Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive122

User:HiLo48
User:HiLo48 has had an account since late 2006. He has a clean block log, but I believe he has recently been topic banned on a topic unrelated to this WQA. As far as I can tell, he believes that the content at AWU scandal should not be included in Wikipedia, nor in the related article Julia Gillard. However, rather than either improving the articles, or nominating AWU scandal for WP:AfD, he is trying to intimidate other editors by swearing at them and accusing them of WP:POV-pushing as follows: The main target of his invective, User:Skyring, tried to discuss the matter here, which received the reply "'Bullshit [...] Stop pretending to be ignorant of it. Piss off.'." I asked him to curb his incivility here, and I received the reply "'You think my language is unhelpful to the project? It's far less of a problem than the creation of blatantly politically motivated bullshit articles like the AWU scandal. I don't add political crap to the project. You do. Don't threaten me, when your behaviour is so appalling. I don't bully and threaten people.'" I would appreciate some uninvolved editors having a look at his (and my!) behaviour, and seeing if there is some way to cool things down. --Surturz (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Cut the crap Pete. That's both bullshit AND irrelevant"
 * "(Apart from the ALP and Gillard haters here.)"
 * "So don't bullshit me"
 * "It's completely obvious to anyone with any brains at all that the ONLY reason that article has been created is to assist ALP and Gillard haters in their goal of getting rid of the Gillard government."
 * "You're one of the biggest speculators on Wikipedia, with all your theories about Gillard. Your erratic behaviour on Gillard and union threads is leading those newbies astray. You're a far bigger problem than I am. Piss off!"
 * "I wonder why the creator tried to conceal that?"
 * "I regard you as a dangerous, loose cannon on Wikipedia."
 * "I find it depressing but very revealing that none of those attempting to throw mud at Gillard through this article..."
 * "Your naivety astounds me."


 * Any "uninvolved editors" need to be aware that these comments of mine (which I won't retract) have occurred on the Talk pages of articles related to controversial Australian political matters. Surturz, my accuser here, and several other targets of firm language from me that they don't like, have been blatantly pushing a particular political position. This is completely inappropriate on Wikipedia, and frankly, gives me the shits. They have no interest in improving Wikipedia, but do have an interest in silencing people like me who call them on their obviously politically motivated behaviour. My goal IS to create a better Wikipedia. There's is to get rid of a government they don't like. I care about Wikipedia. They don't. HiLo48 (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not following those pages, HiLo. Is there behaviour there (civil POV-pushing, tendentious editing, misrepresenting sources, etc.) that you believe warrants a topic ban? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * HiLo's behavior is impolite and disruptive and unhelpful to coöperative editing. Frankly, Surturz beat me to seeking help here. I've continually suggested to HiLo that he could find other ways to press his opinions short of attacking other editors and using language of the variety noted above. His behaviour is a disincentive to new editors who show up and could benefit from encouragement to stick around and help. Over the past few days I have turned from acknowledging HiLo's contributions to ignoring him when he makes no substantive addition to the topic of discussion. He has been topic-banned elsewhere for this sort of thing, and I had hoped that he might benefit from the experience. --Pete (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care if these people are POV pushing, this is not the way to deal with it and is a clear breach of WP:CIVIL, and possibly falls under WP:ATTACK. As the user has been topic banned before for similar offences perhaps larger sanctions need to be considered.  GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  06:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The sensitive little flowers claiming to be offended by my language are all Australians. They would ALL hear such language in their daily lives, and probably not even notice it. This is not middle America with its conservative Christian values. This is robust Australian language for a robust Australian discussion. This whinge from Surturz is an attempt to silence someone who is trying to stop the blatant politicisation of parts of Wikipedia, so that they can continue to use it as a tool for their political ends. Those "uninvolved editors" looking here should look at AWU scandal: Revision history and see the difference between the hate article originally created by Surturz, and the very different and far more acceptable article we now have BECAUSE of the efforts of myself and some other balanced editors. That he thought what he first article he created would ever be acceptable here shows his complete lack of perspective, and possibly malicious intent. That's what I regard this thread as. In refuting the allegations by those Surturz suports politically, our Prime Minister yesterday used the words "misogynists and nutjobs" to describe those out to get her. Nobody has complained about her language. Many see it as the truth. This debate involves strong public language. Surturz is kidding when he claims to be offended. HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm Australian and I (almost) never use that kind of language. Nowhere in the English-speaking world would your interaction style be mistaken for civil discourse. If you continue using it you will, sooner rather than later, be banned from this site. Learn to control yourself if you want to continue here. I think you are dealing with very problematical editors there. On the brief look I've just taken at this, you may well have a good case for a topic ban there on at least one editor. Why don't you do it the hard, possibly effective, way and compile a concise but convincing case and take it to ANI with a request for input, rather than the slack and ineffective way: just venting at them? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Anthonyhcole, I am neither American nor Christian and I find your behaviour un-civil and counter productive. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  07:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But are you Australian? (THAT was my point.) Anyway, I believe my language HAS been effective in changing the behaviour of at least two editors from the anti-government party camp. And Anthonyhcole, I don't want to waste everyone's time by "charging" others and bringing them here. That's not how we should have to operate. Vigorous discussion and consensus seeking should resolve most issues. HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I am not an Aussie. Discussion and consensus seeking are the way forward, but WP:CIVIL is not optional, regardless of how we view other editors. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  07:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this all to do with AWU scandal? A very quick look at that page makes me think it is an attack page for coatracking muck against a politician, so I can understand that "robust Australian language" has been used. Nevertheless, HiLo is scoring an own-goal and not helping the case. It appears the text used by Surturz to create the article (three days ago) has been revision deleted, so I assume it was very inappropriate. Given that start, I don't think it's helpful to use WQA as another means of achieving a desired outcome, although I do agree that HiLo should tone it down. Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As you wish. WP:CIVIL is a pillar, and you will be banned from this site if you don't moderate your approach, which would be a significant loss to the project, in my opinion. It's in your hands. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I can tone it down now, because it seems my goal has been largely achieved there, but while I will try, I simply cannot promise that seeing similar politically driven garbage (Is that nicer than bullshit?) posted again won't again make me angry enough to describe it as exactly what it is. I'll have to try to exercise more Don't-give-a-fuckism. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever works. Garbage is no better than bullshit. It's your stance, your attitude, not your vocabulary that matters. Act. Pretend. I once went through a succession of your diatribes, stripping out all the invective (Pregnancy, I think), and what was left was persuasive and engaging debate. I didn't point it out at the time because you didn't seem in a receptive mood for that sort of thing. You're own-goaling, foot-self-shooting. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I still insist that the language Wikipedia demands of me is NOT what is common in my workplace, and therefore not what I'm used to in normal conversation. If someone spouts bullshit where I work, others will tell them that's what they're doing. As I say, I can try to play the game, but it does have an artificial set of rules. People from my cohort with less linguistic flexibility just wouldn't survive here. Does Wikipedia really want to exclude such people from the chance to contribute? HiLo48 (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the attitude more than the language, I couldn't give a fuck about bad language. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  09:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The attitude and the language are both unnecessary. Wikipedia isn't your work place; you need to adapt to the situation. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Missed the point. It wasn't about me. HiLo48 (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * HiLo, I've said it before and I'll say it again now. You are a good editor. I really don't mind about differences in opinion, because Wikipedia has rules and procedures to keep things on track and they work well. What bothers me is lack of civility. Not so much the bad language as the attitude towards other editors. And what really disturbs me is your belief that you are justified in this. You aren't. If you are part of the community of editors, you have to work with others. Not just the people you agree with, but everyone, and if it takes more care and more tact to find a way through with people you don't share political opinions with, then that's what it takes. Why can't you accept this? Civility is one of the Five Pillars and it is vitally important to the success of Wikipedia. And really, dealing with other editors should be a joy and a shared pleasure in building something worthwhile. Without some sort of evidence that you are going to change your ways, you are going to find things increasing difficult and uncomfortable, and that would be a shame for all of us. --Pete (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Pete, it's posts like that which I have big problems with. You persistently break the rules by repeatedly telling us what you think of Julia Gillard and how you think she's going politically. That's completely inappropriate. It encourages less experienced editors to go further down that path and add really prejudiced stuff to articles, not just to Talk pages. You've been told many times, yet you persist, and then have the gall to tell me how to behave. It's pretty hard to take. HiLo48 (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My comments here aren't about Gillard, they aren't about politics, they aren't about any article. They are about you and your attitude as a member of this community. Maybe it's hard for you to accept criticism on this particular topic of Wikiquette, but that's what every other editor here is examining. I'm perfectly happy to talk about other things in other places, but here, we are discussing your behaviour and my advice is to listen carefully to what other editors are saying about it. Disregard my advice if you wish, but open up your eyes and your mind and your heart to what others are saying. This isn't your first time in such a forum, and you are going to have to focus. --Pete (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm really not interested in the advice of someone who so deliberately, consistently and blatantly breaks the rules. Hypocrisy combined with holier-than-thou is not a good look. Can you appreciate that your Talk page behaviour is one of the things that really annoys me? I've stopped the naughty language. Can you please drop the hypocrisy? HiLo48 (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't stopped the naughty language. You just called him hypocritical with a holier-than-though attitude. That's what's going to get you blocked. It gets in the way of good debate, and this is too serious an enterprise for us to tolerate that. How well, and how quickly, we fulfill the foundation mission depends on the quality of debate here. And insulting address impairs that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's not have this degrade further. Hilo48 I strongly suggest you refrain from the personal attacks and ad hom attacks on fellow editors, a strong history of such actions is verifiable and has been discussed here and previously. Content matters should go to WP:DRN, but the civil matter is up here. I see absolutely no reason that Hilo48 should continue to make such antagonizing remarks to editors. One does not need vulgarity to be uncivil. Take the content matter to DRN, but the being uncivil needs to stop now. Remove yourselves from the content matter and let fresh eyes look at it; lets be constructive not destructive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sadly, mud sticks. It would take some pretty terrible behaviour for me to report someone. (Unlike the politically motivated reporting of me here.) One reason for that is that simply being reported here, justifiably or not, gives my enemies, of which I have plenty and not because of bad language, ammunition and effectively permission to continue their own bad behaviour. Pete/Skyring is one such editor. Do I have to make a formal report before I can criticise his persistent behaviour on Talk pages, and consequent hypocrisy here? HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep. That's what these pages are for: to remove that topic (editor behaviour) from article talk pages. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The key to WQA is to understand how each other feels, gain some respect for one another's positions as editors and hopefully remain civil despite content disputes. I doubt Pete has been entirely civil, but in order to resolve the matter, it should be discussed so you can get off your chests. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have discussed his behaviour with him many times. He is generally not uncivil, but he fills talk pages with political commentary, particularly about our PM. He has been written up in Australian newspapers as someone obsessed with certain union and political matters. He seems unable to change. He then comes to places like this and tells me how to behave. LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you noticed though, HiLo48, that it's not just him telling you how to behave, but others too? Just because you believe you are right, does not necessarily mean that you are.  I'm in agreement with  others here that your attitude does violate civility policy, and your language doesn't help matters along. Granted you've stopped that, sure - now all you have to do is lose the attitude.  Fish  Barking?  11:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * My attitude is that those trying to use Wikipedia to achieve political goals are doing something unacceptable, and should be stopped. I won't be changing that attitude any time soon. HiLo48 (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you then consider that those who set up the blackout of Wikipedia for the SOPA event, or those who have blacked out other Wikipedias due to political issues, are also behaving in an unacceptable manner? Because to me, if that is the case, you might be better considering not editing here at all, considering some of the most senior people in Wikipedia themselves have used the site in an attempt to achieve a political goal.  Do you want to stop them too?  Fish  Barking?  23:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

