Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive121

Problem with a repeat GA nomination for Krista Branch




User:The Devil's Advocate nominated Krista Branch a few weeks ago. I reviewed the article and cited problems (see the GA1 review on Talk:Krista Branch). User:The Devil's Advocate did not do anything to rectify those problems and complained that they weren't specific enough for his tastes. User:The Devil's Advocate attempted to obstruct edits to rectify said problems. On 25 July 2012 I failed the GA nomination after several days where User:The Devil's Advocate did not respond to the GA review or edit the article to improve it per my review. On 26 July 2012, User:The Devil's Advocate renominated for GA. Personally, I believe it was intended to be spiteful and implied "I will ignore User:ColonelHenry's review and act as if it didn't happen." This behavior is disrespectful to other editors and seems to be an end-run designed to subvert the GA review process.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Dude, seriously. Stop.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Colonel, being a GA reviewer is an important, and thankless job, and we very much appreciate it. I don't think TDA meant to disrespect you: people re-nominate articles all the time. If you feel that your suggestions aren't being given due consideration, start a discussion on the talk page and work toward forming a consensus. – Lionel (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at that GA review a while back and agree that TDA is trying to WP:OWN the article and not respond in a reasonable way to valid criticisms: he unduly personalized the discussion. This response to a warning from an arbitrator was much worse: he referred to Newyorkbrad's statements as "incendiary" and then trotted out his own pet conspiracy theories concerning a "Macartythian mentality". (Note that TDA is currently under a 6 month topic ban under WP:ARB911.) If he continues down this particular path, with issues which go way beyond wikiquette, he will in all probability come unstuck. Mathsci (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Readding comment as Mathsci has failed to heed my advice.
 * Mathsci, keep your own issues out of this. This is to help ColonelHenry work through his issues of perceived incivility from TDA. I have removed the part of your post that is not relevant to this issue and posted to your talk page. I am not going to replace it if you put it back, but think very carefully before you do so. Colonel, I echo Lionelt above. The talk page of the article is really the place to sort this out. If as a GA reviewer you think the nominator hasnt listening to your criticism, get another GA reviewer to give a second opinion for the renomination. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit other editors' comments. That is not allowed on wikipedia, except in vey special circumstances. The Devil's Advocate is making problematic edits and that poor conduct is not restricted to this good article review. You may politely disagree, but that's it. By posting on my talk page you disturbed my while I was in the middle of making difficult content edits. Please don't do that again either. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are trying to implicate a pattern of incivility on TDA's part by posting that link to NYB's talkpage, it doesnt come close to being classed as incivil or problematic. If anything it shows a polite statement of grievance and is a starting point for a discussion between the two of them. Which I shouldnt need to point out to you, is the first bullet point at the top of this page. Politely engaging with the editor in which you have a problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that Mathsci did not engage here at the moment as it introduces unnecessary distraction, but M has commented on this page many times (as have I; from my watchlist I noticed this section before M's comment). It is standard procedure for other editors to join a discussion with information that they believe to be relevant. It is not standard procedure to remove someone else's text! Onlookers joining in can derail a discussion, but that happens all the time and each of us has to judge each comment for its relevance. Noticeboards in particular are intended for community discussion ( I don't want to pursue this here, so if anyone wants to disagree with my views you are welcome to explain at my talk ). Johnuniq (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Take to your talk to avoid disruption here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

@The Devil's Advocate Do you disagree with the sequence of events? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the sequence of events concerning the GA review? I do disagree with Henry's portrayal of the situation. He made some objections that were not valid per the GA criteria and some others that I felt needed explanation in order for me to respond to his concerns. The response he gave to that comment seemed far more combative and uncivil than helpful. Though I did err in stating that he was new to editing, at no point do I believe I responded with similar conduct. It doesn't bother me much, though. I think he just needs to be careful not to try and impose his own tastes when doing a review.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This comment at GA1 was essentially dismissive and that got the other editor's back up: "I see that you are new, so I will just let this slide ...". Avoiding inflammatory statements like these could have helped you to deal with the issues through discussion, and without making things personal. More generally, I think if there is any issues with WP:OWN it's not clear enough from the GA1, it should be apparent after the GA2 though. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel it is pointless to indulge this any further. That one comment is not worthy of a WQA request and the reviewer had already made uncivil comments towards me before I made it.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 (talk) Ownership and unfounded clims




The user:Cla68 has taken total ownership of edits they have made on the page Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. The following diffs    show the edits they have made and the talk page discussions listed above show the level of ownership they are taking.

They are referring to to the removal of their edits continuously as "revert warring" and are focusing only on their edits made. They are also placing posts on my talk page claiming that I am engaging in a revert war


 * Sport and politics has been deleting reliably-sourced text from the article without discussion and has revert-warred on problem tags, sometimes doing so with pejorative edit summaries, not just with me but with several editors:          Sports and politics has also reverted edits on other Olympics-related articles:    and has talked rudely to another editor who disagreed with his edits .  Cla68 (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see here for the response to diff 24 I also stand by ever single edit that is being claimed to be a revert warring Cla68 Clearly has not read WP:BRD and WP:Bold. To claim any of those edits are Revert warring is total lunacy just incredible. The majority of those edits have either remained removed or a discussion has been happening afterwards. Also I stand by the removal of poorly added information which is of little relevance to Wikipedia, regardless of if the information has a source or not. Just because information has a source does not guarantee its inclusion as this is not a newspaper or a collection of all information. The articles must give balanced point of view and the edits which have been highlighted either show a removal of biased coverage of an argument on one side to give balance or show the removal of completely irrelevant information.

As for the diff on the 2012 Olympians competing under the Olympic flag the actual edit summary says there is an ongoing discussion which can be seen here and here.

I would like to say that haveing looked at Cla68s block log this is not the first instance of Cla68 being overtly disruptive with regards to other editors, who are editing "normally" and within the agreed policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Cla68 has been banned on more than one occasion for disruptive editing and this again is more disruptive editing. This user is beginning to damage the integrity of the project as they have decided that their edits are theirs and how dare anyone even say they are not perfect. This is classic ownership and is becoming highly disruptive. Sport and politics (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sport and politics, you may be right with what you say in this comment, but do you think ordering everyone to do what you say is the best tone to take? Cla68 (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That has no relevance to this discussion what so ever, as it is purely based on the content and is in a discussion. You are simply not liking another user challenging your edits or other edits you like and changing/removing them. There is also no "ordering", it is calling the information exactly what it is, wholly irrelevant and that it should not be added. There is nothing of a personal nature in that comment. I can sense the you Cla68 will use a lot of distraction technique to attempt to divert from the disruptive editing you have engaged in. I am also not the only editor saying you are making unfounded claims of revert warring. Sport and politics (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Editors who refer to edits by others as "total lunacy" tend to be regarded as having pretty dirty hands here - S%P - drop the stick. Collect (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for the use of the language but the levels of frustration with this user are very very high. Could you please look at the breadth of unfounded and without basis claims which are continually being directed at me by Cla68. I also dispute I have "dirty hands" here all I have been doing is normal editing. Not once has Cla68 been able to back up any of their claims of revert warring, despite being asked to do so and have had it pointed out that what they are claiming to be revert warring is nothing of the sort.Sport and politics (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not only is this edit warring, but with at least 5 reverts within a 24 hour period User:Sport and politics also violated the bright-line threshold of WP:3RR, and was lucky not to be blocked. I'd strongly suggest you follow User:Cla68's advice and discuss on the article's talk page instead of continuing to edit war.  Neither WP:BRD nor WP:BOLD are justification for edit warring and violating 3RR.  I don't see any civility or wikiquette violation by Cla68, on the contrary, Cla68 has been extremely civil throughout, while Sports and politics has been quite uncivil.  Dreadstar  ☥   21:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I am smelling something up here that is serious clutching at straws Revert Warring is the addition and removal of the same information. Making multiple edits to an article is not revert warring also Cla68 has been nothing but uncivil in making the spurious claims. Sport and politics (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your definition is incomplete, please read 3RR, specifically A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. This is exactly what you did, and therefore violated WP:3RR.  I'd strongly suggest you refrain from this course of action or you will be blocked.  (added emphasis is mine) Dreadstar  ☥   21:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I am finding your contributions very suspicious as you are ignoring that the edits I have made have been nothing but general editing. To claim those diffs are in any way revert warring is very very curious. The user Cla68 just has a serious problem with their edits being modified or changed and to claim that changing and removing poorly worded and not relevant information is revert warring strikes me as incredibly bizarre. especially as the information modified has been different information from different sections of the article. I am finding this very bizarre. Sport and politics (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The serious point which is being missed here and what is being insinuated is that it is not right to edit a page over a short period of time to maintain the quality of the page. What is the point of having a page on a watch-list if only one or two edits to a page can be made in 24 hours. This is getting ridiculous if this is what is actually being pushed here. Modifying and removing content which is poorly written, not relevant and without noteworthiness cannot be considered revert warring or the whole foundation of editing Wikipeida to improve the quality of Wikipedia goes out the window. Simply modifying and editing content of wkipedia over a short period of time cannot be considered revert warring if the content being removed is being thoroughly discussed as is being done on this topic and the content being removed and modified is done so to maintain the quality of the article. Sport and politics (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling a serious look at what Wikipedia is not is needed as this is getting wholly ignored and is fundamental to what makes Wikipedia Wikiepdia. Sport and politics (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

For Cla68 to make the original claims of revert warring they have wholly missed that all editors and editing should be regarded with good faith. Sport and politics (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

New editor having issues with TheRedPenOfDoom




I am writing this to you tonight because of repeated tagging and disputes between myself and User:TheRedPenOfDoom regarding articles I am writing. I have stated many times that the articles contain seed material and I am working to get more contributions from subject matter experts, academics and the interested public at large, but this user keeps insisting that I am trying to keep my "non-encyclopedic" articles locked down and essentially assuming that it will not resolve itself on it own.

I have asked this user multiple times to leave me and the articles I am working on alone to no avail. Each request for them to back off brings another barrage of finger pointing and false accusations.

Please advise me how to handle the situation so that I may continue my writing in peace.

Jssteil (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I will just say that the tags are not "locking down" the articles, but quite the opposite, encouraging readers and editors to pitch in. -- The Red Pen of Doom  12:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, you misunderstand me and twist things around...please re-read my comment above. I am referring back to your previous posts on my talk page insinuating that I do not want anyone editing these articles when that is absolutely not true.  I know that the tags are not locking down the articles, but they do distract from them especially with the biased comment that is left in the description.  It is not a copy-paste from research papers, but rather summaries from them.  The actual papers are 50-60 pages longer with much more in depth technical analysis.  The Radiation Carcinogenesis article I have created is very much a high-level overview that does not include research or analysis.


 * To the moderator - All I wish is for this user to leave me alone and to make useful contributions to the articles I create, instead of criticizing the content when the topic is of no concern to them. It seems as though as soon as I appeared on their radar, they have found something wrong with everything I do which is very discouraging and very distracting.  Again, please advise me how to handle this situation.  Jssteil (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with TRPoD's assessment of your contributions and the tags added. Furthermore, I don't see how this is an Wikiquette issue. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Tags are there to encourage others to help with the issues (and issues there are). Remember that articles aren't owned. Anyone can edit any article. Criticism of the article, when constructive, is important to helping to flag issues and so improve the articles. Article quality is the concern of every editor. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that the tags are there to help and I claim no ownership of the articles. I also welcome any constructive criticism and suggestions on how to make these articles better.  I am encouraging people to come and edit.  What is not seen are the hundreds of e-mails that are currently being sent encouraging subject matter experts to come and make contributions.


 * All I want is for this editor to please back off and be patient as the content I added is meant to be seed material for contributors to expand on. Jssteil (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would be interested in finding a mentor to help you work through and begin to better understand Wikipedia's culture and practices. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with adding seed material, but the tags help to direct others to expand upon the seed material. Tags aren't there to provide warnings but direct efforts to improve articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am taking this page off my watch list. Please ping me if there is additional conversation to which I should be a participant. -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Jssteil, I am speaking to you as an un-involved and hence neutral third party, you owe Pen an apology. There is nothing more wrong than to say that you are right and we are wrong, the way I see it is that you have over-reacted and didn't want to ask Pen for pointers as to how best to go about with your business of adding your information. FYI, you can always create your own WP:Sandbox to draft up your idea while the WP:Main namespace of the actual article page undergoes the update with those tags hung on. FWIW, we are all volunteers, here to help with the project and if Pen had not did what he did, I would have done so myself. Note that both Pen and I, we are established editors with more than 20,000 edits under our belt, we know what we are doing and now having an Admin telling you this WQA was really an uncalled-for is something you should really take heart of. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not what the admin actually said. There's lots of things more wrong. It would be wrong to say you're a holocaust denier, for example. One of the main purposes of this board is education, and it's much better to have a lost newbie end up here than nasty places like ANI. (I have less than 1,000 mainspace edits, but I'm right anyway.) Nobody Ent 21:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Pointing to one's edit count as evidence that one is "right", is no more useful than pointing to the person's block log as evidence that they are "wrong". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Issues with DreamMcQueen




Since making edits to articles on several Chicago television stations in early July, I have run into a dispute with DreamMcQueen. The dispute began with edits to the lead sections of the articles of WGN-TV, WWME-CA, WLS-TV and the like, to which DreamMcQueen promptly reverted due to the edits not being up to his tastes; though they fall within WikiProject Television Stations article structure guidelines, particularly the note that all TV articles require a "good introduction" (which in mine, includes a properly prosed first line, mentions of physical and virtual channels, location of transmitter and studio location [not mentioning the specific postal addresses for either], and a fairly short list of syndicated programs the station runs (carefully trying not to violate certain WP:NOT rules for the latter by omitting airtimes for syndicated programs and typically limiting the number of listed titles to no more than five or six), DreamMcQueen has unfairly criticized them as being extraneous, even though the type of information I included is featured in other articles.

