Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive119

False accusations of vandalism and unwillingness to colloborate


I too would love to jump in on this false accusation of vandelism as I too have been falsley accused of this for simply adding exact laws and regulation numbers and referrence number as to where to find said laws,every bit of what I wrote was 100 percent verifiable and factual,yet I believe in order to censore those fact they deemed them as vandelism,thus not allowing the public to view factual.accuuract,up to date knowlage,I truly believe there was a complete abuse of editing power in order to censore the truth,,the article is coca and coca tea,paita


 * see talk
 * 
 * see talk
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

WilliamJE removed a large number of references in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine articles. The references were to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine DVD set but they included a link to the Wikipedia article about the DVD set, which apparently caused him to believe they were circular references to Wikipedia. My attempts at engaging WilliamJE in discussion about the issue have been met with hostility. See also our respective edit histories and  for more background.

What I am hoping for as an outcome here is that WilliamJE will engage in respectful discussion with me and show some willingness to collaborate. Dlabtot (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A wikipedia dispute resolution ruled on this and made an edit. Unhappy with the outcome, tried putting the same material in the article but modified with the comment of 'this concept is obviously difficult for some people.'...William 00:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you are participating here I would again, respectfully ask you to explain what your objection is to citing the DVD of a TV show on the article about that TV show. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Dlabtot (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as the assertion that our dispute was "ruled", I probably don't need to remind anyone that Wikipedia operates by consensus and no single editor is empowered to make a "ruling" on any subject. Dlabtot (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The just started RFC is ongoing so no consensus has been achieved. I'm not seeing very much of a civility issue here -- it's most a content discussion which the RFC should resolve. Nobody Ent 01:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you if it weren't for WilliamJE's assertions that I am committing "vandalism" because the RfC has been "ruled" upon. Would you care to comment on whether WilliamJE's assertions that I am a "vandal" are appropriate and civil? Dlabtot (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I am a volunteer clerk/mediator with the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Above, WilliamJE claims "A wikipedia dispute resolution ruled on this" but provides no links to WP:DRN or any other noticeboard. Furthermore, DRN does not "rule" on anything. As it clearly states at the top pf WP:DRN: "This page helps determine consensus and reach compromises. It is not a formal process, so no binding decisions are issued here." (emphasis in original). WilliamJE, please refrain from making false claims about the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Also note that anyone can participate on DRN, and that some participants go to articles and fix obvious problems. This is normal and perfectly acceptable editor behavior, not a "ruling" by DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The link provided refers to an RFC, not DRN( while DRN is dispute resolution, not all dispute resolution is DRN).
 * @Dlabtot, of course such a statement is inappropriate, but I missed it -- did you provide a diff? Nobody Ent 09:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sort of, the edit summaries in the above linked articles contain 'reverted x by Dlabtot as vandalism' comments.Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pattern seems to be, WilliamJE removes source citing policy circular, Dlabtot reverts saying circular doesnt apply, at that point WilliamJE is reverting Dlabtot as vandalism. I think a reading of WP:Vandalism is in order. Especially what is not vandalism.Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was aware of the RfC, but it never occurred to me that anyone would call an RfC with zero votes a "ruling". I apologize for the confusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Besides the 'vandalism' name-calling, there is the broader issue of unwillingness to colloborate. I have repeatedly asked WilliamJE to explain his justification for removing these references, including in this section, yet he continues to ignore my question.  Calling me a vandal and not being willing to discuss edits does make this a Wikiquette issue, whether there is an RfC in progress or not.  Especially if there is a disconnect about how the RfC process works. I would appreciate it if you'd remove your tag. Dlabtot (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't remove the tag.
 * And you have accused me and another editor of being less than intelligent. To quote you-
 * a reference within a citation is a really difficult concept for some editors to understand
 * or lying in your edit
 * if you label an edit 'Per Talk', you need to actually put something on the talk page
 * Do I need to point out my talk page replies of Tuesday and Wednesday? So why are you lying?
 * Why did I use the vandalism. Because you lied and it was the shortest way of me reverting the edits without writing another edit summary since you couldn't see an obvious closed loop that it was to start with. Why have you suddenly stopped arguing that? Because it was obviously wrong, like the remarks in your edit summaries I cite above...William 01:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Diffs are better than quotes.
 * The goal here is to have both of you walk away productivity editing.
 * Both of you are reasonably experienced editors with a majority of time spent in article space (this is a good thing).
 * What you're going to find in dispute resolutions forums is no one is much interested in refereeing who is "better" or "worse." You're each responsible for you're own behavior, and nothing the other editor does justifies less than you're best effort at following Wikipedia guidelines. If you both just dial it down a bit and focus on collaboration -- and be really careful about posting anything that can be interpreted as a slam on the other editor -- you can both walk away winners. It's good an RFC was started, but you have to give it time to percolate. Nobody Ent 01:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Continued harassment by other user after repeated requests to stop.
Repetitious harassment by other user that contributes nothing to the conversation except to annoy and discredit.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taiwan#Admins.27_closing_comments

Throughout the talk page, HiLo48 repeats the same thing again and again without actually contributing to the conversation.

Hilo48 disagrees with me on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495659581&oldid=495659219

Instead of discussing the issue with me, HiLo48 has chosen to harass me by repeating again and again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495718356&oldid=495718281 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495718904&oldid=495718356 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495719040&oldid=495718904

I ask HiLo48 to stop: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495936709&oldid=495935875

My second request to HiLo48 to please stop: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495937839&oldid=495937584

Improper use of language here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=495967396&oldid=495962095

He contributes but with continued harassment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496049127&oldid=496035141

No contribution, just harassment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496049358&oldid=496049127

My third request to HiLo48 to please stop: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496056630&oldid=496049358

I inform HiLo48 that I think what he/she is doing is harassment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496056992&oldid=496056771

Continued repetitious harassment while contributing nothing to the conversation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496057566&oldid=496057072 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496061465&oldid=496060216 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=496061649&oldid=496061465
 * If you look at the edit screen you just need to sign your posts with ~ . There is a link to it below the edit box. It is needed to be able to have a discussion. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue here. The issue here is the repetitive harassment by him/her even after I asked 3 times for him/her to stop.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midcent (talk • contribs) 15:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you sign your posts with four tildes in future then I'm sure Hilo will stop asking you to do it.
 * Eraserhead1, Wikipedia says that we *should* sign our posts, not that we have to. I asked HiLo48 to stop, he/she did not.
 * Look at it from his perspective, he has asked multiple times for you to do something very simple which is required for good discussion and which you have failed to do - I'm not surprised he is getting annoyed.
 * Eraserhead1, Wikipedia says that we *should* sign our posts, not that we have to. I asked HiLo48 to stop, he/she did not.
 * After you start signing your posts I will be more than happy to make sure that any further commentary is handled app
 * Refusing to sign your posts after repeated gentle reminders is extremely discourteous to all fellow editors and very disruptive of the normal editing pattern @ WP. If you wanted anonimity you should have remained an IP acct. ```Buster Seven   Talk  22:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Buster7, Wikipedia says that we *should* sign our posts, not that we have to. I asked HiLo48 to stop, he/she did not.

Buster7's undo of my comments makes me think: "Buster7, Wikipedia says that we *should* sign our posts, not that we have to. I asked HiLo48 to stop, he/she did not."
 * I un-did your edit because you altered my indentation, causing a confused appearance to the discussion. I inadvertantly undid your un-necessary repetitions for which I apologize. It's called a mistake. We all make them. ```Buster Seven   Talk  04:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not see that. I am sorry.  I apologize.  The mistake is mine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midcent (talk • contribs) 05:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are going to take the "should sign your posts" line and not do something that is highly useful, where explicitly in the rules does it say that Hilo can't constantly badger you about it?
 * If you aren't prepared to treat the project with respect by following sensible and reasonable guidelines why should we treat you with respect? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * After reading your posts, all I can think is: Eraserhead1, Wikipedia says that we *should* sign our posts, not that we have to. I asked HiLo48 to stop, he/she did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midcent (talk • contribs) 13:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And Hilo should treat you with respect and not continually ask you to sign your posts. However if you aren't going to do what we want, why should he do what you want? Its quid pro quo.
 * If you aren't going to be reasonable you can't expect anyone else to be reasonable back. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It is normal social practice to wipe yourself after you deficate. You don't have to but it's a good idea. If you choose not to wipe, you run the assurred risk of being ostracized. FWIW...in RL, no one will wipe for you (unless your old and decrepid)...in WikiWorld there is a bot that will sometimes sign for you. You don't have any special powers or magnitism that allows fellow editors to know that you are the one "speaking". Signing helps us all. it helps this project. Your refusal to sign doesn't make sense. ```Buster Seven   Talk  13:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Buster7, Wikipedia says that we *should* sign our posts, not that we have to. I asked HiLo48 to stop, he/she did not.
 * Just my two cent but... why are you repeating yourself? We know that Wikipedia doesn't require you to sign your posts; it just makes sense to and it benefits everyone. Your almost as bad as the person harrassing you (please don't take that too literally). You are claiming that since Wikipedia doesn't require it, then it's not important. You have one person constantly asking you to sign your posts and you, on the other hand are bluntly repeating the argument of "it's not required; I'm being harrassed". Surely you can see the slight resembalance of it and why it's best to sign your posts? Gorgak25 (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not absolutely compelled to sign your posts, but it is a very good idea. Your repetitious, unsigned posts above make it very hard to follow the conversation because it's difficult to see who is saying what. Similarly, the rest of us are not compelled to meekly accept your refusal to sign posts; anyone who finds your reluctance to do this is within their rights to ask you to think again. The repeated requests on your talk page are a function of your repeated refusal to do something very simple and do not amount to harrassment. Start typing four tildes and I promise you, the nagging posts will stop! Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  15:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Users are expected to behave in a way compatible with Wikipedia's norms and policies. One of these is sign your posts. Perhaps participation in Wikipedia dispute resolution is required. Seems like an enormous waste of valuable editorial time and effort, but, it may be the only solution for this obstinant disruption of normal procedure.```Buster Seven   Talk  12:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Added thought....What if User:Midcent used invisible ink to sign? Would that be a win-win situation? He could use a very pale almost invisible color. That way fellow editors would not be bothered having to look at the edit history to KNOW who made the comment. The confusing gap created if the Sinebot is not on duty would be replaced by at least a time stamp. There wouldn't be any "bleed thru" of Midcents conversation into the next responders conversation which now creates confusion. ```Buster Seven   Talk  13:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Another important element of Wikipedia's norms and policies is that the subject of a complaint to places like this is advised about said complaint. I wasn't. (That's why I haven't responded earlier.) I don't know how long this thread has been here. That's because there is no date/time stamp on the initial post because it wasn't signed. Does anybody else see the irony in all of this? This complainant has posted considerable rubbish on the original page under discussion (Talk:Taiwan, and on several editors' Talk pages, including mine, wasting masses of everybody's time. Are there no consequences for such disruptive behaviour? HiLo48 (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * WTF! It's really hard work to follow this thread because of this bizarre refusal to sign posts. God knows what it must be like on a talk page. What on earth is the problem with signing a post?? As far as I can see this is a form of disruptive behaviour and the user should be sanctioned if he continues this ridiculous behaviour. DeCausa (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Recommend Immediate Ban for Midcent I normally have a pretty relaxed attitude about the disputes on 'Wikiquette assistance' and encourage both sides to work things out, but I have to say in this particular case, I recommend just immediately taking Midcent to AN/I and recommend a topic ban from all places where the guy won't sign his posts. This thread has been near impossible to follow because there is no way to know who is saying which thing and Midcent makes no effort to assist in differentiating his posts from other editor's posts. While signing a post a not a policy violation, it is usually interpreted as the exception, rather than the rule, that you fail to sign a post. If everyone behaved as Midcent is insisting, we would have no way to productively discuss on Talk pages. I believe Midcent is being needlessly WP:POINTy about this and deserves to have his editing limited to those places where he can abide by some common standard. While I agree with not badgering a person who occasionally forgets to sign a post, Midcent is taking this to a very disruptive point and causing confusion and problems where none need to be had. In short, a ban is needed. -- Avanu (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It does seem like he is being obtuse and WP:POINTy. We do have a guideline against that.  It is like an editor constantly adding content in all caps and saying "Well the content is good, it is up to others to reformat it for me".   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  19:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've taken it to AN/I here DeCausa (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * User blocked. Writegeist (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

User Ammodramus repeated posts to my talk page when he's been asked not to


This editor came to my talk page last weekend with a request I put edit summaries into articles he has on watchlist. I replied back.

From the start he irked me because of his writing 'most of which appear to be insertions of notable residents.' My work he was talking about was TOTALLY the insertion of only notable people into Nebraska town articles. If this editor had checked my edit history at the time, he would have have seen two of my previous edits included my taking nonnotable people out of town articles.

He didn't like my reply, and responded here. In it he wrote 'This, I think is why we have WP:FIES; and why we have Template:Uw-editsummary' Which irked me more because he's threatening to put he later described as an 'embarrassing template' on my page. I told him to 'Put up one instance of me putting one non notable into an article or get off my back.' He responded with the embarrassing template bit and no instance of what I told him to produce. So I replied at his talk page. Saying- One more post to my talk page and I will report you to the proper wikipedia authorities for WP:Harassment. If you're so worried about wasting your time, you wouldn't be bothering me who has repeatedly asked you to prove one time I put something wrong into one of your watchlist articles.

He's posted to my talk page since then
 * here
 * here
 * and finally today In this last post he brought up the embarrassing template business again.

I am being harassed and threatened and ask this editor to be warned to not ever post to my talk page again....William 18:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this has a technical solution (Setting "My preferences") to give an automatic edit summary when you edit sections. I put some suggestions on this on User talk:Ammodramus.  That said - I don't think this is really about the technical issue.  Rather, everybody has something which just irks the heck of you.  You two seem to have just hit each other's irk spot. Either one of you could just say "whoops, I'll try doing what you ask" and issue over.  Hope this helps.  Smallbones (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm here to have this editor to stop harrassing and threatening me via posts to my talk page. How many times is he allowed to ignore requests before anything is done about it? He's made threats, continually replied to my page when asked not to, and and utterly fails at WP:AGF. ...William 18:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Ammodramus has been exceedingly polite about this. Adding edit summaries is good practice, and you should try and do that.
 * I'm not great at it myself, but it does make it easier to see what is going on. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your labeling of Ammodramus's edits as Vandalism (even if it was from twinkle's pretty options) is straight up wrong. The time that has been invested by now 5 volunteers to read through the attempt at dialog is now an order of magnitude higher than if you had just spent the time to add the edit summaries yourself.  Your continued labeling of Ammodramus's edits as vandalism is not good wiki-etiquite.  Finally, you did not request Ammodramus to stop posting on your talk page until you notified him of this WQA. Your wiki-etiquette has been sorely lacking. Hasteur (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is dead wrong. Have you even checked his page history? I suggest you see here and then pass judgment on me instead of hanging me out to dry on bad facts. I asked multiple times for him to stop posting before coming here. I told him on Saturday I was going to come here but I let the matter drop till he made yet another post to my page today.