HiLo's statements above bother me, not because of the continued attacks even here, but because there is no commitment to improvement. If we look back through other times he has been cited for incivility, there is no change in behaviour. ,, , His recent topic ban has not produced any corresponding change in behaviour elsewhere. On the contrary, he feels his behaviour is justified to dissuade other editors making edits and discussion with which he disagrees. I reject his allegation of "using Wikipedia for political goals" - that sounds about as pointless as trying to be more of an instant news source than CNN, a better porn outlet than Penthouse, a better cookbook than Jamie Oliver. We are an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid. And, by the grace of Jimbo, we are a civil community. I actually care about editors being civil as a core commitment, but failing that, just the appearance of civility would be a huge help in coöperative work. I see none of that despite repeated warnings, and no pledge to improve. --Pete (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Pete, your comments here would have some credibility if you were an angel. All I will do is ask you to look at the really nice way I've asked you to stop the political commentary and speculation about Australia's Prime Minister over at Talk:AWU scandal. It was recommended above that I should report you for continued behaviour in that vein, but I won't, as you will see in my post there. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The links I've given above are to discussions here and on ANI in which I had no input at all. My own "angelhood" or otherwise doesn't enter into it. Civility isn't my creation, it is one of the foundations of our community. --Pete (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe other editors here can now see the kind of problem Wikipedia is facing with the dirty games being played in Australian politics right now. I've been as nice as I could possibly be to Pete about his behaviour, and he has ignored my point and just deflected the attack back onto me. I don't think all of those playing the dirty political games even realise that they're part of that game. I will say no more. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * HiLo, I hate to raise the possibility of self-delusion, but may I direct your attention to the list of quotes here. Can you honestly look yourself in the eye and say that they represent you "as nice as I could possibly be" or a "really nice way" of addressing me? You need to be honest with yourself before you can convince others of your bona fides. --Pete (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To other editors watching this - how can I say nicely that this editor seems obsessed with me, and doesn't really pay attention to others' posts, such as that from Anthonyhcole below? (Which came before Pete's last two posts.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Pete, HiLo has been given advice here by me and others. Let's see what he does with it. I'll warn you now, too, that comments like "self-delusion" are not helpful, and give you the appearance of goading. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Anthony, thank you for your perceptive comment. I have been thinking about it, looking into my heart, and trying to come up with some response that will say what I mean, but will not be seen as goading HiLo, who must be taking all this criticism and comment rather personally. Change comes from within, and my comment about self-delusion above was intended, not to slap HiLo in the face and call him names, but to get him to look into his own heart and consider the truth or otherwise of his statement that he had been "really nice" and "as nice as he possibly could" when making the statements above which Surturz used to open this section. Surturz selected those quotes because he considered them demonstrably not nice, and I certainly took them as deliberately insulting and aggressive. I think any reasonable person would see them in the same light, especially if they were the target. So my question to HiLo is this: When you call another editor "stupid" and his contributions "bullshit", do you honestly consider this to be "really nice"? Pause a few minutes before answering, please. Stillness and meditation aid contemplation. If your response is honest and comes from the heart, it will be the same whether immediate or delayed a minute or a month. --Pete (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * HiLo has said he will try to play the game. The ball's in his court, and I think he will try. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have this page watchlisted, which is how I come to this discussion. I am hardly uninvolved, since I was one of those who took a hard line against HiLo48's long-term abuse at WP:ITN, which eventuated in his current topic ban. I don't miss HiLo one bit at ITN, because a constant violator of WP:CIVIL becomes tiring, galling, distracting and a net negative. There are those here defending HiLo's use to the project. I wouldn't know, since I don't follow his local politics or other editing areas. But I will say this: I am not surprised to see him here, doing the same thing that got him in trouble. If he can learn now that his gratuitous gutter mouth hostility is just going to get him restricted, blocked and eventually banned, fine. If not, the next stop is going to be either back at WP:ANI or an WP:RFC/U, and count me in as a participant. What I read here, just on this current page from him, is outrageous. Enough is enough. Jus  da  fax   01:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We're all agreed on that. It's up to him now. Let's see how he goes. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. That reads far more like a very unhelpful hate post, laced with belated threats, than an acceptance of what is written above. It's as if you haven't even read any of it, nor looked at any of the evidence. (Which you effectively admit.) Bye HiLo48 (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There you have it. Just more predictable hostility, down to the dismissive "Bye." Jus  da  fax   01:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Attitude problems are hard to fix, Wikipedia is not a form of therapy. If you don't have something nice to say, don't say it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the protocols on this page but can we close this now? I think what needs to be said has been. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The pages are automatically archived when there is no comments after a few days. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. What needs to be said is for HiLo to accept that the reason for this discussion is that he has been uncivil, for him to apologise for his behaviour, and to try to refrain from repetition. We are all human, and it takes time and effort to change our habits. I am happy to forgive and forget, but I need to feel within myself that HiLo is walking along the path to improvement. If he continues on the same old way, showing no repentance or acceptance, then it doesn't matter what area of Wikipedia - or of life itself - he chooses to visit, he is going to find trouble and strife as his companion, and we are going to be saying the same things in another forum in a week or a month, until somebody says enough is enough and bans him. I grow weary of dealing with the same incivility, the same aggression, day in and day out. I'm inclined to take this further, to get more eyes on it, to end it sooner rather than later. --Pete (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Pete, I'd focus on your own behavior. Simply cease commenting about HiLo's behavior here and on the talk page, and stay focused on the content. HiLo crossed the line a bit; the issue was referred here, and they've been told by multiple editors to tone it down a bit. There's no need to keep going on and on about it; your continued and repeated commentary is just as disruptive as HiLo's behavior. Nobody Ent 02:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Attack on Editors




Editor Athenean have been turning the naming discussion into a pissing contest in my opinion. He've been pretty hostile and have been attacking other members and their intentions repeatedly. A few examples:
 * "What the people pushing "Bozcaada" are missing, either deliberately or out of inexperience"
 * "There is something very rich about a brand-new single purpose account ( and a bunch of IPs) coming out of nowhere lecturing the community on the evils of Google Books."
 * "This is also the reason why the Google Books search has been so ferociously attacked by the people favoring "Bozcaada": they just don't like the results."
 * "You're not getting it: Google Books="All sources". Sarcasm about "golden calves" is not going to help, and no one is going to take you seriously. Google Books is what we use around here. Just because you don't like the results it gives, doesn't mean we're not going to use it. You can keep repeating we should use your cherry-picked all you want. I'm not going to try to convince you of anything, as that is clearly impossible. You are deep in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at this point."
 * "If you want to be taken seriously around here, I suggest you drop your "Google Books is invalid" nonsense. No one is going to listen to a new account that makes new naming rules to suit its POV."
 * "Now you can go on with your "my cherry-picked sources are vastly superior to Google Books [sic!]" type of nonsense all you want, I don't really care. I posted the Google Books results for the benefit of future participants to this discussion, not yours, as it doesn't seem like any arguments are going to change your mind."
 * "You know, there is no need to personally reply to every "Oppose" vote. It only makes you seem even less neutral than you claim to be."
 * "Are you the same user as AbstractIllusions or Mlepori? It doesn't matter that many of the references to Tenedos are due to its mention in Homer. After all, that is the island's main claim to fame. And no, we are not going to split the page because some people find the classical references inconvenient."
 * "Anyway, I strongly expect you to abide by the results of this move request and not immediately post another if the result of this one is not to your liking (which it probably won't)"
 * "What's this another move request by a new redlinked account?"

The Editor seems to be at least violating AGF policy of Wiki on more than one account. It's been quite hard to separate personal attacks from actual data that is put forward for the naming argument due to posts like the ones I've listed above. Some extra attention is needed for this talk page in my opinion. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm only going to respond to this frivolous request once, to state that none of my talkpage posts are "Attacks on editors". I am frustrated and impatient with some people that are refusing to get the point, but there are zero personal attacks on my part.  An additional source of frustration for me is the fact that the requested move is plagued with sock disruption, as one IP or brand new account after another are popping up to "Support" the move  , while even having the nerve to remove my talkpage posts where I document such disruption . This is intolerable.  Athenean (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Athenean, I know it is frustrating, I've been contacted by one of the users involved in the matter and I've also seen this matter on AN/I. Please take a step back from the situation and don't let it frustrate you, the matter with the Socks will be handled under WP:MEAT or with a WP:SPA notice. Such disruptions occur and are frustrating by nature. Quite frankly, they are obvious, annoying and trying to dominate whilst every dissenting opinion is attacked. This is a matter that is rightfully frustrating to no end; but please refrain from letting it get to you. If it does get to you, do not write it on Wikipedia, this matter WILL be resolved and it must not overwhelm you. So please, refrain from going after the new socks or SPAs, or whatever, take it to WP:SPI. Your comments are not terrible, just slightly uncivil in light of the bunch of new IPs and SPA who are commenting.
 * DarkLordSeth, I assume you understand from what frustration Athenean has had to deal with; the fact its gone to AN/I it proof of it. While I don't think the comments are overly hostile, thank you for mentioning it. Though Athenean hasn't really violated policy, things can be heated and a little uncivil, but it is a far stretch from normal when other users are deleting said users talkpage post. Those editors are in the wrong, and it is okay to have a certain level of frustration when someone deletes your own posts on your own talk page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ChrisGualtieri, I understand why it can be frustrating if it is indeed true that those members are single purpose accounts or sock puppets. At the moment we don't know if they are and the talk pages for Wikipedia articles are not the places to throw such accusations. It simply disrupts the discussion and makes it really hard to follow arguments to make an informed decision. What other editors do is never an excuse for the behavior of an other member. I was pointed out in the past that pages like this should be used in situations like this. That applies to any misbehavior Athenean endured as well. In any way, I believe without any question that he violated the AGF policy in more than one occasion against more than one editor. His AN/I case is made minutes after my case here and is solely based on his assumption of bad faith on a number of editors which is another violation of AGF policy. In fact I am personally offended reading his AN/I case as he seem to make a personal attacks even in that appeal. You also shouldn't label suspected SPA editors as SPA editors for sure. We don't know if they are. We can't treat people as criminals just because they're new on Wiki and the first case they stumbled upon they happen to disagree with us. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One more thing, as you mentioned it, I don't see how people keep reporting Atheneans posts in his own talk page. The only case I see is an IP editor posting in Athenean's talk page, Dr.K deleting that post, IP editor reverting the delete, and the Athenean deeting it again. Then Cinque stelle posts on the same section and his post gets deleted by Dr.K with a personal attack. I might be missing a few posts but I don't see anyone deleting Athenean's own posts on his own talk page. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a diff about my "personal attack" or retract your blatant lie? Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be your comment on this one: . There was no need for you to personalize it in the comment section just like you did just now on your latest edit here. I don't think such hostility is required. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you did not paste my edit-summary comment here I will do it for you:
 * As you see there is nothing even remotely resembling a personal attack. It was a nice response, giving good advice to Cinque stelle since s/he wrote to Athenean that s/he would file a vandalism report if Athenean removed the warning:
 * So I have caught you lying about me. This is not hostility. It is a simple statement of fact. Now that you have been caught lying please retract your lie. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You did type "Hint: I doubt it" when there was no need to personalize it like that. I don't know if you'd prefer the word "imtimidating" but there is certainly no need for the hostility you're exhibiting here. This is also a place to discuss Athenean's posts and not yours. Your post was only mentioned as a reference as you were the one doing the deleting when it was claimed that people were deleting Athenean's post on his talk page. Moreover, I haven't really been caught lying as I was not lying and lying requires you to prove that I've been deliberately making things up about you. You own assumptions are irrelevant to me. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You said above:
 * referring to my comment: i.e. telling Cinquestelle that I doubt that their vandalism report would work, and you report it here, in a highly visible forum, as a personal attack on my part. The only possible conclusions would be that either you don't understand what I wrote or that you deliberately misrepresented the facts, i.e. lied. Take your pick. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  04:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This report is not about your edits. I merely referenced your edits in the context that I've explained before. Nobody reported your edits. If you have a problem with the way I referenced your edits please take it somewhere else. I will not comment further on this issue. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it would look good on your part if you retracted your false allegations about my alleged incivility. But I am not going to insist on trying to make you look good if you don't want to follow my advice. Since I am not a person to try to rub it in I will stop here, hoping that you will follow my advice as that can only contribute to improving your image in the process. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As a new user, I do not want to use this space to attack Athenian or to score points on our ongoing discussion (I got evidence for that). Noting that, his style has been to throw out repeated baseless allegations, including in his response above.  It isn't that we aren't getting what he is saying (note: just he, not the community as a whole), it is that we disagree.  Assertions of how he wants it to be, doesn't mean I have to accept them (especially when his desires are not the same as Wikipedia:Naming Conventions).  His frustration is unwarranted and his expressions of frustration are typically baseless attacks, which does not help us reach consensus.  I think DarkLord does a good job of demonstrating the baseless attacks he is using to try and win his way in the discusison; I wouldn't do the same, but he obviously has some large emotional stake in the name of the island, and is frustrated at the people that feel differently.  At the very least, a reread of Please do not bite the newcomers might be helpful.  My first major discussion and am immediately attacked in the first response as being a "red-linked account" (and I asked him to stop...but he hasn't).  I'm new (apologies to all for trying to get involved) and Athenean's attempts to "big time" me by deferring to his experience, baseless attacks, and constant accusations are certainly unattractive if this is how the community operates.   AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * By saying: I wouldn't do the same, but he obviously has some large emotional stake in the name of the island, and is frustrated at the people that feel differently you just personally attacked Athenean, using psychology as a weapon. If you are a psychologist such action is extremely unethical. If you are not a psychologist you have no business trying to psychoanalyse other people. Regardless, doing it in the middle of the Wikiquette noticeboard as one of the aggrieved parties, it is extremely ironic. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You saying I am "using psychology as a weapon" is a personal attack. No where did I ascribe any psychological motivation underlying Athenean's actions (nor do I care), but instead just repeated the emotions he had already expressed about himself (frustration at people not agreeing with him).  To say "You look sad today" does not equal psychological analysis.  For the distinction, please see any of the 1000+ Google Books hits for Psychoanalysis dated to before the concept was invented.  So, to summarize in pure Beckett-ian fashion, you have now personally attacked me for personally attacking Athenian, who personally attacked himself in order to expladeny personally attacking me, who apparently by being new had unwittingly personally attacked myself. Be wary, I'm starting to feel the pull of the vortex where all meaning collapses in on itself... I've moved on to editing other issues, I want nothing to do with the nonsense anymore.  Please leave me alone.  AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if I discount your references to Athenean's frustration based on your explanation, talking about Athenean's ...large emotional stake in the name of the island is analysing Athenean's emotional state which is part of psychoanalysis, which is part of modern psychology. It doesn't get more intimately ad-hominem than that. But since you expressed a desire to be left alone I will not belabour the point further. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if I discount your references to Athenean's frustration based on your explanation, talking about Athenean's ...large emotional stake in the name of the island is analysing Athenean's emotional state which is part of psychoanalysis, which is part of modern psychology. It doesn't get more intimately ad-hominem than that. But since you expressed a desire to be left alone I will not belabour the point further. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Altetendekrabbe