Among the criticisms that DreamMcQueen has levied include this message left on my talk page on July 9: "I'm gonna write the same thing to you that I did to another user: the quality of your edits are, in my opinion, poor and contribute very little. This is nothing personal against you. However, you go from insisting on listing every station that is scheduled to carry the new Arsenio Hall Show next year to taking a page from the Neutralhomer/Strafidlo template with wordy and overly technical introductory paragraphs on those Chicago television station articles. Before you label someone as a "vandal" and "disruptive" and issue threatening stop warnings (as you did me, which I promptly deleted from my talk page), perhaps you should get pointers on how to make more constructive contributions and not mimic someone else, whether it be a industry website or another editor."

I want to stress that I based my edits around Neutralhomer and Strafidlo's, not to copy them, but because their edits had better prose, were properly worded, were informative without crossing the line into miscellanei and were in general, better edited, especially in comparison to my own edits (I admit my editing style wasn't as great when I started here six years ago, but I have gotten better. Compare this sentence: "KMBC-TV', channel 9, is a television station affiliated with the ABC television network, located in Kansas City, Missouri. KMBC-TV is owned by Hearst Television and its studios are located near Swope Park in Kansas City, Missouri. The station's transmitter is located in eastern Kansas City, near the Blue River. KMBC-TV also serves as an alternate ABC affiliate for St. Joseph, Missouri, available over-the-air in most of the market and on local satellite providers and select cable systems such as Suddenlink; this is despite the presence of KQTV (channel 2), which is the market's official ABC affiliate and is carried alongside KMBC on some cable systems in the market.''" With this one, edited by me: "''KMBC-TV is the ABC-affiliated television station for the Kansas City metropolitan area that is licensed to the Missouri side. It broadcasts a high-definition digital signal on virtual channel 9.1 (or UHF digital channel 29) from a transmitter at the East 23rd Street/Topping Avenue intersection in Kansas City, Missouri's Blue Valley section. Owned by Hearst Television, KMBC-TV is sister to CW affiliate KCWE and the two outlets share studios on Winchester Avenue in the city's Swope Park Ridge-Winchester section along I-435. Although the Saint Joseph market has an ABC affiliate of its own in the form of KQTV (channel 2), KMBC serves as an alternate ABC affiliate for the area as its transmitter provides a city-grade off-air signal in St. Joseph proper, and it is available on cable and satellite in the area alongside KQTV.''"

In regards to the Arsenio Hall show mention, I did not list all the stations that picked up the program, I merely mentioned a few on one edit, and then Dream McQueen reverted this edit: "On June 18, 2012, Hall and CBS Television Distribution (which now owns the Paramount Television library) signed a deal to produce a new late-night talk show, targeted to debut in September 2013. The new program will tentatively air on stations owned by CBS Television Stations, Tribune Broadcasting (which will have priority clearance over CBS-owned CW, MyNetworkTV and independent stations in six markets, including New York City and Los Angeles) and Local TV, in some cases on stations which also carried Hall's original program", and reverted it twice (the other was an undo by ShawnHill of the revert) to: "On June 18, 2012, Hall and CBS Television Distribution (which now owns the Paramount Television library) signed a deal to produce a new late-night talk show, targeted to debut in September 2013. The new program will tentatively air on stations owned by CBS Television Stations, Tribune Broadcasting, and Local TV, in some cases on stations which also carried Hall's original program." DreamMcQueen ignored the fact that the mention of Tribune having priority clearance of the program over CBS in some markets was explicity implied in the reference that I included from Broadcasting & Cable.

The fact that DreamMcQueen has reverted articles on stations from three different cities suggests a troll/vandal characteristic, by tracking down someone else's edits and them willfully reverting them with little credence to manual of style. I have also looked into whether other users have run into problems with this user and came upon instances of edit wars with other users such as Fairlyoddparents1234. Unfortunately, it seems that DreamMcQueen is more than willing to criticize others for how they edit rather than abiding by Wikipedia guidelines and ignore what the consensus suggests for his own personal style that is making it hard for others to edit on certain pages without worrying that their work will be unfoundedly rejected because the editor chooses to use a demeanor when editing as if claiming ownership of articles. When a message sent by DreamMcQueen was sent to my talk page on July 30, I just chose not to respond back even though my gut told me to explain to him calmly (as I did before) that his edits don't goes against the consensus, because there is just no getting through to him/her. I need this issue settled in a manner that is concise and thorough, so I can continue to edit these TV station articles without worry of unworthy rejections of my edit submissions. TVtonightOKC (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Bryonmorrigan




Mr. Morrigan seems to think that it is reasonable to call other editors "Holocaust deniers" using "Apologetics for murderers." And "And that kind of behavior is exactly the same as saying that the Holocaust didn't happen, or any other acts of murder or atrocity...and you are doing for the same kind of reason. Neo-Nazis do it to make excuses for Nazis. You're doing it to make excuses for Christian Terrorists. So no, I'm not retracting anything

I had asked politely at for a redaction.

TFD also asked for a redaction at as well. Those acquainted will surmise that TFD and I are not in any way in the category of "Holocaust deniers" or "Neo-Nazis."

Mr. Morrigan has several times been mentioned on noticeboards for this sort of attack. Including routinely calling other editors "Holocaust deniers" and the like. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive697#Incivility_from_User:Bryonmorrigan],,   etc.

I suggest that Mr. Morrigan be advised in no uncertain terms to redact all such attacks, to apologize for all such attacks, and be advised that any further such attacks will be strictly dealt with by the community. Collect (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * At this point, there are principally four editors involved in those discussions: the three listed above, and me. I agree in large part that Bryon has been needlessly personal and combative in the way he addresses Collect and TFD in these discussions. I, too, would appreciate it if Bryon would just focus on the content and sourcing (which he does very competently), without speculating on Collect's and TFD's motives. On the other hand, Collect too needs to take on board similar advice. Collect is far too quick to escalate instead of de-escalate. Collect exaggerates his points about content (claiming recently that the page said that Southern Baptists in the US fund violence in India, when the page does not say it). Bryon didn't quite say that Collect is a Holocaust denier, but made a moral equivalency between Holocaust denial, and editing that arguably deflects responsibility from alleged Christian terrorists, so Bryon was wrong in my opinion to make the comparison, but Collect is wrong to frame it as a label applied to himself. Collect also responds with sarcasm when it would be better not to respond at all. And there is too much last-wordism in the discussion, from all three editors named above. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Bryonmorrigan's edit is an egregious personal attack and wholly unacceptable. For context, this edit arose during a discussion about whether or not a group should be considered "Christian terrorists".  Collect had pointed out the source Bryonmorrigan presented had referred to claims against this group as having been made by "extremists".  That seems to be a fair comment, and Bryonmorrigan should have presented another source, rather than questioning motives.  Collect however has never questioned whether this group is predominantly Christian or whether they have carried out terrorist activity, just whether they meet the criteria for inclusion in the article.  TFD (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Collect said that because one of the sources, OUT OF MANY, said, "Radical Hindu religious groups in the region have all along been accusing Christian missionaries of forceful conversions," means that the "we should ascribe the claim of "forced conversions" per that source to "Radical Hindu religious groups" and not assert it was a fact." When I pointed out that there were numerous other news articles describing these forced conversions and other "nasty" behavior, he responded with, "And you ignore what one of the sources in the article clearly states - that the claims are by "radical Hindu[s]" and not "fact, and you seem to think the Encyclopedia of India and the Hindustan Times are also wrong becasue you "know" that the evil Christians rape and murder Hindus there. Sorry -- your POV is showing far too clearly here."  I responded by linking a few of the other news articles referencing the forced conversions and other issues.  Note also that the Hindustan Times only said the above (that certain groups claim that these events happened...not that they didn't happen), and the Encyclopedia of India was only cited to "prove" that missionary activity had been occurring peacefully since the 1800s...which is not a fact in dispute, nor one that "proves" that these particular groups don't engage in forced conversions.  This is exactly the kind of absurd "fake logic" used by Holocaust Deniers, and used for similar reasons: Apologetics...not facts.  Apparently, he thinks if he repeats a lie often enough, it will become fact... -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  21:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Hindustan Times is a reliable source. Really. And its claim is eminently clear - but BM seems to think that anyone who uses such a source is a "Holocaust denier" or "Neo-Nazi" and his second post after being politely requested to redact the charge, is a real problem here.  Also note that the Encyclopedia of India is also a reliable source, as are many others like the New York Times which do not back up the POV sought.  Cheers. The issue here, moreover, is the egregious misconduct of BM.  And shown by his unwise claim just above that:
 * if he repeats a lie often enough, it will become fact.
 * Quod erat demonstrandum regarding his incivility utterly here as well. (Calling an editor a  liar has generally been found to be a personal attack)  Collect (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See what I mean? Neither the Hindustan Times, nor the Encyclopedia of India, says that the forced conversions didn't happen.  Although Indo-Asian News Service  and the BBC  say they did.  He ignores every link that treats them as fact, and takes the one that, while not in any way saying they didn't happen, just mentions that the claims come from another group, to somehow claim that this "proves" that it's all a farce...and that none of this ever happened.  The more he types, the more he proves that my original comparison was completely, 100%, apt.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  21:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And I ask you sir "Have you no shame?" -- you were brought here for incivility and personal attacks and all you do is double down on making ever worse attacks?  When a strong reliable source makes a statement - and all you do is attack the person who points it out as a "Neo-Nazi" and "Holocaust denier" and you add material to the article such as    I suggest is is now well past time for you to be "estopped" from such acts and attacks.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I DID just add material to the article...FROM A PEER-REVIEWED, NON-INDIAN JOURNAL. I even just copied and pasted the many examples throughout the article which back up that addition to the talk page.  Of course, I'm sure you'll just come up with another fake "reason" that all of the academics in question are just "making stuff up" to besmirch the "good name" of Christianity, or some other absurd nonsense.  Good luck with that, chief.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  22:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Holocaust denial is not just "fake logic", it is part of a strategy used by anti-Semites in order to bring public hatred and violence against Jews. It is normally considered a crime.  And the groups that promote holocaust denial are filled with people who have records for assault and other crimes.  The implication of your charge is that Collect is condoning violent actions against Hindus based on prejudice.  Surely this is quite a leap of logic and an extremely offensive charge that does nothing to further discussion.  TFD (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And how do they do that? Dismissal of the official record, and challenging the accounts of the victimized.  Collect is doing exactly that, and he's doing it to "prove" that the NLFT is not a Christian Terrorist group, and that they don't conduct forced conversions, or do anything else "bad" in the name of Christianity.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  21:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing personal attacks. Am seeing overwrought rhetoric. I'd encourage all involved editors to stop discussing other, stop discussing motivations of editors, and try to come to consensus on the content. I see an RFC has been started (good) but has degraded into more back and forth (not so good). Perhaps you could all take a break and wait for some other editors to comment? Nobody Ent 23:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What must someone say before it meets your criteria for a personal attack? TFD (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, they're really Wikipedia's criteria not mine per se. My operational criterium is "if I push this to ANI would their be overwhelming support that it was a personal attack, as indicated by a block or warning being issued?" In practice, the factors I look for are:
 * Is the comment direct or indirect? "You're a fucking moron" is easily in the PA realm, where as "that's moronic" would probably slide.
 * How egregious is the characterization? "POV-pusher," "puritan," and will likely slide, where as troll, facist, etc. are more likely PA.
 * What's the context? A phrase made as part of a discussion of context will get more of a pass that a bare insult, and an established user that is correct on policy gets more of a pass than a COI or POV or new editor.
 * What's the history? A comment made in response to a slightly less snarky comment gets more of a pass than a totally over the top escalation. Nobody Ent 11:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I strangely enough consider "Neo-Nazi" and '"Holocaust denier" to be about as bad as one can get. In fact, the use of such language is pretty much about as egregious as one can get on any public forum.  As for history - did you read the diffs given where he has been called to task in the past for similar behaviour?  Where there was a recent complaint from another editor about his behaviour?  How much history does one need here?  BM routinely uses such attacks on many pages, and that is why this WQA was filed - to tell him that he should neveer try this sort of attack again.    And pray tell why would "moron" be worse than calling someone a "Holocaust denier" and "Neo-Nazi"?   Seems your values are temporarily inverted. Collect (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In his initial statements, Bryon did not say that you or TFD are Holocaust deniers, or that you are neo-Nazis. He said that your positions were bad, and compared the degree of that badness to the degree of badness of Holocaust denial. Not that he was right to do that, of course. But it was your responses to Bryon that escalated the conflict into one in which you were supposedly actually called a neo-Nazi. Escalation is what eventually leads to sanctions. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * BM in separate incidents not connected with what you perceive to be TFD's and my "escalation" (note that TFD is also upset at BM here) : he should be treated like a Holocaust Denier,   Until then, have fun with their conspiracy theories and pseudohistorical revisionism, which really is no better than Holocaust Denial,   is like adding sources who are Holocaust Deniers to the page on the Holocaust as "credible" sources. What you are trying to do is called "Newspeak," and is a deliberate distortion of the historical record, solely for propaganda purposes,  and so on.  Not just to me, but use of intemperate language to many editors.  And while I appreciate yor position on the article talk page in support of BMs edits, I fear I demur on your defence of his language here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Honest advice, please take it or leave it: I've agreed with you all along that Bryon's use of language is too confrontational. I've never believed that you are a Nazi, and neither would anyone else reading the discussions. You should declare victory, and shrug it off, and move on. I say this as someone who has been told on my talk page that I ought to commit suicide. It appears that I haven't done it. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In an ideal situation, the purpose of opening a WQA thread is to get advice from someone who hasn't previously been involved. That's what Nobody Ent has provided, and I think that he is correct. Unfortunately, what's happening here is what's happening at the article talk page and at the geopolitical noticeboard: three editors all trying endlessly to get the Last WordTM in. If the three of you continue to insist on it, the dispute may have to move up the dispute resolution chain, but please understand that everyone involved will be subject to scrutiny. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note what I asked for ab initio - that BM be told not to use such language. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And I, for one, endorsed that part of your request. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Continued accusations of bad faith by Bwilkins/EatsShootsAndLeaves




A couple weeks ago, a tendentious editor (now blocked with his sock, as can be seen here and here if anyone wants to make sure I'm not lying) was reported on ANI for refusing to discuss his fraudulent and fringe edits after a many dozen warnings. Bwilkins discouraged anyone from blocking the editor, as if refusing to discuss anything after dozen final warnings wasn't enough rope to hang him with. After about a week, the tendentious editor went back to his usual game, finally earning a block on the 26.