 * It's not straight up wrong. He has been asked to reply there and a message at the top of my page says to reply to threads at your own page. When you don't heed multiple requests, that is vandalism, especially when you do it over and over. Give me one reason why he had to reply three times at my talk page rather than his own other to harrass me?...William 22:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong language, but then again it is why WP:BOOMERANG is often cited. Using an edit summary is good practice, even if its a minor thing like a typo correction just to detail it. I often use 'fix' if I make a minor format fix or typo or grammar, but any lengthy edit to article space I comment. Talkspace ones I tend to be brief, since no one should be editing my talk page posts. More importantly, Ammodramus is right and trying to assist, if the comments are unwelcome then ask nicely for him to stop before you bring him to WQA and mischaracterize his edits with Twinkle. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I find edit summaries, especially my own, to be an extremely helpful tool in figuring out the edit history, especially during a long discussion. They help me find where I said what. See it as a "want to" instead of a "have to". ```Buster Seven   Talk  22:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is crazy. I"m being made out to be the bad guy in this Nowhere is it required to sign an edit but on a talk page. Which I do. Where is it required to put an edit summary in? Where have I made a bad edit on the pages he is so concerned about? He made threats, failed to AGF, and repeatedly came back to my page when asked not to. ...William 22:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

All of you are forgetting something. I came here to get Ammodramus to stop posting to my talk page. Nobody has addressed that request. Let me ask all of you this- Would you be unhappy with an editor who keeps posting to your own page even though you asked him not to?...William 22:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe. Maybe not. Anyway, if you obeyed the other user when he made a reasonable request, then it would have been much easier to persuade others that your own reasonable requests should be obeyed too. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's utter bs comparable to blaming crime victims because they somehow invited the crime on themselves. You probably think rape victims invite the assault on themselves if they refuse the guy's request for sex. He sounded reasonable too....William 01:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all who've participated in this discussion so far; your efforts to help maintain congenial discourse on WP are appreciated.


 * If it'd be useful, the complete exchange between User:WilliamJE and me is reproduced at my talk page. Section headings and indents aren't identical to those in the original exchange, since I was compiling it from two different talk pages; and I've added a caption attributing an illustration added by William, since it's placed beside a paragraph of my writing.  However, I don't believe I've changed anything of substance.


 * William, I apologize for not noticing the directions at the top of your talk page regarding where to respond under what circumstances. Please note that as soon as you brought it to my attention, I started replying at my own talk page and leaving you've-got-a-message templates at yours.  I left my latest message on your talk page, since I saw it as a new message rather than a continuation of Saturday's exchange.


 * I assume that this isn't the right forum to justify my request to William. I'd be happy to do so if asked, however, or to clarify anything that's poorly phrased or otherwise unclear in my messages to him.  Ammodramus (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ammodramus has made his request clear; as William has requested they refrain from posting on his talk page it's courteous to do so. A past WQA request led to this Requests_for_comment/Hentzer in which the consensus was edit summaries are not required. I mentioned this recently somewhere else where several editors disagreed with that conclusion (unfortunately I'm drawing a blank on where); given there's no clear consensus I'd encouraged William to use edit summaries wherever possible and encourage Ammondramus to accept they're not currently required. Nobody Ent 01:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No apology accepted. You knew the message was on top of my page, you replied three times to my talk page after I asked you to stop. To paraphrase 'First time happenstance, second time coincidence, third time deliberate harassment....William 01:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Top of talk page messages are suggestions, not requirements. Some editors prefer the all on one page approach and others prefer the alternating page approach. Nobody Ent 01:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Excuses, excuses. They're are hundreds of editors with that message, yourself included, on top of their talk pages. It's not uncommon. You're still not addressing why he didn't heed my obvious request on his talk page not to reply on my talk page till he produced one mistake of mine.

I've made the same request from this board too. '''Where is it required to put an edit summary in? Where have I made a bad edit on the pages he is so concerned about?''' Silence is the only response with the exception of people here trying to turn the crime victim into the bad guy....William


 * Much Ado About Nothing. First sentence only. The rest is not pertinent. ```Buster Seven   Talk  04:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Deliberate harassment is fine and dandy with the editors here? This board is a joke then and you all should be ashamed of yourselves. You're the same type of people who blame the rape victim for her getting raped....William 11:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You realise that wont fly right? Quite apart from the ridiculous comparison, its a personal attack on everyone here. I suggest you retract it. When you go to a noticeboard with a complaint and most of the people disagree with you, this is a time for you to take stock of your position and perhaps realise you might be wrong. Most editors on wikipedia prefer edit summaries to be used because it saves time. This is a collaborative environment, you do not edit alone. My advice to Ammondramus would be to stay away from your talk-page, not because your claims of harassment stand up, but because they have made their point, everyone above has made theirs, if you cant learn from this that is your problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One editor above said I never requested Ammondramus to stop posting, I did. So that person here is dead wrong. Another editor wrote 'if you obeyed the other user when he made a reasonable request' In other words, retaliating against an editor is fine and the target is the person wrong. This is comparable to a man who rapes a woman he met at a singles bar and the woman being blamed for the sexual assault against her. Other men and women at the Singles bar have sex after one of them makes a reasonable request but the rape victim says no. The rapist was making a reasonable request too, he got rejected, so he assaults the woman. The woman is then blamed for the rape committed against her because she wouldn't comply with his reasonable request.


 * There is a big problem here. If editors can't agree to warn an editor not to post to a certain talk page when that editor not once but three times disobeyed a request from another editor not to post to his talk page, that then all editors here are endorsing this type of behavior. That's one heck of a precedent that's being set....William 12:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Even if this editor stops posting to your T/P, it is likely that others will stop by and ask you to add edit summaries. Why not add them? It will get this editor off your back, make it look like you are working cooperatively and prevent other editor's leaving you requests/warnings about not leaving edit summaries. This isn't about him and it's not about you, it's about everyone who edits here. Leaky Caldron  12:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are doing yourself a disservice by personalizing the matter. You will find that editors will respond better to a less combative, less aggressive tone. ```Buster Seven   Talk  13:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the obnoxious comparison of posting on a talk page to an act of sexual violence has lost you my support completely. If you really think the two are equivalent then I'm very sorry for you. Ammodramus has hardly made a daily nuisance of him/herself and I agree, for what it's worth, that edit summaries are very helpful and you should be providing them for all your edits. If you don't like being nagged, start adding edit summaries or edit logged out. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  15:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like board members who 1- Don't read before they post saying something I didn't do when in fact I did. 2- Don't like my correct behavior being made as the fault of someone behaving incorrectly. 3- Having a comparison I used as based in fact(It was used as a rapist's defense at least once)  called obnoxious. It's obvious your personal feelings make it impossible to rule on something impartially. The edit summaries aren't relevant to Ammodramus behavior because he knows as does everyone else who posts to this thread that it isn't required and in fact some editors not just myself here practice the same thing. Put that WP policy on trial, not me....William 16:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

@William - You've made a reasonable request, and it appears to me that Ammodramus has as well. Could we just agree that these are both reasonable and say that each of you is willing to consider the other's request? In both cases, we have a situation where compliance is optional and so neither of you is required by policy to do what the other one is asking, but things would be much smoother if each of you could just acknowledge the reasonableness and make efforts to comply.

@Several of the editors here at Wikiquette assistance - I'd like to remind you that "Wikiquette assistance" is a voluntary process, and the goal is to help end conflict, not talk about "boomerang" consequences or being overly critical of the requester. While I might agree that William ought to just add edit summaries, he is not required to do so, nor is Ammodramus required to stop posting on-topic requests. The matter is entirely optional for each of them, and while I feel that Ammodramus has good intentions, there's no point in continuing to press William on this issue if he isn't going to listen. His failure to add edit summaries doesn't quite cross a line into breaching Civility, but it is an annoyance. Lots of things can be annoying on Wikipedia, and sometimes we just deal with them. I hope William takes another look at this, but it might have to be after several other editors pester him also before he decides that its just simpler to write a brief summary. Either way, I think this discussion has been fully debated, and it is probably getting near the point of needing to be closed. -- Avanu (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to my mention of it, it is a mere reference to a policy which exists if this goes further. WQA is not a binding dispute resolution process, but it is clearly bad-faith to falsely warn any editor with vandalism flags because of a disagreement. The personal attacks are wrong and all I did was point out that one of the key tenets of dispute resolution was violated by William. I'm pretty sure it would be a trouting at any other DR, but note that taking something to WQA, ANI or whatever doesn't mean the reporters actions won't be under scrutiny. Inserting a picture of 'death by burning' to coincide with a personal attack is exactly the type of response to which I was referring to. William's actions are just as likely to be scrutinized as Ammodramus, perhaps more so, I was just pointing out the very valid fact such a 'essay' not a 'policy' exists which illuminates this discussion should it be brought elsewhere. WQA solves problems, but last I checked, merely pointing out a relevant matter and referring to the requester previous actions is not unconventional nor unheard of. Anyways... seems to be wrapping up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Avanu's and Nobody Ent's suggestions seem eminently reasonable to me, and I'll be happy to abide by them. Ammodramus (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

coca tea and coca
There are several in-accurrate cooments and blatenly -un true knowledsge that has been deleted from both these items.Coca tea drug test do not test for cocaine,yet the writer ,bondea states this.Furthermore there were several laws and where to find these laws in the article,these have all been taken out.The person who put these laws in,did not make the laws.The united States Of america did,yet they are continually taking the referrences out.How do we get the truth out to the public when this ,'editore'' is constabntly editing the  the laws out,thus the truth surrounding this item?...paita





deeming factual referrences as vandilism

I realy do not understand how factual referrences are deemed vandilism?paita — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paitalona (talk • contribs)


 * I'm sorry my explanations have been incomprehensible. I don't think there's any way I can be more clear, but hopefully somebody else has more of a talent in this area than I do. Here are the issues, explained as best I can:
 * A large part of the information is original research. This is what I and others have tried to explain, and again I'm sorry that it's been so confusing.
 * Most of the information is in fact not relevant to the article. This has been discussed on the article's talk page (Talk:Coca tea). Editor Calliopejen1 has put a lot of work into extracting the relevant information from Paitalona's edits, and entering it into the article in readable English - see the article's history. This means that Paitalona has in fact contributed with his/her edits, it's just that they have been rephrased and rewritten. The article is without doubt better for this.
 * I and others have tried to get Paitalona to discuss his/her edits on the article's talk page, and have explained exactly what the problems with them are - in particular that they constitute original research. Unfortunately, Paitalona has responded by reverting to their preferred version of the article without discussion, and against consensus. This reversal also broke references and removed sourced information. I understand that this may have been done out of a lack of understanding of policy, but at some point it crosses the line of vandalism. What did make me a bit overly sharp is the fact that another editor (Calliopejen1) has been putting all this hard work into the article, leaving it in good shape, only to have it reverted without any attempt of retaining his/her work. I apologise for any harshness on my part, but I do stick to my opinion that adding original research and unsourced information to Wikipedia articles, as well as removing sourced information, after having been asked (not warned) multiple times not to do so does warrant warnings, and ultimately may be blockable.
 * --bonadea contributions talk 11:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the main issue is simply a language barrier and an unfamiliarity, on the part of Paitalona, with the policies and guidelines (i.e new editor). This WQA section was malformed and Bonadea edits were appropriate although maybe a little harsh, and I think ChrisGualtieri has gone ahead and posted at Paitalona's talk page to deal with the specific editing problems and also commented at Bonadea's page. IRWolfie- (talk)
 * That I did, notifying the parties is important, but if we cannot communicate and figure out the source of the problem, how can we ever address it? I was just looking for insight and to have both parties bring the matter forward. Bonadea might be correct in his assertions, his justification may not be the same as an admin, but it does appear the competency of Paitalona is in question. If Paitalona is unable to be constructive on any level then it may end up being difficult to resolve easily.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you gave me a heads-up, Chris. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 15:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This user is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. See User talk:Paitalona. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Armbrust

 * myself
 * myself

I'm at a loss with regard to Armbrust's behavior in the AfD. He is taking a somewhat belligerent stance, refuses to acknowledge arguments and imho displays overall pointy behavior. First he dismissed most !votes he doesn't agree with out of hand as going against some AADD section (even after having been explicitly explained that this doesn't apply to reasoned !votes). Then, after he was repeatedly asked to stop this, he has now taken to SPA-tagging of IP comments he doesn't agree with. I'm sure he means well, but he is less than communicative nor insightful as to the appearance of his behavior. And his block log reflects a pertinent history. --213.168.108.25 (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Attempt to discredit using sexual orientation as a weapon

 * - me, my signature is Fiddle Faddle.
 * - me, my signature is Fiddle Faddle.



This editor, Hypesmasher, has chosen to pick up userboxes from my user page and use them here as an attempt to discredit me. I have no idea whether the editor is homophobic, but it appears very much to be a homophobic attack. In such things the perception of the victim is of substantial importance. To pre-empt any criticism of my strong prior suggestion that he had had his fun, I accept that they perhaps should have been different in tone. Nonetheless that is no excuse for what I perceive as a homophobic attack.

