Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive22

WQA Archive index

User:Cyberia23 - incivility and bad faith assumptions
I recently tagged Star Trek planet classifications with a copyvio tag because its content was blatanly ripped from a book (and despite plagiarism, the book wasn't even listed as a source). This user responded very rudely, including use of profane language, and assumed that my intetions were bad - that I was trying to get the article deleted out of some sort of spite that I apparently harbor. I asked him twice to discontinue his inappropriate behavior and to assume good faith, until he insisted that he was not violating policy, but rather "add[ing] more flavor" to the discussion. This is a relatively minor dispute, but this user's behavior seems to be in gross violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:GF, and possibly WP:NPA, and the user believes that it's fine to act like this. I was wondering if a third party could comment on this and hopefully help this user understand how/why to act appropriately on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Cheeser1 15:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser is blowing this way out of proportion. He/She is only doing this because he/she thinks I should kiss their ass, that I owe him/her respect because they're "enforcing the rules", and they apparently don't believe that if you accuse someone of something, like plagarism you'd get a negative reaction about it. But since the Ettiquite rules state that Wikipedians are to be emotionless and mindless robots and not allowed to voice an opinion ever, and I voiced one and made an argument and he/she is pissed off about it.

I must say that in regard to his first accusation of the article not being properly sourced, Cheeser must have been too busy adding the copyright violation tag, because had they actually took the time to read the article they would have seen that the material was sourced at the top part of the article in the header. Yes, I admit it was not the usual location at the bottom of the page where they would normally be, but this article was hit once before for violating copyright and I wanted to make it clear where the info was coming from. If it was in the wrong spot I apoligize for thinking that for once some people didn't have to be led by the hand around here. Anyway, if you look at the history it was referenced at the top.