On July 25 (over a week ago), I left a messages on Bwilkin's talk page asking him to take responsibility for the tendentious editor and block him. Under his sockpuppet account EatsShootsAndLeaves (DangerousPanda), he left a message on my talk page saying that Bwilkins "cannot" make the block as "they're" away. I changed the message from a request to an update, and dropped the issue. Yesterday (a week after I left the message), after it was all over with, EatsShootsAndLeaves digs the issue up and accuses me of bad faith.

WP:AGF says we're to assume that a person's intentions are good. I have. WP:AGF does not say that we cannot point out mistakes, and it does not say that we cannot question an administrator's course of action. That is what I did. AGF does, however, say we are not to make unfounded accusations of bad faith. That is what Bwilkins did.

I pointed this out, and asked why he logged in as someone else to say that he could not (not just would not, but "cannot") make the block, even though he could log in. I did not question his intentions, I assumed that he is acting in a way he believed would help the site. I said I believe he made a mistake. In response to this, he continued to accuse me of bad faith.

The discussion, before it was partly removed (his rights) with another accusation of bad faith (not his right), and archived (his rights) with another accusation of bad faith (not his rights), may be found here.

As I said before and again, I left a message a week ago pointing out a mistake, questioning a course of action, and (after he dug it up) eventually his responsibility, but at no point did I question his intentions to help the site. He was totally welcome to leave it alone, but he dug it up with an accusation of bad faith, and responded to defense against such accusations and questions about his capacity as an assault on his intentions.

Since he appears to decide that anything I post that he doesn't like is an accusation of bad faith, I quit posting on his page. Since he made that clear while continuing to accuse me of bad faith, I decided to come here.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And now he's calling me a tendentious editor, without evidence, over an issue that WP:NPOV doesn't even begin to factor into. That is nothing but a personal attack.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you know ESAL = Bwilkins? Nobody Ent 22:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * When he first dug it up, I thought ESAL was a different user who decided a comment I directed at Bwilkins was directed at him. He admitted it was him when I asked why he was defensive over something I directed at Bwilkins, and found on his userpage a userbox saying he was a legitimate sock for Bwilkins.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not seeing it -- can you link to the page with userbox? Nobody Ent 23:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On User:EatsShootsAndLeaves (at added here), there's a userbox saying "This user is an alternative account of someone with tens of thousands of edits, and they certify that it will not be used for sockpuppetry." "Someone with tens of thousands of edits" is a link to Bwilkins name. ESAL also asked that I spell his name right when I misspelled Bwilkins's name, and was defensive over a statement I directed to Bwilkins. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I truly have no need to respond here, let me just state the following: There's certainly no place on this project for badgering an admin for having done the right thing, simply because they didn't like it. Nothing but bad faith towards either the now-blocked editor, Wikipedia's goals, or me. I disengaged, and advised the editor to stay off my talkpages if this continued bad faith was still their goal - as such, they should have had someone else notify me of this WQA filing, as it's mere proof of their continued bad faith. dangerous panda 23:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) in the original ANI mentioned, the OP was increasingly rude, and adamant that someone needed to block a problematic editor, and refused to accept that the general desire was to attempt other means where possible.  Blocking is always the last resort.  Indeed, the resolution could have worked
 * 2) following the ANI, the editor-who-needed-to-be-blocked actually promised to mend their ways, but then broke the promise
 * 3) the OP's first post on User talk:Bwilkins includes a direct accusation that because I refused to block them a week earlier, I had "unleashed" them to further harm the project, and as such, it was my personal responsibility to fix the problem.  (You cannot get more bad-faith than to lay such blame)
 * 4) their continued returns to User talk:Bwilkins quite clearly show them belabouring a poor point, and continuing to insist as per above.
 * Please provide a diff or a link of my rudeness. I defended myself from being told to shut up by users who confused me with someone else who admittedly did get snippy, who didn't want to get involved except to snark and didn't bother helping with the issue at all after.  As I pointed out, if the users I defended myself from were WP:SPAs, they would have been blocked for trolling.
 * The editor's promise to mend his ways was almost immediately followed by breaking said promise.
 * My original post on User talk:Bwilkins said explained the various problems with then unblocked editor, said that the time to assume good faith with him was over, and said "he needs to be blocked, and it is only appropriate that you do it." Ian.thomson (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The EatsShootsAndLeaves account is linked to Bwilkins, so it's not a sockpuppet (although I'd prefer the link be made more explicitly). Talk page "bans" are a courtesy, not an enforceable policy; however if an editor tells someone to stay off their talk page they can't then reasonably complain about a lack of notification. As indicated by User_talk:Bwilkins, Bwilkins is not currently functioning as an admin, so there's not a problem with them refusing the unblock; however Bwilkins communication regarding his status has been cryptic.
 * My recommendations are:
 * As the editor in question has been blocked by another admin, Ian Thompson just let it go and move on.
 * Bwilkins be more explicitly clear in their talk page statement, perhaps changing "user" to "account" in the User_talk:Bwilkins statement.
 * If Bwilkins chooses to make further comments regarding the Bwilkins account using the ESAL account to be explicitly clear from the get-go that ESAL is a Bwilkins alternate account. Nobody Ent 11:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I did dropped the blocked editor issue over a week ago, that was context. A week later (couple days ago), ESAL comes in and accuses me of bad faith against him, a week after he first read the message and responded to it the first time. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nobody Ents perspective in that the alternative account isn't clearly marked enough (and his comments refer to himself in the third person), but that Ian Thompson just needs to let the issue go: that includes not interacting with bwilkins when you didn't need to. I also think Ian Thompson should be careful about calling something a sockpuppet, and also that requesting an admin who acted reasonably by not blocking another user to "admit" a mistake and perform the block himself is unnecessarily adversarial. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Snowcream




We had some content disputes previously. But my contention is regarding the uncivil comments of Snowcream, especially these two: 1 and 2. He accuses other editors or authors with Christian names as fanatics or evangelists which I tried to correct in the 1st occasion itself (see my reply). However, the second time he has personally attacked, equating me with fanatics, without any provocation in that line. In fact, my modifications in Kerala were according to the guidance I got from User:Drmies on my request here. Now, his comment has really hurted me and hence I'm here. I'm not asking to punish him, but he should be corrected and brought to the world of civility.  AshLey  Msg 09:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While I'm not seeing anything particularly amiss with the first diff provided, the "user's agenda is typical of Christian fanatics in Kerala" in the second is unnecessary, doesn't particularly advance the content discussion and rude. I'd encourage Snowcream to focus on the topic and not characterize the other Wikipedia editors participating. Nobody Ent 11:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind consideration. However, I would like to invite your attention to the first diff once again, especially to this sentence:. "A 'theory' that a fringe evangelical author like Cyriac Pullapilly makes deserves no space is the section." Cyriac Pullapilly is a historian and I wonder how Snowcream could oppose citing him in WP saying that he is an evangelist. I agree that the comment was not personal attack against me, but rather it was against the author that too without any evidence. What I feel is that Snowcream finds all writers with a Christian name as evangelists (the 1st case) or fanatics (the second case).  AshLey  Msg 12:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The appropriateness of a source is a discussion for the reliable source noticeboard, and is a fairly common bone of contention across Wikipedia. Anytime a source is discounted, you have the option to follow various dispute resolution processes dangerous panda  12:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I accept your view that for the 1st case, it is not the proper forum and apologize for my mistake.

 AshLey  Msg 12:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No apologies necessary -- Wikipedia dispute resolution isn't the most coherent system; I'm sure the purpose of the comment isn't to chastise for posting here but help you find the place that can best help you. Nobody Ent 14:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree with Ent. That remark was unproductive and, to play echo, it's the kind of remark that's typical of POV users. But it doesn't rise to the level that needs any kind of action, and if scrutiny of the user's particular POV leads to something it's not for this board. Sorry Ashley. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes Drmies, I got your point. If he is really adamant with advocacy that I suspect, then I'll seek the proper forum. This instance is another valuable experience for me and now I should move on to concentrate in the quality issues further. In an arbcom summary, I found that we should not be kind to those who adhering with uncivility. Hope, Snowcream will correct himself. Thanking you all AshLey  Msg 10:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Scjessey




Claims were made in the Thomas Sowell article which were violative of WP:BLP (contentious claims about a person sourced solely to an editorial opinion of MMfA, and not labelled as an opinion, but claimed as a fact in Wikipedia's voice) and where a discussion at WP:BLP/N resulted in agreement on that point.

Scjessey then proceeds to call me a liar repeatedly, even using the "BS" word in his vituperation.

He stated: No such discussion exists on BLP/N, so basically you are using lies to push your POV at

He templates me at  which I found interesting as my reverts per the requirements of WP:BLP were two in number and absolutely per WP:BLP as noted at BLP/N.

He also said at  '' No such discussion took place so I reverted the edit. Using lies to force a POV is not good '' And at '' Bullshit, Collect. The "finding" is that there was no finding. It descended into a stupid argument. The majority of people supported MMfA being used, however, so now you can add edit warring to lying and POV pushing. ''

In short, he seems to think that calling another editor a liar is acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia, and leaving templates on regulars is also a bit weird per normal WQA.

I asked him to redact at which is temperately worded Your accusation of lies''' I suggest you redact, as that is a personal attack. Cheers''

I know this is political silly season, but his edit war to include material which fails WP:BLP and WP:V (it asserts as "fact" an opinion from a group known to have political opinions on a column which a clear reading shows not to make any explicit "comparison" (Scjessey says it is enough to read an "implicit" comparison )  and asserts such opinions about several living persons) should be noted here, as well as his porpensity to ignore WP:AGF and WP:NPA inter alia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Appending: a long screed wherein he displays intenperate views of living people (including labelling tham as "idiot"s) and accusing me of "too involved in this to think rationally" - he needs a bit of a gallon of tea as a minimum when his response to a polite request to redact an attack gets into this length on his part. Cheers. BTW, since others also find it a "BLP issue" I think you might like to listen to them as well. Collect (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC) @SCJ -- As I iterated above and on the article talk page, and at BLP/N etc., MMfA's opinions must be labelled as opinion -- it is the labelling of their opinion as a fact in Wikipedia's voice which everyone objects to. Collect (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC) @SCJ again - the "misleading edit summary" was exactly correct and accurate -- that you accuse me of "changing my story" is simply digging your own hole deeper word-by-word. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That wasn't your stance before. Your stance was to simply revert with a misleading edit summary. Now you change your story. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice one, Collect. You can now add wikilawyering to the growing list of stuff (edit warring, misleading edit summaries, POV-pushing, lying et al) you're amassing on your Wikipedia résumé. That Media Matters for America is somehow more biased than the likes of Sarah Palin and Louie Gohmert is a fantasy. MMfA is a reliable source offering a notable opinion about a notable column by a notable writer, and you are blocking its inclusion because you don't like it, claiming it's a BLP issue. Shame on you. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's clearly a BLP/N discussion. Calling another editor a liar is pretty much always inappropriate -- lie means falsehood with intent to deceive and we rarely actually know another editor's intent. It'd be best for involved parties to strictly focus on content and stop discussing each other -- continued escalation won't benefit Wikipedia or any of the involved editors. Note WP:DTR is an essay, as is WP:TR, so posting a template is not a policy violation. In fact, because templates use generic wording, it may, at times, be preferable to use them instead of intemperate words written in the heat of the moment. (If an editor doesn't like a template on their page I encourage them to simply remove it without comment.) Nobody Ent 15:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We should comment on the edit, not the user, and avoid unparliamentary language. One may say for example that a comment is inaccurate without accusing another editor of being deliberately misleading.  TFD (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not good Wikiquette to use this board as a means to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Wikilawyering is a distasteful habit. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's needlessly inflaming; accusations that Collect is not assuming good faith here. I don't see any evidence that he is posting here to get the upper hand in a content dispute. Treat what happens here as having no implications on any content dispute; except for possibly helping to resolve issues of perceived incivility. For example, it is fairly common practice for posts to be made here during other forms of dispute resolution to deal with specific issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Scjessey knows, and quite often owns his...harshness. He knows, this board is pointless. Arkon (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have little patience for intransigence, and I'm unashamedly acerbic with those who persist in using Wikipedia as a campaign tool. And as Arkon rightfully says, this board is about as useful as a broken pencil... pointless. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I find that argument highly ironic since your primary purpose here is to use WP as a campaign tool. This particualar incident a perfect example of you doing it!  Arzel (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So you see, everyone just accuses everyone else. Case closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: Scjessey seems quite unable to heed what everyone has said
 *  "Debating Republicans is like playing chess with a pigeon. You could be the worlds best chess player, but the pigeon is still going to knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and walk around triumphantly." 