I have read WP:COAL and am adhering to it. I judged that any attempt by me to seek to solve this by civil talk page messages would be unproductive, so I have no intention of interacting with this editor again, save to post the alerting template in their talk page. I rarely edit the article in question, and then usually simply to patrol it to delete uncited new 'facts'. I have not contributed to further discussions or edits in either location since this incident, and have chosen to wait until the matter was archived at DRN in order to allow time for any passions to cool. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Lack of response leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the behaviour is expected, unexceptional, and not to be criticised. How disheartening. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see nothing to contradict my view. Publicly expressed bias based upon sexuality is obviously acceptable. Currently consensus has been to avoid this topic. Thus it is allowed. Nemine contradicet. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you show a diff or at least quote the text rather than having people wade through the lengthy dispute resolution (that's probably why noone responded). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Quoted from the archived DRN: Lastly, editor Fiddle Faddle (who has suggested this change of venue) lists (among other things) on his Userpage... This user is proudly out of the closet and gay. This user is a supporter of the LGBT community. This user supports equal rights for LGBT people. These disclosures make me suspicious of Fiddle Faddle's true motives for interfering here and suggesting this disruptive venue change. I suggest that Fiddle Faddle perhaps has a conflict of interest which should disallow him or her from even nominating the AfD for this specific article at this specific point in time.--Hypesmasher (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the tip, and for responding with it :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I will limit my comments on this and then withdraw, because my past interactions with Hypesmasher have not been productive. That being said, I cannot remain silent on this issue. In my opinion, Hypesmasher's comments quoted above are completely out of line. To imply that someone should not edit certain Wikipedia pages simply because his user page says "this user is proudly out of the closet and gay" and "this user supports equal rights for LGBT people" is a clear violation of WP:NOEDIT. The problem is that one incident of this kind does not rise to the level of requiring a block, and Hypesmasher has repeatedly shown himself to be oppositional and defiant in the face of any suggestion that he modify his behavior in any way. This can clearly be seen by my failed attempts to convince Hypesmasher that you cannot nominate an article for deletion on that article's talk page and by SineBot's repeated attempts to convince Hypesmasher to sign his posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of his comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for those thoughts. I do not see this as block material either, and I saw all your attempts to interact with the user came to naught. My hopes in raising the matter here are that hitherto uninvolved editors attempt to guide this user away from the combative route and into the collegiate fold. And that as a matter of some importance he is told that what I perceive to be rampant homophobia has no place here. Further transgressions shoudl be discussed elsewhere and may result in a block, but that is not my concern. I am concerned that he is now advised strongly that his behaviour towards me has been sufficiently out of line to be in breach of our policies here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've put a warning on the editors page that further incivility can lead to RFC/U and arbcom involvement. This also is one step towards meeting the requirements of WP:RFC/U: Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem IRWolfie- (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * At one level it must be OK for editors to raise the possibility of a WP:COI with others. In a hypothetical example, if an editor is actively editing the page on the Ruritanian Liberation Front and has on their user page, we have a right to question their objectivity. But I don't think the logic can simply be rolled out mechanically. I am a man, as my user page makes clear. Do I therefore inevitably have a biased COI if I edit at Men's rights for example? I think the difference is that very few of us will have a position on Ruritanian liberation, so someone who proclaims it loudly is describing themselves as having quite an unusual position. However almost all of us are either male or female - to announce the fact doesn't immediately make us all biased. Similarly, all of us lie at some point on the continuum of sexuality; simply occupying a place on that continuum does not immediately imply a COI. Hypesmasher's unspoken assertion that a gay person would have a COI on this article where a straight person dwould not is untenable.  Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  09:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is similar to claiming that a Christian has a COI on Religion related articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that an isolated and civil question about potential COI is acceptable. However I feel one must always consider the context which surrounds the question or statements asserting potential COI. This is why I linked to the DRN rather than simply quoting an excerpt initially. There is a lack of civility and also a hectoring tone in all or almost all of Hypesmasher's conversation there. One might also add that the user name chosen is somewhat combative, though within our policies.
 * With regard to any actual COI on my part I am certain that there is none, as my editing history shows. My edits reflect a determination to improve articles in many areas of our encyclopaedia. The sexuality of the person, if there be a person, in the article is not a matter which concerns me, though, as a member of a minority I find it of interest from time to time. And a self identified Free Ruritanian, while being asked about neutrality, should make it obvious by their edits that they edit in a neutral manner.
 * Thanks to RWolfie for the note on the editor's talk page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It strikes me that the behaviour I perceive as homophobic could still do with being directly addressed with Hypesmasher. I'm grateful for the other actions. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your perceptions are not evidence. Nobody Ent 13:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not relevant. What is relevant is that such behaviour causes those perceptions in those people targeted by the words and behaviours exhibited. Such things are both hurtful and harmful. Your statement is of interest, but that is all. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * His perceptions were not presented "as evidence", Nobody Ent. Attempting to characterize them as such is, at best, disingenuous. &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncl</b><b style="color:darkred">eBubba</b> ( T @ C ) 14:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't evidence either, but for what it is worth, my perceptions were the same, and I am straight (but not narrow). --Guy Macon (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Attacks on editors, not issues, at Talk:DOS/Archive 2

 * (previously )
 * (previously )

Mostly at Talk:DOS/Archive 2

This is a highly technical content dispute (What defines a "multitasking" operating system?), but beyond that there are a couple of behavioural issues that have arisen and that are making any real discussion unpleasant, if not impossible.


 * "Would you please give it a rest already ? The fact that you do not understand that multitasking operating systems have a task scheduler and continue to incorrectly maintain that DOS is a multitasking OS makes it very clear that you do not have proper technical understanding."
 * "Are you going to stop making incorrect statements ?"
 * "Wendy, you and Andy simply do not understand and/or refuse to accept the fact (...) You guys really have no idea what you are talking about."
 * "You have just proven (actually proven again) that you do not have any idea what you are talking about. "
 * "You clearly have no idea what you are talking about from a technical perspective."

I've tried to defuse some of this via article talk, but later comments led to a Canned message at User_talk:Asmpgmr

This is a highly technical issue. Worse than that, it's a subjective matter of opinion. No-one is really disagreeing with Asmpgmr on any technical detail, merely whether whatever it was that DOS did warrants one label or another. Yet within this toxic environment, it's impossible to work towards achieving any of that.

Secondly, we see lots of edits in the history that all boil down to "I disagree with one point in this section, so I'm blanking all of it". That's not the way we're supposed to work here (and usually don't), but in this case it's impossible to do anything about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't attacked anyone, I used no foul language and called no one any names. I have stated fact not opinion time and time again and provided links supporting this. That you and the other user choose to reject it is the problem. Yes this is a matter of a lack of technical understanding of DOS, BIOS and multitasking.

As I said on the talk page if you want to make the ludicrous argument that DOS is multitasking operating system then prove it:


 * list of alleged DOS Int 21h API function(s) which support multitasking.
 * disassembly of the alleged multitasking support code in the DOS kernel of any version of DOS other European MS-DOS 4 which is known to actually support multitasking.
 * location of the alleged multitasking code in the DOS kernel (MSDOS.SYS or IBMDOS.COM) which can be independently verified by someone who is familiar with DOS internals and x86 assembly language.

DOS is not a multitasking OS, this is a matter of fact not opinion. Also I would say the worst thing here is putting incorrect information on Wikipedia. All I'm doing is making an article which I happen to know a lot about a better article by correcting inaccuracies. Asmpgmr (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way Andy Dingley you should not talk about me attacking another user (which I did not) when you did attack another user on your own talk page. I quote from your page to another user Please stop making some really bloody dumb decategorizations - dated 09:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't it kind of hypocritical of you to accuse me of attacking users when you made such as statement ? Also it would appear that your arguments are so weak that you now have to resort to making attack claims against me as a last ditch effort. Let me be clear, it is nothing personal. My only intention is to make a Wikipedia article which I know something about as clear, concise and accurate as possible. Asmpgmr (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's a terminology issue, rather than a technical one. It's whether what TSR's do and their user access etc constitutes multitasking.  Some say 'yes', some say 'no'.  The issue is akin to saying 'Multitasking requires X and Y', or 'Multitasking needs only 'X', and 'DOS does at least 'X' but not 'Y'.  So the lower bar (X) is that DOS multitasks, the upper bar (X+Y) is that it doesn't.  None of the technical examples are shown wrong.  Wendy.krieger (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It has been explained to you several times now by myself and other users that DOS is not a multitasking OS and why it is not (no task scheduler) yet you keep arguing about this. What a DOS TSR program does do not constitute what DOS does. DOS is a real mode OS and therefore no mechanisms exist to prevent direct hardware access thus programs are free to do whatever they want. Just because a DOS program provides something does not mean that it is part of DOS itself. Anyway if you want to make the claim that DOS (other than European MS-DOS 4) is a multitasking OS then prove it by providing one of the three things I have requested above. Otherwise please stop arguing endlessly about this. If you want to maintain this position then fine, you are entitled to your own opinion (albeit an incorrect one) but you are not entitled to your own set of facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus about facts not opinions. Asmpgmr (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Minor technical correction that does not invalidate your argument: There are multitasking systems that have no mechanisms to prevent direct hardware access. It is a subset of cooperative multitasking, and is mostly found in embedded systems with severely limited resources. DOS is not a cooperative multitasking system, because in those kind of systems the tasks save state and voluntarily turn control over to the next task. DOS, by design, never does that, and is thus not multitasking. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

X-ray_computed_tomography




I have contributed to that article, and an other user:Jmh649 deleted my contributions, without discussion, without asking for refs, and without giving time to provide refs, and without stating statements that are not according to rules, and without allowing time to correct them.

I have reverted the deletions, and received a threat that I am edit warring, and that I will be banned.

Upon questioning, the user has deceived me by claiming, that primary sources can't be used at all in medical articles. ("All of the refs supporting this text are primary research papers", "The issue with your additions had to do with the references. The references where simply not appropriate", "The same thing as with all the content in question. It was not supported by proper references.", "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss.", and "For important medical information we use ideal sources." the last in reply to me saying "It does not state that non ideal sources can't be used".)

The user:Jmh649 does not have professional understanding in the area of the contribution, which he deleted, and after deleting them, he has contributed an error instead (mSv=mGy). This error is contradicted by the sources that are still used in the document. This prove that he have not read and understood the sources. Yet, he allowed himself to delete, without asking questions.

I think, that many of the sources, that back up the deleted contributions were adequate, but the contributions weren't edited in order to remove just inadequate parts, they were deleted in their entirety.

The content is currently being discussed at the article's talk page, and at the DRN, and I was referred here by the DRN, in order to discuss my complaint of unfair conduct. I think that it is worth mentioning, that in his user profile page, user:jmh649 has stated that he is an ER doctor. An ER's income may be affected by the deletions that user:jmh649 has performed.


 * I am a volunteer Clerk/Mediator at Dispute resolution noticeboard. For those of you who are unfamiliar with WP:DRN, it is sort of the "Evil Twin" of WP:WQA -- DRN addresses article content and not user conduct, WQA addresses user conduct and not article content. I have been working this case: Dispute resolution noticeboard.


 * Two days ago I told 79.182.215.205 the following:


 * "Is it true that someone told you that primary sources can never be used? I looked at every single comment on Talk:X-ray computed tomography, then I went back and searched for all uses of the word "primary". The only person who has said anything about primary sources never being used is you. Nobody told you that. You made it up. Wikipedia has a page about that as well: Straw man."


 * If you do a search for the word "primary" on Talk:X-ray computed tomography you will see that the above is still true. On both pages our actual policy on Primary/Secondary sources have been explained in detail. Given these facts, I find the above accusation to be rather puzzling.


 * As for the "ER doctor" comment above, this is a clear violation of WP:AGF.


 * I am sure that jmh649 will welcome a close look at his behavior and will be happy to make any changes should he discover that he has misbehaved in some way, but I would also note that according to WP:BOOMERANG, 79.182.215.205's behavior will also be scrutinized.


 * If any questions about article content come up in this discussion, feel free to refer them to WP:DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Guy, I have replied to you about your statement: "The only person who has said anything about primary sources never being used is you. Nobody told you that. You made it up. Wikipedia has a page about that as well: Straw man". My reply was that I was told by jmh649 on the article's talk page - "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss." and that is pretty much saying you can't use primary sources period. I am surprised, that after that reply to you, you are bringing up the same straw man accusation again. Why did you bring it up again here? Moreover, you Guy have replied to me "Primary sources can be used, but not the way you are trying to use them. They are to be used for things that are uncontroversial, uncontested, directly stated in the source (no interpretation or other use of your own knowledge or expertise allowed) and they have to be reliable sources.". This clearly indicate that jmh649 statement - "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss." is false. Clearly it is possible to use primary sources, and there is what to discuss - how they are to be used. You said "On both pages our actual policy on Primary/Secondary sources have been explained in detail. Given these facts, I find the above accusation to be rather puzzling." I have made many accusations, so you will have to be more specific, with regard to the primary sources my reply is that, if user:649 insist on deleting my contributions, just because he is not willing to accept primary sources at all, this goes against the policy. As for the "ER" comment, I didn't assume anything, and I didn't write anything that is not true. I have opened this section because you (Guy) have told me "As for the behavior you describe, DRN only deals with article content, not user conduct. WP:WQA deals with user conduct.", I seem to have read on that, that you want me to report the described behavior of jmh649 here, and hence I did. I am new to Wikipedia, I don't know what these Wikiquette and DRN are about, thus I follow the suggestions of more experienced users, like you. In hind site, it seems like you didn't really want me to open a report here, did you? Is this going to affect your neutrality as our mediator at the DRN? Anyway, I welcome you to this debate, you are the first responder, btw, how did you learn of it? I have only sent a message about it to jmh649. 79.182.215.205 (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I still have the same opinion about you that I expressed before. I think you want what is best for the article. I would also ad that in my opinion you are intelligent and honest, but that you are also new and don't know all the rules yet. In my opinion, you have the potential to become a very valuable contributor to Wikipedia.


 * I did want you to post here because you clearly believe that jmh649 behaved badly, and I think you should have a fair hearing. That being said, you don't get a free ride. If I see behavior that needs to be commented on (and it is in a place where comments on user conduct are appropriate) I will give my honest opinion. And my opinion is that Jmh649 did not tell you that you can never use primary sources. Perhaps he wasn't clear enough, but do a search on every user of "primary" and "secondary" on that page and the total adds up to a pretty good explanation of why primary sources are to me used only for specific things.


 * I don't think I am biased against you, but of course I may be blind to my own bias. I would not be offended in the least if you asked for another mediator at WP:DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I was just concerned, that you have objected to the issue of this report, and that my reply here to you might have antagonized us, which might leak to the DRN debate. But if you think, that you are above that, I believe you. I think that there is no harm in a friendly debate. I think, that the major disagreement between us, is if Doc James categorically denied my use of primary sources. I think he did. I really don't understand why you think different. Maybe me and you speak a different kind of English. He eventually said "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss.". How do you interpret that? 79.182.215.205 (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * On 12:32 am, 10 June 2012 Blue Rasberry told you: "Here is the requested Wikipedia rule which talks about primary sources - WP:PRIMARY. The ideal source is a secondary source which talks about the first paper."


 * At this point it is perfectly acceptable for everyone to assume that you have read and understood WP:PRIMARY.


 * WP:PRIMARY says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."


 * Note that it does NOT say that primary sources cannot be used, nor does it say that primary sources can be used in the way you want to use them.


 * At 11:03 pm, 9 June 2012, Blue Rasberry told you again: "When you use a source which does not explicitly mention the article's subject that is WP:SYNTH. Here is the requested Wikipedia rule which talks about primary sources - WP:PRIMARY. The ideal source is a secondary source which talks about the first paper."


 * At 2:15 am, 10 June 2012 Blue Rasberry told you a third time: "Wikipedia has rules and I think that if you asked other people they would also say that your contributions are not following them. Check out primary and synth again."


 * Finally, at 10:43 pm, 10 June 2012 Doc James told you "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss."


 * You want to point at that last statement as if it was a skoking gun proving that Doc James told you that you could never use a primary source. This igrores all that happened before, which is you being told three times what the actual policy is. At this point Doc James has zero responsibility to explain to you what has already been explained to you three times. He is allowed to use a shorter sentence that can be read two ways, as "If you insist on using primary sources [which can never be used] there is really nothing more to discuss" or as "If you insist on using primary sources [which can not be used the way you are trying to use them] there is really nothing more to discuss." WP:AGF requires you to assume that he meant the one that agrees with the policies ( WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY ) that were discuseed at least three times already.  My conclusion is that the accusation is not supported by the facts.