User Altetendekrabbe have a history of personal attacks as evident from his block log he continue with a same behiovour by accusing me that I am "whitewashing" instead constructively propose sources and improve the article also his statement contain BLP violation.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * huh?--  altetendekrabbe   10:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not a personal attack, the block log states that it was another user who made the NPA and the talk page access was incorrectly removed, the user has not been blocked under NPA. That edit does not seem to be uncivil, but Altetendekrabbe's other edits have been pushy. Shrike's does not have a mastery of English, yet Altetendekrabbe should understand that you should counter one source with your own, not protest Shrike is pushing an extremist by using a source for an obscure topic because a differing opinion was not found. The burden to balance it, falls to you, who raised said problem, not the other way around. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He was blocked "12 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) blocked Altetendekrabbe (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 day (Personal attacks or harassment"--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That block was for one day. It was at the beginning of May. And yes, you were attempting to 'whitewash' the article. And just out of curiosity, since I'd previously started a new section on the talk page entitled "Gross violations of WP:NPOV", why are you complaining about Altetendekrabbe, rather than about me? Still, if you wish to draw further attention for your contempt for WP:NPOV policies, you are going about it the right way. The policy says that "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another". Contrary to what ChrisGualtieri seems to be implying, it is individual editors that are required to edit in a neutral manner (or at least attempt to). It is no good adding POV-pushing material and then responding that someone else can find other views. your own edits to articles are required to be neutral. In regard to the topic in question you knew full well that the author was promoting a fringe minority viewpoint widely rejected by mainstream scholars - yet the article failed entirely to indicate this. It was whitewashing, plain and simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * AndytheGrump, the only reason I mentioned it is because Shrike said he was unable to find a source that Alte was saying SHOULD be added because Shrike's source wasn't neutral. The editor who says that they cannot find a source for another opinion after making a good faith attempt should not be penalized when another users says they should have found one to balance it; yet that editor does not have a source either. For the sake of this conflict, Shrike could not add a source that s/he was unaware of and it falls to the complaining editor to find a source and insert it if they believe said source exists. This is not a major figure or major work, but an obscure reference I can try and source later, but its not an easy one or is obvious to me. Its just how I feel about Alt's claims. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Shrike was fully aware of the fact that Bat Ye'or is a controversial fringe writer. Shrike was fully aware that the material he/she was adding lacked any pretence of neutrality. Shrike has contributed to the Bat Ye'or article, and is well aware that there have been multiple negative scholarly responses to Bat Ye'or's works, as cited there. Shrike chose to ignore these responses, in violation of WP:NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stay on topic.The personal attacks by altetendekrabbe--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A statement of fact is not a personal attack. You were whitewashing Bat Ye'or's works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article talk page is not place for such unwarranted accusation but why should I listen too you was blocked many times for personal attacks so its only natural that you defend another violation of WP:NPA.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if we are going to start discussing past blocks, how about Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive84: "Shrike... has abused multiple accounts, used inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete edit summaries..., made spurious allegations of vandalism..., made indiscriminate reverts to his preferred version from 2009 without regard to intervening changes..., and engaged in long-term sustained edit warring ...., in contravention of WP:SOCK, WP:EDITSUMMARY, WP:VAND, WP:NPA, WP:EW and WP:OWN". If you are going to discuss other's misdemeanours, it is wise to bear in mind that your own are also likely to come up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was happened 3 more then one 1 year ago and have nothing to do with NPA so bring them up is not constructive and disruptive but you violations are very fresh and numerous and have direct connection to personal attack violations that we discuss here.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that Shrike has provided further evidence of a lack of comprehension ('WP:NPA' is explicitly mentioned in the quotation I gave), and seems to have problems with numbers too - February 2011 is not 'three years ago'. And again I ask, why did you raise Altetendekrabbe's comments here, when I'd already made exactly the same point regarding your obvious whitewashing? And come to that, if you thought there was a 'BLP violation', why was this not raised at WP:BLPN - we take BLP violations seriously, and they aren't Wikiquette issues. You'll have to explain what the supposed 'violation' was though if you do - I can't see one anywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I like to hear from uninvolved editor opinion not from user that was blocked many times for NPA violations--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we are all aware of what you like. Now answer the questions. Why did you ignore my comments, and raise Altetendekrabbe's here? And why, if you think there is a BLP violation, did you not raise it at WP:BLP/N? If you are going to accuse people of violating core policies, shouldn't you at least attempt to explain what they did to violate them? Or was the accusation just thrown in at random? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * now shrike, that's a personal attack!--  altetendekrabbe   16:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Where?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, i have a source, a much better one. the problem is not the lack of mainstream sources (i found one eventually). the problem is shrike's inability to contribute in a way that respects neutral point of view. how is it possible that he's only able to find sources that represent fringe views? frankly put: cherry-picking of sources, violation of npov, and being deliberately obtuse seems to be his mo.--  altetendekrabbe   16:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Another violation of WP:NPA--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * what? i am pointing out the facts, just like andy or the editors on an/i. chris, please take note of shrike's nonsensical behavior. his continues allegations/disruptiveness is becoming tiresome.--  altetendekrabbe   16:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In light of the matter, Shrike you do seem to be POV pushing and you cannot call everything a personal attack when some evidence is backed against you. If you are unable to abide by NPOV, than you should refrain from adding or removing content which 'whitewashes' controversy as held in reliable sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What about being " being deliberately obtuse"?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 03:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose it might be accidental. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * lol! :D--  altetendekrabbe   06:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding-247 accusation of personal attack




StillStanding-247 falsely accused me of meatpuppetry here where he wrote: – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 06:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC) ViriiK (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC) which you can see here | Warning by The ed17 ViriiK (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently I'm being lumped in with this group as one of his "people" which I'm not a part of any Wikiproject. I've consistently maintained that this user is a tendentious editor and he has been making edits that are extremely questionable.  Earlier I reverted his change claiming that the Republican Party is a Christian Right organization although it was in the wrong section due to the fact it was under the heading "Movements outside the United States".
 * Now he made the claim below in response to me over at the edit-warring report page. Interestingly, I never once reverted the editor Scientiom, nor was I involved in that article.
 * It's not particularly a pattern that is new. He's been warned before by an administrator for creating situations that has been a form of battleground
 * I came here thinking about filing a similar report. StillStanding's refusal to acknowledge incivility and/or inability to see that this is a personal attack warrants significant action. I would like an admin to communicate to him that such attacks are not tolerated. StAnselm (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've notified the user that this discussion is on going. Please notify when reporting in future GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  07:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. No, I don't see any place where I claimed meatpuppetry or any other sort of violation. In fact, I said in as many words, that there doesn't seem to be any policy violated. Does that really sound like a personal attack to you? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that in light of StillStanding's denial of wrongdoing, this should be taken to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and a ban requested. StAnselm (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Either that, or Requests for comment/User conduct. StAnselm (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the quote: "As far as I can tell, there's no policy against what Lionelt is doing, so I'm not accusing him of anything." I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyhow, I'm here and willing to discuss this issue productively. So far, I've seen some misleading and out-of-context quotes, and some threats. This doesn't seem productive to me. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I am one who has "threatened" you, if by that you mean warning you that if you continue like this you will get blocked. I'm glad you're willing to discuss things, although for my part, your personal attack seems so blatant that I don't know how to explain it to you if you can't see it. But at minimum, I would suggest that if you've done something that has upset people - that people think is a personal attack - you should think very hard about how they might be reading it, and apologise for any misunderstanding caused. StAnselm (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WQA is a place for mediation. The fact that you're threatening to report me to ANI shows that you're not committed to mediating anything. In fact, I'm not even sure why you bothered. Anyhow, I already expressed regret for any distress, but I suffer from the Innocent prisoner's dilemma, so there are limits to what I can say. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, if you want mediation, then that's fine. No, ANI or RfC is the place to go if you keep up with the flat denials. OK, I see where you have expressed regret, although the "nothing I said could be mistaken for a personal attack by an objective third party" bit kind of undoes your good work there. StAnselm (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that you're an objective third party in this matter? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've found that these drama pages aren't very good at resolving problems between people, so I've made a post directly on Lionel's talk page. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Put briefly, the reason why many editors consider it a personal attack is that it implies collusion among editors. So it is not just an attack on Lionel, but on ViriiK and myself. StAnselm (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is collusion among editors: it's called WikiProject Conservatism. But collusion isn't automatically against policy. As I've said a few times, it does not appear that his filing the 3RR report violated any policies, so there's no room here for a personal attack to be inferred. He brought up WP:MEAT but that would require one of the other editors to request that he file the 3RR, and nobody has suggested any such thing occurred. Remember, I am responsible for what I imply, but never for what others infer despite my direct statement to the contrary. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing that Lionelt filed this report, didn't notify me, and then left. Is this the correct procedure? Should we keep the report open in case he comes back eventually? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The correct procedure is to insure all parties are aware of the request, and obviously StillStanding is. The request will archive automatically when no one has anything left to say. Nobody Ent 10:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * StillStanding's statement doesn't strike me as an accusation of meatpuppetry. Nobody Ent 10:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * and StillStanding has already clarified it on Lionel's talk page: User_talk:Lionelt. WQA isn't meant to take the place of people actually talking to each other first. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, StillStanding's definition of a personal attack bothers me. He has accused a number of editors of collusion (as he freely admits) but then says that's not a personal attack since collusion is not against WP policy. A few days ago he did exactly the same thing to me - he accused me of believing that gay people should be executed, and then said that wasn't a personal attack - presumably because it also wasn't against WP policy. StAnselm (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * StAnselm, I have to remind you that the "personal attack" you just dug up was a result of your own misunderstanding. Here's what a neutral third party told you:
 * I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. Still's comment appeared to be in reference to the quote provided in this comment: . That he made this comment as a response to Anselm is probably more about not wanting to repeat the information, but insuring that anyone reading the first oppose comment is aware of evidence being provided later on in the discussion.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ring any bells? Even though it was your misunderstanding, I took the high road by redacting my comment entirely.
 * Likewise, you seem to be misunderstanding what collusion means. Open collusion within Wikipedia policy is perfectly acceptable. It's not like I accused Lionel of plotting against me off-Wiki. Coincidentally, when someone else did exactly that, you tried twice to delete it from my talk page by falsely accusing me of WP:OUTING. I once again took the high road, redacting Arthur's alleged IRC nick, even though it doesn't appear to be covered by that policy.
 * I could go on -- you launched a false speedy deletion and supported a failed MfD against the RFC -- and now you're taking me to WQA over a claim without merit: I did not accuse Lionelt of meatpuppetry. This doesn't even go into the many false notices you posted on my talk page or your participation in the impromptu pile-ons on drama pages.
 * I think that all this speaks for itself, don't you? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I ought to respond to this. I decided not to pursue the execution of gays comment any further for that reason, but when this came up, I thought it indicated a pattern - making comments that people think are personal attacks, and then denying there was any such attack. It raises the question of why people are interpreting your comments as personal attacks. Anyway, to clear up a few points of fact, I did not accuse you of outing - it was, in fact, the IP editor who had posted something on your page. I did not use the word meat-puppery - I have been using the word collusion, which you are happy to accept. Finally, if by "high ground" you mean "moral high ground", I'd hate to think what the low ground is. If you think I have done the wrong thing in "supporting a failed MfD", you really need to learn how to discuss things here on Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The pattern I see here is that I get falsely accused of incivility and then third parties point out that the accusation is false. I'm sure people can note who does the accusing and draw their own conclusions about motivations.
 * To revert a civil comment just because someone misunderstood it is indeed the moral high ground. It's better to just avoid drama, which is why I won't bother refuting the rest of your comment. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nobody Ent, that StillStanding did not really accuse Lionelt of meatpuppetry. On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that StillStanding is claiming that WikiProject Conservatism has become a place where editors not only work together to improve content about conservatism, but, in StillStanding's opinion, editors coordinate efforts to exert a pro-conservative POV. As far as "wikiquette" more broadly, I don't think either side has particularly clean hands. My advice to everyone following this discussion is to take a good look at WP:BATTLEGROUND, and think seriously about what you can do to not be accused of battleground conduct when, inevitably, this dispute works its way up the dispute resolution ladder. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice. Indeed, that is more or less the claim of the RFC that I am helping draft, and it's supported by evidence. To be fair, nobody is suggesting that all members of WikiProject Conservatism have violated policy; for example, I don't think your name has come up at all. In any case, I am helping it work up the dispute resolution ladder, which is a very good thing. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not a member of the project, but I watchlist what they do. Please keep in mind that things like repeatedly reverting, and focusing on a particular kind of POV issue, can also be regarded as battleground, as can your reply to Toa Nidhiki05 directly below. Toa raised issues about your conduct, that can be discussed here, but he did not actually make a personal attack against you. Your claiming that he did only escalates the dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm more than a bit concerned that Still is basically Wikilawyering around this... He accused Lionelt of bad faith editing and hasn't redacted it. Such claims are not to be made lightly and Lionelt was (quite reasonably) offended by the idea, as would I and I assume most other editors. While he may not have violated any policy, accusing of collusion is still essentially accusing Lionel of POV-pushing.
 * On a broader scale, his remarks about WP:CONSERVATISM should be struck out - he is accusing an entire project (over 80 members) of POV-pushing without bothering to present any evidence. While not in violation of policy (to my knowledge), he is getting very close to the line on these issues and I hope he stops.  Toa   Nidhiki05  01:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a highly inaccurate summary. I think you need to take a step back and ask yourself if you really want to launch a personal attack against me right here on WQA. You just falsely accused me of "Wikilawyering", of accusing Lionelt of "bad faith editing" and so on. Feel free to redact yourself.
 * There is absolutely nothing wrong with accusing a WikiProject of having gone off the rails. That's what the RFC process is for. You might as well complain that I'm accusing someone of edit-warring when I report them for WP:3RR violation. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely Wikilawyering - you are accusing Lionel of bad faith editing, not breaking any rules but not abiding by the spirit of the law. It isn't false, it is what you are using to argue - that you didn't break any rules so nothing should happen, even though your comments violate the spirit of WP:AGF. You assumed bad faith and accused Lionelt of it by accusing him of colluding to file an edit warring complaint on behalf of others because his 'hands are cleaner'. If that isn't assuming and accusing another of bad faith, I don't know what is. That is a tremendous assumption of bad faith and to deny it is quite silly.  Toa   Nidhiki05  02:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to point out where I made accusations of bad faith. If you can't provide I diff, maybe you should retract your claims. And, no, your interpretation is insufficient, as it's quite subjective and biased. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Imagine that you're calmly and professionally discussing project schedules with a co-worker and they suddenly freak out, shouting, "I am not a murderer! How dare you call me a rapist?! I'm king of the world!! You're the murdering rapist, not me!!! Yaaaaargh!!!!!"