Which I think certeinly is, at the least, ill-mannered, and showing continual cobative behaviour here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't we can effectively discuss anything here since Scjessey is already determined that it won't work. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought the pigeon quote was pretty funny. I think it aptly captures the frustration of trying to keep an article neutral when it is under siege by intransigent, conservative editors ideologues like those who have attacked me here. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which editors? Same as Wikiquette_assistance? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What's that got to do with me? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing; you mentioned conservative editors, and so I am wondering who that includes. That thread also involves conservative editors. 22:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It includes the editors who have abused Wikiquette to attack me, but I refuse to be drawn into naming names. What useful purpose would that serve, other than to throw gasoline on the fire? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your deliberate acid is not helping, man. I sympathize with you, but please consider: "Someone may very well be an idiot. But telling them so is neither going to increase their intelligence nor improve your ability to communicate with them." -Hugetim (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Granted it will have no effect on them, but at least it will make me feel just a little bit better while I grit my teeth and continue to wade through the effluvia. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Report by Mark Marathon




I made good faith reverts to the tree article, accompanied by a lengthy description of why I made the edits n the article's talk page. This poster persistently reverted while refusing to discuss the issue, in contravention of WP:BRD. In an attempt to achieve consensus I raised the issue on his User Talk page, only to be called a jackass.
 * At least it wasn't a gentoo - among all the possible sphenisciform insults you seem to have got off lightly, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the Wikipedia community's response to being personally insulted when attempting to achieve consensus? Lame jokes? Clearly my attempts t resolving this issue here have been a total waste of time. I will know better next time. 10:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Marathon (talk • contribs)
 * Well, I stand guilty as charged for the "jackass" exclamation, uttered after the user templated me with a 3R warning after my second revert. This is water under the bridge: the user claimed that the edit was "explained fully" on the talk page; I reverted because the talk page commentary came five minutes before the giant revert and the user didn't see fit to wait for commentary. This was a major overhaul reverted (initially) without even an edit summary, and in my opinion the user should have waited. But it was the unjustified template (which is decidedly different from "raising the issue") that ticked me off--something which I could call an insult as well. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Drmies, please don't call other editors "jackass." Mark Marthon, please don't template established users unless you're willing to accept a little blowback. Nobody Ent 20:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Additionally, Mark needs to understand WP:BRD better.  He boldly made a change, which was reverted.  AFter this there should have been discussion, but Mark went on to revert again and again.LedRush (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, Nobody Ent. BTW, I noticed that days after the event, and 13 minutes after filing here, Mark Marathon tried his luck at the 3R board, again miscounting reverts (note the diff given for my supposed number four). This forum shopping is indicative of sour grapes--he was blocked for the edit war, with a clear 4R. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They've only been here since April. Talks awhile to learn how to work collaboratively. Nobody Ent 21:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * True. But real interest in the Tree article should manifest itself at this stage of the game in the article and the article talk page, not at some noticeboard. BTW, I have no hard feelings--Uncle G has pointed out that some of his comments were perfectly sensible, and what I care about is that the article gets better than it is. It is a core article after all and would benefit from more interest. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've left a note on the editors page. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Incivil comments by BatteryIncluded




I have made some script-assisted ref cleaning edits to Curiosity rover article (ex. and ), focusing on reducing clutter through list-defined references and fixing bare URLs through WP:REFLINKS. BatteryIncluded did a partial revert of my edit,, created a badly messed up version of this Main Page featured (In the News) article that persisted for about twenty minutes before his edits were in turn reverted by another editor.

The reason I am posting here is that BatteryIncluded besides the damaging reverts posted a disparaging comment on my talk page "you took the time and effort messing with the references and violating not only common sense- but the MOS"... "it is not your talk page which you can load with flashy tricks and exentricities disregarding the effort of others". While not very civil, this would not make me post here, butr afer I responded on his talk in a civil fashion his second response escalated a higher level of incivility with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Piotrus&diff=506393767&oldid=506349551 "we have a cowboy that not just ignores the rules but denies they exist"...There is nothing beneficial in your little bot/edit. I suggest you dedicate to articles to your caliber such as Betty Crocker. There, you can place your flashy bulshit and Hello Kittys in the reference section]." Using disparaging, uncivil and vulgar language to offend editors ("articles of your caliber"), telling editors to leave an article, violates not only WP:CIV but also WP:NPA, and considering that those comments came after that editors' own edits messed up a main page article, coupled with misunderstanding of policy (while claiming that I am the one who does not understand it) makes this case one where I think an official talk page warning (for incivility, at least) is warranted.

On an ending note, BatteryIncluded was blocked once for incivility, through it is an old block (2009), and anyway, I don't think the above is a blockable offense. A warning should suffice, I feel. Alternatively, I'll gladly accept an apology, upon which I will remove my request for an official warning. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * BatteryIncluded's edit (and the four after it) are the ones that really concern me. To delete 20k of content, even if you don't understand its technical significance, such that the article turns bright red with what's clearly a broken references list is a problem. With the following edits also being related to references, the editor has no excuse that they didn't notice this. So this is a "current event" article where one's edit (however innocent) has trashed it and their reaction was just to walk away and leave it in that state is a failure on several counts, including WP:COMPETENCE. If you screw up, either fix it, undo it, or at least seek help.
 * To follow this up with a comment on the article talk page blaming someone else for the problem, and to place what are very clear NPAs on their talk page, is far from acceptable.
 * BatteryIncluded - cut this out, and cut it out right now. If you can't play nice, then don't play. If you won't and proceed to repeat it, then this is clear ANI fodder and I'd anticipate some rapid blocking. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * BatteryIncluded recent reaction: a third offensive post on my talk page, removing the thread about this situation from his talk page, removing an uninvolved editor comment (which I presume is related to this incident). It's one thing to make a mess and fix it, or apologize for it, it's another to keep ignoring it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I did try earlier today to strongly encourage his participation here. He simply deleted it from his talkpage. WP:BATTLE issues it appears dangerous panda 18:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It feels like a pile-on


I'm bringing up three people at once, not because they're identical or all of their actions are synchronized, but because they're like-minded fellow travelers who have acted in concert, sometimes tacitly, sometimes (see below!) quite openly, to make things difficult for me. At this point, I feel singled out and piled on.

I ran into these people while working on adding citations and correcting provable bias in political articles, which led to some frenzied reverts and fruitless WP:DRN attempts. Things took a turn for the worse when Lionelt publicly discussed his plans to get me removed from Wikipedia. To show that this is an active plan, not some innocent editorializing, he followed up with an attempt to get me blocked for what looked to him like edit warring. This flopped for lack of substance, but one of my comments was misconstrued and used by Belchfire as the basis for a spurious ANI claim. (Correction: Belchfire didn't file the "insult" ANI, he just piled on.) The pièce de résistance was Lionelt's next 3RR report, which falsely claimed I hit 4RR. Even though the claim was false (and even after I revealed it to be false), the block stuck.

Since then, I've barely edited at all, except in talk pages, but that hasn't slowed their efforts. I noticed ViiriK talking about me, but said nothing until the conversation switched to openly conspiring to harm an editor who had supported me. After I warned their victim, ViriiK struck back with an ANI, which got him nowhere. The latest attack, this time by Belchfire, is a secret fishing expedition claiming I'm a sock puppet, which will flop soon enough.

Throughout all this, the three have acted as a bloc. They speak to each other and their allies in code phrases -- "a certain person", "M", and "our mutual friend" -- like they're stock characters in some badly-written spy novel, slinking around in alleys to exchange attache cases packed with military secrets. Their choice of covert language reveals that they know that what they're doing would not be seen as admirable. They've been absolutely unrelenting in their repeated attempts to get rid of me, and I think it's fair to say that WP:AGF is no longer relevant. While they've attacked me many times, and had only one small success so far, it's a game of odds and it's only a matter of time before they fill my score sheet with ever-lengthening blocks, an assigned mentor, some topic and interaction blocks, and eventually a community ban. To remind you, this is exactly what Lionelt promised to do in the first place.

Just for contrast, consider that I haven't filed anything heavier than a few WP:DRN attempts that got mobbed to death by them. I'm not trying to make trouble, I'm trying to get them off my back so that I don't have to spend all of my time defending myself against false accusations and a concerted attempt to blacken my record and get me pushed out of Wikipedia. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but it sure does look like they're out to get me. :-)