 * I could be wrong, of course, so I invite the fine folks at WQA to correct me. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Before that reply by jmh649, I wrote: "The WP:PRIMARY doesn't state that primary sources can not be used, it just state how they should be used. Instead of helping with the semantics, you (DocJames) just destroy stuff. Why?79.179.224.214 (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)". This indicate, that I did not insist on using primary sources in any specific way. Thus, the second interpretation of jmh649 sentence is not valid. I bold stuff indicating primary source can be used in your post. 79.182.215.205 (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Let it be noted, that jmh649 did not participate yet in this discussion regarding his conduct, nor did he participate yet in the discussion at the DRN regarding content he removed. 79.182.215.205 (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Much great advice has been given. There is not really anything more to say. We have lots of great secondary sources regarding the subject matter at hand. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Doc James, I thank you for taking the time to comment here. This thread is placed at the Wikiquette, a place in which discussion of behavior take place, your behavior. Your comment here have no reference to my complaint regarding your behavior. Please take the time to read my complaint regarding your behavior. Please reply on topic. 79.182.215.205 (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * IP. I'm sorry your welcome to Wikipedia has been so unpleasant; I wish I could tell you it was unusual but unfortunately I can't. In theory, any contribution is welcome per the anyone can edit meme and ignore all rules pillars, but in practice often doesn't work that way. DJ and GM are correct about preferring secondary sources but could have handled all this much better. I've left links to a couple sources on the talk page that should satisfy their concerns. Unfortunately while we have a civility policy in practice the minor rudeness less than friendly welcome you've received here is best simply ignored, must be tolerated because not much nothing else is going to happen. It is in your best interest to register a user name; again, while the written policy says you don't need have to in order to contribute in practice it will make your life much easier. Nobody Ent 01:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Revised Nobody Ent 11:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not see any evidence of rudeness. I simply removed the content he had added as it was inappropriate. I wrote why in the edit summary and provided a link on this IPs talk page. After his third return of the material I posted that if he was to re add it again he would lose his editing privileges. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If anyone has specific instances of me being rude, I would very much like to be told about it. My talk page is a good place for that. As a clerk/moderator at WP:DRN, I want to hold myself -- and be held by others -- to a higher standard of civility, friendliness and patience. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Doc James: Many of your edit summaries just state, that you removed primary sources. That is not a valid reason. You can't remove something just because it is sourced by a primary source. You seemed to think that you can, I asked you to prove that, and you ignored me. I think that you ignored me because you can't prove that, because it is not true. Other things you removed because you didn't understand them. Why do you edit what you don't understand? 79.182.215.205 (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What the IP writes is incorrect. Improperly sourced content can be removed and that is wikipedia policy. The IP has himself attacked Jhm649's medical credentials elsewhere on wikipedia and seems to be continuing to do so above: that is uncivil and also contrary to wikipedia policy. Provided they understand how sourcing works in articles related to medicine (per the special guidelines WP:MEDRS), anyone can edit these articles. Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have diff of attack? Nobody Ent 11:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He has done it several places on WP:DRN. Here are some examples. I haven't looked too closely. Mathsci (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're correct; rudeness is overly strident (apologies). Have revised my statement accordingly. Nobody Ent 11:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the other IP address this user is editing from Special:Contributions/79.179.224.214 Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Scjessey

 * Scjessey



I have been offended by the inexcusable conduct of a wikipedia account holder. This wikipedia account holder's word choice on talk pages and edit summaries and methods of handling and creating conflicts is clearly in violation of wikipedia policies and essays on WP:DR and described best as bullying.

Specifically, this wikipedia account holder has a self acknowledged habit of using profanity and sarcasm to negative effect on wikipedia. This behavior seems to contribute to conflicts with other wikipedia account holders(Note: i do not want to be accused of mass canvassing in the process of trying to determine if others feel the same. That is why I have only tagged one wikipedia account holder) and I am personally offended by the rudeness and cannot take this lack of respect towards myself and other wikipedia account holders lightly any longer. The wikipedia account holder in question's pattern of conduct is creating a poor environment to accomplish the goals of improving the encyclopedia on wikipedia.

I first became concerned reading comments on a talk page diff:  After reading this, I decided to politely ask this wikipedia account holder to refrain from using profanity. Instead, he reverted by new section and used more profanity in the edit summary.

More Diffs displaying usage of profanity in edits and edit summary:



More Diffs displaying violation of Staying cool:



I Highly suggest wikipedia account holder to take a wikibreak and return with a peaceful and constructive attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.35.69 (talk • contribs)
 * This is a strange and suspicious report - an IP editor comes from nowhere and begins to launch procedural attacks encouraging the departure of a long-term editor of controversial high-traffic articles. Unless they can identify which IP or signed-in accounts they've operated in the past, they would seem to have no legitimate reason for picking a bone here.  As I noted on the dispute resolution board where this editor posted a nearly-identical request, we've had a lot of socking and trouble on the Obama articles where SCJ edits.  Even assuming good faith (which is a bit of a suicide pact these days with IP editors on Obama articles), this person saw a bad word not directed towards them (or anyone, for that matter), then followed SCJ around to various articles and took further offense at what they saw there.  We've got our hands full as it is helping people who are legitimately upset with how they are treated here on Wikipedia.  The last thing we need is people searching for offense to take.  I really suggest that this complaint get closed again here and the IP editor told that Wikipedia is for editing articles (if they're a legitimate editor), not searching for trouble.  - Wikidemon (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * comment: No profanity is directed in an attack at any editor, nor is there anything seriously offensive in the edit summaries which might be seen by the casual reader... and Wikipedia is not censored. Taroaldo (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to follow this thread because it is obviously ridiculous, but if there is anything significant that someone thinks I should be made aware of then I would appreciate a heads-up on my talk page. This does not include the complainant, however, who has already ignored my request that he/she does not post on my talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek needs to be informed of what a personal attack consists of



 * User talk:Volunteer Marek.
 * User talk:Volunteer Marek.

I claimed that this editor (and others) were pushing a nationalist agenda. I reverted the wholesale removal of an entire section that made a host country in the tournament look back as vandalism. Editor responded that it was a personal attack when reverting. I commented on the editor's page that the action did not constitute a personal attack to which I tagged the editor responded with a direct personal attack and profanity. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Accusing others of pushing nationalist POV and vandalism is quite clearly a personal attack. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * +1. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

05:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)79.182.215.205 (talk)
 * Yes, the "vandalism" edit summary is definitely inappropriate. Nobody Ent 21:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Your comments seem to precisely be a personal attack. You incorrectly marked a bold edit as vandalism and then proceeded to accuse the editor of being a POV pusher. You also seem to have been very close to breaking WP:3RR in the same period. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with Marek, however, is real, just check his today's edit summaries (accusations of trolling, ).Estlandia (dialogue) 21:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh wow, talk about stalking. Estlandia, a user I've had problems with in the past, shows up here with that diff seconds after I made the edit. And guess what, the part he doesn't tell you is that this is in response to a user who's been trolling my talk page (as well as harassing me in other ways) for months, and whom I've already asked literally (not exaggerating here) at least half a dozen times not to post to my talk page. Nice game you're playing there Estlandia. Unfortunately this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a PvP MMPORG. Volunteer Marek 21:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * MMPORG is actually a fairly good description of Wikipedia. Telling someone to fuck off is incivil and unnecessary. Now, as an experienced editor, Volunteer Marek likely knows he will not be blocked or otherwise significantly sanctioned for a single low level civility violation -- in fact, many editors will argue that it is not actually incivil. Nonetheless it's unwise in that over time repeated contributions of that nature build up animosity towards an editor that eventually the community gets fed up with the disruption and the editor gets blocked/banned, or fed up themselves and leaves Wikipedia. Given VM currently has 111 talk page watchers they should not be surprised when editors add comments to dispute resolution they're involved in; such action does not constitute stalking. (Piling on perhaps.) Incidentally "One instances of racism" is actually poor grammar due to improper subject noun agreement - should be "One instance" Nobody Ent 21:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 111? Wow, I had no idea. Time for a run at ArbCom '12.
 * As to the grammar mistake - yes, I accidentally re-added it once (I was looking at all changes since last diff (3 in all) and didn't notice immediately that that's what he was referring to). I was in the process of correcting that to "instance" but got an edit conflict with Malick78's TOTAL revert (i.e. he didn't just fix the grammar). Now that has become "Volunteer Marek keeps readding a grammar mistake" (the part about "(Volunteer Marek) claim(s) that a source didn't mention a person when it did in the second para" is also total nonsense) - do you see why I'm not exactly polite in a situation like this? Volunteer Marek 22:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Hi, VM frequently uses the phrase "trolling" to make any other user look bad. He likes "stalking" as well. As for personal attacks, VM told me to "fuck off" in the edit summary just now, when I asked him not to term everything he doesn't like "trolling". (For the record, I'd complained about him edit warring today over two mistakes of his: a grammar mistake he kept readding (he later "partly" apologised, only after I left a message on his talk page (see, it worked!)); and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Poland&diff=prev&oldid=497609570 his inability to see that a non-British footballer was mentioned, which he repeatedly called "British". My use of his talk page was because he couldn't/refused to see the problems with his edits.) As more proof of his baseless and disingenuous use of words such as "trolling" and "stalking", here he knowingly says "trolling" when it's merely someone enforcing the Danzig/Gdansk rule he hates. In short, VM continually makes WP a battleground and makes false accusations, hoping to scare others off. I hope he will now stop. Malick78 (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @VM. No idea. Successfully telling someone a 1 ft taller and 50 lb heavier than you in a bar to fuck off is impressive. Telling someone to fuck on the Internet requires neither courage nor intelligence nor persistence, doesn't solve any problems and may require follow up effort. Totally ignoring posts on your talk page you feel are bogus takes far less effort and I've found it to be highly effective. The most persistent editor I've encountered -- someone unhappy with what I said here on WQA some time ago -- gave up after five posts and has let me alone since. (I forget who it is.) Nobody Ent 22:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Accusing someone of a nationalist POV is not a personal attack. When someone is a vandal, accusing them of vandalism is appropriate as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * More to the point, if the editor is pushing a nationalistic POV, the should clear off, and the editor was doing just that. There was no neutrality as was seen with an edit restoring the material after the page was unlocked. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop repeating personal attacks here. Particularly after several editors noted them as such above, you are quickly approaching a territory YOU will be warned. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's only a POV push, and thus vandalism, if it is blatant, I don't think this is the case here. Be careful when marking something as vandalism (and also marking as minor when it is not). Accusing someone of anything should be avoided unless it is very clear cut and you don't say it to the individual as that only antagonizes, you bring it to the correct noticeboard etc. There was no vandalism, just what looks like edit warring between the two of you. That isn't the same thing. Look at this section of WP:VANDAL: VANDALISM. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is a diff from talk page of VM dated March 25. Apparently, there was a request from VM to Malick78 that he should never come to his talk page again (and probably vice versa). I believe such requests must always be respected, no matter the reason. Every time when user X comes again to talk page of user A after receiving such request, this is showing utmost disrespect and the "battleground" behavior (excluding only official notifications about AE/ANI discussions as prescribed by the policy). Do not do it, please. How it will be in Russian ... "Unwelcome guest is worse than a Tartar".My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On 8 June VM sent me an email. Why can he contact me (privately, where no one can see he did it), while I cannot contact him publicly, in the open, on his talk page? Btw, in response to his email we had a chat on his talk page; so to say I'm "banned" from it is not true. VM mentions the ban when it suits him.
 * Secondly, and more philosophically, all our talk pages are provided by WP, and in my view if something serves the purposes of WP, it can take place on someone's talk page. For that reason I have never and will never ban someone from my talk page. I do not have the right. I fail to see why, if VM is causing problems elsewhere on WP (he was), I cannot contact him on his talk page, rather than sending an email which no one will ever see or have record of. Malick78 (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of "rights", but a matter of keeping collegial atmosphere ("users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly") and reducing stress and conflicts (see WP:FORGIVE, for example). There are three common situations here: (a) user asks you never come again to his talk page - this should always be respected (except placing official notices per policy); (b) user removes your comment on his talk page without explanation - never revert his removal - if he does not want to talk with you, then he really should not; (c) user asks you never comment about him again anywhere - this should also be respected whenever possible - as long as he does not comment about you and possibly even after that. If you both follow these recommendations, you still might have a chance to avoid an interaction ban. My very best wishes (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you missed the irony of banning someone from your talk page and then sending an email to them? It's somewhat of a double-standard.
 * Anyway, what worries me most is the bandying around of phrases such as "trolling" at all opportunities, especially when someone has merely enforced the Danzig/Gdansk rule - like here. Doesn't that create a battleground atmosphere? As well as it being, in most cases, a lie? Malick78 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be preferable (and less work for VM) if he left off the "trolling" modifiers to his edit summaries. That said, characterizing it as a lie is itself unnecessary and inflammatory. Nobody Ent 16:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Malick78. If it was not clear, let's rephrase. Any comments of negative nature about other contributor(s) may cost you dearly, especially if you edit in the same subject area. And it does not matter if you think they are "bad" or "wrong". Simply tell nothing about other contributors. Only discuss content or sources, no matter what others do. Yes, there are real "tigers" (do not be one of them, please), but not too many, and those should be discussed on appropriate noticeboards (AE, ANI, whatever). My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Strong innuendo an editor is antisemitic


Looking at a map at History of the Jews in the Land of Israel, I noted that the legend, reading
 * "The Iron Age kingdom of Israel (blue) and kingdom of Judah (tan), with their neighbours (8th century BCE)."

The map is not a representation of facts as the legend implies, but an imaginative reconstruction of the kingdoms. The nature and extent of the two is a matter of strong dispute between archeological minimalists (and maximalists. So I added that the map has been drawn ‘according to the Bible’, which happens to be, as everyone knows, virtually our only source for these reconstructions.

Til Eulenspiegel reverted it with the edit summary ‘doubt it's the Bible, which indicates Ammon and Moab were conquered by Israelites even before the west of the Jordan.’

So far so good, despite the loose grammar. I asked for clarification on his page, politely. And got this reply, which, incomprehensibly (to me) started a rant about ‘enemies of Israel’.