I don't know about you, but my first reaction would be to calmly remind them that I made no such accusation, and I'd follow up by gently trying to calm them down. Once they were calm, however, I'd contact HR and get their help in figuring out why this person just acted out and what we should do about it.

I think the parallels between my analogy and what recently happened with Lionelt are pretty clear, but here's what he wrote in response to my comment about person/people:

I'd like you to look at this and ask yourself if his "outraged" response is proportional and reasonable. Most specifically, ask yourself if it is at all civil and whether it contains personal attacks. It looks to me like what we have here is a WP:BOOMERANG situation. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with StillStanding on this, looks like this has turned into a witch-hunt. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  05:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and he won't drop it. He was willing to file this report and unwilling to actually follow up on it, but he's now repeating the false accusation that I called him a meatpuppet. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

An Uncivil Threesome
I'm getting extreme uncivil behavior from three members of wikipedia User:Shawn in Montreal, User:Tomwsulcer and User:Nat Gertler. Without trying to relive this last week on Wikipedia, this threesome of people have triple teamed everything I've done. One of the members User:Shawn in Montreal filed a COI on me, then afterwards realized he was wrong, he made an apology (still the damage was done)- but then went back to his uncivil actions and ways. I'm still a newbie here esp with creating articles and so forth, but these guys have bitten me constantly and have attacked like a pack of wolves. If you could just look at all of our edit history, you will see a pattern with them and their behavior towards me and my artciles, etc. It's very disturbing, and please, if someone can look into this threesome as it's been a very unpleasurable expereince here on Wikipedia.Causeandedit (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You should have cited the problem articles, like the Steve Lieber link farm than you tagged as an advertisement (and that User:Shawn in Montreal used your talk page to disagree with your evaluation of).
 * What about listing the other problem articles, so that non-administrators can give you feedback on their evaluation of the edit history? LittleBen (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have notified the three editors mentioned above of the existence of this thread. VQuakr (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I"m trying to understand exactly what the accusation against me is here. Yes, I was editing articles related to Jonathan Hay (publicist), which User:Causeandedit was also editing. Then said user announced that he would specifically target certain articles related to me... primarily articles that I was already involved in the talk page. So yes, I've been involved in editing, and I didn't stopped being involved in talk pages of pages he chose to target. When User:Shawn in Montreal saw that he had announced such targeting and noted that he'd add those pages to his watch list, presumably because he recognized the targeting and knew that due to WP:COI concerns, I'd be reticent to edit the articles themselves. Overall, I've answered the user's questions, pointed him to Wikipedia procedure, and suggested steps that would help him maintain an article he wanted to protect. If someone wants to point to what aspect of Wikipquette I've violated, that might move this discussion forward. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome Causeandedit, sorry you are are having such a rough time of things. Can you please choose three diffs as examples of this uncivil behavior? Perusing your edit history I certainly see evidence of disagreement, but simply disagreeing with someone is not uncivil. VQuakr (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps User:Causeandedit is referring to articles such as Jonathan Hay (publicist) and Hoopla Worldwide and Nat Gertler. Causeandedit has worked hard on these articles to try and improve them, but my sense is that he or she does not yet have a firm grasp of Wikipedia's rules about sources, verifiability and such, and I continue to urge this user to please read WP:RS and WP:V and WP:NEUTRAL. Many references added were links to blogs, websites, press releases and such. I urge Causeandedit to understand that reverting the contributions of well-established contributors such as myself, on repeated occasions, including removing tags without fixing the problems noted, is perhaps not a good policy in the long run. In my view, Causeandedit's additions to the three articles do not yet show an understanding of Wikipedia's rules and, as a result, many edits have been contested, challenged, and the Jonathan Hay article has been put up for AfD. I have twice offered to provide assistance and counsel to this contributor, and explained that Wikipedia has a learning curve, but it first needs people willing to wish to learn it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been notified of this discussion but I don't know what to add to I've said in all the discussions to date. I'll just say: 1) yes I did initiate a COI noticeboard discussion, then withdraw it 2) This has been getting very personalized for some time, and a comment like this is a flag, to me, that there is WP:POINTy tit-for-tat flagging for advert on the part of Causeandedit, as there is nothing remotely "strange" about the layout of the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll add another diff: this comment from Causeandedit back on the 12th seemed to me to be the start of a strategy on his part to reply in kind to any maintenance tagging or criticisms of "his" articles by reflecting them back on articles related to Nat Gertler. It's a kind of a warning shot, imo. Now, in some cases, there are real issues on the articles he has tagged. But as I've already indicated, with the diff on the Lieber article, I think it's also disruptive editing, at times, too.   Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Shawn, once again you are falsely assuming things. Your ref to my comments are correct, and there is nothing wrong with them. I couldn't think of the right tag for the Steve Lieber page, but I knew it looked strange with the layout as I told you. Somebody went and added the correct tags to that page, which is exactly what I was looking for.  And for the record, the three of guys have been so hard on me with all my work (even while building the page, I asked you guys to let me build the page and I put the correct "under construction" tag and you all were still all over it, that it got so frustrating that I kind of quit it early).  So yes, with you guys being so strict and intense, I went to your pages to see your pages as a frame of reference for mine, because I assumed that you all would have bulletproof, properly sourced work that I could A and B with mine.  However, the pages weren't like that at all which was suprising. Causeandedit (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The "under construction" tag includes an invitation for other people to edit. And the pages that you went to were not pages that any of us were editing (with the exception of one ISBN-formatting correction I made years ago on one of the pages), so that excuse that you were looking at our "work" doesn't match with reality. Now may I ask once again that you show where I violated Wikiquette (with diffs showing what edits you're objecting to) or that you revoke the accusation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Match with reality"? Nice one... What are you implying with the comment? And for the violations, I will list them Nat, but right now I'm watching the two films (+2 more) to give you the credits that you asked for - for the Jonathan Hay page to put on the AFD page. Causeandedit (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking back over everything closey, I think that Nat Gertler is genuinely trying to help, although I don't think he really has a clear understanding of the music side of things and how it works, just like I don't understand the comics side of things, however, he does understand how wiki works and trys to stay neutral to wiki policy, which is fair. The accusation on him needs to be revoked because he hasn't really violated wikiquette - it's just been frustraing on the lack of knowledge on subjects. Shawn in Montreal pretty much started this whole incident, with his harsh and wrong acusations that he later apologizsed for, but as I said, the damage was done. (ill-considered accusations of impropriety) I think at that point, once he made such a strong accusation, jumped to conclusions and made a wrong COI, he should have just backed away and let things "heal" so to speak instead of still provoking and biting at my edits, etc instantly. He still makes wrong acusations, so I think he should basically walk away, esp after my first encounter with him was doing the wrong thing that he did. That said, I do respect what he has said and his knowledge, and I have learned a lot from his insight.  Clearly, he has violated wikiquette to some degree, but I can get over it. Now Tomwsulcer here is what i've expereinced from him with uncivil behavior. 1) Take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully. 2) Makes snide comments 3) aggressive 4) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. So, I don't know if any of this helps anything or not.  I've never done this before. :) Causeandedit (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a disconnect between the ideal of WP:Civility and the day to day rough and tumble of working through disagreements, unfortunately. I don't expect that to be changed anytime soon. Generally speaking, most editors don't have time to sift through edit histories to help resolve friction (at least I don't) -- so I'll repeat the request for WP:DIFFs which provide specific examples of the behavior Causeandedit is referencing. 10:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Causeandedit is an inexperienced and abrasive contributor, clearly partisan towards nonnotable subjects which he has created articles for such as Jonathan Hay (publicist) and Hoopla Worldwide, and Causeandedit has shown a pattern of disruptive, accusatory and non-collegial editing when others have tried to point out problems with these articles. I have tried to inform this contributor about how Wikipedia's rules are paramount, such as proper sources; others such as Nat Gertler and Shawn in Montreal have tried to do likewise. Instead of listening to our counsel and learning the rules, and fixing the problems which beset the articles above, Causeandedit has removed tags without solving the problems mentioned in the tags, focused attention on attacking the three of us on talk pages and in COI boards and here and in numerous places such as here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Causeandedit is creating a lot of friction here and shows no sign of learning the rules or working amicably with other contributors.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2012
 * I hadn't noticed Cause's comment above from 12:42 a.m., seeking to "revoke" this Wikiquette request for assistance. Having now seen it, I've removed my comment as I'd really prefer not to continue posting diffs about this long and drawn-out drama. Content is king, and that's where we should all be directing our time and energy.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I lost that whole thing I was posting... Causeandedit (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Shawn, you shouldn't remove your comment, put it back, so other people can see your constant uncivil treatment on me (even after you apologized for an "uncivil" action). Let me be clear, I didn't ask to "revoke" this Wikiquette request for assistance on you, or Tom... no way.  I did on Nat Gertler because looking back, he wasn't doing anything to violate wikiquette. When you initally attacked me Shawn and put up your false COI, Nat was kind of thrown in the middle, because he was making comments too, but his comments and suggestions were correct and separate from you, so, I confused the motives of both of you and put the both you two together because like I said, I've NEVER been in any situation like this before. Once again, I don't think you've taken ANY accountablity to what you've done to me.  This in all reality started from you. You created this and continue to do so. Causeandedit (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh this is still on? Okay. It's all a massive waste of time, imo, but here's the comment, then:
 * This comment from yesterday is also a good example of his behaviour. I don't think there's anything on that Talk page which can in any way be construed as Nat orchestrating a campaign on his article -- in fact, he's been enormously careful not to be in COI. But because the Jonathan Hay article will likely be deleted and Gertler's not, this editor continues a campaign of attack and innuendo in place of being able to mount an effective defence of his  article. He may be inexperienced but he's no newbie -- he's been here since July 2011 -- and he's learning fast how to use the mechanisms of Wikipedia to  strike back at editors and wikilawyer. As in the above diff, he's learned how to couch things in a "I don't know, guys..." false innocence as he manages to stay just shy of blockable behaviour. Judging the massive amount of drama he's created since this began, I suspect he will continue this campaign ad nauseum. Personally, I now think WP:DENY is the best way to deal with the situation, but I'll be curious to see what the perspective is of uninvolved editors, as they sift through all this -- if they choose to. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * These reasons above are the very reason that I created this “Wikiquette assistance” page to begin with. Since July 2011, when I started editing wiki pages, I’ve never had ANY incident or conflict with anyone at all.  Not ONE.  That said, it was Causeandedit who created this massive amount of drama, not ME when he made an “uncivil” public COI against me with a bunch of false accusations, in which he later apologized.  But immediately after his “apology”, he continued to bash and keep going, instead of letting things just "heal".  He caused a ton of stress and hurt, but he doesn’t just back off… he keeps going with his uncivil and accusing ways, and even like his above comments STILL making more accusations without taking any accountability to what he has really done here (and keeps doing).   That’s not right; he should at least give that person space for his hurtful public accusations.  What good is an apology, if you keep going with on with more of the same? Now Tomwsulcer has caused me so much anxiety and stress with his bullying and “uncivil” tactics.  He just said above that Hoopla Worldwide is a “nonnotable subject” when clearly it is.  Hoopla Worldwide is as notable as any notable indie record label can be.  Look at the facts with that label, it has major distribution and releases MANY multi-platinum artists on a major scale.  Sure, I might have added too many sources (and the wrong ones) and what not, and it might not read the best way, but he threatened to put a “AFD” on that page too, if I didn’t follow his ways.  I asked him to help and he didn’t.  So I reached out to a different editor who has experience with creating record label pages, and he removed two of the tags that Tomsulcer put on there. Tom is abusive and disruptive with his edits when dealing with me.  YES, I removed tags from the Hay publicist page that were fixed from other editors as you can see from the edit history.  If you do indeed look at his “exhibits” he lists for his rebuttal above, you will see that I haven’t attacked them, it’s the two of them who continue to attack and cause uncivil harm.  I went back to those pages that he lists, where he accuses me of threats and added my “sign posts” as I didn’t have them before.  I wish the two of these guys would just back off from me.Causeandedit (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disagreement is a normal part of the collaborative editing process, and edits you make will be modified and critiqued by people you do not know. Commentary on and discussion regarding deletion of content you have added is not uncivil, because you do not own your edits. This discussion should be closed soon, as there do not appear to be any examples of serious WP:CIVIL violations actually presented. Causeandedit, if your hope is that you can have editors who disagree with you "banned" from editing in areas where you have been working, you should know that this is very unlikely. Remember that you should write about what can be verified, not what you know or what is "obvious". VQuakr (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks VQuakr, my hope isn't to have editors "banned" from editing at all. I want people to edit the work, not me, but I'm tired of these two users in particular who push the envelope of uncivil behavior and who have been attacking me, case in point a wrong COI - and to continue on with their bullying tactics, that shouldn't be allowed or accepted. You don't see the pattern here with them? Thanks for your time :) Causeandedit (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't come across the other 2, but I've had the misfortune to attract User:Nat Gertler's attention. There is just no need to talk to people like this. Tepi (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't wish to interact with other Wikipedia editors, then editing Wikipedia will be difficult. If you have some specific complaint to make about me here, I request that you make it and post some difs to support it. If you don't, I request that you retract your comment. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Generally I've found User:NatGertler to be WP:CIVIL and collegial and a decent Wikipedian.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Just on a general note, I wonder what pointers our Wikipedia knowledge base has for drafting company pages that don't come across as pointless advertising. Just out of curiosity, I took a look at "Hooplah Worldwide's" wikipedia page and one of the only descriptors it has on it is "Hooplah Worldwide has been described as a 'media mammoth'" Sure, it's factual, but isn't it not unlike the wikipedia page for some politician having as its second sentence a statement like "Joe Blow Politician has been described as "the guy who should vote for, because he is awesome."