I'm here on the advice of User:Alanscottwalker, in the hopes that this problem can be solved voluntarily, without escalating to WP:ANI or even WP:RFCC. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest you find actual evidence of a cabal before making any such assertions here. From what I have seen, you made a great number of contentious edits in a very active manner in the political silly-season area, and with a propensity to revert when people pointed out that you should read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD.   Else you may, indeed, be faced with community-imposed sanctions.  Cheers. `Collect (talk)
 * I thought about whether I should include you and Ebe, but decided that you're not really important enough. As for actual evidence, I think that Lionelt's threat is pretty good evidence. Don't you? But, hey, thanks for coming in here and threatening me! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you view my comments as a "threat" then I think I understand exactly where the problem is. And I suspect so do the others here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's very funny. If only you were a neutral third party, maybe you could get away with calling this a helpful suggestion instead of a threat. If only. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For more on the edit warring question, see User talk:Still-24-45-42-125. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your "help", but I already linked to that. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to publicly thank Collect and Guy for proving my point by joining in the pile-on. Thanks, guys! I couldn't do this without you. No, really, I couldn't. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: This entire issue has gone on long enough. I suggest that all parties refrain from making any more reports and refrain from talking to or about eachother. Ryan Vesey 19:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would love to, but they keep reporting me! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify that I don't believe it is only you that needs to drop this. To the extent that a failure to report is not damaging to the encyclopedia, both parties should not report eachother, should not warn eachother, and to every possible extent should refrain from reverting eachother; however, BRD should be followed if necessary.  If an edit is reverted in the sake of BRD accusations of bad faith on either party should not occur.  If BRD was followed, any concerns about reports for edit warring would be moot.  Back to my earlier comment,if possible, I'd like to see a Bold, Discuss process being followed by these editors, without the pre-discussion revert.  (Applicable to non-contentious information). Ryan Vesey 19:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, what you're suggesting is tantamount to an interaction ban, and that item is on Lionelt's road map for getting rid of me. I think you can see why I would reject this suggestion. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not to be nit-picky here, but... I didn't file that "spurious ANI claim" that I've been charged with. Personally, I've been doing my best to avoid this editor, and I wish he would do his best to avoid me.  Unfortunately, that's not what's been happening., , , .  The SPI was given Check User endorsement by the responding admin, so it's really not at issue here.  Absent anything else that really requires a response on my part, I think that's all I need to say.   Belch fire - TALK  19:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See, you're doing it again: calling me an SPI. That's a lie and an insult, especially when you know that, back when I edited as an IP, I focused primarily on philosophy articles. What you're doing here is slinging mud on me in a desperate attempt to get the focus away from you and onto me. The result is that you're still proving my point. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So far, Belchfire has come here only to insult me and state that he won't be participating. This is almost better than ViriiK, whose only response so far has been to erase my obligatory notice. Yeah, sure, the problem is all me. If only I wasn't so difficult! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To the WQA reviewers: this is false. Why?
 * A) I initiated a conversation with Lionet expressing my frustration dealing with a POV warrior here:.
 * B) The conversation between myself and I later on took place at my own talk page which is still up there. I knew who Lionet was talking about in regards to "Our Mutual Friend" because I started the conversation 13 minutes before the post on his talk page.
 * C) Still-IP apparently made a friend a long time before all that and I didn't notice that so I went to leave a comment at Machine Elf's page here which Machine Elf later minimized that here .  You'll notice that it says "BITE ME".  The subject was over the accusation he made that we're supposedly conspiring to get him banned although his first 3RR warning came before that conversation even happened.
 * D) He claimed that I'm speaking in code word in regard's to "M" aka Machine Elf but that was on Ebe123's page so I didn't have the name off hand.  I was thinking it was "M something 1975" so I instead shortened it to M.  Maybe Machine Elf should feel honored he has the same acronym as M from the James Bond series?   and I edited that title to avoid saying Still's name because he has a HABIT of jumping in my conversations that I've started with other people.  See:,    and there's plenty more.
 * E) Ebe123 was trying to advise Still-IP such as taking on a mentor but that went nowhere and he ended up getting in a debate with Machine Elf on Still-IP's page which I was following BUT did not comment except on Ebe123's own talk page. Machine Elf was debating Ebe123 in defense of Still-IP hence why I brought up the conversation there.  There was no "plot" to get Machine Elf banned.  I simply stated that Machine Elf made a template that had the obvious message of saying "BITE ME" and Ebe123 merely opined that I could submit an ANI which I did not submit.  Why?  Because it's just a "BITE ME" comment, nothing more.  Machine Elf did nothing to me outside of that so there was no point to file such a report. See:
 * F) He's been warned and advised to leave me alone constantly from multiple editors such as leaving stupid comments on my talk page and making small changes my inactive projects which I have touched for almost 6 years, . He's been trying to come up with clever ways to get my attention and say something against him that he hope to use against me.  Notice I'm not talking to him here?  I still refuse to talk to him and still request that he stays off my talk page permanently.  He however refuses to do that and has been leaving useless statements such as:      .  He claims to be discussing those reverts I've made against other people and why I shouldn't be doing them.  However he should not be discussing them as I did those reverts against other people.  I use a tool called "Vandal Fighter" to stop vandalism from IP addresses and he found selective cases where I made a mistake but if you look at those page history, there were obvious cases of vandalism which I've reverted.
 * Here he acknowledged that I told him to stay off my talk page and did not heed those commands from myself to him.
 * This one is a funny gem because that page he's accusing me of vandalism, it was being vandalized by a DPRK Apologist who has been banned for a week now see:
 * Another thing is that I've been involved in a DRN that he initiated which he ended up being the adverse party and he did not accept the outcome. That was one of his three DRN's where everytime he ended up being the adverse party.
 * What's next? He's going to claim that I'm following him here although he used the WQA notice on my talk page?  I'm done with him and I still refuse to talk to him.  He's clearly hounding me and refuses to stop doing that.  ViriiK (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, ViriiK. Thanks for coming here, but please don't make false statements. In that link, I pointed out that you were edit-warring, accused someone else of vandalism and marked a non-minor edit as minor. Anyone who doubts what I just said is encouraged to check. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the part about refusing to stop posting to your talk page isn't true, either. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There is issues with POV, but I don't think WQA can help with this sort of long term issue. I think it is evident that some editors aren't editing for neutrality, for example, Lionel wanted, to add to the Chick-fil-A article, Talk:Chick-fil-A, about "the persecution of Chick-fil-A restauranteurs by out of control militant gay activists". This seems blatantly POV. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IRWolfie-, I'm also skeptical about WQA helping, but I'm giving it a try because it was suggested. I think this problem is complex because it's fundamentally a content issue that manifests as an ongoing series of attacks on whoever messes with "their" content. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If the issues are fundamentally about content then I suggest WP:DRN or similar. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To be frank, I tried DRN first, but it turns out that there's no real effort to resolve disputes. Instead, a volunteer counts up how many people are on each side of an issue, ignores any policies about content, and declares a winner. It's basically pointless, particularly since it desperately depends upon good faith. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is WP:MEDCOM above that. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. Along with WP:NPOVN, these are two places to discuss specific content issues. I thought of escalating, but I'm spending all of my time just dealing with the onslaught of attempts to get me blocked. Moreover, the problem isn't the content of a specific article, it's that these three, along with a handful of others, are conservatives who seem to believe that they WP:OWN the contents of all articles about conservatives (such as Romney) and seem willing to do whatever's necessary to maintain that ownership. Is there a place for reporting that? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, this just isn't stopping. Just now, Belchfire posted a "friendly" message to Guy, providing ammunition against me in the form of a post that can be taken out of context. On the one hand, Belchfire studiously refuses to respond to anything I say on talk pages, conveniently avoiding any points I make that he can't handle. On the other, he talks about me behind my back, again in cryptic little ways. This is not my imagination here; there's a pattern of stalking. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so we've seen a lot of debate take place on this, but let's cut to the chase. @Still-24-45-42-125, what specific changes could these editors make to their future behavior that would satisfy your complaint here, keeping in mind that they are human beings and not perfect, and still allow a reasonable give and take in debates? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanu (talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If I suggest anything about how they should be convinced to follow policy, I'd just sound bloodthirsty, so I will instead speak of my goals and leave the methods to administrators:
 * 1) I'd like to be able to edit Wikipedia without having to constantly look over my shoulder to see what they're doing next to get rid of me. I suspect this would require them to admit that this was their agenda and make a binding promise not to further it. I don't want them to go pick a new target, either (see User:SkepticAnonymous). This just has to stop. The lynch mob must be disbanded permanently, whatever that takes.
 * 2) I'd like to be able to do my part in keeping political articles neutral without having this whole group pile on to out-!VOTE me (which is a fair description of what talk pages and WP:DRN routinely turned into). This is part of a larger issue of fighting ownership and resolving disputes on their merits, not just a show of hands. A small but cohesive bloc can fake consensus all too easily.
 * 3) I'd like a clean record. The block I have now is the direct result of an intentionally false report, and it's a stain.
 * 4) Anything that stops me from being able to edit Wikipedia normally -- interaction bans, topic bans -- would be a cure that's worse than the disease.
 * That's all I've got. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I provided that information to Guy because it appears he is still trying to reason with you. You seem to be insisting that 3RR is an entitlement, and that edit-warring up to the 3RR limit is your right.  But it isn't, and the diff I provided to Guy clearly shows that an admin has already clued you in on that.  Put another way, you have no excuse for not knowing the advisory nature of WP:3RR.  I think Guy should be aware, so I informed him.    Belch fire - TALK  23:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's demonstrably false. I never claimed that I could revert up to three times regardless. In fact, the comment that ViriiK immediately deleted from his page also made that point to him, showing that I understood this.
 * To remind you, the problem with the block is that Lionelt's false 4RR claim is what convinced the admin to disregard my BLP defense and conclude that I was edit-warring. He thought I was using BLP as an excuse to hit 4RR, when in fact, I was using it to explain why I went as far as 3RR despite normally restricting myself to 2RR. Take away the fake 4RR and the BLP defense makes sense, leaving me at 2RR. At that point, it becomes pretty hard to claim that I'm violating WP:3RR while keeping myself at 2RR voluntarily. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, you were blocked for violating WP:EW, not WP:3RR, as shown pretty clearly in the notification you were given . It was a 24-hour block, for crissake.  Get over it.   Belch fire </tt>- TALK  23:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The way you see it has nothing to do with the way it is. The way it is, Ed was convinced that I hit 4RR. Lionelt went so far as to poison the well against me by saying, "The pièce de résistance is revert #4. He knows he's about to cross the bright line so he invokes the BLP exemption." And Ed was too hasty to actually bother checking whether Lionelt was telling the truth, so he bought this story, applying the same generalization to my two previous edits.
 * It was only after I pointed out the correct count that Ed changed his tune and found a new excuse for the block. Problem is, this excuse could apply just as easily to all of the other editors who hit 3RR on that article in the last 24 hours before my block, which shows that this was just a way to avoid admitting to an error. Bottom line: Ed didn't even bother counting. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And to put this in context, no, it's not just a 24-hour block, it's the first of the many blocks Lionelt swore he'd hit me with. Just like your "innocent" fishing expedition to get me blocked as a sock. Both are a means to an end: shutting me up so that you can edit political articles without having to deal with my corrections. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Monday
Thank you for the reply, Still-24-45-42-125. #3, I don't think there's any way presently to remove things in the block log. I myself have an unfair block from SlimVirgin, who made an assumption about me without proper evidence, but it is there and I live with that 'stain', as you put it. #4 is something that is very much in your own hands. My only recommendation is that you do your best to stay cool and respond calmly. Learn to discuss before editing or edit with caution and revert more than once at your peril. Its more tedious, but safer, to just debate an edit than to make an edit and revert and revert.

OK, so I'd like to hear from the other editors now. He's clearly enumerated what he'd like to see from Wikipedia, and for simplicity's sake, let's focus on his top two items. Lionelt, ViriiK, and Belchfire, can you guys see his perspective on this and work toward some resolution? Maybe just take a break from each other for a bit, and maybe take a break from whatever articles seem to be causing the most contention? -- Avanu (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll step back and let them speak. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Are only the three names listed allowed to speak, or can the rest of us that Still-24-45-42-125 has accused of wrongdoing speak as well?


 * Let's review, shall we? So far Still-24-45-42-125 has informed us of the following:


 * The WP:DRN Process is the problem. Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.


 * The first of two dispute resolution volunteers to review the case is the problem. Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.


 * "The problem is with Wikipedia." Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.


 * The admins at WP:AN/EW are the problem. Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.


 * The admin who blocked him is the problem. Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.


 * The second admin who declined his unblock request is the problem. Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.


 * The third administrator who reviewed the case and agreed with the first two is the problem. Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.


 * The second of two dispute resolution volunteers to review the case is the problem. Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.


 * All of WP:DRN is the problem. Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.


 * I am going to go out on a limb and predict that the next thing we will learn is that WQA and its particpants are the problem. Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.


 * Also see:


 * Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring


 * User talk:Still-24-45-42-125


 * User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 112


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * When you posted t his earlier, I pointed out that the list is very misleading, to the point of being counterproductive. It's mostly just two items -- the block was unfair and DRN amounted to voting -- stretched out, and some of these items (like the one about Wikipedia being the problem) aren't even about me. But, hey, if you just want me to look bad and don't feel constrained by intellectual honesty, you're doing great! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Guy, wouldn't it be better to maintain at least some vestige of the detachment you demonstrated while the dispute was at DR? Again you're going out of your way to interject yourself emphatically to Still's detriment. Again, by objectifying him as a problem, if not the problem, you attempt to rubbish his grievances without engaging them in a substantive way. Given your admirable efforts at DR, perhaps you feel slighted by Still's failure to qualify the exasperation he expressed to me on my talk page (later scandalized at AN/I. “M”... "the evil queen of numbers", God save me). Perhaps you even feel objectified yourself as a disposable process? Your first link to Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard (diff with discussion) was innocuous: Steven Zhang responded "That does make sense, and is what we try to achieve at DRN - the problem is that long posts given by parties can make it easy for a volunteer to lose track..." and you give him 'The Teamwork Barnstar': . Yet, on your list above, you dismiss his efforts sarcastically:  How that comically applies to the newcomer in every case, I too leave as an exercise for the reader and I'll leave it here as well and return to his talk page.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735   07:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Re "the block was unfair": Two admins reviewed the block and decided that it was proper. Re: "DRN amounted to voting", another dispute resolution volunteer reviewed the case and found that it was properly handled, plus you complained on the WP:DRN talk page and got zero support. Pointing out that the consensus is against you is not "voting." You are having a lot of conflict with a wide variety of people. Perhaps you should ask yourself what the common factor in all of those conflicts is. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a patient person, but I do have my limits. Do I really need to explain why a block based on a 4RR that doesn't exist is less than proper? Do I need to explain why a process that solved nothing and led to more conflict is less than perfect? Do I really need to repeat why blaming the victim is highly counterproductive? I hope not, because this stuff should have been pretty clear the first time around. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's really paramount that you understand that little to nothing can be done about a previous block. You requested to be unblocked, it was denied and now it has expired. There is no expunging of block logs that is possible to the best of my knowledge, and if there was, it wouldn't be wasted on such a petty matter (especially on an expired block). Now that that is out of the way, is there something recent to discuss, or is this a simple rehashing of issues now gone? If your intent is to not be troubled by a particular group of editors, it's probably not best to have dragged them all here for an issue that is over. If there is a future or on-going thread about your behavior that one of them reported (to the best of my knowledge, there isn't one, though I could be wrong) kindly link to it so there is something to review at present. Regards, — <font color="DD0000">Moe <font color="0000FF">ε  09:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? What stops Ed from adding a one-hour block with the comment, "The previous block was my mistake. Sorry." and then cancelling that block? It would leave a clear notice for future admins that I have never been legitimately blocked. This one block is meaningless, but Lionelt has stated that it's part of his plan to get me banned for life, and that adds some meaning. I am frankly amazed that no admin has taken it upon themselves to block Lionelt for his threats. If there can be anything less civil than plotting to remove an opponent, I can't think of it. Can you? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Still-24-45-42-125, I understand your frustration here but fairness is not an absolute. Just as the SPI that was filed against you was shown to be an error, other errors will happen when you dive into hotly debated areas.  Like in the real world, the side with the most numbers tends to "win", and in an argument, those with the calmest demeanor tend to get taken more seriously.  Sometimes style wins over substance.  Over the long haul, Wikipedia is actually pretty good about self correcting but there is no justice here, only a bunch of editors, some more fair than others, some more biased than others.  As to the block, every admin is different as there are no hard and fast rules so blocks will happen faster on controversial topics than they would on more mundane topics.  From my observation, there are a lot of opinions on this topic and none of the editors are exactly neutral, which is why the talk page (and sometimes full protection) is needed.  But Wikipedia is never going to be "fair" because that means different things to different people.
 * Articles on heated topics sway left and right, but eventually settle into neutrality once the heat dies down. Right now, there is more heat than light with this topic.  I do empathize, but people "acting as a bloc" isn't always a cabal, sometimes it is a consensus, and consensus can change with time.  Edit warring loses you support and you have to be patient about change when you think you are right, but outnumbered, and present your ideas on the talk page and politely work towards change.  This isn't the only hot topic here, it is just the hot topic du jure, and if you want to be effective, you have to do things differently.  It isn't enough to be right, you also have to get along.  I didn't say it was always fair (and it isn't), it is just how things work on this imperfect Wiki, in this imperfect world. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 10:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Tuesday