The evolving discussion confirmed to me that the editor, despite evasiveness, meant precisely what I took his original reply to mean, that he reverted me as an ‘enemy of Israel’, and took my edit to be characteristic of the behaviour of antisemites. That an extremely obnoxious charge and no comment in an exchange should even intimate it unless there are very strong grounds for saying so. Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the issue may be too subtle to be regarded as an assertion that an editor is antisemitic. My uninformed view, from perusing User talk:Til Eulenspiegel, is that your initial question was fine, and that Til Eulenspiegel's reply was an opinion that some reference other than the Bible supports the assertion in the map caption, and that opinion was accompanied with an unfortunate and irrelevant observation that enemies of Israel have tried to erase them. TE could claim that their later "your inference is wrong" removes any suggestion that they were claiming you are an enemy of Israel, so unless I am missing something, the wording could be argued to not be a personal attack. TE should not use battleground wording (talking about enemies of Israel, and erasing them from history), particularly over a routine issue (what source verifies a claim in the caption of an 8th century BCE map). Johnuniq (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing subtle about being hit with a general, brusque comment, after a polite neutral inquiry about an edit, from someone who just reverted you who explains that the issue is connected with enemies of Israel. I didn't ask for a clarification of Til Eugenspiel's worldview. I asked for a clarification of his revert.
 * What might indeed confuse is the fact that, on being asked to clarify, Til Eugenspiel kept switching grounds, or moving the goalposts. But the first reply was, frankly, rude, whatever Til Eugenspiel's conscious intentions, because it was positioned and phrased in such a way that I took it, as I think natural to do so, as a comment on how he or she regards my editing.Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can figure out, Till noticed that he bit a bigger bite than he can comfortable swallow when you pointed out various sources. He then became defensive, vaguely evasive, and generally unpleasant. It's probably best to simply ignore this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be more than happy to ignore it,(and I certainly am not calling for sanctions, to be absolutely clear. It would be quite unconscionable to even think of that kind of punitive redress for what is a simple matter of etiquette, and advice not to descend to cheap dismissive language) if I saw the smallest sign in my interlocutor's remarks that what he wrote was not appropriate, and rather rude. No apology needed, but future care in writing in a way that doesn't poison the well is all I hope to achieve by raising this here.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Nishidani only pointed out one source on my user talkpage, when he wrote "Go read Donald B.Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, which discusses Judah and Israel with impeccable coverage of the scholarly sources... that's the kind of position I think reasonable"
 * I don't have time to read Donald B. Redford, but here's what I gleaned from his wikipedia article: "He further argues that many of the details in the Exodus story are more consistent with the 7th century BC, long after the time of King David, rather than the era when the event is described as having taken place."
 * Next! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely fail to see your point, if you have one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm replying to you, Stephan. You wrote about me that "Till noticed that he bit a bigger bite than he can comfortable swallow when you [Nishidani] pointed out various sources." This is the only source Nishidani pointed out to me. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree; initial question was not fine because it was in the wrong place. It's highly preferable to discuss the article on its talk page; it becomes less personal and you're more likely to get the benefit of third parties. Nobody Ent 13:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not asking the community to comment on TE or my edits when our disagreement arose. Since he has a record of great accomplishment and experience in wikipedia, and, as I checked after this brouhaha, considerable familiarity with these articles, I thought asking him personally a matter of respect. I was genuinely puzzled. And my puzzlement grew at the wild rejoinder my innocuous query earned, a hint in the phrasing, wholly out of left field, that he reverted something I did as symptomatic of Antisemitism.


 * Redford's book is one of the standard basic texts for that area and its ancient history, obligatory reading for most advanced university courses on the Ancient Near East. In replying to me that there are books we (presumably a group TE identifies with which I don't belong to) read on the period, and there are books I read, and these constitute two different categories, he added another offense, if obscure.


 * He refuses to explain how this factional attitude to relevant sources is compatible with the guidelines set forth in WP:RS. TE is a highly accomplished wikipedian, and yet is making here distinctions I've never met in 6 years of working on this encyclopedia, and doing so in a facetious, dismissive or insinuating manner. It may be no big deal. But I think some of these things require clarification in terms of policy. What WP:RS are alluded to that we, as opposed to Nishidani, get our version of events from? Weird.Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm a bit late in updating. Tomato patch, mowing lawns. I'd like to close this and withdraw the complaint as per this. Anyone can insult me, with anything like, 'a fuckwit, an arrant pompous deadshit, so knackered his balls dropped off and bicycled back up his Khyber Pass to keep company with his brains', etc and I'd laugh it off but I'm sensitive only to this one accusation. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can be archived immediately, whoever.Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Rape culture




Not sure what to do about this, but it's clearly not going to resolve itself.

I came to this article in response to two RFCs started by Media-Hound. (One of them still ongoing.) However, reading the talk page it quickly become apparent that the source of the problem is Media-Hound's tendency to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with him or her with bias, pov, and other insinuations. I tried to offer my opinion on this recent RFC, and all I got for my trouble was a 18,179 character screed accusing me and another editor of bias and insinuating that we're trying to sabotage the article out of some sort of systemic bias.

I'm not sure if Media Hound has explained what sort of bias he or she thinks we have. Which brings up the other issue. MediaHound's long posts are difficult to read and often not entirely coherent. But if someone asks for clarification they just get more abuse, and when the offending posts are simply ignored, he takes that as WP:SILENCE that gives him license to make changes to the article that people have previously argued against.

I know it's bad form to open something like this while the RFC is still open. But his reaction to the RFC is part of the problem. So I'd appreciate other eyes on the issue. Thanks. APL (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I too would welcome external comment. I do take exception to repeatedly being talked about - and not the subject under discussion. I keep raising issues of content - editors don't discuss the content - they do make comment to and about me. I do believe that Wiki prefers discussion of content and not editors!


 * I do find this interesting "However, reading the talk page it quickly become apparent .." Apparent to who? It is so interesting that you keep on defining frames of reference for others - but when you are asked to stop using such frames in a misleading fashion you don't seem to be able to stop.


 * "I'm not sure if Media Hound has explained what sort of bias he or she thinks we have. Which brings up the other issue." What an interesting gambit. I have raised the issue of systemic bias - which is cultural - linguistic - and even manifests in so many ways - such as "I'm DEEPLY troubled by the statement that 'Facebook groups controversy included only the US and the UK'

Do I need to explain why it is so wrong and so troubling, or can the systemic bias just be thrown under the bus once and for all?

List of countries by English-speaking population - I hope that this source is not too original!"


 * It's shocking how it just keeps creeping in - and I did consider illustrating how all facebook pages globally end up at a .com domain .... and .com does not mean US - it's global... but I did fear no matter what I said It would be ignored. Just because a facebook page is started by a person in country A it does not mean that a person in Country B can't access it and even make comment. I wonder, does that happen with Wikipedia?


 * I loved the comment that the USA was the biggest source of media in the world ... when actually it's not when finance in not used as the measure... but why let reality get in the way!


 * I have even had to point APL to Rfcs that have been mentioned, but didn't seem to be able to find on the page, even when direct links have been provided. It's odd that they came because of an Rfc querying systemic bias and looking for input - and they didn't seem able to have input on the issue. Having to provide the links numerous times was interesting. The lack of utility was WP:NOTE.


 * It has been odd how your talk page input has had odd frames of reference - not the page content and points raised as to content - always about editors.


 * I have asked that points raised as to content be addressed - but it always seems to be comment about anything but content. I would welcome oversight from impartial editors. I have made that clear often.


 * I have also been bemused by being notified that there was a dispute concerning myself at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard - and by the time I was aware of this It had been opened - closed - and I have had no right of response to some rather pointed and even misleading comment. Is this normal?


 * I have even had to joke that it seems that Systemic Bias even extends to Time Zone Bias - the timing was all rather convenient and US centric.

So again - I would welcome independent input and oversight - and I also have to observe that if there have been concerns, no one has actually raised them with me.

It has been of interest that my Talk Page has not been used - no matter what and how I write it is criticised - no matter the point made it is ignored - in fact it seems no matter what I do It is wrong, except when I add content after long deliberation - and leave certain other content alone, and don't question it in any way!

It's odd - no matter how you highlight the issues which are not anglophone and US centric others are just not interested. Finding sources that meet others demands - Congo is a rape Culture - India is a rape Culture - South Africa is a rape Culture - even Pitcairne island is a rape culture - WP:Silence. It may be something if there was even discussion about how to integrate such content - but no one want to discuss content - just me - and the predominance of discussion is what other editors perceive about me - as APL did again today!

In fact it happened twice in 24 hours when you consider the event which took place and I had no knowledge of until after it was over.


 * I have even had to point to such quotes as "The term 'rape culture' originated in the 1970s during the 2nd wave feminist movement and is often used by feminists to describe contemporary American culture as a whole." - so is that All Feminists - is it a global perception that all feminists in every country are automatically subscribed to? It does seem shocking to some, but the quote could well be only relating to some US Feminists - so using it in the origins and usage section may not address the global issue and even be a tad biased - even not WP:NPOV. It's beautifully quoted - superbly referenced - but maybe out of context?

There is a simple question to consider. When did rape culture start - before it was given a name or only when it was given a name? Could it be that it existed before, and so maybe Historical perspectives are called for - and not just anything post Jan 1975? I know it's a shocking and revolutionary idea ... but then again a number of WP:V references do allow that to happen! They do exist.


 * I've even been challenged by APL to consider WP:RS - and my response - "You point to WP:RS which says; 'Context makes a difference

'The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.'

That is the standard I have been working to. It does seem odd that a source being cited repeatedly under 'Origins' only 'suggests' the origins are one thing, and yet reality shows otherwise from WP:V sources."


 * I keep me frames of reference on the content and yet others seem to always have the Frames around me and what I say.


 * It seems that when I highlight content being included - first with claims of uncited theories existing - now with an interesting use of a comma (Syntactical-deductive) to imply that which follows is linked to that which has gone before - well I am wrong and Big Bad Editor. Can't question certain references - even when they are non Sequiter and that has been pointed out and even the basic logic.


 * Is it relevant to cite a 1992 source that "Suggests" the term rape culture came from the term "Rape Supportive Culture" in a 1975 book which was published after the Film "Rape Culture" - when the film did the Job and says so on the tin - multiple WP:V ?


 * It is interesting that the only sources traced which deal with the orogin of the term rape culture state that the origin is the film. It's only Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology - DOI 10.1111/b.9781405124331.2007.x  Joyce Williams ... and she says "The award-winning documentary film Rape Culture made by Margaret Lazarus in 1975 takes credit for first defining the concept." There is no earlier source which uses the term "rape culture" in it's present usage - and I have even traced a source which is a review from Jan 1975 - and referenced upon it. Editors admit that they can't find a source that has supposedly done a definitive analysis of the origins .... so I do have to wonder why then fictions are being created with the use of a Colon and Syntactical-deductive?


 * Again Frame on content - other frames on the wrong issue!


 * No-one disputes this claim of orogin, but there does seem to be an issue around that simple matter and repeated use of odd sources that do not make sense to obscure so much.


 * It would appear that a dubious editing tactic is being used to not address underlying issues. The issues don't go away - and it's interesting to see how Goal Posts get shifted - I comply - I'm told what will be acceptable content and sources - I comply - I'm told that unless sources use the term "Rape Culture" and not synonymic terms such as "Culture Of Rape" (Diplomatic form) they can't be accepted - so I go find the sources to meet other editors views and they are still not welcomed. It is all so very odd! It's hard to keep up with the rule book changes - and I have asked for the rule book and I'm still waiting for my copy.


 * Can someone please tell me where to get my copy of the ever changing rule book?


 * I write - it's too long - I make specific points ( very short and to the point) Ignored - can't win for some odd reason. I have considered using Binary Code!


 * I also have made it clear to APL that when they have stated "Your continual accusations that Pi has an ulterior motive and is pushing a POV are uncivil." that should APL be of the opinion that I have a WP:COI issue that they should act on that - and also the implication that I am in some way gaming Systems should also be acted upon - in fact I have invited such action in the hope that the repeated Inferences, Innuendos and dancing around editorial issues may finally be brought to a suitable end.


 * I do prefer to use my time wisely in dealing with Wiki Content - not having to wait to see what gambit will come next!


 * As I have said "I aim not to be a hasty editor - just a quality one.". Some seem to take exception to my ability to plug on no matter what obstacles are created, or what obfuscation is occurring.


 * I just keep the content in the frame and let others play with their frames as they will.


 * ... and I do find it odd that APL has stated "I came to this article in response to two RFCs started by Media-Hound" .. and yet even when given specific links to make comment they still could not find the right place to do that. Comment - Comment everywhere - but always on the wrong subject and always in the wrong place. I have had to ask "Maybe the term Ad hominem should be used? Once is an accident - twice a coincidence - three times....?"


 * some quotes


 * "'Why did you link those three articles? WP:DGAF urges editors to be more mellow, and not let anything bother them. WP:IAR, urges editors to not get bogged down by rules lawyering, and WP:TTRLT urges editors to find unconventional solutions to problems.             What were you trying to communicate by directing those at Kaldari? To me, they seem to have no relevance to anything else that's been posted here. APL (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What are you trying to communicate here? Why are you asking questions about the person, and not addressing the subject and the issues of systemic bias that have been raised? The section to address those is Here(Link To Rfc)! WP:DGAF - WP:IAR - WP:TTRLT Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Be careful. If you spout nonsense and then refuse to explain it you probably eventually be blocked for uncivil editing. APL (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)"
 * "It seems like you're eager to use this wikipedia page to prove a point. It's not the point of Wikipedia to 'build a case' to prove that something is real, or that something happens in all regions of the world. Wikipedia's goal is only to repeat that 'case' that others have made. This is related to Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth APL (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "It seems like you're eager to use this wikipedia page to prove a point. It's not the point of Wikipedia to 'build a case' to prove that something is real, or that something happens in all regions of the world. Wikipedia's goal is only to repeat that 'case' that others have made. This is related to Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth APL (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well APL I see that yet again you are making comment about the person and not the subject- Maybe if you addressed the points made and left out your alleged views as to others it may be more productive. You did ask about the 'RFC' at other places on this page. Again if you wish to pass comment the section for that is Here(Link To RFC) !" You don't have to write with colorful, exaggerated prose. You're not in a chat room. If there's a problem with the article, why not simply say so clearly?
 * "That's kind of a rambling word-salad, with a lot of unrelated pop-culture references. It's very difficult to determine what you're trying to say and even harder to take you seriously when you write like that.
 * "That's kind of a rambling word-salad, with a lot of unrelated pop-culture references. It's very difficult to determine what you're trying to say and even harder to take you seriously when you write like that.

In any case, I've removed your inclusion of a screenshot from an unrelated television program, (Screen shot from Twilight Zone) as there is clearly no fair-use justification for this talk page. APL (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

APL again you make comment about writing style and the person and don't address the issues. You have had this pointed out before Ref the Rfc which you kept being directed to. I do find it odd that each time I have raided this issue of Calims being made to orogin you turn up and make comments about me, writing style and when directed even at your request to such matters as an Rfc ... you don't address the issues."
 * "I think that covers it. (This worked out well. I watch-listed this page last time it was RFCed, and now I finally understand what's going on here well enough to comment.) APL (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "I think that covers it. (This worked out well. I watch-listed this page last time it was RFCed, and now I finally understand what's going on here well enough to comment.) APL (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

APL - Your comments do not address the concerns that there seems to be some Artful dodging of editing around issues.

What's next? An Rfc on Colon usage, or a request for Copy editor input?

