteur, if youll see the examples posted above, you'd find that nothing would have arisen if Mr TopGun would not have called me SockPuppet, Meatpuppet and Canvassed user (at First), for no good reason, (filing frivolous SPI) cases does not give a right to call such names to fellow editors.And I would appreciate if TopGun stops wikihounding my contributions-- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  18:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not call you a sock or meatpuppet. I called the IPs that (unless ofcourse you mean they were you). And I filed an SPI with good reasons providing diffs. Filing an SPI is not a personal attack, why do you need to be worried if that was not you? I gave all the links where you canvassed all the editors of the article who then supported for keep, and I let the canvassed tag from your user name be removed. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yet another wp:LIE I dare you give proof of canvassing attempt by me, while nominating for afd you were supposed to mention it on noticeboard and inform the editors, somehow you chose not to do it,(and an another user had to do it) and now you are claiming canvassing. Informing editors of the article for deletion is not canvassing. I get your strategy now, first offend an editor by calling sockpuppet and canvassed and on getting a neutral reply, file a case on noticeboard for personal attack.-- Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  18:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

DBigXray, let what has occured in the past remain in the past. Drop the WP:STICK and move on. TopGun has agreed (in principle) to treat you as any other editor. Everybody makes mistakes. The fact that the SPI has remained open for 4 days without any sort of action by the Checkuser clerks suggests that it isn't going to be acted upon. As was mentioned in the SPI archive "We don't link IPs with editors". Drop the stick, stop following each other's edits, and pretend as though each other don't exisist. If this persists beyond this current spate, I believe an administrator would have no problem handing out sanctions on disruption grounds. Hasteur (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All that was required of me was to only inform the creator of the article... I did that (I gave all the links at SPI where he requested all the editors to comment on Afd). I did not request a check user because I know it would be declined for privacy reasons, that is why a check user has not commented on it. I filed it based on the available evidence... if DBigXray is not responsible for them, I won't have any problem then either. But it did make me curious that alumni IPs start to comment on the Afd of a long idle article (and IPs don't have watch lists) - any reasonable editor would get suspicious by that. I've never followed his edits, and this is not a 'filed case'. If he simply keeps his comments to the content from now on and not repeatedly cite WP:LIE to me because he doesn't agree with me, this is settled and I'll let go any previous conduct disputes. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)