 * Dennis, thank you for your comments. My take on this is that, contrary to WP:NOJUSTICE, it's entirely up to us whether we want to work to create fairness and justice. Sure, it doesn't happen on its own, but then again, what good thing does?
 * Others have expressed deep concerns about Lionelt's "WikiProjects: Conservatism" amounting to little more than a vote-stacking mechanism to ensure a bloc that defines the apparent consensus. What distinguishes this illegitimate illusion from genuine consensus is its built-in disregard for WP:NPOV: it exists solely to add conservative POV. This is, to say the least, troubling. Now that its leader has graduated to issuing fatwas (against both Machine Elf and myself), we should all be concerned.
 * I recognize my own lack of neutrality, which is why I consciously edit for the WP:ENEMY. What bothers me are those who imagine themselves to be neutral when it's clear that political or personal concerns control them. I edited the Romney campaign article in good faith while consciously taking steps to avoid edit-warring. Despite this, I was blocked on the basis of a false report. I see no reason why I should pretend this is legitimate. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I will note that this diff that Still-24-45-42-125 provided does look like someone passing potential ammo around: . I still think there is an inappropriate cause behind this; but the best plan of action is to hang in and to never give ammo. You can not be blocked if you never edit war, never engage in tendentious behaviour, are never disruptive or uncivil etc. I've edited some highly controversial (fringe) articles and never been blocked for doing so because I avoid all of these things. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and this is my number one concern. I'd like to go back to actually editing, but I seem to have to spend all my time defending myself against one dishonest claim or another. It's tiring. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is becoming a rather useless thread. Edit-warring and WP:3RR are closely related and in some cases interchangable.  You can actually be edit-warring after a single edit' in some cases.  Having reviewed 24-45's specific edits, the edit-warring is indeed clear and obvious.  Arguing that the block is/was somehow invalid is like arguing to a police officer that he should have charged you with driving in the wrong lane and speeding, instead of street racing.  When independent admins review the block and find it valid, guess what: it's likely valid.
 * The purpose of a block is twofold: prevent current damage, and to lower the rate of repeat offenses. 24-45 ... what's most important right now is how you act in the future.  Will you follow WP:DR or simply edit war (you might want to read WP:1RR for a taste of possible future restrictions).
 * If you feel you're being "piled-on" (and trust me, I know what true piling-on feels like), your best choice is to accept what was a valid decision, then stop bringing it up. Single-incidents of a problem will eventually fade into nothingness ... unless YOU prevent that from happening.  The more noise you make about it, the more likely it will be raised later against you.  Simple hint: don't edit in such a way that it will ever need to be raised again.
 * In short: the block was valid. Drop it.  Become a good editor.  Move on.  <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">dangerous <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">panda  11:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with you. A block for past behavior cannot have correctional or rehabilitative effect if it is rightfully seen as illegitimate. If I was edit-warring, so was almost everyone who touched that article. I was singled out only because Lionelt had a stated goal of getting me banned permanently and was willing to bear false witness against me, claiming 4RR when my own count was 2RR. I am by no means the first to point out a culture of mutual support among admins, and I'm hardly imagining it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NOTTHEM again. Pay attention to what it says. Your answer is there. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a helpful response. In particular, it starts by claiming I was blocked for what I did, when the truth is that I was blocked because of the false accusation that Lionelt made. If not for the false report, I would not be blocked. And, to be clear, if people got blocked just for (arguably) hitting 3RR on that article, there'd be nobody editing it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My response wasn't what you wanted, but it is what you need. Your assertions have been refuted. Repeating the assertions over and over is not going to convince anyone, You need to take responsibility for your actions. Again, read WP:NOTTHEM. Your answer is there. I can't help it is you refuse to accept the answer. I can assure you of one thing, though. If you repeat the misbehavior, your claims that the blocking administrator is a fool who was easily manipulated by Lionelt will not prevent you from being blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You really need to stop trying to stick your words in my mouth. Please show me where I called an admin a fool. If you can't, then you need to immediately strike this claim. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Still-24, welcome to wikipedia. It's kind of a messy place. Sorry. The written guidelines/policies mostly describe established practice rather the prescribe a strict protocol. As mentioned, block logs aren't redacted (I've argued for such in the past and been totally shot down). I'll reiterate DB's reference to WP:NOJUSTICE I wrote the original draft. The good news (from a certain point of view) is no one can get you blocked. Whether you get blocked again or not depends on what you do, not what someone else does. The best response to cabals and folks talking behind your back is to ignore them. Nobody Ent 21:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dennis Brown, in the interest of promoting peace and tranquility, it is important that we use precise language here, and not convey any wrong ideas or enable misconceptions. The SPI was not "an error".  It was a legitimate investigation that cleared the original suspect.  There is a difference.  The investigation received Check User endorsement.  A sockpuppet was, in fact, identified.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  17:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My words did have precision. I was the clerk that endorsed the CU and followed though.  The idea that he was a master/sock was in error.  Good faith on both of our parts, but still an error.  The socks found were in no relation to him and were not listed.  That other socks were found was accidental, but fortunate.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was blocked this time because Lionelt falsely claimed I hit 4RR. What's to stop him from doing it again? No, really, what? I'm asking. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The blocking admin does not take someone's word for it - they do their own checks. You were rightly blocked for edit-warring; period.  Again, and for the final time, you need to move forward as an editor, not backward.  <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">dangerous <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">panda  09:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Citation needed. All the evidence points to Ed not having checked to see whether any of the reported reverts were effectively adjacent. Ed hasn't claimed otherwise, either. Instead, he and the other admins have taken the line that, once there's a block, the falsehood of the original reason no longer matters. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * People can be blocked without hitting 4RR. I've not blocked someone who has hit 6RR, and blocked people who have hit only 3RR before, as edit warring depends on the circumstances.  No one is entitles to 3 reverts in 24 hours, it is only that the 4th revert is considered a bright line and no other rationale is needed.  This is particularly true with heated topics, since the purpose is to prevent disruption.  Sincerely, it is better to just move on.  Having a block on your record isn't the end of the world.  We just had an admin pass RfA unanimously with one on his record, so it isn't a bar to anything.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 08:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that everyone who edited that article was entitled to hit 3RR, with exactly one exception. I'd also point out that I was acting under the knowledge that I was exceeding 2RR only for BLP/3RRNO.
 * And that's the rub: If the rules are arbitrary then compliance is a matter of luck. I was consciously avoiding edit-warring by sticking to 2RR, discussing content on Talk and using DRN. I went so far as 3RR because I thought it was necessary and allowed. While I slept, someone with not only an open grudge against me but a stated plan to get me blocked lodges a false report against me, claiming 4RR, and I get blocked. Is this really something you want to defend as just? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Still-24-45-42-125, editors can be blocked even if they have not exceeded 3RR. The SPI request was correct because there were similarities between your editing and that of a blocked editor.  The fact that you were blocked for edit-warring and reviewing administrators refused to unblock is proof that the 3RR report was not totally unfounded.  The fact that the administrators at SPI authorized a check-user is proof that there was sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation.  In both cases the call was made by administrators and if you had not edit-warred and are not a sock then no action could be taken.
 * The ANI report for "have you stopped beating your wife" was in my opinion unfounded and notice it was quickly dismissed. While I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that you meant the comment literally, you need to assume good faith.  However, you need to realize that irony, humour and analogies should be avoided because they can lead to misunderstandings.  Instead, you should have simply said, "That is a loaded question".
 * It seems that other editors are discussing you and I suggest that they stop doing this. If it continues then it may be a violation of WP:CANVASS.  However if you then wish to persue a complaint, it will be easier if you avoid edit-warring, and do not complain about the actions of administrators.
 * With controversial groups such as Focus on the Family, some editors will try to put them in a better or worse light than neutrality requires. I have not read the article discussion threads and cannot comment on whether that has happened here.  However if you believe it has happened then you should persue content dispute resolution.  Post to relevant noticeboards or raise an RfC.  That will bring in a wider group of editors.
 * TFD (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've pretty much addressed all of these points above. I'm not under any obligation to pretend that I agree with the admins who incorrectly blocked me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are going to come here and cry about Wikiquette you should probably not make comments like this. You refer to the Tea Party as "Teabaggers" and wonder why you are having such a problem here?  Arzel (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's what they call themselves. Go do some basic research about conservatism. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what you are talking about. Word to the wise.  Editors that use WP for their political activism typically have short lived times here....or they make a serious adjustment in their approach.  You seem to be speeding up as you drive into this wall.  Arzel (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what they call themselves? I don't think so. Regardless, it doesn't make it less offensive. Some blacks refer to each other or themselves using the n-word, but the word is still considered offensive. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Still-24, there's nothing we are going to be able to do for you until you stop trying to suggest that your block was improper. It was valid - and its validity has been upheld multiple times.  Any further noise in this thread (or any other one anywhere) that suggests you do not understand your block will be cause it to be shut down, period.  As it's a valid block, it will never be removed from your "record", even if it was technically feasible.  Right now, your failure to accept the valid block (whether it was for edit-warring or 3RR is moot) has become more disruptive than anything else you have done <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">dangerous <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">panda  14:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we go ahead and close this thread? It is serving no useful purpose at this point. -- Avanu (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Avanu, what about Lionelt? He was named and informed, but hasn't even bothered to show his face. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikiquette assistance is entirely voluntary. Nobody has to show. Ryan Vesey 17:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, no one has to participate, either. If editors don't like what Still-24 has to say, or don't have anything helpful to say, I highly encourage them to please go edit elsewhere. It will not harm Wikipedia one iota to let them have the last word. Nobody Ent 19:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Still24 has apparently learned less than nothing per such comments on an article talk page as "Collect, as others have pointed out at length, your research skills are apparently lacking and you have some aversion to answering direct questions. Is social conservatism authoritarian and homophobic? Well, do we have any reliable sources saying it is? We do, and many. Do we have any reliable sources bothering to dispute this? Apparently not. Based on our sources, this is a closed issue." and "As usual, your summary is blatantly false. Not a single source was found to dispute the mainstream understanding, bolstered by scientific research, that social conservatism is authoritarian. When in doubt he attacks the other editor, and avers that he knows the truth.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC) He is also forumshopping on any issue he can vide, , accusations that Lionel and Belchfire are socks at , and so on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Some people see a link and think it must be valid. Others check. I'm one of the others.
 * Just for fun, I took the last link in your comment and clicked on it. Turns out that you made a false inference: it's obvious in context that I wasn't claiming anyone was a sock. But, hey, when you take it out of context, you can make it look like anything you like. A cursory glance at some of your other links shows that this is your pattern. On the whole, I find your input here to be counterproductive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the infeerence is clear to me and to others -- that you fail to see it is interesting.
 * Are you Lionelt?
 * Seems to be quite easy to understand Englsih suggesting that the person to whom you are addressing it is a sock of Lionelt. As it is the entire post, I find it astounding that you can asseet it is "out of context". Pray tell -- when an entire post is quoted how in h-e-double hockey sticks can anyone say it is "out of context"?  Cheers - Collect (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to explain this very clearly. After Lionelt reverted my change, I responded with:
 * Oh, wait, good faith just went out the window because you edit-warred. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire seemed to think that I was talking to him rather than Lionelt, so he said:
 * I edit-warred? Show us a diff, please. Belchfire-TALK 03:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I then responded:
 * Are you Lionelt? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

In other words, I wasn't talking to or about him: Lionelt was the one who edit-warred, and that's what got the entire page protected. Now, if you want to pretend this is about sock accusations, go for it, but in full context, your interpretation is plainly wrong. This is true of most, if not all, of your interpretations above. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your defence is that you were not accusing anyone of socking - but that you were accusing a person of edit war who was not even reported by you - thus your defence is I was attacking Lionelt, and this other editor got in the way, but it was really only me repeating an attack"? What a nice plea here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your quotes have no context, can you provide diffs? Forum shopping, and edit warring is outside the scope of this noticeboard; it doesn't appear to be obviously forum shopping and I think it has little connection to civility issues; this isn't ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

See User talk:Lionelt. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Or not. Unfortunately, you seem to follow me around wherever I go in an attempt to smear me. Why is this? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note that I am no longer responding to this user. Don't feed the trolls. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment from the periphery
I stumbled upon all this because it showed up at one of the articles I watch. It seems to me that there is a certain slap-happy sloppiness manifested in a characteristic alternation between two extremes on certain conservatism-related articles, where the liberal editors put in exaggerated versions of perhaps genuine claims about the subject, and conservative editors react by removing the claim entirely. So far I'm finding that an accurate statement would mention whatever issue is being argued over, but in a much more nuanced, qualified, and in some cases minimized way. Particularly on the liberal side of this there is a careless "everyone knows conservatives are scum" culture warrior quality to the arguments and edit summaries; the bit quoted by Collect above is actually better behaved than average. The conservatives in this need to be less combative. In the end, it would save everyone a great deal of trouble to put down the triumphalism and the endless arguments over bad faith. Mangoe (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your statements show a good deal of conservative bias. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutralhomer
Neutralhomer is over-personalising a rather standard discussion at AfD: Articles_for_deletion/WHJG-LP, and on my talk page openly says he will use ad hominems attacks and make things personal User_talk:IRWolfie-. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Niteshift36 uncivil




My first time having to do this but I would like a discussion on the uncivil behavior of Editor Niteshift36. To quote some of his posts, "Since you are apparently struggling with reading comprehension," "If it offends you, that's your problem. " and "First off, don't tell me about my bias. You don't know half of what you think you know. " he needs to be reigned in, just because a few of us do not agree with him does not mean he can abuse us. Warcraftninjas (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have edited this report for format only, no endorsement of the matter reported should be implied. Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, his report is misleading and without context. Yes, when an editor said my opinion was "based on nothing but thin air and perhaps your own political biases", I told him the above about not knowing my biases? There is no violation there and nothing to defend. Yes, I told the complaining party that he apparently struggles with reading comprehension after his multiple mischaracterizations. Snarky? Yes. Violation? Not so much. Did I tell him, after multiple attempts to illustrate the differences that if my suspicion offends him, it's his problem. Yep. Again, nothing to defend. In short, nothing to see here, move along. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that an uninvolved admin was invited into the discussion and also can't see how the incident alone merits inclusion. Also note the complaining party's intent to edit war and his own statement to me "You have some serious mental health issues" while he is here complaining about being told "if you don't like it.....". Niteshift36 (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally, when the Ninjas decided to complain about my alleged "uncivil" comments, he took it upon himself to edit my talk page, removing the signature from another editor letting me know this thread existed, changing the title of the template to "uncivil" and adding his own assessment of what he thinks fo my editing. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * He clearly states he was being "snarky" that is his opening, it was rude and uncivil. I will not debate the page here, you can if you wish it is not why I am here. The above mentioned Admin asked if there were other sources other than HoPo and encouraged us to create a stand alone page for the situation showing that he felt it was notable enough it's own page. And finally please note that he is point blank being less than untruthful when speaking of deleting another editors signature and changing the title when I was clearly instructed to do so. I originally posted in the admin section in order to get him blocked for his "snarky" statements and was told I had to post here so I edited the notice (which I am SUPPOSED TO do) accordingly on his talk page.Warcraftninjas (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, I was snarky. I'll say it again. I'll even bold print it for you. You seem to think that "civil" means something that it doesn't. The admin I mentioned said "Standing on its own it seems WP:UNDUE", which is what I've said all along. Further, he said "perhaps an article Death of Nick Christie might be in order, if the incident is, indeed, sufficently notable for Wikipedia mention" MIGHT be. IF sufficiently notable. He never said he thought it was notable enough. That is part of the problem here.....you tend to read what you want to hear, not what is actually said to you. I haven't mischaracterized any of your actions. Another editor posted a notice to the conversation on ANI. That is not your talk page my friend. You have no right to remove or alter his notifications. I'll take care of my own page, without your assistance. I provided a diff to the change....anyone can see it. Further, I notice that you want to nitpick about the signature, but completely ignore the hypocrisy of posting a notification about your complaint here while posting "You have some serious mental health issues" at the same time. That is far more a violation of NPA and uncivil than telling you "If it offends you, that's your problem.".