You state I have an Ulterior motive - and yet you do not explain why you believe that is. That is Uncivil.

You keep making comment about me and not about page content - I have even had to provide you links to Rfcs when you kept seeming to get lost on this page. You never did find the place for comment to be made on the actual subject and about page content. If you believe that I have some form of Ulterior Motive kindly have it addressed in the correct manner, don't make loaded comment as a hit and run. Maybe the term Ad hominem should be used? Once is an accident - twice a coincidence - three times....?

If you have substantive concerns as to WP:COI do please act upon them in the correct manner.

If you believe me to be gaming the system - please act immediately and have the matter correctly addressed. I will welcome it, rather than being repeatedly made comment about rather than clear concerns as to page content addressed - and then maybe page content can be improved and less time and effort wasted."


 * So now it's to be lessons in Wikiquette, and no advance on the issue of page content and the oh so interesting Colon?


 * I would like to go back to one statement by APL:"It seems like you're eager to use this wikipedia page to prove a point. It's not the point of Wikipedia to 'build a case' to prove that something is real, or that something happens in all regions of the world. Wikipedia's goal is only to repeat that 'case' that others have made. This is related to Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth APL (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)"


 * How odd - I raise the very same point about another editor but I am Uncivil. It is odd that creating uncited and unverified theories is seen as acceptable - as long as it's another editor doing it! Then the Colon arises and I'm at Wikiquette assistance. Is there a place for Wikidisonance?


 * Sources say This is the orogin - page says, with Colon, ..... something different. Who exactly is building a case - and even a case of what?


 * I still wonder at (This worked out well. I watch-listed this page last time it was RFCed, and now I finally understand what's going on here well enough to comment.)?


 * Exactly what worked out well? It is odd! Has there been some plan or discussion about the page content that other editors have not been party to?


 * I still wonder at that Dispute Resolution matter that opened and closed before I even knew it existed - the timing of that is ever so odd - and even US Time Zone Biased! Heavens forbid that anyone has been Gaming Systems! .. and it does say any further comment is to be made on the talk page... and here we are focused anywhere but there..... AGAIN!

It is funny how so many of the patterns that keep recurring actually fit the definitions of harassment - but what would a lowly editor like me know about that subject - even from a professional basis?

I've been eyeing that page on Cyberbullying - and there is that lovely report awaited from The National Centre for Cyberstalking Research - the Full ECHO report awaiting publication... and that page does need to be updated and improved.

I do get the impression that some are unhappy that I keep my personal life private and make so little comment about myself, which of course I am entitled to as a Wikipedian .... Fishing for Pronouns can be an invasion of privacy - and even a diversionary tactic when editors are asked to address discussion on the correct talk page - that is the one for Rape Culture, concerning content!


 * Odd how that WP:SILENCE follows and no comment or editing until and Rfc is placed on the page - and suddenly there is no interest in fishing for pronouns and diversionary tactics. Only the odd use of punctuation and the Colon emerges. How fascinating that an Rfc get's re-framed so fast - rather than allowing dialogue from outside editors!


 * It's odd how two editors keep on Diverting away form the page content issues and doing everything possible to not address how to improve the page rape culture - give it a global perspective - stop odd phrasing and even odder punctuation - even consider history that pre-dates 1975 - such as Slavery in the US and rape culture ... and there are loads of references on that subject... but only recent matters such as Dickwolves and facebook pages get a look in!


 * Oh the trails and tribulations over a heading ""Prominent incidents and allegations of rape culture". How many times do you have to raise WP:ALLEGED before the point gets answered? Well it never gets discussed..... only one day there is editing and no discussion. Hmmmm! Odd way to improve content - ignore matters and then edit in haste!


 * I still have time to catch up with some Wiki Land Relevant Content - and even help out with some Newbies.... and then there is more reading Ref india - that Mathura rape case won't re-write and reference itself - Besharmi Morcha still needs expansion... and I still can't find what happened to Mumbai - was it cancelled due to those terrorist bombs... I do like to get me facts straight - oh and deciphering Supreme Court Of India Judgements does take some time - thank heavens I speak Legalese, amongst other languages!


 * ... and I still have to wonder why so many have overlooked the use of such page content as on pages that deal with rape and rape culture, but not within the USA? It is odd when you look about how poorly subjects are covered and linked to when it's not about certain places! So many pages to edit - so little time!


 * I have to go Referencing & I'm in the process of cleaning up numerous dead links left by a page deletion - me first Afd ... oh and it was messy - a WP:COI Editor Turned nasty.


 * let me know what I have to do next. ... and will there have to be another Rfc over the "Colon" so that the issues get fudged all over again?


 * Maybe a copy-editor may be an option as I have suggested?


 * Oh but that may mean someone independent who even understands how "Colons" get used and even misused. C'est la Vie - It will never happen : ! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^)  (talk)  01:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Way too long, unfocused, and the non standard format is disruptive and makes normal Wiki interaction difficult. Nobody Ent 02:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @Media-Hound: Please be aware that posting long screeds is very unhelpful as it drives other editors away and, regardless of content, creates a battleground atmosphere because there is no way a general editor can take the time to digest whatever points are being made, let alone attempt to respond to them. Collaboration is not optional at Wikipedia—editors learn to work with others, or they leave. Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Media-hound needs to stop using walls of text. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * All of the word-for-word quotes of my posts above are accurate, and I would stand by them in-context.
 * I would, of course, dispute Media-hound's allegations and insinuations. I would especially dispute his or her claim that I have accused him of having an "ulterior motive". I have not.  I have not made any speculations on his or her background or motives. My only use of the phrase "ulterior motive" is in the first bullet point of my reply to the RFC., which, to anyone who can read English, is clearly not an accusation of bias.
 * Otherwise, I'm not going to even to attempt to reply to this post. APL (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've tried my best to be polite. To respond to one specific accusation in Media-hound's above post: Yes, I did ask what pronouns you preferred. That was not intended to be rude, derail the discussion, or inquire into your personal life. In other places where I've had to refer to people in the third person online, asking what pronouns someone prefers is considered respectful, so that one does not accidentally refer to another person in a manner they're not comfortable with. (It also only applies to the internet: one may (like I do) prefer non-gendered pronouns online but gendered ones in person.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Media-hound, is your post meant to mean something? If it is, the meaning has been entirely lost due the unacceptably large amount of sheer verbage which simply reads as a rambling diatribe.  Frankly, such interminable rants are extremely rude and inconsiderate of other editors' time - no one is going to invest the time to try and tease out whatever it is you are trying to say.  Continuing to misuse talk page discussions in this way is very likely to lead to you getting sanctioned if your continue.  If you have something to say in this discussion, please limit yourself to one paragraph of no more than three sentences. -  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  07:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Could the poster summarize the situation in a single short paragraph? Taroaldo (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have done some more reading and see that Media-Hound is causing a serious amount of disruption—just a glance at User talk:Pi.1415926535 shows that some form of topic ban may be necessary. Of course a topic ban is outside the jurisdiction of WQA, but I am mentioning it in an attempt to alert MH that their behavior will change—either by learning how to collaborate, or by community sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see Rfc Talk:Rape_culture, which addresses Synonymic Usage, Quotations, Sources. Thank you. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk)  20:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * People are not compelled to do anything at Wikipedia, so it is ok to ignore the uninvolved editors who have taken the time to comment above. However, rather than posting a link to a new discussion on the topic, it would be more appropriate to briefly address the behavioral concerns raised above. I suppose the fact that your last message was very brief might be taken as a sign that a message has been received, but it would be better to at least acknowledge the above comments. If the issue is ever discussed on a noticeboard such as WP:ANI, some may feel that simply posting a link to a new RFC is another example of lack of collaboration (did you even see the comments?). Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Uncivilised conversation


Not sure if it warrants a posting here (or if it even goes here), but I was mildly shocked by the conversation found here. --Toccata quarta (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to notify people when you post here. I have done so for you. The user appears to have been massively uncivil, summed up by this quote, No one freakin told you to clean up anyone's shit. If you fucking want to remove my shit replace it with your own shit. Why do I need to live by your definition of crap? Discussion closed. This is a complete overly aggressive explosion and a very hostile treatment of another editor. It is also not up to any one editor to arbitrarily close discussions they don't like. That said, the correct next step in issues of civility would have been to work through points 4 + 5 of the section Dealing with incivility to the editor via their talk page. I have already outlined steps for both users to avoid further conflict. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont think Srnec or QEIILS comes off great there. The bit you quoted with the preceding comment is understandable however in context since Srnec removed the disputed infobox and their preferred option is to remove every ancestry section and create family tree pages for famous families but not actually willing to do it (but no doubt still willing to remove the infobox from this article). - Comments like If you want the damned ancestry crap, you should be the one making the proper pages instead of pasting it, redundantly, on every biographical article imaginable in the obscure form of Ahnentafeln. I don't know why you think it is my job to clean up after you, but because I'm the less pushy one I'm not going to revert you again. This page is removed from my watchlist, fuck with it as you will. is hardly the model of civility. If you are going to remove talk page comments by other people IRWolfie, it would be better to strip it back to before the 'off you go then' comment and allow them to try the exchange again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Snakebyte42




The issue started with a content dispute about volume numbers on the List of The Punisher comics article. Specific changes were reverted by me and a couple IP editors, but were constantly re-reverted. When I left messages on the editor's talk page about edit warring, the editor continued to disregard my attempts at coming to a consensus, and continued to revert the page to their POV.

Because of this edit warring, the page was protected, in order to force a discussion on the talk page of that article. I admit that I am not without fault, but my attempts to get Snakebyte42 to calm down and stop taking things personally, only served to anger him further. Therefore, the talk page discussion quickly led to a request for dispute resolution, because of incivility and personal attacks.

Guy Macon volunteered to moderate the DRN, and was eventually able to get us to focus on the content dispute at hand. After understanding Snakebyte42's intentions, I eventually made some changes to The Punisher: Purgatory article, which were in line with what he had intended on the List of The Punisher comics. However, after these changes were made, Snakebyte42 returned to the discussion at Talk:List of The Punisher comics and reacted negatively to comments that I made BEFORE we had our discussion at DRN. I realize that this may be after the point, and I should probably just let it go, but I do not feel that I did anything to deserve being called an "absolute fucking twat", and I think that Snakebyte42 still needs a lesson in civility. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * [redacted] You have insulted me severely, regardless of when you have done it, and repeatedly lied, misrepresented my actions, and all sorts of other shit that I pointed out in the relevant comment. I don't particularly care if being called out on your bullshit has put your knickers on a twist. I act civil when I am treated with civility. This is what you get when you cross the line, regardless of when you do it. You did not remove your inflammatory comments or apologize for them elsewhere, and my not noticing them for a day while dealing with you civilly elsewhere does not magically exempt you from their repercussions. Drag me through whatever bullshit you want. It isn't going to scare me away.


 * That summary of events is ridiculously biased and untrue. By 'attempts to calm me down' you mean 'repeatedly ignoring my points on the talk page and reverting it without explanation'. By 'led to a DRN because of incivility and personal attacks', you mean you started one because you refused to address any points about article content, focusing instead of my every picayune turn of phrase to avoid admitting you had no leg to stand on. I did not disregard your attempts at coming to a consensus because they did not exist. You continued to revert my changes without explanation and without notifying me that correct procedure was to discuss on the talk page until right around when the page was locked. I didn't appreciate the repeated unasked-for messages plastered over the talk page of every IP address I had, either. I provided sources and rationale for my POV in the very first comment [redacted] Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That had better be directed at both parties. My faith in any of these systems is coming treacherously close to being destroyed, thanks to Fortdj33's personal attacks being allowed to stand without challenge, and Guy Macon's declaration of bias and personal vendetta against me at Fordj33's talk page. I am not the aggressor here and I am absolutely out of patience with his insults and lies. If whoever responds to this wishes to punish me, by all means, but damn well punish him too. And how is that warning even remotely relevant? If this forum isn't the one for commenting on contributors rather than content, I guess I don't know which is. Snakebyte42 (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Guy's comments apply to all editors on Wikipedia. In the case of disagreements it is even more important to make an effort.  Each editor should only be concerned with his or her own conduct: the individuals who continue with personal attacks and insults will quickly show themselves up to the community. Taroaldo (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Guy has shown, and continues to show, bias against me. I have reason to believe he is only directing his comments towards me, and has completely abandoned impartiality. I understand that it is a rule that applies to everyone, but that does not mean he is addressing it to everyone. Snakebyte42 (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand your point of view. When someone is in the middle of a dispute, it's really difficult to see what it looks like from the outside.  Here is a hypothetical situation where Editor A and Editor B are involved in a long-running dispute over an article.  Editor B regularly refers to Editor A in a derogatory fashion and engages in name-calling. Editor A responds in a civil fashion and does not escalate the situation by engaging in the personal attacks. If/when the dispute gains wider attention (in a dispute resolution forum, for example), it will definitely be noticed by the participating editors who was and who was not civil during the dispute. Since we can't control what anyone else says or does, we need to ensure that we remain civil -- even when provoked.  Otherwise it's just likely to escalate to sanctions all around.  And that's not what any of us want. Taroaldo (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I understand that completely. I'm very well aware of how I look, and I have no objections to being sanctioned for any actions of mine that deserve sanctions, as long as those of the other party are as well. Fortdj33 has consistently been using the guise of civility to misrepresent my actions and misstate events, and Guy Macon has acted out of spite against consensus and specifically expressed a desire to punish me and no one else. Short of doing what I did, I do not know what to do to make this stop. Personal arguments do not consist of one person being in the right and one being in the wrong. I appreciate your calmness and evident impartiality. ~Struck part of it through. I wasn't helping anyone with that, and there's no point in continuing the discussion. I was just venting. Thanks. Snakebyte42 (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Sleddog116: Before this escalates too far, I would like to weigh in on the discussion. I am a regular volunteer on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and I had been watching the case in question (though I have remained uninvolved in the dispute since User:Guy Macon had been the primary clerk). First, I would like to point out that I'm not a regular watcher of this page, so if I make any missteps here, please forgive me (and correct me). I'm commenting here because Snakebyte asked for my assistance. He has only been active on the project for about a week, so he's still learning the ropes, and I'm trying to (informally) help him learn his way around so that we don't scare off a potentially valuable contributor. To Snakebyte42: You read what I posted on your talk page. I got the impression from your post on my page that you wanted "tough love" if necessary, so I'll give it: calling someone an "absolute fucking twat" is never acceptable, regardless of whether you think the other editor deserves it or not. That sort of personal attack is enough to get you blocked very quickly (I'm not an admin, but I've been around WP long enough to know that). If something escalates to the point where you feel like you need to say something like that, you need to recuse yourself from the case, at least temporarily. As I have told you before, it takes two to fight. Whether the other guy is legitimately causing problems or not is no excuse for that kind of incivility. Wikipedia is not the place to have a battleground mentality, and no article - whether about a comic book series or a major world religion - is worth becoming enraged. To Fortdj33: While it's true that Snakebyte had absolutely no excuse to speak to you in that manner, you are complaining about the issue going to DRN. Our dispute resolution processes exist for this exact reason. He was trying to correct what he sees as a problem with the article, and it is clear that you and he hold different opinions that could not be resolved through normal talk page discussion. DRN exists for exactly such situations. Even though Snakebyte's conduct was, indeed, out of line, that is no reason to dismiss him out of hand. I would like to suggest that the two of you return to DRN and avoid escalating this issue here - I think we can work through this personality conflict, but not if both of you don't assume good faith. Since Guy Macon has stated he will be busy, I have no problem taking the case, and I will enlist the help of experienced DRN volunteers if necessary. What do you say, guys? I think we can work this out without having to go through with all of this, don't you? Sleddog116 (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would gladly negotiate and retract just about everything I've said, however Guy Macon is currently present and making disruptive edits and erroneous warnings to further his self-stated agenda against me, so that doesn't exactly seem to be on the table. You're right. A fictional character is not worth becoming enraged over. Repeated slander, however, is. I do not have a problem with the article, but with user conduct, and since the only dispute board I was aware of I was yelled at for discussing user conduct, I saw no other option to respond in kind. If Fortdj33 retracts his blatantly unfactual comments about my conduct, I will gladly retract mine. I appreciate the quick response, and apologize for the headache. It's not you I'm angry at and it's not you that should have to deal with the fallout, but I took your offer at face value. Snakebyte42 (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting that you retract anything or that they retract anything. I'm suggesting that we stop this whole thing and just try again from the start.  I think we can get further by just "letting bygones be bygones" here.  Guy Macon, would you be willing to recuse yourself from the dispute if it would help?  Snakebyte, watch out for the word "slander" - that's a legal term, and we're not dealing in legal issues here.  Everyone, let's just back up and try to deal with the dispute neutrally.  Please?  Do it for the fluffy kittens?  Sleddog116 (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I know you're not. However, I am. I'll settle for 'ceasing to restate', but I settled for that before and that didn't work out so well. I've removed the profanity from comments here and on the Punisher talk page; not in any attempt to hide it, I'm well aware that edit histories exist, but because I'd rather be to the point than pointlessly inflammatory. Thank for you the tip regarding terminology, I was simply running out of synonyms for 'lie'. Snakebyte42 (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: Guy has recused himself from the case, so I'll take over if no one objects. I would suggest that this has become a heated discussion, and I think it would be better for all parties if we give this a day to rest so we can all cool off.  I think we should all take this back to DRN and settle it civilly, okay?  It's not too much to give it a try, is it? Sleddog116 (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, the dispute regarding The Punisher: Purgatory was settled. Fortdj33 made an edit to the page that agreed with my viewpoint, and after seeing this I made an edit to the Punisher template to support this, which he did not contest. The List of Punisher comics article is locked for another few days, preventing those changes from being reflected there, but at this point I do not believe there is any dispute. I had planned to edit it once, if I got there first, and then allow whatever subsequent changes Fortdj33 wished to make, providing they agreed with the information in the Purgatory article, now titled 'The Punisher (1998 series)'.