All these other nonsense accusations are clearly because Cheeser needs to have the last word. I have no time for his/her stupid games. I cleaned up the article already, removed all questionable material, and moved on. Cheeser just wants to one up me because I "offended" him/her and this is how they get revenge. I'll be the first to admit that I can be a sarcastic bastard because I really don't take much in life seriously. I guess Cheeser wants a consensus to prove it. Cyberia23 18:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've responded on User:Cyberia23's talk page, encouraging him to be more civil, but he seems to have pre-emptively rejected any such suggestion. If this is the case, I'm afraid that there's very little that a Wikiquette alert can do. Sarcasticidealist 18:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I consider the matter over since the original problem - the copyrighted material on the article - has been dealt with - (of course if anyone wants to verify that by all means go ahead.) The rest of what is going on is just utter lameness on Cheeser's part because he/she expects an apology that I'm not going to give. For the record - I'm not a suck up and I didn't come here to make friends, so if someone takes offense to how I handle things thats their problem not mine. Your all anonymous to me, this isn't a paying job and I'm not trying to win kudos for a higher position of authority like being an admin or whatever - so if there are a bunch of incidents stacked against me so be it. I really don't care. Therefore, when I'm accused of something I'll respond however I feel is necessary and if that includes smart ass comments and sarcasm then thats what happens. All I can say is that Cheeser needs to get over it because I really don't give a shit if he/she has an issue with me or not. Cheeser accuses me of saying "I own these articles" well I'd like to see where I said that. The copyright vio banner is something that can't be ignored unless you want to see the article annihilated. Yeah, I could have let the article go, but knowing full well no one else will lift a finger to fix it, it would of course get the admin "quick fix" and be deleted entirely. Because I spent time on it, I get pissed when I see work I did flushed down the drain because someone out there doesn't like it or thinks it violates something. I never said I owned the articles I work on nor did I say anyone else wasn't allowed to touch them. But whatever, this is the first time in the four years I been on Wikipedia where anyone's lodged a complaint against me - I think the record shows that I'm a civil person but I do have a short fuse for morons. Cyberia23 20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nowhere did I ask for an apology. The purpose of posting this alert is to (I'm quoting myself here) "hopefully help [you] understand how/why to act appropriately on Wikipedia." Please do not continue to assume that I was out to get the article deleted (or "annihilated"). It's not up to me to decide if we're allowed to plagiarize copyrighted material: we aren't. No one is asking you to "win kudos" or "make friends" - civility, however, is not optional. Feeling like after "spend[ing] time on it, [you] get pissed when ..." is covered by the policy I already pointed you to (which you refuse to acknowledge as applicable). It states prominently that if you do not want content to be mercilessly edited (possibly deleted), do not contribute it. And finally, if you read WP:CIVIL more closely, you'll find that you should be civil to anyone, even people who enforce perfectly valid policies or people you believe to be "morons." --Cheeser1 21:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, please note that concerns about your incivility and assumption of bad faith are not tied to the copyright violations. Removing the copyrighted material does not change the fact that your conduct was, and continues to be, inappropriate. --Cheeser1 21:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for referencing all those great policies and showing me the wickedness of my ways. But, in this case, regarding my attitude toward you, it's time to cite IGNORE - so please "explode" now. Cyberia23 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that policy is not carte blanche for you for do whatever you want. In fact, ignoring all rules is only provided for if you are trying to "to improve or maintain Wikipedia" - being civil and assuming good faith in this (or virtually any) circumstance cannot possibly hinder you from doing so. I'm not going to "explode," but I will continue to point you to the policies that explain why you are mistaken in this matter. --Cheeser1 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a joke dude. Cyberia23 04:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Cheeser1 - I think we've taken it as far as this Wikiquette alert can go. Wikiquette alerts are really only useful when dealing with users who *want* to adhere to policy, and User:Cyberia23 seems quite happy not to. You can take it to higher levels if you want, and you could probably eventually get action, but I think it might be easier to just accept that some people are jerks, and that sometimes the onus is (unfairly) on non-jerks to put up with them. I'm marking as stuck. Sarcasticidealist 23:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly, I would agree that we can consider this alert to be done (though not resolved). This is one of the easier-to-deal-with conflicts I've been involved in - I think when someone so clearly refuses to follow the rules, it makes things simpler, albeit with a less satisfying resolution. I don't think it needs to go up the ladder, unless this situation becomes more of a problem, for myself or other users. Thanks for your input. --Cheeser1 00:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What's there to resolve? You seem to be assuming that just because I'm a problem for you Cheeser that I'm some sort of threat to this whole website and that I supposedly treat everyone I encounter with the same disrespect I've given you. You're wrong. I simply don't like you because you're an arrogant jerk who likes to fan the pages of policy in my face like I don't know them and from what I read in your little essay about how Wikipedia fails when it comes to enforcing it's policies, you seem all for running this place like a gestapo camp. Now that you caught me you just don't wanna let go because you want to make an example out of me. I have news for you — you aren't Wikipedia's guardian knight, you're not a policy superhero. I've wasted enough of my day on this stupidity so I am done with this discussion. As far as I can see there's nothing to resolve except your arrogance and "can do no wrong" attitude — and I can't help you with that. So, I'd appreciate if you got off my back. If you're on some sort of crusade to straighten me out then you're wasting your time. You have a lovely evening now. Cyberia23 02:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I left an apology on Cheeser1's talk page about this incident. I admit I violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in a futile attempt at getting the upper hand in our disagreements. It was stupid of me to flip out and take my aggressions out on him and I hope he reconsiders filing a compliant to the higher echelon. It was a dumb argument and not worth how far it's gone. Hopefully now this is resolved but it's now his decision how he wants to pursue the matter. Cyberia23 19:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for doing that, Cyberia. It shows a good-faith effort on your part to restore civility to the discussion. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad this has come to a positive conclusion. I've left a more extensive response on my talk page (since the more extensive comment from Cyberia was there). I had begun to lose hope that this would come to a positive resolution, but since it has, there's no reason to continue this process to any sort of RFC/U or anything like that. I'm happy this worked itself out, and would like to thank Cyberia for being good enough to work towards a resolution - I can imagine how hard it is to make this apology, and I appreciate it. --Cheeser1 02:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ludovicapipa: Lots of NPA and CIVIL issues
I've been engaged in a protracted content dispute with Ludovica on a few pages, including Fernando Collor de Mello, João Goulart and 1964 Brazilian coup d'état. The disputes center around the application of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V, but what has concerned me is her attitude in this debate. She has accused me of acting in bad faith, and issued numerous personal attacks. She has also petitioned administrators directly to block me, outside of the WP:DR mechanism. I would just ignore normally, but considering this expanding to other peoples' talk pages I figure a check from third parties would be good. Here are a few examples:


 * Constant accusations of "acting in bad faith".
 * User talk:Dalillama: Ludovica threatens me with a block (somehow): "If you insist, I will ask and administrator to block you, so you can refresh yr mind."
 * After I make a spelling mistake in Portuguese, she states: "Por aí nota-se que nível temos aqui", roughly translating to "that shows the level of person we have have here" (Google translate is similar), questioning what I'm assuming is my educational level.
 * Talk:Fernando Collor de Mello - " I dont´know how old are you..." Is it really necessary to insult me by questioning my age?
 * Talk:Plano Collor - User tells me to go "find a doctor"

There are a few others but I have to go back and search through blanked pages.