As to the wikiquette, I of course sympathize with anyone who has come up against people in the media industry; they often redefine abrasive. I'm curious too, insofar as, like it not, wikipedia is a very political document, edits in the spirit of fun are allowed. For instance, when certain companies are so eager-beaver to be listed on wikipedia, don't we owe it to them and ourselves to list the good and the bad about them on their page? Just a question. Thanks! Hope I wasn't hopelessly off-topic here.

Settdigger (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Death Page Problem- Badruddin Haqqani

 * Lihaas
 * Sunnydoo


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deaths_in_2012

We seem to be having an issue. I am a normal contributor to the Deaths Page board. I handle mostly Cause of Death and verifying articles. As far as that forum goes, my work speaks for itself. I am currently #5 for the year in edits with a few over 500. I have never had an issue with another person like this before in my days. We have had some disputes with red names among others, but this guy seems to have a vendetta of some kind.

What has happened is this. I entered in Haqqani with a link to the BBC article for his death. The BBC article stated that a family member and local tribesmen said that he was dead and his body was buried. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19378474 is the article.

The user Lihaas against the usual standard for the Death section just reverted the edit without entering anything on the Talk page. Out of courtesy when I undo someone's edit, I always go to their talk page and enter the information in a nice way. I have a little script I use for this. Instead Lihaas goes crazy and starts accusing me of a number of things. He kept saying that the article was bogus and I was making things up. He further went on to say that the BBC was not a reputable source. I reversed his edit. Then he reversed mine. At which point I reversed his edit again and entered an article on the Talk Page. He then went onto the Death Talk page after I had made notice to him of it being there. It was more in your face behavior. He then closed the discussion for the page.

I dont know what to do. I have never dealt with someone like this before in either my professional or personal life. If I had done something wrong, I could understand it. But I have been in policy the entire time. He has now reversed edits 3 times in 24 hours, which is against policy. However, I am not asking for disciplinary sanctions against him. Only for help in resolving the matter as he seems to have quite a temper.Sunnydoo (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * One other quick point- after the last volley, I did ask Lihaas not to contact me again or I would report for him harassment.  I dont wish for the conflict to continue- just mitigation of the circumstances and a decision to made. Sunnydoo (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * First off, an addition was made to the page in BLP violation on speculation of a death. Which i admitted to him was right per BOLD.
 * I first reverted as speculation accordance with the source, the above user then said/admits there was doubt as unconfirmed (which is explicit in the source). As is then in accord with WP, his edits need to be discussed which i told him per BRD. He then re-reverts and threatens me with reporting. This came after he leaves a non-civil note on my talk page saying i am "patronising" for that edit, he later mentions other sources by name with no evidence (and then went ahead with a 2nd revert). Then after saying i was patronising, he claims to be courteous and threatens me, when the said post came AFTER he was against consensus on the talk page (and having twice reverted). My reply to him came as a reply to me on my talk page (albeit i replied a day/2 late). See also the talk page Talk:Deaths_in_2012, where he reports that "there is a personal problem between us" and then says the report and also claims hes been courteous from the start and im wholly at fault (?). Not sure if he is acquainted with WP policies, though i brought a key one to his attention.
 * tw- He told me I enjoy "starting" an edit war aftre i told him to discuss in accord with BRD, the ONUS then was not on me to find sources for his addition. Yet still he reverts without; discussion OR a source that affirms.
 * Let me also note that after his first comment on my ta;lk page, i replied to him that BOLD reverts need to be discussed and explained why i reverted, he THEN re-reverted. Then he thinks he owns the article, saying hes the top 5 contribs and that he was [allegedly] entirely civil and i was at fault.
 * And for the record, he has soapboxed "good riddance" on the death page, then saying ive questioned his honour/AGF.
 * I have no idea why this came here in the first place. But it points to BOOMERANG.
 * Dear, dear, he now mentions in the first paragraph here that he is a "topeditor with X edit" and I hVE a vendetta? Do you relise, Syunnydoo, that the comment is not in accord with courteous co-editing? You think calling me patronising is a "nice way"? Please find me one single instance that i ever/kept said this article was "bogus", the "BBC is not a reputable source" or that i went "crazy" (and that too is polite?). And hwere did i close the discussion, i merely hatnoted offtopic materialwhich anyone would agree was. At any rate, as you reverted that i only hatnoted by comment. Further please point out where i ahve reverted anything in 24 hours?Lihaas (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at your talk page history it looks pretty uncivil. Looks like a genuine problem. --Pete (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That i remove content from my talk page? Kindly please read where it stemmed from? Why should i have attacks of being patronising on my page when i was in accord with my right to revert per BRD? He tells me not to go on his talk page and he continues to add to mine? Really? I should keep taking thrats?
 * Did you further read his no w bad faith and without ecvidence accusation against me here too? ive disected it here (by asking not accusing) too.Lihaas (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please check out my talk page also. The part about questioning my honor and ability is this "Please stop introducing jokes into articles. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Continuing to add jokes and other disruptive content into articles may lead to you being blocked from editing. ."  I do not take my updates lightly as I spend a couple of hours a week researching many newspapers to find hard Cause of Deaths.  I consider that response argumentative and threatening.Sunnydoo (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, ive lsited those comments my self on this page, i dont intent to hide it. And did you see the edit of ours i referred to? I dont think saying "good riddance" shows any faith on that edits part. That is soapboxing]]Lihaas (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw that comment and I think it was in pretty poor taste, but understandable. Is there any need for this to continue? The guy's dead, we have good confirmation, you two can stop slinging rocks at each other and call a truce? Please? --Pete (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and i had no intention of even brining it here on anything. Im involved in the discussion on the talk page, actively contributing to the matter at hand of the sources not slinging mud. If you wish to close this its fine. We can continue there (though im still aghast hes accusing me, but whatever). Maybe not a block, but he should get a trout for that. Id perefer salmon ;)Lihaas (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like you're fishing for compliments. Looking further, there may have been some misunderstanding about the use of the word "patronising", which can have a couple of meanings. I'm guessing here, but is English a second language, or do you have a problem with dyslexia? Either can make humour hard to fathom and misunderstandings easier. --Pete (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In Wikiquette assistance/archive120, just a few weeks ago, Lihaas agreed to stop using the term "nonsense" when blanking sections from his own talkpage. I am curious as to whether Lihaas has now changed his mind about this, or whether the two instances of it in this incident  were merely oversights on his part?

Lihaas, do you accept that Sunnydoo's original post on your talk page was entirely polite and collegial? Secondly, were you able to understand what Sunnydoo was trying to convey in that post?

Also, do you understand why your response on his talk page might lead Sunnydoo to believe that you were being "crazy" in your actions? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. I guess in hindsight patronising could be taken two ways. It was just in combination with the reverts et al. that it was more.
 * 2. The "nonsense" was in response to the hostility, perceived or intended. But per both it was the hostility and it gets turned around on me?
 * 3. Which brings me to the next point, did you see what that was in response to? That was grossly inappropriate, not just a misperception. I find it curious that there is not a lick of comment in regards to that action. Thats purely oversighted? He doesnt get even anyone comment on the gross incivility? Im sorry but that doesnt elicit good faith towards someone who work on BLP content. Note, a highly contentious issue here. He also files a report without the evidence and then blatantly dodges to falsify evidence (note, i asked question of where i did what he asked), conversely i mentioned virtually all edits in question, even ones on his page that he says defend his view. And that turns on me? ANd he gets nothing? Hes is still accussing me on this page and without a shed of evidence cause i kno wi never said/did what he accuses (As a reason to bring this here, frivolously i might add) "kept saying this article was "bogus", the "BBC is not a reputable source", i close the discussion OR where i reverted anything thirice in 24 hours?" Further nte, he insisted on keeping his content on the page when he was against consensus. That is against WRONGVERSION and BRD.Lihaas (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your level 3 warning on his talk page accusing him of creating a "joke" was certainly an indication that you considered the information (and the source?) "bogus", even if you didn't use that actual word. Now, are you willing to answer my questions? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that was the edit summary as the other user here pointed out. Clearly that was some sort of facetious commen. See the edit summary in what i link to with that edit below the warning (notw- it was NOT an empty warning it had my words to calrfiy). You really think hes dont nothing wrong? Ive even shown right here the "bogus" accusations. I also fail to see what having made X amount of edits has to do with anything. This saga stemmed from the right per BRD to make BOLD edits (him), revert(mine), then his ONUS to discuss and prove. That is there to prevent such edit wars.
 * And for he records, the same edit as the warning includes the caveat as explanation. I mentioned sopaox and opinion, woud that mean the content is opinion. Seeing the edit will clearly show a grossly inappropriate summary. (which, by active precedence shows that a western-friendly pov is acceptable without action but anything that disagrees is grounds for a unilateral block without dicussion or defence)
 * At any rate, Ive proposed this to end this facadeLihaas (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Seriously, Sunnydoo there is no way that you are the top X editor, top 5 on page means nothing as well. For making that very argument it is a matter of WP:OWN and is very uncivil. You don't even have 1000 edits, try 894. Thousands and thousands of other editors are above you, in no possible way could you be the top 5 anything. That is a bad faith ad hom to bolster your authority. Lihaas, everything you write matters for context, but you must also be aware of how it appears and what it says about the situation. Don't be humorous. I say keep him on the list because it was international news. If you disagree with the content take it to WP:DRN, but drop the incivility, no need to be bickering about it. Its not even that important. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That was never my intention. My point about being Top 5 on this particular board was not made to be a boast.  It was to lend credibility to my claim that the BBC and the article was not bogus and that I wasnt responsible for introducing a "joke" article as Lihaas claimed.  We have had quite a few incidents of vandalism on this particular page and now public edits are restricted on it because of the vandalism.  Which is another reason why I took Lihaas's charges so seriously.  I personally do not care how many edits I have or how many other people have.  I also realize that there are other editor's who do significantly more work on the page than myself including handling most of the monthly turnover chores, verifying edits and running bots to check references.  It is a great deal of work that goes into it and not one person or even a few persons could manage to do it all.  It is very much a community effort.Sunnydoo (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As for the matter at hand, Lihaas has extended an olive branch and I think we will just drop this. I very much think there were some cultural misunderstandings and/or funny wording that got us off down the wrong path.  Thank you everyone for the assistance.Sunnydoo (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear it, such issues come up, I had one the other day where my message was taken way weirdly, but it made things seem defensive when I was making a compliment. Such things happen. On a personal note, someone mentioned by 100,000 edit count when my Persondata edit messed up a bad template in an article and didn't notify me. The good thing about Wikipedia, nothing is unfixable, given the desire to correct it, our narrow viewpoints are sometimes a problem. Though as a whole, Wikipedia is getting better. Working with each other goes a long way in successful coverage of all topics. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Involuntary Celibacy



 * Involuntary celibacy

I made a legitimate edit to the "Definition and psychological consequences" section of this article, and this "Mr. Vernon" insists on undoing it and "warning" me. I'm very interested to know exactly why his edits are OK and mine are "vandalism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.82.180 (talk • contribs)
 * Because you keep blanking content here, here, and here without explaining it in the comments for your edit or using the article talk page to discuss these changes first. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed the report. 71.60.82.180, your edits removed a bunch of well sourced information and replaced it with unsourced speculation with no scientific backing.
 * Mr. Vernon, while the IP's edit was generally useless and not helpful in the slightest, it was made in good faith and therefore not vandalism. I recommend keeping Template_messages/User_talk_namespace bookmarked, and use the uw-unsourced and uw-delete templates next time, as would talking to him about his edits (since he did ask you why you were undoing his edits and warning him).
 * 71.60.82.180, please read our guidelines and policies on citing and identifying reliable sourcse in a neutral manner. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do. 71.*, my apologies for the vandalism comments, I'll remove those warnings from your talk page. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, 71.60.82.180 just did this edit again, which now violates WP:3RR. Since I tagged this incorrectly recently I am loathe to give him a warning, does someone else want to handle it? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Mr. Vernon, here. You are not only blanking, but you are also adding deliberate factual errors, despite multiple warnings. Electric Catfish 21:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the stranger articles I've run across here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The warning would serve no purpose, but if it continues than the edit warring note might be grounds for a block, as the editor has taken it to the talk page, that is a good sign. Our complex rules and many policies are not clear cut or spelled out until most editors run into them first. IPs are no exception. For that reason, I think the edit warring note is enough, and 3RR is stale now, but yes. Strange article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother 10