 * I would presonally think that an editor of your "stature" would know that "snarky" means "unpleasant and scornful" snarky (ˈsnɒːkɪ)

— adj, snarkier , snarkiest informal unpleasant and scornful [C20: from sarcastic + nasty ]  and sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner

so yeah, you apologize for your uncivility and I will just move on. I do not know why you think that "seasoned" editors are superior to any other editors. By the way using one example of your nasty hurtful tone is cute. You should read what you write before you press save page. Warcraftninjas (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, someone found dictionary.com.......and cherry-picked a definition. Unpleasant or scornful doesn't mean I violated any policy. I won't apologize for any of those remarks sunshine. Whether or not you choose to move on or not is not my problem. I'm done with your hypocrisy. Enjoy the sound of one hand clapping in this nuisance complaint. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually posted 2 different dictionary definitions one even Merriam Webster but meh. DO you not see how calling some one "sunshine" could be childish and immature for an editor? It is a direct reflection on you. Warcraftninjas (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the complainant started by accusing Niteshift of bias etc (actually, the party started with this), a clear lack of assuming good faith. I don't see any breach of civility on Niteshift's side and if I close my eyes I almost can't see the breach of civility on Warcrafninjas' side. I suggest someone close this useless complaint real quick. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL says "Don't Make snide comments and Make personal remarks about editors." Niteshift's comments just above, saying an editor is hypocritical and the one hand clapping comments fall under the second don't and first one respectively. A study of Niteshift's edit history will show this is the way he behaves towards editors he disagrees with or thinks disagrees with him. The Lee County Sheriff's Office article edit dispute I was and still am inclined to agree with him, but his snide remarks he used towards me are annoying and unnecessary....William`
 * You have no room to cite WP:CIVIL my friend. Yes, I called his actions hypocrisy. Big deal. They are and I'll say it again. As for the "one hand clapping" remark....do you even understand it? I suspect not. It means that he will have only himself to hear from (one hand clapping) and not me to entertain his ramblings. Get it? Or will a drawing be required? I also have nothing to apologize to you about about. I freely admit to snarkiness from time to time. What I don't do is pretend that I'm some sort of victim when I'm doing it and someone does it back. Your own comment here, calling my actions "annoying" or telling my that my edit is a result of my own political bias, is no less "uncivil" than my telling you not to act witty. Don't play the victim and don't pretend you are any less guilty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs)
 * Don't tell me I can't raise WP:CIVIL. Any editor can raise that issue when a editor constantly belittles and talks down to anyone he thinks isn't as intelligent as himself. You've questioned whether I can read, called someone a troll, and admitted to snark. That's 3 strikes...William 22:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Drmies. Niteshift doesn't seem to be making actionable uncivil comments, and Warcraft seems to be making ruder comments, but still not really actionable (but darn close (though the talk page edits are almost definitely uncivil)). Let's close this frivolous complaint.LedRush (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actionable uncivil comments (aka personal attacks) are for ANI. WQA -- assistance -- is exactly the place for the unactionable ones. Nobody Ent 20:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Niteshift36 appears to be quite open with his incivility by apparently acknowledging being snarky, unpleasant and scornful; so I still think there is something to discuss. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then discuss it amongst yourselves. There is nothing actionable here, so I'm done discussing who is more rude or who got their knickers twisted. This is a waste of server space and the only reason it's still open is because I was foolish enough to respond in the first place. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole point of WQA is discuss civility issues that aren't actionable. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's not the whole point. Many times the civility issues are actionable, and people wish to work them out.  Sometimes there aren't civility issues and someone is being too sensitive.  Sometimes, people file these merely to gain some kinda gotcha moment in an edit war.  Anyway, this doesn't seem like a real issue, to me, and it seems that the original filer needs to look in the mirror a bit.  And regardless, if Niteshift doesn't want to participate, pontificating about the point of the board isn't helpful.LedRush (talk)

22:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You think there is nothing wrong with his behavior? Niteshift admits to being snarky and that is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Look what it says about snide comments....William 22:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Holy cow this is messed up.LedRush (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If civility issues are actionable, they are speaking about by admins. There are clearly civility issues here as Niteshift36 has made abundantly clear. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If it helps close this I have forgiven Nightshift36 for his behavior. Warcraftninjas (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Misha B
I have requested the re-opening the Dispute Resolution mechanism for the Misha B article @ Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 38 as the debate about neutrality has really flared up. on User talk:Steven Zhang who closed the original Dispute Resolution based on my suggestion...no one else in the dispute contributed.

or should I go to formal mediation I make no pretence that I am a fan, I guess the majority articles about (living) people are started and mainly contributed by those who are 'fans', but my contibutions have been done in good faith regards neutrality (as a newbie I have made mistakes...like not spotting blogs) I always take personal criticism maybe too seriously but I have said I welcome genuine verifiable editing contributions from others, even when they remove my contributions, which can be seen from page history.

Bias about bullying

Biased and promotional

Misha B Layout Structure

Why does the Misha article read like a magazine article?

Too much information and way too biased

I would very much welcome a neutral viewpoint from someone not involved in the article....<font color="green" face="Arial">Zoebuggie☺ <font color="purple" face="Arial">whispers 23:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not following what your specific concern is. Nobody Ent 10:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * :) In those discussions the are a lot of unsupported slurs about the subject of the article, wild accusations and jibes towards me, I am not unguilty as I did respond in like once. It may seem trival but it is making me ill...<font color="green" face="Arial">Zoebuggie☺ <font color="purple" face="Arial">whispers 11:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Anxiety disorder article


87.114.156.18 (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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

I have tried to add references to an author who wrote in the seventies. Her work has not been surpassed and is not the sort of work that will move forward from decade to decade. Her work gives life transforming help to sufferers of anxiety disorder. Other editors have said that the references were "not particularly useful" and "we do not need a 1973 BMJ article" and "fails MEDRS and unnecessary"

Please note that it was only since I added a third reference that the second reference was rejected. The 1973 BMJ article had been part of the article for months before it was removed after I added the third.

I have written the following replies to Jmh649 and also list some questions:

1. (After "not particularly useful") Who on earth do you think you are to say what is particularly useful. You are not the person chosen to judge this. Wikipedia is for anyone in the world to read. The 2 additions I have made are both from a peer reviewed scientific expert in the field. I have had anxiety disorder - my life has been severely plagued by it. The books and articles that have been of far greater use to me than any other I have read on the subject have been by (the now late) Claire Weekes. Her ideas are not high science (fancy drugs/brain studies etc.) but provide amazingly insightful observations and have an amazing understanding of the psychology of the sufferer. She had anxiety disorder herself. Being highly intelligent, she was able to observe herself and work out extremely effective but commonsensical methods for coping with the illness. I am a scientist myself and have done a lot of reading on the subject - including a lot of the high science. However I know that any sufferer reading this Wikipedia article will have their life transformed by reading Claire Weekes's articles and books. This article is not just for the scientific "experts" in the field. It is for anybody in the world who wants to know about anxiety disorder. If they are sufferers, they will find the references to Claire Weekes work far more useful than anything else in the article. This article is not just for medical/scientific experts in the more technical parts of the field. The irony of your comment is that the exact opposite is true! What I have added to the article, I know as a sufferer of extreme lifelong anxiety disorder, is the most useful information in the article for any sufferer of the illness!

2. (After "we do not need a 1973 BMJ article")

Why should we should be using secondary sources from the last 10 years? People writing in 1973 had as much to say as those writing today. The field has got more technical since those days and experts may not be interested in referencing Claire Weekes any more - so I doubt there are many secondary sources from the last 10 years. However as I have said, her work is still as highly relevant today as at any time. Her work was so good that no one has added anything to replace it since. It is not the sort of scientific field that advances greatly from decade to decade. I see you are a young medical doctor. What is said in the article is extremely useful for sufferers. I expect that, as you are a high achieving young man, you have not spent a lot of time being ill with anxiety disorder. I can tell you that it is one of the most devastating illnesses of all. For example, to give you an idea of how awful the illness is - paraphrasing a consultant psychiatrist "I know people with "locked in syndrome" who still enjoy life enough to want to live, many people with depression/anxiety do not want to live" By undoing my edits you are depriving people around the world of vital information which will transform their lives. I hope you went into medicine to help people. You are doing exactly the opposite by undoing my edits. Please have some humility and consider that perhaps you as a medical doctor, do not have all the answers, and may be wrong in removing the information I have added. I think your medical training, and perhaps lack of experience, is making you blind to what I am trying to do.

3. Could you also explain why I was not allowed to undo 3 edits but Jmh649 is. You can probably tell I am not very experienced on wikipedia.

4. How have I failed MEDRS? And isn't using the letter of the law sometimes going against the spirit of Wikipedia - to make useful information available to a worldwide audience. If my reference is life transforming, why should being old stop it being available to wikipedia readers?
 * How is this a WQA issue? Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's clearly not. To 87.114.156.18; you need a consensus to add a link like that, and it doesn't sound like you have one. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

To Jamie (couldn't add my question to your talk page for some reason): To do WQA you need consensus? I'm (obviously) fairly new to Wikipedia. I read the following on the WQA page:

What Wikiquette assistance can do:


 * Intervene as a neutral third party to talk to editors ....who might be new or unaware of Wiki policies
 * Give guidance on where on Wikipedia to take a particular problem

I didn't see concensus mentioned here. Where is that mentioned?

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.156.18 (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus meaning so far two editors have opposed inclusion of that link; you can now add me as a third. That's a rough consensus. I will not respond further to this topic here because the topic doesn't belong here; it belongs on the talk page for Anxiety disorder.  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 03:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * To be a bit clearer for the IP. WQA is for issues of wikiquette. Incivility and such like (see the top of the page). What you have is a content dispute. Unless the other editors are not being civil, there is not much that can be done here regarding that. Content should be talked out and consensus achieved on the talk page of the article concerned. If you are trying to add content and a number of other editors disagree with you, you will have to convince them via discussion. If you cannot convince them, the reality is that its unlikely the info you want to include will be added to the article Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article's talk page lists some "WikiProjects" at the top. A WikiProject is a group of people who like to work together.  You might find it helpful to leave a note for those groups at the group's talk pages.  Perhaps someone there would be interested in the article and give you another person's opinion on the change you want to make.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Rudeness in an articles for deletion discussion



 * Articles_for_deletion/Aerodrome_Festival
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

I'm posting as a mostly uninvolved third-party on this. A SL93 posted at the Articles for deletion talk page that a user said on an AfD said he was thinking of a phrase that ended with "and the horse you rode in on." SL93 did not disclose which deletion discussion or which user posted it. Jclemens later posted a response that suggested that SL93's weak nomination (which Jclemens has probably never seen) was the reason for the rudeness and it could have been avoided with a better deletion nomination - a classic case of blaming the victim. Jclemens attitude in the post seems to be that experienced Wikipedians are never guilty. Again, I don't know the identity of the user who originally made the rude post on the deletion discussion, and it is clearly unacceptable. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I looked at the sequence of events for this. Lugnuts essentially demanded that SL93 think things over more before going all the way to nominating something for deletion. Actually that is a pretty good suggestion. I didn't look at everything SL93 did prior to the AfD, but hopefully he used the article talk page, or used some relevant noticeboard before asking the community to consider deleting it. HOWEVER, it worked out great, and SL93 did fine. Lugnuts was undeniable impolite, the phrase was clearly an insult, but I think, as JClemens said, it was simply a veteran of the AfD process being a bit frustrated with an AfD that didn't need to be. SL93's response needed to be a lot better, but it is easy to understand why he lost his patience.