 * This exists because after the template I found a day-old inflammatory comment on the List of Punisher comics, the date being a fact I was unaware of when responding, that threw that civility out the window after I thought the issue had been settled, and after my response Fortdj33 found it necessary to 'teach me a lesson in civility', an issue unrelated to the issue being discussed in DRN. It is complicated by Guy Macon stating that he would personally see to getting me warned and blocked, eventually indefinitely, giving several warnings, at least one being erroneous, and editing the Punisher (1998 series) page after consensus had been reached, apparently out of spite. In addition, after that aforementioned conversation with Guy Macon, Fortdj33 pledged to stay out of this dispute, instead letting Guy Macon 'deal with me'.


 * In summation, I don't think there's anything else to dispute. If Fortdj33 wishes for me to resume civility and retract my statements, he'll need to account for his own. A complete cessation of contact, the issue being I think resolved thought not quite formally, seems to be an option as well. And, of course, anything we agree on could easily be for nothing, since it wouldn't surprise me at all to find my account disintegrated and my input disregarded at any time. Well, that was too long, let me try again: In summation, I don't think there's anything left to dispute. If Fortdj33 wishes to contribute either here or on the DRN page or on the talk page for the article, either in a way that invites my input or in a way that continues to inaccurately and offensively portray my actions thus far, I'll respond. Until then, Guy Macon is harassing me on my talk page. Hurrah. Snakebyte42 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough for summation. As Fortdj33 seems to be offline for the evening, I suggest (as I said a moment ago) that we not worry about it anymore tonight.  Guy has recused himself from the discussion, and his responses on your talk page were not "harassment".  He was letting you know the policies, albeit more sternly than I did.  He has told you that he is no longer involved with your talk page, so I suggest you just let the issue with him drop and, as he suggested, cease interacting with him.  In dealing with things like this in the future, even if you think the other editor has harassed you or acted uncivilly toward you, don't respond in kind.  It won't help.  Sleddog116 (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * He's stated as such to me as well, and I was just coming back here to strike that out. I plan to keep an eye here and on the DRN, but if nothing else happens, I'll make one edit on the List when it becomes unlocked, and then leave. If that's not acceptable, let me know. Snakebyte42 (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd hate to see you leave over this, but as I've been telling you, it isn't worth getting frustrated over. I'd strongly echo what Taroaldo said on your talk page. I'd even go a step further and suggest that you take a look at the Comics Project Page - I saw you editing the Spidey stuff, and I think if you take a look at that page, you'll find a lot of articles that aren't getting enough attention. You'd probably be quite valuable to the project. I don't see your proposal as not being acceptable, but I don't speak for consensus. Sleddog116 (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, no worries, that was always the plan. I went back and forth (EDIT: By this I mean 'made comments as an IP address' rather than 'couldn't make a decision.' It was vague.) quite a bit before I even made an account to deal with this, I'm not being run off or anything. I'll likely still fix things if I see them and I'll give the comics thing a once-over, but wow, I'm definitely not getting into any arguments again. Can you imagine dealing with me on a regular basis? :P
 * That said, just responding here to leave the DRN page as-is and not making duplicate comments, volumes, rather than years appear to be standard according to the comics project. So there's that. Not that that was an issue Fortdj33 and I were in debate over, as far as I can tell we were both open to either option. Snakebyte42 (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Can you imagine dealing with me on a regular basis?" Trust me: I have dealt with much worse -  and the two involved in that dispute are still at it, eight months and two interaction bans later.  Sleddog116 (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow. I hope I'm not that stubborn. Anyway, I took a quick flip through the comics thing and ended up cleaning up the Ultimate Spider-Man and Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man articles too. Ironic, since that was the main change I made on the Spidey list, but it was the only thing I saw that was a quick organization-type fix. That's it for me for now, because I know I'm getting off-topic and spamming things up. Thanks for putting up with me! Snakebyte42 (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Generally unacceptable conduct


Editor 202.128.18.230 left a personal attack on my talk page. I warned him, and he removed my warning and reverted one of my edits apparently out of sheer spite:
 * Eric Delko

Thanks for your help. —70.105.24.9 (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed this seems like a poor use of language and a violation of WP:CIVIL, but users are generally allowed to delete comments on their talk pages - so you should just presume 202.* read your comment - if the issue continues feel free to re-raise :). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

To Eraserhead, I agree to follow by the rules of Wikipedia. The first thing this user did was make a condescending or childish comment when editing what I had edited on the Eric Delko article. The tiny thing was, it was because of a difference between a "but" and "however". It was tiny. And s/he had the nerve to make a condescending reason as to my edit being "terrible" when s/he admitted that his/her editing was not as good as mine.

This is not about who made the better editing. I know that I wrote it accurately, so I do not want to waste time being insulted by anyone, stating that my editing or grammar was terrible or poorly written in a childish manner, even before the user admitted to not having a good editing. If there is a possible way for this user to stop harrassing me, please let me know so I can edit without him/her resorting to idle threats against me any further. I erased his/her comment on my talk page because it IS MY talk page, as s/he also has the right to delete MY comment from HIS/HER talk page if what I said bothers this user so much. While I am mature enough to admit that my comment on that user's talk page was an attack, I choose not to further fuel the flames for this individual's personal feelings.

I edit an article mainly if something new about that article needs to be written while I try to provide reliable sources to back up the updates to that article, to correct grammar (maturely), or if an important information needed to be written within that article. That's it. I hardly care about grammar or punctuations, but that's just me. If this user wants to make a big deal about whatever I put on MY talk page, then there are certainly some problems this user has beyond any notion(s) that I am out to insult him/her, which I have NOT done for days, nor do I have anymore intentions to. I have a life, a busy one. I have a good family, a good home. I am not gonna waste time caring about whatever personal problems this user, or any user, has just because I deleted his/her comment on MY talk page, or because I reverted to what is accurate writing. I reverted it like I am sure any editor would revert any editing when that editing has a condescending or childish reason.

I would like to take this important matter to the appropriate place for I feel stalked and harrassed by this individual, who apparently has difficulty steering away from MY talk page, MY contributions, or anything remotely having to do with ME. I would like to use Wikipedia with no more worries about my time here by one individual out to get me just because I commented on his/her talk page. I have absolutely NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in further communicating with this person from here on in. If there is a way to block said individual from communicating with me, I will be happy to follow the instructions. Thanks. (202.128.18.230 (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC))


 * This is absurd. 202*, speaking directly to you, don't make accusations, don't be childish, actually think through how your abusive comments are going to come across, and I will never, EVER talk to you again. I promise. Yeesh. —70.105.24.9 (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

How can I avoid having to respond and escalating things?




Spadaro's last statement in the referenced subsection is defamatory and unjustified. I feel compelled to respond to it in order to prevent defamation from standing unchallenged. But I haven't responded yet because my review of Spadaro's Wikipedia history indicates that, in the past, responses have led to escalation of conflict until the whole thing got out of hand. I really, really want to avoid being compelled to respond to him but don't see how I can. I consulted with more experienced editors and was referred to dispute resolution. I went to a noticeboard and opened a dispute but it was closed because that particular noticeboard is only for article content disputes. So here I am. So far not a single blessed soul has bothered even to glance at the material I've referenced; if you don't, at least please provide a reason why you believe it isn't necessary. Guyovski (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I really don't think there's anything you can do here but walk away. I know it's hard to accept, but sometimes you just have to rise above it. Raising the issue on community noticeboards is only going to aggravate the situation further, and reporting the editor to the Anti-Defamation League is going way too far. If you really want to avoid an escalation of conflict, this isn't the way to go about it. Just drop the issue and move on. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I offer no opinion on the edits which give rise to the disagreement. From what I've reviewed, I don't see anything which I feel would receive any kind of sanction in an escalated dispute process. Sometimes, especially when a subject is a sensitive one, it is best to let the matter drop. That would be my suggestion in this case. Taroaldo (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Any suggestion on what I can do about the fact that, right now, there's an unchallenged public statement calling me biased and dishonest? Some people believe everything they read. Guyovski (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing you could do is to stop creating the appearance of bias by calling people a "piece of filth". Another would be to drop the hyperbole, I don't see anyone calling you dishonest and I don't see any defamation. Franamax (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As the edit history shows, I retracted the "piece of filth" statement despite strong resistance from Spadaro. I was eventually forced to use strikethrough. I also believe that that short phrase is a red herring that distracts people from the substantial issues. In fact, my experience has been that there is a tendency to isolate one tiny phrase that is part of a long discourse and behave as if that phrase were the entire discourse. That's exactly what Spadaro did. But this isn't an appropriate forum for discussions as to how to change human nature (and I don't believe in social engineering anyway). It is, however, evident that people in positions of power at Wikipedia are always going to rule against me no matter how just my cause is. From now on I'm not going to bother seeking assistance; I'll have no choice but to permit disputes to escalate until I am banned (because of course it will be me who gets banned). Kindly close this dispute. I'm removing it from my watched pages list. Guyovski (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, your comments may be illustrative of some of the past difficulties. I don't think much of "drive-by insults" where an editor says something like "piece of filth" for effect and then deletes it.  You said the words so you own them. The strikethrough request was appropriate. Editing Wikipedia should be enjoyable and productive and so I would advise editors in general to try to avoid topics where they feel their emotions are running out of check. Taroaldo (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade;


 * And he carries the reminders, of every glove that laid him down,


 * or cut him till he cried out, in his anger and his shame;


 * 'I am leaving, I am leaving', But the fighter still remains..."


 * --The Boxer by Simon & Garfunkel


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Sander Säde's gross incivility
Considering Vecrumba's recent contributions have been involving a dispute with me, I am pretty sure that this was a gross personal attack aiming at either me or User:Paul Siebert. While I understand that our dispute at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states got hot at times due to a flood of personal attacks by our opponents, they usually stayed borderline civil (although I would appreciate your input on this as well). Calling me or Paul "racist trolls" was well over the line. (Igny (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC))


 * Igny's battleground behaviour has been reported at AE here. --Nug (talk)


 * Totally non-utile complaint.  Igny's WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour has been noted enough times now that I think it is well time to let AE do its proper job.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Dasani's unprovoked barrage of incivility, personal attack and even edit warring
Exceedingly hurtful incivility (check: set 01 and set 02). The editor has gone into edit warring, name calling, and overall bad attitude taken to near extreme. Please, run a little check if you need. I strongly believe this editor needs a bit of explanation about the need of civility in a collaborative environment. I'm hurt. But, I think I can live with it. But, bad attitude like this isn't too good for the Wikipedia. Aditya (talk • contribs) 11:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Using names of Editors while giving Barnstars


Situation


 * I had posted my comments on an ANI Discussion on User:Dave1185 here following which TopGun Started attacking me on the ANI Thread, even though the subject was Dave1185's edit summaries and userspace edits. AS a retaliation to my comment on ANI, User:Dave1185 posted a barnstar on User talk:TopGun here referring me. While i have nothing against giving the barnstars for whatever purpose but using phrases and names of editors in a way to show that they have done a crime is not acceptable.
 * Accordingly as a courtesy I placed a message on Dave's talk page asking him to rephrase his message and not take names of editors in his Barnstars.
 * Having read the message in the barnstar I changed it here saying in the edit summary that I have read. which was reverted by calling it Vandalism and a Warning on my talk page
 * After which Dave responds and refused to remove the names from his barnstars.