A discussion has gotten out of hand at Celebrity Big Brother 10, arguing over formatting of a nominations table, on one hand you had a number of editors wanting information included and others who didn't. This led to accusations of bullying, ownership and general aggressive comments. The anon did break WP:3RR at one point, but this hasn't been reported (I certainly didn't want to be see as 'bullying' a newbie). Basically would like advice on how to handle this in the future, especially when you get editors jumping on the 'bully' band wagon as soon as you have an opposing view point. Cheers. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  08:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In the current dispute the most seriously disruptive editor is (first edit 15 August). They do not assume good faith, have made repeated false accusations against other editors in the dispute and have crossed WP:3RR. An examination of their talk page  and edit summaries, , , ,  is sufficient to provide the overall picture.  I think if this editor could be gently but firmly warned by an uninvolved editor in good standing it might begin to reduce the considerable friction that they are generating.
 * User:RachelRice is also unnecessarily aggressive as exemplified in the final 2 links provided in the original post above. Telling fellow editors to “deal with it” and “This is not YOUR site.” are tendentious and provocative when targeted at well intentioned remarks. They need to moderate, as does everyone in the dispute. Leaky  Caldron  09:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there, first of all, the two main people causing friction on Celebrity Big Brother 10 are and User:GimliDotNet who will not let others edit the page, and in the discussion it is seen that they are re-arguing something that has been on Big Brother pages for many years, so there is no point arguing about it. Originally they said that they would stop objecting if the consensus agreed, and when 7 people agreed that Guest would be better, and only they objected, they continued to fuss over something extremely small in the whole scheme of things. They continued to revert constructive edits(showing Jasmine as a guest is informative as it shows she returned at some point) and cause further unneeded trouble. I think these two editors should be warned to stop causing so much friction on this page due to their intolerance of other people's opinions. They should be reminded that Wikipedia is a free site,  has done nothing wrong and simply argued their case. Waterlooroadfan107 (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you are being disingenuous. Only 5 people have expressed the same opinion as you on the talk page, one of whom did so long after the last revert and therefore cannot be included in the 'being ignored' group. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  10:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why Jasmine was included as a guest in the nominations table when the nominations took place the day after she was in the house? --MSalmon (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 86.137.185.34 can you please log in if you are one of the users involved in this discussion. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  10:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you not involve me in this please. I only edited the page once. --RachelRice (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is about your behaviour on the talk page where your tendentious attitude did a great deal to provoke others into making attacks against good faith editors. Leaky  Caldron  11:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a situation where two of the leading advocates for one side of the argument are repeatedly 'throwing the rule book' at the advocates of the other side. This does not help. For example, in my view User:RachelRice was quite within her rights to complain about being told how to format her Talk page contributions. The more experienced editors need to stick to the topic of the discussion and stop policing others, particularly when they are not neutral participants in the argument. In that way, the disagreement can be resolved without tangential arguments. Sionk (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record Rachel was not told how to format her talk page entries. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  11:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How are you supposed to react to editors when comments like are added.  GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  11:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sionk's remarks about the alleged inappropriate talk page instruction to RachelRice seems to disregard all the guidance provided about ensuring effective communication by using, among other techniques, indenting WP:TPYES. Leaky  Caldron  11:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop policing everyone, none of us have done anything wrong. 86.137.185.34 (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @GimliDotNet. I completely agree things are out of control and some of the recent comments by new participants are unhelpful. The answer is to not encourage them by answering back. It's good that you've raised the question here of how to resolve it. As for the formatting issues raised by Leaky, they're minor. Why get into an argument about how to carry out the argument? If someone's formatting actions are disruptive, it would be far better to have a polite word on their Talk page. Sionk (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The "new" editors, registered and unregistered, are unresponsive to any direct talk page messages, preferring to remove legitimate advice and warning tags. We are dealing with users unfamiliar with content policy and behavioural guidelines. Their behaviour and style is typical of chat forums where there is little formality and little moderator involvement. What is worse is that they don't wish to know, hence the remark from *86 above. Everyone needs to abide by WP:5P and experienced editors would be remiss if we simply disregarded such contributions. Leaky  Caldron  13:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the type of response we are getting at the talk page. Unfortunately nothing is ever done about this, it's driving decent editors away from these articles and they end up nothing short of fan-cruft personal blogs of a few fringe editors   GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  18:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous, the talk page has degenerated into nothing but personal attacks by people disinterested in actually discussing the article. WFQA really is pointless, don't know why I bother to edit on wikipedia when there is zero support from the community. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  18:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. There is a proposal to terminate it at WP:CENT I believe. I think it is AN/I next step for the most offensive one. Leaky  Caldron  18:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Leaky, am I right in saying you have said some harsh words too? You called other users on Wikipedia gullible and childish and you (along with GimliDotNet) were disrespecting other user's edits with no back up points or reasons for reverting the edits. --RachelRice (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed my personal attack, above, along with the more insulting ones left by another. Referring to some non-specific editors as gullible is not a personal attack, it is a statement of fact. As for the reverts to which you refer, there was ample reasoning given by those editors who understand what a nominations and evictions table is used for but you might wish to look at the main Wikiproject - WP:BIGBRO which pre-dates our discussion by many years and has no mention of non-participating visitors being included in nomination and eviction tables. There is also a discussion on the talk page. Leaky  Caldron  12:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rachel, please provide links to where I have disrespected other editors contributions without due reason or redact your claim. If you refuse to do either I am going to escalate this to ANI because I'm getting fed up of vague claims like this being made for no reason.   GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  13:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't waste your time & effort. There is a serious lack of WP:CLUE and they have even removed my neutral template link to WP:BIGBRO from the CBB article talk page because "it is not the right place for a link like that"! As only Sionk has taken a genuine uninvolved interest in this WQA why not close it? Leaky  Caldron  13:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to wait for some independent comments about how to deal with this situation, before continuing the tit-for-tat any further? I suppose I took a position in the Talk page discussion, so I'm not completely uninvolved. This Wiqiquette assistance process doesn't seem to work too well, does it?! If no comments are going to be made, Leaky is probably right and the thread should be closed. Sionk (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ken Sibanda




A sock account has been used to start the deletion process by an editor. This is against wikipedia's use of mutiple account. The account used was Altfish80, and she is requesting the deletion of the Ken Sibanda page. I do not agree that the first and serious black African to write science fiction does not belong in wikipedia. They is racism at play here.Mziboy (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Mziboy (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mziboy, you are totally out of control. How many different places have you made such a report at? where is your evidence of abuse of multiple accounts? Where is your evidence of racism? Where is your evidence that this is anything other than a perfectly normal deletion discussion. You need to calm down. simce you have already created two pages about this and reported it at AIV and' ANI, it is already out of the jurisdiction of what This page can help you with. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing our accounts policy prevents an editor from creating a new account for the purposes of nominating an article for deletion. Unless you have evidence that the editor deceptively used more than one account to participate in this deletion (for example, by nominating it with one account, and then arguing to keep with a second account, without disclosing that the two accounts were operated by the same person) then most likely there is no issue here. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I seen this one before, though I'd like to chime in, that undisclosed socks or IP edits can be a problem for editors, if brought up to SPI or elsewhere. Claiming them is a good thing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of bias
A month or so ago I came across a series of articles written by Rrashmissingh and Love's Journey concerning the author Rashmi Singh and her books in AfC. None of the articles had any proper sourcing and I declined them on this basis. Considering the sheer amount of times that the editor tried to submit the works in various formats, has attempted to add the author to various pages on the mainspace, paired with the fact that the screen names hinted that this could be the author or someone editing on her behalf (friend, family member, co-worker, etc), I decided to watch their edits. Love's Journey (the editor) got blocked due to it being a promotional screenname, but this account was working in tandem with the other editor. Now I do want to note that the Love's Journey editor is not involved in the accusations of bias, but I want to give the full background. Rrashmissingh was in talks with another editor, which was initially going to accept the article on the faulty and unreliable sources that were on the article for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Taming The Restless Mind. On several occasions I'd tried to explain to Rrashmissingh why the sources were unusable (on various AfC pages, the AfC help desk, etc ) and I went onto the other editor's page (User_talk:Michaelzeng7) to explain why the page would not be appropriate to add to the mainspace. I went in detail and explained that it was not ready for the mainspace and that the article would just go through a lengthy deletion process and would ultimately be a waste of editor time.

Rrashmissingh later posted onto Michaelzeng7's page again, accusing me of bias, of not knowing reliable sources, of not being able to be a reliable editor because I'm in school, and that I have a vendetta against anyone with the name Singh. (User_talk:Michaelzeng7) What had happened with that was that Rrashmissingh had been adding the author to various pages as a notable person and I did a search for the author's name to see if they had tried to add an article to the mainspace. I found the other Singh, who had a lack of reliable sources to show notability. I tagged the article for notability, although it has multiple issues with it. (Rashmi Singh) I was just recently going through my watchlist and saw that there'd been something posted to the user's page and remembered the earlier conversation on Michaelzeng7's page and went to see if there was an ongoing conversation that I could contribute to and discovered the accusations. It's starting to get heated, but it's not quite at the level that I'd bring it to the admin page, so I brought it here. On top of all of this, the user's only edits have been attempts to promote the author on Wikipedia, although in their defense they mostly have stuck to AfC. Everything I've done so far has been within the bounds of Wikipedia's rules. To put it bluntly, it's not my fault that the author and her works lack the reliable sources to show notability per Wikipedia's guidelines and no amount of insulting or accusations of bias will alter that fact.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are links to the editor's adding of the author to various pages, which was part of what made me watch the user in the first place. Rrashmissingh has repeatedly tried to add the author to Notre Dame Academy, Patna. Some of the edits were instantly reverted by bots, others by myself or other editors. There have also been edits to Pustak Mahal, which have been reverted by other editors. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also I wanted to include one of the user's pages on AfC to show what I meant by unreliable sources and the like: Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I certainly hope we don't take this discussion to full-out dispute resolution. My thoughts on the matter side mostly with Tokyogirl. The articles in question do not have enough reliable sourcing to evidence notability. Even if the author chooses to be silent, the book has not met the notability criteria (or significant coverage has not verified that it has met the criteria) for books and people. Which is why I declined the submission and subsequently nominated the article for deletion. It's simply that. There is no reason why Rrashmissingh should continue to act in such a behavior, where the comment on my talk page was highly unnecessary. However, I think the best way to end this is to forgive and forget. Rrashmissingh stop, Tokyogirl79 let it go. v/r Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Insulting comment

 * John D. Rockerduck
 * 76.31.236.81


 * User talk:John D. Rockerduck

Hi I have been off wikipedia for a little while and when I logged back in I found on this message from the IP address IP 76.31.236.81 on my talkpage '''As a 50 year old Catholic who teaches catechism and sponsors for confirmation... you need to go back to school with the 5 year olds. Your comments show you know nothing about what the Church teaches.''' Which I'm sure refers to a heated exchange I had with differant editors on their talkpage, though I felt heavily offended at the way they disrespected my faith by saying the Catholic church is "factually" anti-woman which stating that as a fact is just as offensive as saying the nation of Islam is factually "anti-american" I however was advise to ignore it and just stay away from useless forums like that; however since the IP address brought the issue to my talkpage I cannot ignore this and am heavily offended by it, since this is a clear cut case of a personal attack and it is not even related to an article; the comments only purpose is to attack me. I would like someone to tell the editor he can't leave comments like that and to stay off my talkpage unless he has actual business like improving an article not just insulting my intelligence John D. Rockerduck (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The event is stale and the IP editor hasn't edited in a week, I'm sorry, but I don't think there is anything that can be done. It was a lashing out by someone who wanted to remain anonymous, but I doubt the editor will appear here. Seems like there was some ANI drama.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the content, I'm pretty sure it's SkepticAnonymous, a rightfully-banned user. Don't worry, his socks have been blocked, too. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then take that up to SPI for confirmation. While the editor is not here or present, open discussion of who it might be still is unfounded, no matter the hunch. It will further interest if true, or it might uncover another editor with a beef. It is about all that can be done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Chris, the IP is officially a SkepticAnonymous sock. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The IPs were previously blocked, but I do not see a direct block for socking, even if it is very true, the block for being a 'duck' is one thing, but I was just trying to be civil, since mere claims can be under NPA. Though I think this is over. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil comments and behavior




On Aug. 23, 2012 User:William M. Connolley left aggressive comments like "This can go into the Armenia article if the "editor from Armenia" wants it, but he should not be importing his national conflicts into this article". After a new version of subsection's text was consensused at talk between 3 editors, William M. Connolleyn twice reverted the discussed version and left new comments saying "please leave your nationalism out of the discussion. If you can't, then find something else to edit." while I never showed any nationalism. Just before this, William M. Connolley used uncivil comments during a discussion with another user. An admin's attention to his behaviour is appreciated. OptimusView (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What is aggressive about the first quoted comment above? Is it "editor from Armenia"? That text (as indicated by the quote marks) is just a copy of a phrase from the message that WMC was replying to, and is not a wikiquette issue. It is also hard to see a problem in the second quoted comment above (leaving nationalism out of discussions is a requirement of WP:NPOV and is part of normal community behavior), and the comment was a reply to a statement about certain areas where nationalistic editing has been a problem in the past. Are you saying there is no such nationalistic feeling regarding the current disagreement and that therefore, in your view, WMC is wrong? That might be a defensible position (I have not looked at the underlying issue), but the wording of WMC's reply is not at all uncivil, and is not a wikiquette matter. Your last diff possibly needs to be fixed as it does not show an edit by WMC. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is already too narrow of a point of view as the signpost article shows, if a properly sourced material which supports a nationally recognized or preferred narrative, then by all means note it as such. This matter however seems to be about bullying and WP:OWN if consensus is made and one editor refuses to accept it. WP:DRN is good about such disputes and might be the best way to take a measured step against one user trying to block positive changes. If the Armenian narrative recognizes X as their view then that viewpoint on X should be noted with contrasting opposing view if it is also recognized, label it appropriately under said national views as well. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a pro-USA viewpoint nation, its just our systematic bias, our issues with Tienanmen Square is obvious about such biases. Making sure it is reasonably sourced should be all that's required. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We are offtopic (this noticeboard is for discussing issues concerning behavior, not content, although it may be closed), however the above comment needs a response. Claiming that if the "Armenian narrative recognizes X as their view then that viewpoint on X should be noted" is totally incorrect. After satisfying WP:RS, article content is based on WP:DUE. An article on X does not include what the Americans think about X, and what the Armenians think about X, and what the Australians think about X (and so on, down the alphabet). It may very well be DUE to note some fact about Armenia in BP, although experience tells us that usually an edit of the form "X did something bad to NATIONALITY " is usually an attempt to coatrack views about views about NATIONALITY into as many articles as possible. My comments concern the general case, and are not an opinion about BP—opinions about that should be at Talk:BP or WP:DRN. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with you that a national view on a specific matter falls under coatrack. A national view or response is entirely justified provided you have a source, while you may not like it and recoil against differing matters, they are verifiable and not undue. The fact that the content disputes leads to a matter of civility, it seems that information is being suppressed under the banner that someone's interest is nationalistic. The 'bias' argument is not civil and is rude. To remove something because its a 'national view' is to damage Wikipedia when said view is properly sourced. It didn't seem to be sourced that well before, but plenty of reliable sources do mention it. BP operates it, it is an international matter, one country is very displeased, said countries response should be noted. As well as those countries which said operation is a boon. A national view is not a 'minority opinion' when said national is directly involved in a particular matter. While the pipeline is a sub-topic, if it is going to be discussed at all, that national opinion is more than warranted, it should be encouraged. The reason I am pointing out this matter, not that it is entirely off topic, is because the dispute was over the national view and an editor was being attacked for it. In order to properly explain that said views are appropriate, I needed to discuss WHY that editors opinion is valid. Its a matter of being civil, but quite clearly, the pipeline is extremely important to national interests, those nations directly affected by it should have their primary view noted when specifically mentioning the effect of the pipeline. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I did mention WP:DRN, but I believe that informing the dual content/civil dispute according the the relevant policy on said content dispute. By informing about the relevant policy, it helps in making a coherent argument on why such contributions are valid. DRN can vet it, but quite clearly, WMC is being rude and bullying out valid information on the pretext that another editor has a bias or agenda. I see no such concern, OptimusView is not changing the article to be favorable to a national view, but a single sentence. The correct manner to put those mentions in, is make a new sentence and put it next to other national supporting comments. Negative and positive. As the two problems are together, I thought I'd spare a new section at DRN and provide some insight on the content matter and why WMC's comments were not civil, and how best to defend against such claims. That is all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior




1-User:Trasamundo: not stop his uncivil behavior over me. Now accuses me 2 times that I "sabotage" wikipedia. I'm getting personal attacks before in Talk:Spanish_Empire, which are repeated in last Trasamundo intervention. In the same talk he called me "Sockpuppet" in 4 times In this latter occasion he accuses me that I "sabotage" wikipedia.

Cited (Trasamundo):
 * "So any accusation by Santos30 to others about original research it is simply a comical childish tantrum as if a child is denied a candy.."
 * "this is the strategy of this individual, so that the page will be blocked, and nobody can edit, which is a full-scale sabotage in wikipedia.."
 * "I know that when the protection period expires Santos30 will recommence his sabotage in wikipedia.."

This is his last edition where he accused me twice of sabotage.

Please any help to stop the uncivil behavior of Trasamundo in the talk. Thank you --Santos30 (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

2-User:Jaontiveros:who supporting Trasamundo the dispute,"agree with Trasamundo", tries to help him to stop the Talk,and impose their views through a banned from wikipedia english, repeating the uncivil behavior seek a penalty on me  trying to find any improper purpose and here. Thanks--Santos30 (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Jaontiveros talk about User Retired in Wikipedia.es, not expulsed before and not involved in the discussion, and Jaontiveros not say that Trasamundo gives and recive in Wikipedia.es strong support from User:Durero, who said these ugly words about Wikipedia.en after revert me and delete the map, kick me and block the talk. Then, User:Escarlati, supporter of user Durero in Wikipedia.es, delete POV template.--Santos30 (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are that bothered by the user, refrain from editing that section for just a bit, though if this is taking place at the es.wikipedia site, WQA may not be a good choice as this is the English Wikipedia. I'd consult a dispute resolution process on that site. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the uncivil behavior was here, in wikipedia english Trasamundo accuses me of sabotage by Sock puppetry. Thank you--Santos30 (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

3- Carlstak in the same uncivil behavior uses Sockpuppet investigations with the same attack in the talk: .--Santos30 (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * here
 * here,
 * here


 * The matter of the SPI is open. Users should not call one another socks unless sockpuppetry has been confirmed by an SPI checkuser. Otherwise it falls under WP:NPA as a personal attack or an ad hom attack. There is a difference between one account being a legitimate sock versus an undisclosed sock used to edit articles. It seems you are indefinately blocked from es.wikipedia I would suggest using only one account here, disclose any other accounts you've edited on and simply be truthful, the truth will come out in the SPI case anyways. If you are found not to be socking, then that user must stop calling you a sock, or implying it because the Checkuser found no indication of it. Even if you did sock at one point, and come self-clean and act in accordance to policy, further pestering by that user could be a civil matter in which he could be warned or blocked. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I do not need puppet. Although I can lose my "user" during my work in wikipedia, and then I use the IP in articles editions. But never as sockpuppetry to avoid 3RR, never to my own support in a talk. I have not another user. I not have fear to use the talk. Thank you very much.--Santos30 (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would create a user named Santos30Public for such public use, if you have to use IPs to edit at work or away from home, those edits could be deemed 'socking' as unless specifically marked to Santo30, they WILL be considered a different user OR a suspected sock. I would retroactively attribute your IP edits with you claiming they are your own and signing your name to them. A legitmate sock also redirects to the main account, when it is not as safe for you to use your main account due to the risk of passwords being taken or such. I would explain this at any SPI you are called to. It matters quite a bit as to whether you sock to deceive or socked for privacy. Claiming those IP edits as your own is a start to fixing the mess you are in. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I can claiming this IP edits, but in Spain it is IP dynamic that can change, and maybe other people can use this IP now.--Santos30 (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then cite, next to the post that YOU made as an IP with your Santo30 account. Say 'I, Santos30, made this post' or something. You shouldn't redirect an IP to your account, only the edits you made with it. If you had a different user name (not an IP) then you should redirect that user account to your Santo30 one. That's what I mean. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK I understand. I claim IP edits and delete redirect . Thank you very much.--Santos30 (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A good step, now if someone DOES have issues at SPI, you can cite this conversation and your edits as an attempt to correctly fix it, now you know, I wouldn't post under an IP address on pages you previously edited, just for the sake of the matter. Make a second named alt account for public use as noted above. Thanks you for doing so though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK here the account to recover editions in IP public . Thank you Chris.--Santos30 (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Trasamundo: not stop this uncivil behavior over me. He call me "Socketpuppet", "Sabotage", and now Trasamundo for 3 times accuse me of lies: Cited Trasamundo: Maybe I'm in the right or mistake. But i'm not came to wikipedia to lying. Please a help.--Santos30 (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "The next Santos30's lie"
 * "Santos30 lies"
 * "Santos30 continues lying"
 * The user doesn't want to respond here, but I would ignore him. And bring the content matter up at WP:DRN. If he thinks you are lying about something on a content matter, its best to put more eyes on it. That or go to WP:3O, but I am powerless to stop someone from making such statements. They are not exactly civil, but also not breaking any real rules if the editor has an honest opinion of that, its still hurtful to say it. Its why I suggest having other editors comment on the content matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, but it is impossibe work. Now he accused me:
 * disruptive and
 * filibustering.
 * With old consensus for File:Spanish Empire Anachronous 0.PNG Trasamundo delete this map 1506 and changes for the old map 1499 (without Central America) and say me "only change the year of the legend" to be "constructive". But what he disputed (island of Cuba) is in both maps!!, then what he wants is a picture of 1499  with the year of the legend of 1506. Their exigency is truly disruptive. A help please, Where I can take a help with this editor?. WP:3O is the place or where?.--Santos30 (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Trasamundo in another uncivil behavior call me: "someone interested in filisbustering and quarrelling".
 * Trasamundo delete the "Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion" --Santos30 (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not socket puppet as you can see Sockpuppet investigations/Santos30 --Santos30 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz




Kiefer.Wolfowitz who has been blocked many times for personal attacks has been making a great many on me over the last few hours. he has called me a liar he has accused me of misrepresenting sources He has accuse me of Tendentious editing in violation of WP:AOTE. I should not have to put up wit ha stream of abuse from this guy and would like it stopped. Facts, not fiction (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would take this straight to WP:ANI, Kiefer has a long history with this kind of aggressive posturing, and WQA is a toothless tiger. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  16:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * DS, you too are being intemperate in some of your postings. I would suggest you both back away from each other. There is an ongoing discussion about the article in question at WT:DYK; deal with the content issues there. The instability resulting from this dispute has already resulted in the article being pulled from the queue. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am being attacked for no reason, are you surprised I am being intemperate? I do not misrepresent sources, I do not tell lies. I do not want to put up with pointless attacks form a guy wit ha grudge. Facts, not fiction (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not surprised, but how do you think getting yourself blocked is going to make you feel better? This dispute is being spread across multiple pages and is growing acrimonious, and it would be in everyone's best interest not to continue that trend. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He continues to accuse me of misrepresenting sources What am I to do? Facts, not fiction (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop attacking back. I realize you're upset, but so long as you both remain at that level of discourse, you both are in the wrong - no matter who is actually correct in the underlying content dispute (which should of course be addressed elsewhere). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fair-minded advice, which suggested improvements for me. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  23:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruption at Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics




Sports & Politics has spent the last two weeks attempting to remove and edit the article Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics - Technologies used for Olympic sports, using a wide variety of underhand tactics which I don’t believe are unbiased or justified. This editor has caused an immense amount of disruption to this article whilst adding very little of value. I have also noticed that Sports and Politics has drawn criticism from other editors and other articles so this behavior could be more widespread.

The original reason given by Sports & Politics for removal was that‘The GB cycling team did very well and mainly the French need to get over it’

Sports & Politics then uses a variety of different tactics such as It is a conspiracy not a controversy or the  technology is not controversial because no rules were broken.

ostensibly credible sounding reasons are often used by Sport & Politics such as displaying ‘original research and synthesis’ so after I have nearly converted it all to direct quotations to avoid any chance of using the tactic the strategy changes, Sport & Politics then starts to edit the technical data to gibberish, for example:

"cycling has seen the most impressive technological contribution. For example, 100% of the 221% improvement in the one hour cycling record could be attributed to developments in bicycle aerodynamics." was changed to:

"In cycling, technology has contributed to changes in bicycles"

Due to the ambiguity of this statement I confirmed with the original source that 100% of 221% improvement really means 100/221=45% of the total, and this figure should be quoted, Sport and Politics then claimed this reason for subsequent removal:

''“The above only goes to prove the confusion to the uninitiated reader and as such shows it is not easily accessible to all users of the encyclopaedia so it has no place on Wikipedia as it is far too easily confusing as clearly demonstrated above. Remember Wikipedia must be accessible to all not just the writer or those with specialist knowledge”''

Of the most serious deletions by Sports & Politics brings this response from another editor ''“Take for example, the statement when quoting Boardman: When Boardman was questioned if this high-tech warfare would put some countries at a disadvantage, he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not." It was directly from the source. I specifically noted in my editing note that I want to quote "what is exactly provided in the source". Could Sports and politics please provide a reason for deleting it? Showmebeef (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)”''

Sports & Politics answers ''“Calling it "high-tech warfare" is incredibly POV and pejorative. It not actual warfare and is sensationalising….”''

Another tactic is to use obviously invalid technical arguments such as: improvements in the 1hr cycling record due to aerodynamics has no relevance to Olympic cycling, because this event isn't used in the Olympics!

A more recent tactic is to corrupt the article slowly, removing references which simultaneously refer to London 2012 and controversial cycling technology, so no individual article address the heading in its entirety, allowing Sports & Politics favourite excuse for removal, synthesis.

Extracts Sport and Politics abhors which will merit quick removal includes a report called Sports Engineering An Unfair Advantage published immediately before the London Olympics with contemporary references to the coming Olympics which states:

Research shows that people fear that sports engineering will: overshadow the triumph of human spirit and effort, make certain sports easier, create unfairness so the "best athletes" might not win, and ensure that rich athletes and countries have an advantage over the poor ones.

Once Sport and Politics has edited the article to a form that he/she can credibly attack, Sport and Politics then requests it to be locked. In general, you will notice that Sports and Politics frequently uses the same method as the excuse he/she gives to remove articles, unfounded opinion.

This list of tactics is by no means exhaustive, but it is exhausting me which is probably the whole point, attrition. Yesterday I politely asked Sports and Politics for the last time to leave the article so that people can comment against each point which addresses all the issues. It was edited back by Sport and Politics early this afternoon, so this was the last straw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 18:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Andromodean is acting as the owner of the article and has been waned previously not to forum shop with an RfC is currently ongoing. I have made clear reasoning as to why I believe they are acting as an owner. This diff here makes an an unfulfilable request that only they edit the article. The user has had numerous editors pointing out the information is nothing more than synthesis of information. The editor has repeatedly ignores sound reasoning by multiple users as to why the information has no place in the article. There is an RfC ongoing and the user is clearly showing their dislike of people not coming to thier point of view that the information should be included. in the above diff the editor states "if there is a consensus and good reason to remove bits I will later consider this" this is clearly a demonstration of the owner believing they are the only one who can say yes or no as to what can be included and removed from the section.