Note: It's important to point out that this user has been blocked for one year in the Portuguese Wikipedia (here) for personal attacks. She opened her user account on the EN wikipedia a few hours after being blocked on the PT wikipedia on June 6, 2007. She consistently edits the same articles as the blocked PT username did, including adding the same sources and generally of the same POV (examples here and here).--Dali-Llama 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'm not sure if there's really much we'll be able to do in this situation - it's quite clear that Ludovicapipa is acting uncivilly toward you (including a violation of WP:SKILL), and given her history of being blocked from the Portuguese WP, it may also be a case of open harassment at this point.  If you feel it'll help, we can try to mediate with her.  Otherwise, I'd probably recommend a higher form of dispute resolution and/or a report to the Admin Noticeboard.  The fact that there is a block history for this user on another version of WP makes it less likely that you'll need to go through a lot of dispute resolution procedures before getting action.


 * Good job on staying civil, especially in the situation where Ludovicapipa questioned your age. It's remarkably difficult to stay calm when someone's deliberately trying to get you to respond to personal attacks. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 18:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this is by far the toughest dispute I've ever faced--aggravated by the fact that other users have refused to become involved and even third-opinion good samaritans (Coren and Carioca) have kind of given up. I doubt mediation would work, as she has consistently ignored others' opinions. Ideally I'd like to resolve this editorially (not administratively), but it's been hard (I've even been resisting putting up 3RR reports and just asking for page protection so it wouldn't be interpreted as me trying to administratively sanction her personally). But, to be honest, I'm at my wits' end. I'd be interested in posting something on WP:ANI, but I don't know if we should try to reason once more (and if so, how should we reason?), or go straight to an administrative position.--Dali-Llama 19:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay on responding to this - I've been busy with off-wiki stuff and have also been trying to field a barrage of edits to my own Talk page regarding this issue. It appears that Ludovicapipa does not understand WP:3RR and the reason why you warned her about it, among other things.  I have been trying very hard to get her to separate the behavior and content issues, and I'm personally getting rather frustrated by the ongoing discussion there.  One or two more exchanges like the ones we've been having, and I'm going to simply recuse myself from this Alert entirely. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 18:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you do recuse yourself, I understand (you won't be the first nor the second). I will probably end up sending this to arbitration anyways, so I hope I can count on your support for my request for that if you do recuse yourself.--Dali-Llama 19:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I've come to the conclusion that there is nothing more I can do in this case.  The entire conversation on my Talk page is available to use as evidence that we tried to resolve this issue and could not, and I will happily endorse a MedCab or ArbCom request if the need arises. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Editions

 * One should click on the links where you see a personal attack I see a self defense against a constant persecution of my editions:
 * Why dont´also say that none of yr editions damaging Collor´s image and linking him to "Corruption and Downfall" (this one considered POV); why dont´you say you linked an image from "Veja Magazine" on which is said: "The year we got rid of him" (Collor)?
 * 1. Why don´t you say you deleted the words "end of hyperinflation" and substituted for "hyperinflation" only? Collor Plan was not a failure --so many citations prove the following administrations still use his Plan Collor;
 * 2. Also here, let´s see wht´s written abt yr editions:
 * 3. On Fernando Collor talk page you asked me to ask and discuss before revert or delete --that´s not wht you did on thsi same artcile --within few minutes you deleted and reverted without discussiong and even requested a page protection
 * 4. The only full text you wrote so far concerns Collor´s "Corruption and downfall", trying to damage his image, you only talked abt corruption adn missed several issues --including his Senate ecletion. If it was not me, Collor would still be a convicted figure;
 * 5. What abt "1964 Brazilian coup" artcile wto which you only used one source (Gaspari´s, a famous antiprivatization, antiCollor, procommunist?);
 * 6. Now the lates blatantly happened on Plano Collor --you said Plan Collor is one thing and PND (Plano Nacional de Desetatização) is another thing --well the link I provided (since you neve provide sources) says PND is a part, one major step to move forward with Plan Collor.
 * There are many other examples of yr behaviour....