I expect that the above editors will follow the spirit of civility and remove the names to other editor (and messages to other editor)from their barnstars. -- D Big X ray  14:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That was a pretty civil note in that barnstar which dave gave me... what was uncivil was that you amended that comment (of another editor) without his permission against WP:TPO and this is not the first time you've done that - it's vandalism. Not going to waste everyone's time here anymore. Cheers. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strongly suggest you leave both of them alone, DBigXRay, and try to restrict yourself in your interactions with them. Ignore them and get on with your editing. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 14:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @strange Which I will, but my genuine concern needs to be addressed-- D Big X ray  14:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see your name mentioned in that barnstar thing, and furthermore you shouldn't be fooling around with other editors' comments. If you've got a concern about a comment, follow proper channels, don't try to "fix" it yourself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Bugs' comment, above. Even if you are "Raj" (whoever that is), I don't see what was posted as being uncivil in the least, let alone worthy of a WQA report. I, too, suggest you avoid these two editors (start by unwatching their user/talk pages). Regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I've remarked this NWQA after this reversion. Note I have 996 WQA edits, so I think I qualify as a "regular." Nobody Ent 18:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Being attacked by another editor
hi. i wasn't using wikipedia for very long and didn't do much editing as you can see from my contribs. when i made a change to cleavage (breasts), this user reverted this change. george ho told me it was because i shouldn't remove material even if i can't find something to support it in the references, so this was my fault. because of this change, it seems ken thinks i am this user bouket. he then undid many of my other changes and refuses to explain it. he also told me to stay off of his talk page. here is the change to cleavage that he undid. here is one where i found that the melon band page lists percy jones but didn't have a link. i linked the two, does this usually need a reference? is that why it was removed? . in this edit he reinstated a death date for this person that is in the future. he claims it is a mistake, i guess maybe it was? anyway, george ho told me i shouldn't edit any of these pages anymore, even though i was editing them first and ken followed me to them. i feel like i can't edit anywhere now. should i just leave, since this is too much trouble and i started on a bad foot? thanks for any advice. george also advised maybe i could ask here about what i did wrong since i still don't understand it exactly. if i did something wrong, i would like it explained. hopefully i filled this out ok. JohnJeanBartiste (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * me
 * editor who thinks i am someone else
 * editor who had a previous problem with ken
 * helpful user
 * I'll repeat what I wrote on JJB's talk page, in a comment addressed to User:George Ho: "@George: Please do not encourage this person. If you take the time to read User talk:Bouket, you'd realize that JJB is undoubtedly the same person. I've chosen not to file an SPI for other reasons, but that does not change the facts on the ground. JJB's behavior is precisely the same as Bouket's was, his writing uses exactly the same style, the stance he takes of confused innocence matches Bouket's stance, and his habit of running to the Help desk, and to every editor he has had any positive interaction with, to 'innocently' complain about 'Ken' mirrors to a tee Bouket's behavior. They're the same person. If you have difficulty seeing this, perhaps you might want to ask one of your mentors to assist you in evaluating the evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)" On my own talk page, I further commented to George Ho: "George, it's my sincere impression that's he's not here to help the project and improve the encyclopedia, he's here merely to troll and cause trouble for people. He's very low-key about it, but that's what I get from his comments and contributions. I, personally, wouldn't waste a minute's time on trying to reform him, but YMMV, and I could be wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)" George Ho rather unhelpfully suggested that JJB come here, so here we are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Sockpuppet investigations/Bouket has been opened by someone else. --George Ho (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Hashem sfarim




Poster has been reverted several times at the above article, posts rude "warnings" on others' talk pages (example), called user LauraHale a "Troll-Stalker" and told her "Don't follow me around, Laura, or it'll get ugly", removes warnings from his talk page, and even shouts in edit summaries. His edits have been criticised for lacking sources. --Toccata quarta (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Moot now, editor has been checkuserblocked indefinitely. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

derogative and insulting style




As I have already brought to attention issues regarding the article on Sōka Gakkai to the Administrators' noticeboard--- some editors have responded in support, also take into consideration the history of the talk. Nevertheless the somewhat derogative and insulting style of writing by user:Naveen Reddy is just not on. Maybe an editor could clarify some issues on etiquette. Thanks.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Fifelfoo



 * Vietnam War Talk Page

Fifelfoo has been exremely agressive, made threats and personal attacks by by twisting my words, making false accusations and insulting my character. I need some one to help so that he will leave me alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korentop (talk • contribs)
 * Not seeing it. Not sure what "leaving you alone" means in this context -- he's not on your talk page and he's entitled to comment on the article talk page. While personally I concur that the profanity could be toned down, the longstanding community consensus is that's it's acceptable as long as it's not targeted at individual. So if he says "this source is shit" we just have to accept it; if he says "Editor John Doe is a piece of shit" that would be unacceptable. Nobody Ent 09:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Diffs please. In contrast Korentop has slow edit warred by inserting sources that bear no RS and WEIGHT in relation to history articles and whose construction and analysis amounts to original research (intial 2 3 4 5 6 and has basically suggested that they ignore policy with impugnity (in response to a suggestion to take the content to the appropriate content noticeboard).  Editors operating outside of policy and consensus, driving nationalist historiographies sourced (by original research) from non-scholarly works have no place on history articles.  Fifelfoo (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Diffs will not change the situation. Saying "I'm going to seek assistance from administrators" does not imply "ignoring policy with impugnity." New editors clearly have a place on Wikipedia, it just takes time to learn the ins and out. Their edits to INTJ are fine. Nobody Ent 10:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any sign of Korentop quietly discussing the issue with Fifelfoo on the talk page. I suggest Korentop looks here: CIVIL for the first steps on how to respond to perceived incivility. I don't think the editor has tried to remedy the situation by discussing it (but diffs are welcome). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a 46 edit, less than one week old account. Some slack is order. They did make a request for assistance from another editor, and they did properly notify Fifelfoo on the discussion here. Nobody Ent 10:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy to give them a lot more slack on conduct, and on difference in the varieties of English; but, the continuity with which popular nationalist understandings of historical events are used by editors (of all levels of experience) to insert low grade sources that fail to meet the criteria for weighting historical articles is deeply and profoundly frustrating. It is why we can't have nice top level articles, because someone's television programme told her that Jane Fonda was in any way significant to the American War, and because she won't then turn to scholarly works to determine if her instinct actually is what happened.  Fifelfoo (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Please understand, the issue here is not the differences of opinion. I went to the third opinion board, and while they ruled against me, I understand their reasoning. The reason I posted here, was Fifelfoo's reaction. Even now, on the talk page, you will see a tremendous difference in what Fifelfoo said and how the other users explained their reasoning. Granted, Fifelfoo did not say anything directly, but it does not take a genius to see he was repeatedly insulting both my intelligence and my integrity. I can handle both of this issues. The reason I posted here was 1) Fifelfoo deleted one of my comments on the talk page and 2) Fifelfoo's last comment a) grossly misrepresented my actions and b) implied I was in danger of some sort of consequences. I hope that clears things up a little. I apologize for any confusion I caused. I did not post on his talk page before posting here. I tried addressing the issue on the article's talk page. If this section needs to be removed, I understand and will go to the user's talk page first in the future. Korentop (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see the personal attacks or threats on the talk page. The language used has been strong, but that's about it. The rest looks like a discussion over whether to use high quality sources or not. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I restored your deleted comment with an effusive apology. If you want to make accusations, then back them up with diffs.  Ask someone else how to do it, because you appear to be incapable of reading what I say. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 in UFC Talk page



 * (Specifically Talk page)

I come seeking advice with unclean hands. I first acknoledge that my actions have been less than civil, however given the general level of discourse on the page, they are nearly saintly in their demeanor.

Today we had yet annother MMA SPA post a disparaging attack on myself. As this is par for the course I elected to speedily vanish the thread as per the header at the top of the page ''Civility is expected at all times by all contributors. New sections that do not conform to basic tennants of civility will be quickly archived.''. In steps Agent00f, who enthusiastically will jump into any thread to shovel some dirt on me if the thread supports his way of thinking. I responded explaining why some threads disappear from the page quickly and use some moderately uncivil language suggesting that they should leave. A completely uninvolved editor HATs the conversation with the suggestion that it not continue.

Agent00f decides not to let it go and posts annother diatribe about how evil standars are and that MMA articles shouldn't have to follow them. I undo the posting and make the suggestion in edit summary, that the post didn't belong.

Into this jumps Sunny Sunday Smile with a personal attack on several editors. Finally Agent00f makes yet annother complaint without understanding what was suggested to him in the edit summary.

I ask the regulars here how to resolve this and impart unto these types of editors that their disruptive "complaining and moaning" is not going going to be tollerated any more? I for the most part will keep my hands simply to adding the ArchiveNows for obviously unconstructive talk page threads. Hasteur (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you admit you have come here with "unclean hands" perhaps the best solution is to step away from the area of controversy. Comments were made by a number of individuals which are not civil, and there appears to be a competition to "get the last word".  Such things never turn out well for anyone involved, so my best advice is to let it go. Regards, Taroaldo (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason why I can't step away is because each one of the SPAs has learned that if they disrupt enough and get the editors who enforce policy to give up, they can have their way. It's been observed that many different editors have left the editing space because they didn't want to deal with the drama, thereby reinforcing the "Disrupt enough and you can get your way".  As evidenced by Agent's and SSS's comments here, they don't want to collaborate, they want their way.  In short there are 2 ways I intend to leave the MMA space. One is when all the disruptive SPAs, Puppets, and editors have left Wikipedia or reformed to accept community Policy/Guidelines/Consensus in ALL aspects including Content and Conduct.  The second is if I'm barred from MMA topics by a topic ban handed down by the community at WP:AN.  I have faith in the community that they wouldn't do such a shortsighted thing considering that one of the editors I raised concern about is the subject of a pending RfC/U that was certified over a month ago.  But if the community has no insight I'll just add this thread to the midden heap of failed Dispute Resolution for the eventual ArbCom case. Hasteur (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If by looking to get my way, you mean looking to prevent you personally from insulting people who know less about Wikipedia than you with impunity, you are correct. Currently I am ambivalent about the page. My presence is purely to offset your presence as a bully, Saint Hasteur. I'd report you but I'm an adult with a job, a life and self-respect. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that poor quality of the page design (ie. a few "getting their way") was the reason for the flood of critical comments in talk. Each of the original pages involved received tens of thousand of hits per month so it's not surprising when a multitude of users complain that a resource consistent with wiki standards in practice (and survives AfD anywhere else) is made into a mess. It's also interesting that despite poor behavior, one party seems entirely sure that it's instead those who point out that elephant in the room who'll receive punitive punishment. Unfortunately the sad reality is that given the politics of the matter they're probably right. Agent00f (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The moment anyone on Wikipedia says "I can't step away because....." it is a sure sign that they should step away. If I stepped away from this discussion, another editor would come in and say something similar to what I would have said. Wikipedia would go on. Wikipedia articles are developed through the community, not through any one person (or through any particular group). Right now this article is languishing because of a disagreement over civility. That will get us nowhere. Can we instead focus on what edits need to be made to improve 2012 in UFC events? Thanks -- Taroaldo (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note the "attack" on Hasteur is literally: "LOL was hasteur or whatever his name is being serious when he stated this near the top of the page?: User Friendliness is not an aim of Wikipedia.", which seems fair enough given that most users expect some compliance to usability be taken into consideration. It's difficult to take someone seriously when they "create" widely criticized formatting without understanding of design, and rather spend their efforts deleting the criticism in violation of TALKO policy. Agent00f (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur, talking of depraved holes isn't constructive, is it? I would compare your behaviour to that of a child who pushes other children in a playground, gets questioned about it or heaven forbid, pushed back, then runs to the teachers. 'These types of editors.' I'm a person. So are you. I suggest you stop being insulting towards others if you want and expect the same for yourself. Or continue being bratty. Either way, I have no further interest in dialogue with you or your sort.

Also, question: Is saying someone has hilariously abysmal spelling, a personal attack? It's not an insult. Just an observation and a 'Thanks for giving me a good chuckle.' This question does not relate to anyone specifically. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * (I have not reviewed any of the material linked above.) Telling someone they have "hilariously abysmal spelling" is not a civil comment, especially when tensions may be running high. An observation would be something like "spelling errors are too common in this article" -- "hilariously abysmal" is an editorialization. But why even make a comment? If you see some mistakes, just fix them! Taroaldo (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's problematic given that attempted fixes are often met with indef bans (and credible threats of) on this particular topic. There's a reason why Hasteur's attitude and behavior ("Now please go crawl back into the depraved hole you decided to poke your head out of", wholesale deletion of others' comments) isn't even questioned by those handing them out. Agent00f (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Copy/paste formatting with poor usability and wholesale comment removal are too common in that topic. Since those who attempted to fix this were usually banned, this only avenue left is critique, which was then also deleted (there used to be dozens on that talk page). Meanwhile, uncivil editors who constructed the mentioned issues remain untouched and rail against the etiquette of others. Agent00f (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

all contributors to this discussion are asked to remain civil. It would also be helpful to avoid quoting prior uncivil comments in your text. If the remark is relevant, simply include a diff. Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's actually quite helpful to quote specific portions of text when posting a diff so reviewing editors can figure out what exacting the poster is referencing. Nobody Ent 02:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not all the time. That's what diffs are for. Why keep repeating inflammatory comments when the diff is all you need for reference? Taroaldo (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hasteurs actions in using the phrase depraved hole and in refactoring other's talk page comments are not nearly saintly, they are stupid. They provide a focal point for attack that distracts from the larger, more important issues at hand, namely the continued attempts by spa accounts to insert non-encyclopedic content into Wikipedia. When an editor makes a stupid comment, unless it is an obvious troll, it is better to let it stand because it is explicitly self-documenting. While I appreciate Hasteur's persistence in maintaining content quality I encourage them to be scrupulously proper when posting statements to avoid future distraction. Nobody Ent 14:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I take the point Taroaldo makes about not pointing out spelling mistakes. I haven't done it yet, and am sold that I shouldn't do it.

I have another issue with Hasteur. He has a tendency to demand compliance. E.g. I made a point about an incorrect sockpuppet allegation (negligent or fraudulent, it isn't easy to tell), and suggested that I would link a discussion if anyone wanted the specifics. He then DEMANDED I produce evidence or retract my statement. I provided the page, and REQUESTED that he acknowledge I had done so. He failed to do so. To me, making demands of other users and not acceding to equivalent requests is a gross violation of good manners. Certainly not a saintly act, wouldn't you say?

This is a factual account of what occurred and my opinion on what transpired. If anyone chooses to misinterpret this as an attack, I have nothing to say to them. I'm just looking for equal treatment. When more experienced users continually insult newcomers to the site, they are displaying a bully mentality, and do a disservice to the site. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

goethean



 * WP:FTN
 * WP:FTN

This user is being aggressive with almost every response to me. here are just some of the comments:         . IRWolfie- (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've already asked him to stop making things personal:, noted here that he is making everything personal:. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's high time this user was banned from Wikipedia. He has been given free reign to promote pseudoscience and create walled gardens around this place. 24.215.188.24 (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that the IP above who requested a ban of Goethean has been found to be a sock puppet of ScienceApologist and has now been blocked. I do think Goethean could be more civil, but after a cursory glance it also seems that IRWolfie might make more of an effort to address his points. TimidGuy (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I did address his points (and so have a number of other users), he choose to ignore the responses, see here FTN. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)