 * Andromedean has taken particular umbrage with me as i keep on stating where the section they want to include is in breach of Wiki policy and guidelines. Most particularly in the cases of Undue weight, Synthesis, Original research and a neutral point of view. The Above 100%/221% quote is incredibly confusing and no context was given and no explanation was given. The user is missing the article is about Controversies and the 2012 Summer Olympic Games. The information the user is wanting to include is failing on the grounds of relevancy in the most part. The user is also failing to assume any good faith from me that I am acting in the best interests of Wikipeida by claiming above that i am "using a wide variety of underhand tactics which I don’t believe are unbiased or justified. This editor has caused an immense amount of disruption to this article whilst adding very little of value". This is totally without foundation and this is entirely missing the point that i am attempting to act in the best interest of the encyclopaedia by not including text which is, synthesised, biased, confusing, irrelevant, incorrectly attributed and giving minor information undue coverage. Andromedean is clearly demonstrating they are not taking on board the constructive criticisms from multiple editors and the highly detailed and justified reasoning that the information should be removed. I am not the only editor which has stated that information added by Andromedean is not of a place in Wikipeida. Andromedean has also been criticised by other editors (not just myself) that they are ignoring the reasoning given for the removal of "their" information.


 * This is nothing more than a dispute over content and Andromedean not liking "their" information being challenged. The user has also added a note on my talk page with the section stating in this diff here "be thankful i am not asking for a ban" The user is missing this is a content dispute and that they are clearly not without fault here.


 * Andromedean has also been warned for forum shopping when they were trying to go around an existing RfC with a DRN which can be seen here and here.


 * Andromedean needs a mentor to ensure that they fully understand Wikipeida policy and can edit constructively especially as they are posting highly un-constructive posts such as this on an article talk page here


 * Sport and politics (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I have been more offended by Andromedean in this discussion than I was by Sport and politics when I disagreed with him. Sport and politics is just exceptionally hard to convince, whereas Andromedean seems to think no reasonable editor can possibly disagree with him. E.g. this comment where he clearly feels that all editors who have commented in the RFC so far are biased, as he warns them that no unbiased editor will disagree with him. He is clearly not assuming good faith, instead he claims censorship repeatedly. In fact, I happened to read through WP:TE and found a number of points that apply to Andromedean: "One who accuses others of malice", "One whose citations are inadequate, ambiguous or not sufficiently explicit", "One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject" and "One who fails to appropriately thread their posts on talk pages". In comparison the talk page conduct of Sport and politics is generally unproblematic, but I don't think moving a user's comment from where they intended it to be is entirely acceptable. As far as editing the article is concerned it takes at least two to edit war. I have expected Andromedean to make such a report, and the only reason I did not warn him that it could be a self-destruct was that he would probably be offended if I did so. By the way, my IP has changed again. I am the IP who responded to the RFC. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 88 I have agreed to undertake multiple changes to suit both yourself and sport and politics as can be observed from the changes from the original article. Note one of the early comments from another user before I made most of the changes. These changes included three direct links each relevant to Olympics, cycling and technological advantage to remove any reasonable claim of miscategoration through synthesis.

''I just looked at the sources Andromedean used, and several of them appear to validate this as a controversy. Instead of revert warring with Andromedean's good-faithed efforts to improve this article, I suggest the other regulars here look themselves at the sources and prune out any synthesis and leave what remains in the article. Cla68 (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)''

however when 'synthesis' starts to include prunining out important quotes we have to draw the line and start asking for more expert help, and a genuine independent opinion. I asked Hauster as he seemed to be involved with the RFC, and something in the RFC said I could ask again if dissatisfied. I wasn't aware that it isn't allowed to ask a more experienced official who had already had some connection with the article to examine if the rules were not being mis-interpreted, although please note he suggested I bring it to this board. After given further fair warnings that is what I eventually did. --Andromedean (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any response to your Wikiquette issues, in particular the repeated and unfounded accusations of bias and censorship? (As I stated in my most recent comment in the discussion I have read your versions of the article, and remain unconvinced. Let's keep that discussion on the article talk page.) 85.167.110.93 (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Andromedean you are not being representative with the user you are quoting there. Other users have pointed out where you are not being wholly amenable such as can be seen when you approached a user for a DRN here They clearly pointed out you are not engaging in the content at hand but are believing it is the conduct of the users who disagree with you that is at issue. Another user pointed out you were not addressing the reasoning provided by others who disagreed with your assessment here.


 * Andromedean if you have a direct issue with a user please take it up on their talk page as opposed to approaching a user you consider to be sympathetic "to keep a record of the following infringements by certain un-named persons?" and "Then present it at one of these forums." "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WQA" or "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/I" such as this and an edit summary "Take notes of infringements" seen here. That goes to give off an impression that you are not interested in editing collaboratively and want to remove those whom you disagree with. It goes against the spirit of Wikipeida and assumes bad faith in the user you are disagreeing with.


 * Sport and politics (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't believe that Sport & Politics has changed the title to include my name. This is disgraceful behaviour.  If anyone wishes to make any complaints about me, raise your own section. --Andromedean (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Andromedean You cannot have your cake and eat it, by expecting nobody to state where you are at fault when you have made a litany of very bad faith complaints about myself. This whole section is about the Controversies at the Summer Olympics article and talk page. To make a complaint regarding myself means that there will inevitably be users complaining about the conduct of you Andromedean as many users view you to be one of the main disruptions on the article and talk page and have made that clear in their comments here and on the talk page. It is not worth the effort having two discussions about essentially what is happening on the same article. It is pointless to spread what is essentially all related to the same article over many areas of Wikipedia. That would be highly disruptive and not in the best interests of Wikipeida. The article title has been edited to reflect the fact this is a complaint about you to Andromedean. Andromedean you do not own the this section or the title of this section simply because you started this section. That again shows the negative editing you are engaging in and is demonstrating your lack of how Wikipedia works. Sport and politics (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Andromedean please refain from making unsubstantiated claims as you did in this edit summary. It is is not conducive to a constructive debate. Please also be aware this is a complaint about you as well Andromedean. The title has to be accurate in reflecting that it is a complaint about you too Andromedean. You cannot demand one sided and un-representative titles which only convey what you want to show when it is not a reflection of reality. Just because you initiated the discussion and made the initial complaint doesn't mean you get to dictate the scope and content discussed. the discussion has naturally evolved to be a complaint about your disruptive and obstropolous behaviour as well. Sport and politics (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have asked for an experienced negotiator to avoid disruption of an article, unfortunately my request on this board highlighting the issues seems to have encouraged the same person to continue even more. Could someone explain if I have come to the correct board, and how to proceed, thank you. I have no interest in slanging matches. --Andromedean (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Andromedean I think you are missing the facts here that you have fallen foul of shooting yourself in the foot, by making this complaint you have to accept that you will have your editing scrutinised and as you have been highly uncivil and incredibly disruptive there is more than enough to demonstrate that you are editing in an way which is non-constructive and disruptive, in a way which shows bad faith assumptions and a refusal to engage only in the content. Andromedean as you continually make references of a negative and highly dismissive and personal nature about the editors who disagree with you, you are not being a constructive collaborative editor. Sport and politics (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This board does not seem particularly active, presumably they are pre-occupied with discussing whether it should be closed. I would strongly advise you not to proceed with this case for the reason given above (though it would probably be good for you in the long run). I won't report you, but I will provide the diffs I provided above, as well as this claim of editors having "agenda"s, in whichever forum you wish to take this dispute to. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * How about you start the Wikiquette off on a good footing by not name calling in the title? I've reworded it in a similar style to other posts here. My understanding of the Wikiquette assistance board is that it is a place to seek a way of successfully working and communicating with one another. It takes at least two people to make an argument, after all. Sionk (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your assistance here Sionk. Can people obtain experienced third party assistance here or is this a place for the original editors to discuss their differences?--Andromedean (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I still remain very concerned about bias for the reasons which seems obvious from these quotes and the underlying facts and science, I don't mak these accusations lightly but only when I'm convinced there is a chronic problem which is unlikely to result in fair outcome --Andromedean (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "At most a section on unwarranted French reactions to several British results in different sports could be made based on these two, but I don't think it is high-profile enough..... "85.167.110.93 (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Do you have any semblance of controversy other than just the original research and synthesis being displayed. The GB cycling team did very well and mainly the French need to get over it. Complaining as the French did is just being a sore loser so it is not a controversy."Sport and politics (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Agree with S&P. This is more of a conspiracy theory than a controversy - Basement12 (T.C) 23:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet the underlying science, the timing of the change, the change in performance, and even by the GBs own admission and timing of the changes, all justify the French (and American) suspicions of technology being a factor in the eventual results.


 * These are a few rules which may have relevence to the article in question. These are as much notes for my future reference, than to encourage further debate here, but editors may wish to be take note that I'm aware of them all the same:


 * Anglo-American focus: Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV? - Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective


 * Dealing with biased contributors - I agree with the nonbias policy but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do? - Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page


 * Guidelines_for_controversial_articles An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views


 * Blinded By Science: How 'Balanced' Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality – Chris Mooney, originally published in Columbia Journalism Review. A valuable warning to Wikipedians about how some methods used to balance coverage can lead to biased, inaccurate and misleading reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 10:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This board is never to mediate between different desires regarding content: it's here to assist parties in improving communication and to help all move towards proper "getting along" as per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. A "mediator" here can only work on those items - and I can see a few instances above where 3rd parties have commented on those types of issues, but they have received no concrete responses - just like on the other noticeboards, YOUR behaviours (or in this case YOUR communication styles) are 100% relevant and in-scope of the discussion.
 * If you are trying to argue content, then the dispute resolution noticeboard is the main noticeboard or indeed, start simply with the processes in WP:DR - in some cases, a 3rd opinion or an WP:RFC are the better ways to go.
 * Remember, however, that civility is a pillar of Wikipedia, and if your own edits/actions aren't clean in those areas, you will find less success across this entire project; this is, after all, a community dangerous  panda  10:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

After exhausting all reason, I did contact the dispute resolution noticeboard, to have them rejected, since some sort of a dispute was already filed by those with a bias to grind. Therefore, I was asked to lodge a complaint here. After a day the person who I was complaining about changed the title of the section to include my name, and started to attack me! I assumed misleading people in this way was an automatic level 3 warning, evidently not!

I have asked for third party help, and asked another person to take notes of unreasonable behaviour about a person who was causing severe problems. Yes I have done this, is this what you mean?

Be aware everyone isn't aware of the complexities of wikipedia resolution system and those that are can play clever political games. I now understand why this noticeboard is being disbanded, it is just going to encourage those who play political games rather than try to help those who use facts, reason and science to support their arguments. The longer this sorry enterprise goes on the more disillusioned I become with the quality of reasoning and fairness on Wikipedia.--Andromedean (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You may wish to review your own edits first, before accusing others of having low-quality reasoning or fairness. You're not getting your way on the contents of an article.  Wikipedia goes by WP:CONSENSUS - full stop.  As the RFC is already underway, then rightfully DRN was inappropriate.  I see nothing in your submission here that shows incivility by anyone other than yourself right now.  Calling things "vandalism" that do not meet the definition is uncivil.  Trying to focus this discussion on others alone, while pretending you're not part of the problem is inappropriate.  The goal of this board is, as stated, working on communication, never content.  Calling things "political games" and "bias to grind" prove that you are personally carrying an axe here.  Nobody will move forward while you continue to see yourself as the victim, rather than one of the causes - nor will the article.  The current RFC will help determine consensus - all aprties should participate civilly, and make policy-based arguments.  You have failed to show that anyone - other than yourself - are acting unfairly in that process.  dangerous  panda  15:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Re to Eats: This has been rejected by DRN twice 1 2 because a RFC was still early in it's action with a very focused group of editors who are polarized about their viewpoints. Still nobody seeing external comment.  Andromedean, your continued descent into outright hostility is disheartening. Hasteur (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hauser: your accusation at me 'soliciting' when asking for help was extremely insulting, you owe me an apology, examine your own behaviour. I respectfully ask you refrain from becoming involved in this discussion or any discussion involved with this topic.

I can only repeat to everyone that my attempt at writing the article was an honest attempt at reflecting the objective situation. As a professional writer of scientific material I am used to the peer review and criticism process.

However, I was alarmed at subversive measures being used to harm the process through what I was confident was the malicious, overzealous and incorrect use of rules. This process has clearly failed, the perpetrators have gained confidence which will create untold problems for others the future.

May I recommend to everyone: try to read the full story in the talk page from the start, before accusing people and recognise by the time they get on here they may be at the end of their tether, this page is the tip of the iceberg, we are all human even the most patient and understanding.

PS I took up the suggestion of a 3rd party negotiator, as per panda's suggestion, but this is not popular with the other(s).

This page is only helping to inflame the situation, therefore I will no longer engage on it as it is becoming increasingly hostile and unfair.--Andromedean (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the sentiment on this page inflaming the situation, which I see is one of the reasons those in favour of closing it is using. However, it is sad that you disregard the conduct advice given to you by experienced editors such as EatsShootsAndLeaves. For his benefit I'll point out that I was not hostile to outside editors' involvement. However, 3O was inappropiate for two reasons, number of editors (for which Andromedean was tricked by this change that has been reverted), and the active RFC which Andromedean has previously sought to evade. I'll also point out that I have made one poorly worded comment in the discussion for which I apologised. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Andromedean you are coontinually keeping oon making unfounded accusations and are not beheaving in a constructive way. this diff with line "S&P Not sure why WP:3O clearly can't be used. As pointed out by someone else, you seem to be vey knowledgable and astute with using the rules for a new user!"


 * Firstly i have not said anything about using or not using WP:30 and secondly the claims you make are in bad faith and are without foundation.


 * There is also more demonstration of ownership in this diff "feel free to put a dispute notice on it, but not all of them!!" that line implies i won;t let you get rid of all of my stuff.


 * I am very concerned by the behaviour and continued personal comments which are in bad faith and without foundation. I think that unless Andromedean realises their comments and behaviour are a serious problem then This will need to be looked at on a more serious board, such as the administrators Noticeboard.


 * Sport and politics (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)