Ludovicapipa yes? 19:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think my point here is that it's not the content dispute which is at issue--these are all perfectly valid points which we're trying to discuss. My point is that the manner in which you've conducted yourself in this discussion, added with the fact that you've ignored third parties' opinions and recommendations and have previously been blocked for the same offense on another project, should raise serious issues about whether or not you fully understand Wikipedia and abide by the rules on civility and behavior. This was echoed to me on my PT Wikipedia talkpage (here) by another user, who clearly stated that the reason you were blocked there was not because of content disputes, but because of your personal conduct in those disputes.--Dali-Llama 19:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dali-Llama's assertions here, Ludovicapipa - he has consistently pointed out that your opinions and statements are valid, and that to the extent that you're participating in a content dispute, your content arguments are worth considering. Whether or not your opinions are correct or go along with consensus is another matter - they are valid, and nobody is trying to tell you that they're not.  What is NOT okay is the fact that you are personally attacking Dali-Llama (DL), and have been shown to do so in the past.  By criticizing DL's use of the English and/or Portuguese languages, questioning her age (both of which are WP:SKILL violations), telling him to "go see a doctor", and otherwise calling him out in the manner you have, you have been violating WP:NPA and other civility policies.  This behavior tends to discredit your own arguments, but more importantly, it also inflames other users, usually causing knock-down-drag-out arguments that can span multiple pages and cause many hard feelings on all sides.  At that point, the discussions stop being about the content, and often become "He said/She said" personal attack arguments, which are not welcome on Wikipedia.


 * Please make sure you read WP:CIVIL, WP:COOL, WP:NPA, WP:CON and WP:NPOV. These are important policies that discuss not only how to stay out of trouble, but also how to be more effective in arguing your points in content disputes.  Also keep in mind that if your arguments are against current consensus, the onus is on you to sway the consensus through civilized discussion and official sources that back up your point of view.  Also keep in mind WP:WEIGHT, which deals with the issue of putting undue weight on one particular point of view - in cases where POV statements are appropriate for an article (such as in movie reviews), it is important to keep the article balanced such that it accurately reflects all relevant points of view, not just a single one.


 * Hope this helps. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Kiefer,
 * Iam sorry if looks like a personal attack. Iam ONLY worry abt editions --not abt attacks, not at all. Iam sorry if sounds stupid, really. I must reafirm that I am facing an enormous wrok everytime I try to edit an article, whihc she/he deletes, reverts, without ask nor discuss. My goal is edit, he/she call it POV. I don´t, since I FULLY provide citations, sources, as you could see above. Since I started talikgn to him/her I did the same, but seems to be a waste of time. Ludovicapipa yes? 20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In cases like that, if you feel that an editor is unfairly reverting your changes and refusing to discuss the situation, please look into a Request For Comment on the article. That will attract the attention of more editors who can offer opinions on both sides of the dispute.  The important thing, though, is to not resort to personal attacks on the editor with whom you're arguing - if you do that, people will be much less likely to take your opinions seriously. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what's frustrated me in this case. She repeatedly threatened me with a "block", and I told her several times to contact an administrator or log a complaint in any of the DR forums, like RFC or AN/I and she refused to do so. And the recalcitrant nature of her actions in two projects now really make me question whether or not I should bump this up the ladder.--Dali-Llama 21:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn´t threaten you --I suggested to the adms you should be blocked. Ludovicapipa yes? 19:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Tony1 again
Unfortunately, despite the thread above, his aggressive behavior continues unabated. .  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not necessary to start a second thread. Radiant! as others already stated above, I urge you to cool off and remove yourself from this situation.  You've now threatened to use your admin tools to block me because I provided you with the diffs showing the past issues.  I've summarized the conversation (with all diffs) at User:SandyGeorgia/RaToPm issue and started a thread at WP:AN/I asking uninvolved admins to step in.  I suggest your personal involvement in this (including threats to use your admin tools) has escalated the conflict and taken this issue beyond the level of informal dispute mediation that can occur on this page.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's very much beside the point. I suggest you let a non-involved editor look at Tony's continuing incivility and childish behavior. It is unfortunate that you first ask for outside opinion (on PManderson, whom you are in conflict with yourself) and then attack the person giving that opinion when he turns out to disagree with you.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So let me get this right: "childish behaviour" is somehow not a personal attack. Now Radiant, please calm down. I've clearly upset you greatly by analysing your text at the Gender-neutral discussion; I can't resile from that—it was necessary. I'll be pleased when tempers go down five notches, because we need cool heads to negotiate the issues at hand at MOS etc. And PS, I'm kinda pleased you cite [82] above, coz I don't think people will see it as aggressive at all. Tony 15:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm closing this WQA for the same reasons as the first one - the entire issue has been escalated to the Admin Noticeboard. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 16:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kieferskunk, though the diff posted to start this thread doesn't rise to the level that it's made out to. --Rocksanddirt 23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible incivility by User:Bakasuprman
I've been involved in some editing conflicts with User:Bakasuprman, and I find some of his contributions to our discussions a bit uncivil. Bakasuprman is upset with me, primarily because I endorsed his indefinite block on WP:ANI in April 2007; the discussion is here. The matter went to Arbcom (Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2), which found no grounds for blocking Bakasuprman, and he remains an editor in good standing. Another reason for Bakasuprman to be upset with me is a discussion I initiated on ANI (here) in July 2007 that lead to him being briefly blocked for edit warring.