 * Honestly JClemens really didn't do much wrong, if anything, it was actually a very polite and complete explanation of why it all worked out like it did. If you wanted, we could chastise Lugnuts for being impolite, but I think at this point, everyone has gotten their comeuppance and it would probably be best to just move on. -- Avanu (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Lugnuts doesn't appear to interact with others overly much, but when he does they often appear to be quite sharp, such as this : "Undid revision 506567447 by Sport and politics (talk) idiot". IRWolfie- (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I don't like people in general (esp. idiots). Anyway, I was trying to inject some humour, I guess it was taken the wrong way. It's taking a line from a Simpsons episode (Marge against cartoon violence), which I thought would raise a chuckle. It didn't. Let's move on. If I can find a horse that hasn't been defiled.  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Blaming the victim is never civil, but Jclemens isn't being uncivil when he points out that some people do it, and possible reasons why (don't shoot the messenger). If someone can get some more info it'd be great. There is never a call to be rude at AfD, whether someone has a weak rationale (be it keep, merge or delete). It's trivial to respond to an AfD with a counter argument if the rationale is weak, and admins who closes the discussion will read the arguments and weigh it up. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Lets look at the plus points: I saved an article from deletion. Where's my medal?  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We aren't here to discuss content issues. Civility is one of the five pillars. Long term, incivility drives editors away and reduces content contributions. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you live and learn. No horses were hurt in the making of this Wikiquette request.  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ego White Tray, were you planning on highlighting that for most of your editing career, you've edited as removed for privacy, before changing usernames a month or so ago? Do you think that past history might have been relevant to those assessing the relative impartiality of your original complaint? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the significance of that. Can you clarify why you are mentioning it? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ego White Tray, under his former username, has been on the opposite side of any number of AfDs or attendant policy discussions. I disagree that he should be able to appear here absent that context and accuse me of wrongdoing for counseling SL93 on how to respond to vitriol by improving his deletion nominations: it leaves the passerby with the impression that he's simply an uninterested party, rather than one with an extensive history in past similar debates. You can see my recommendations to him on his talk page if you're interested. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

* Lugnuts has (sort of) apologised, I suggest it's now best to move on. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC) I misread. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the idea of moving on since this is a toothless noticeboard and Lugnuts is making a joke of the whole thing. Where is the '(sort of) apology)' just out of curiosity? --Onorem♠Dil 15:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This board isn't toothless - if Lugnuts is going to continue to refer to fellow editors as "idiots" - especially here - someone can and will (and should) move this to WP:ANI - civility is not optional. <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">dangerous <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">panda 15:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This board is toothless...as you point out yourself with your response. It has to move to another board for action to be expected. I wish civility wasn't optional...but it's become so. As far as I'm concerned, WP:CIVIL should be demoted to a guideline because it isn't enforced as policy anymore. I wish it was, but it isn't...and a generic feel-good and be friendly noticeboard isn't going to change that for intentionally rude users like Lugnuts. --Onorem♠Dil 15:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I followed WP:BEFORE so I thought I was good. SL93 (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My AfD stats are good as well - http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?name=SL93&max=&startdate=&altname= SL93 (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said in my first comment, I think everyone understands now that it wasn't intended to be that bad of a comment. Lugnuts, obviously not every cheese must be sharp, many are quite mild and still popular, yet among cheeses, sometimes the more pungent are highly prized. But try and be a nice blend if you can, a good mix will obviously make you a fond dude, pun intended of course. -- Avanu (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the whole point that's being missed. SLN is going on about "how good his AfD stats are". So what? He clearly didn't read WP:BEFORE and logged a quite frankly lazy AfD. Essentially he's riding off his past reputation in a thin attempt to get something deleted, which isn't OK. "I've been here X years, I've logged Y AfDs, therefore this one must be solid too." No.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone? No, thought not. Carry on with your witch-hunt!  Lugnuts  And the horse 13:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So, just for the record, it's OK for you to make personal attacks for no reason at all, calling me a "child" and an "idiot"? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already answered this.  Lugnuts  And the horse 13:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No you haven't, not to me. And now you call me a parrot because I've asked you the same question a couple of times but you refuse to acknowledge your own personal attack on me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I have.  Lugnuts  And the horse 13:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you show me the link where you explicitly apologised to me for calling me an idiot? And a child?  And a parrot?  Your edit summaries really don't help the cause either, you may think they're funny but they're just spiteful and rude.  I doubt you want to deliberately upset other editors but you're managing to do it with alarming frequency.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't say please. How rude.  Lugnuts  And the horse 13:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take this elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Search for the words "I'm sorry". On this very page. It's not difficult! I don't understand why you can't grasp that.  Lugnuts  And the horse 13:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you said sorry to Chris. I read that.  And not to me for you direct personal attack.  As I said below, this forum is toothless, and is heading backwards rather than forwards in solving this issue, so I'll take it elsewhere.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the sorry wasn't just to Chris. You're chosing to mis-read my comments to fit your own ends.  Lugnuts  And the horse 13:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. I have no "ends" to fit.  I object to your name-calling.  Let's wrap up this pointless debate, for the third and final time I'll take it elsewhere.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts




User:Lugnuts has made one of several personal attacks amidst a deletion discussion to both me and User:The Rambling Man. The first was calling Rambling a child and telling them to shut it as the "grown-ups are talking". Rambling then responds sarcastically, thanking Lugnuts for his positive contributions. Then Lugnuts calls him an idiot, telling him to not get hit by an imaginary door. Rambling confronts him about this, saying that he shouldn't resort to name-calling and acting like a WP:DICK.

I notified Lugnuts to not make any personal attacks, which he responds by removing the message and calling me a lacky (--> someone's bitch). He then takes it to the Afd again to make a sarcastic comment, it is not clear whether this was directed at me or Rambling. I then finally tell Lugnuts that his presence is not welcome if all he wants to do is insult people. Again, being sarcastic tone and not assuming good faith, he says it's clearly my first time here. Fed up with this, I reply with a rather long response, telling Lugnuts to assume good faith and leave the Afd if all he wants to do is insult people. Lugnuts clearly crossed the line—bullying and making personal attacks are not tolerated in any environment, especially Wikipedia. Till I Go Home 14:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just need to point out that YOU define a lacky as "someone's bitch". The correct definintions are here. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a trend. Lugnuts told me to basically f you and the horse I rode in on and he called IP editors scum on the AfD talk page. SL93 (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, as IP editors cause the most vandlism. Look at any edit history to BLP articles. Are you saying that's OK? It sounds like you are.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And what about telling someone to f the horse they rode on? Till 23:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's one personal attack too many. This isn't some sort of game where you can say what you like, there are actually people behind these computers that read this. Till I Go Home 14:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have joined this to the one above, as it's clearly a mere continuation. Although, as already advised above, you WILL need to take this continual WP:NPA to WP:ANI for action.  Nothing more can be done here at WQA as Lugnuts is wholly unwilling to follow a core tenet of Wikipedia <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">dangerous <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">panda  15:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Really bad advice. See the conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion. Suggesting a newbie take something to ANI that's not a slam dunk is likely to make things worse not better; if ESAL feels an escalation to ANI is appropriate, he should just do it. Nobody Ent 15:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me... I have been here since 2009 thank you very much. Till I Go Home 23:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad, interpreted the antecedent of "you" as SL93. Nobody Ent 11:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that if they feel it's significant and slam dunk enough, then they need to either take it to ANI (or RFC/U). Lugnuts is not going to change anything based on this WQA, so there's no point trying further. Pretty sure you cannot disagree with that <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">dangerous <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">panda  15:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely to result in any action now at ANI; if it continues further in separate instances, then a case can probably be made. The issue isn't whether this board is toothless or not, it's that WP:CIVIL is toothless from sections like this: CIVIL; clear incivility and personal attacks rarely result in blocks or admin action. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, not toothless per se, but part of being civil is being willing to overlook others' bad behavior. I would say that given the time and text wasted on this side issue so far, Lugnuts ought to consider these events a serious warning for civility and be more aware of the role civility plays in collaborating with others. -- Avanu (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Technically, ANI would be a bad option because it is not an 'incident' that requires immediate attention. The feelings have been put out there, if it continues bring it to mediation or another venue. Such considers are not important enough to warrant a block and seem premature in light of the situation. Just because someone is not being particularly nice doesn't mean that they should be dragged about for a potential block. The concerns have been raised and it would be premature to go further without incident. ( Was edit conflicted) ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chris. Yeah, I'm sorry. Lets move on.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Let's move on" in the understanding that we don't see a repeat of this obvious incivility and personal attack, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that goes without saying. Which is why it didn't say it...  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but it doesn't go without saying. I have no idea why you called me a "child" and an "idiot" nor am I clear why you accused me of starting the AFD when it's abundantly clear to anyone that I didn't. I'm sure an editor of your experience understands the way talk works here with gradual indentation using colons, however you still seemed to accuse me of something I was clearly not responsible for.  Your oppose was not on any grounds relating the article itself, hence my question to you.  Instead of expanding your oppose to discuss why the article itself should be deleted, you just attacked me.  That's why I'd like to see you apologise, not just to Chris, but to me and anyone else you've attacked on the way.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already apologised. It's just above. Just above this ident. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You apologised to Chris, but not us. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you mis-read it. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So, just for the record, you apologise for calling me a "child" and an "idiot"? And entirely incorrectly accusing me of starting the AFD? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And let the record show that SLN continues with the personal attacks. Well done him.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Where's the personal attack there? <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">dangerous <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">panda 18:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Right there in the link. That link I posted. Just above where you typed.  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I said, I looked at your link - I'm trying to find an WP:NPA there ... still not seeing it. <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">dangerous <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">panda 09:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can't take it, then don't dish it. Till 23:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As expected, you missed the point.  Lugnuts  And the horse 11:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Lugnuts, I think it's you who are missing the point. Do you recognize that your style of interaction (which is actually proven even here on WQA) is inappropriate for a community-based project such as Wikipedia?  Do you recognize that any further personal attacks can lead to a block - in fact, you're lucky to have escaped one so far?  Blocks protect the project - both the content AND the other editors/readers of the articles.  Future such interactions will be seen as proof that you cannot act collegially <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">dangerous <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">panda  12:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So it's OK for you to make personal attacks to make a point? Explain please.  Lugnuts  And the horse 12:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So, just for the record, it's OK for you to make personal attacks for no reason at all, calling me a "child" and an "idiot"? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been watching this exchange for a little while now, and finally feel the need to step in and say something. Lugnuts, notwithstanding anything outside of this particular thread here, you might want to be a little more diplomatic in the way you deal with other editors. Several other volunteers here have had their comments met with rude, rather dismissive and patronizing remarks - something I feel to be completely unjustified, given that they're here to help you and other involved parties resolve an issue. Even if there was no issue outside of this particular thread, these comments are the sort of thing I'd expect to be brought here in the first place. In other words, don't shoot yourself in the foot - you can't expect anyone to help you if you talk down to them. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the too small heart comment wasn't appropriate. Wikipedia is not black and white but many shades of gray. Lugnuts (I'm pretty sure) has agreed not to use terms like "...and the horse you rode on in" in future discussions. Parsing out which snarky comments are worse than others, or demanding apologies and the like, is simply not useful. I encourage everyone just to drop the discussion and move on. Nobody Ent 13:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Lugnuts has made no indication of remorse or regret and continues to bait others via edit summaries. I agree however, that this discussion is going nowhere, it simply provides another forum for unpleasant edit summaries and snarky comments.   The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've agreed to move on. And I've apologised. However users like Rambling Man have some sort of hidden agenda and can't accept what is here in black and white.  Lugnuts  And the horse 13:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no hidden agenda. I will not accept personal attacks from any editor, not "child", not "idiot", not "parrot".  None of it is amusing to anyone but you.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear! Again, please stop misquoting me and read things correctly. The apology is here. For some reason you're blind to it.  Lugnuts  And the horse 13:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What misquote? You called me a child, an idiot and a parrot in your "amusing" edit summaries.  The apology wasn't to me.  End of story. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The apology was to everyone involved. End of story. See, I can copy & paste too!  Lugnuts  And the horse 14:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What misquote though? Although it's irrelevant now, moving on.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well thanks anyway for your valid contributions.  Lugnuts  And the horse 14:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ravishankar page - Controversy




I recently edited the wiki page of Ravishankar (Spiritual Leader) on his wiki page under a Section heading "Controversy". However, it has been deleted without any reason by someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.204.254.71 (talk • contribs)
 * Although this is not the place for content disputes, you're statement is unfortunately false. You did indeed add a section called "controversy" to an article.  Its only "sources" are ones that are not permissible by Wikipedia - including blogs.  User:TheRingess did remove the section, but clearly stated the reason why in the edit summary: "rvt unsourced non-neutral content".  Our policy on the biographies of living people requires sensitivity to sources.  Please discuss similar proposed changes on the article talkpage, but ensure that you have valid reliable sources beforehand <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">dangerous <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">panda  11:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Accused of excessive weight for a few well written, unbiased and fully referenced sentences within a long article?

 * Tepi (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Irritable bowel syndrome, Talk:Irritable bowel syndrome

Despite fully referencing these few sentences, and using unbiased point of view, an unfriendly person accused me of giving the topic excessive weight.... nonsense because it was only a few sentences in an extensive article, with very carefully chosen words so as not to present the link as a proven theory, but rather a possibility. My edits were then rolled back by said unfriendly person. Why are these people allowed to operate with impunity? It is very off-putting for new users, and there actions are usually highly suspect and aggressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tepi (talk • contribs)
 * I added the following text to the above article (after initiating discussion about changes in talk page):


 * This area of Wiki does not handle content disputes, and there does not appear to be any uncivil behaviour (i.e. name calling/personal attacks) in the IBS discussion that I can see. You would do better to continue with the discussion on the talk page and attempt to resolve any issues regarding the disputed content. Please pay attention to any WP links presented by the editor opposing your contribution, claiming weight issues occur with overuse of primary sources, as selective/biased referencing is contrary to Wiki policy. The subject, being medical related, is way beyond my understanding or interest so I have no idea, let alone an opinion, on who is right or wrong. But given that there are no clearly unfriendly comments in the discussion, I would suggest you continue to resolve things through further discussion. The art of conversation does not appear to have died there yet. Reversion is not "uncivil", note, but do not breach the WP:3RR or you could be blocked, as it is considered disruptive behaviour. Also, just because the other editor comes across as unfriendly does not necessarily mean they are in the wrong or that their reversions are inappropriate, if they can justify them. Cheers, <font color="#001C56">Ma<font color="#B40000">&reg;&copy; usBr<font color="#B40000">iti sh {chat} 04:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, content disputes are for WP:DRN because that is specifically the area of that forum. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, ty for advice. Tepi (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)