While it's understandable that he dislikes me, I find some of Bakasuprman's comments towards me vexing, and possibly in violation of WP:CIVIL. The latest examples can be found on my user talk page and User talk:FCYTravis; for instance this comment, accusing me of religious bias and being a "maladroit hack", following my restoration of a talk page comment at Talk:Romila Thapar, and this comment, where the link to Hanlon's Razor is apparently supposed to mean that I am idiotic, not malicious.

This is not an isolated occurrence; earlier Bakasuprman called me "uneducated, dishonest, and irrational", as well as apparently accusing me of anti-Hindu bias (full discussion here).

What I'm looking for here is primarily some outside perspective: is this kind of discourse the kind of thing I should expect on India-related pages, as Bakasuprman contends? (n.b, after his statement that "Editors of India related articles are always incivil" he later said that "its rhetoric", so that is not an acknowledgement of incivility.) If so, I should just suck this up, or remove the few India-related pages I edit from my watchlist? On the other hand, if, as I think, Bakasuprman's comments are outside the bounds of civility, I'd appreciate it if someone else would let him know; he doesn't seem too inclined to accept my input. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Its obvious you are on a witch-hunt since I obviously should have been banned. I dont deal with abuse nicely, and will refuse to interpret WP:CIVIL in a manner which allows facilitators of admin abuse to whine about incivility. I have not been legitimately blocked since september 2006, and the recent defecations on my block log are in no small part to akhilleus personal crusade against myself. Baka man  03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is "defecations" actually the word you wanted, or is this a typo? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If so, it's a typo he makes with surprising regularity. Hornplease 04:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Its disturbing to note that is probably editing right now while Akhilleus, entrusted with the admin tools to serve the 'pedia is using a questions semantics to facilitate a witchhunt against users in good standing. Defecation, yes. Baka  man  04:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Bakasuprman routinely gets called names and abused all the time by one side (your side?) of a particular divide (see his userpage). And I havent seen you use your good offices to try and put an end to it.  And on that page you were restoring a comment that was clearly in bad taste.  And like you concede yourself, you supported an indef on him on the most bogus grounds(as the arbcom pointed out).  So stop trying to appropriate the moral high ground for yourself.  Sarvagnya 07:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody has ever called Bakasuprman a name that remains an editor in good standing. People are routinely polite to him and requestful of civility, which he fails to return. Unless you can substantiate your justification of his abysmal behaviour with diffs, I suggest you withdraw that.Hornplease 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The amount of self-delusion required to make such a statement like that is amazing. Dbachmann seems to still be here, even after utilizing politically charged terms and racial slurs. Of course, dab is not incivil, because he is not a "Hindu nationalist communalist sockpuppeting troll". Hornplease has a big axe to grind here, so  Baka man  03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Presenting past evidence of your incivility is hardly grinding an axe on this page. (Thank you for linking to that evidence, by the way.) Both dab's comments you've linked to indicate that you are considered a single purpose account; that in itself is not incivil. I still await substantiation of the claim that Baksuprman is exposed to incivility on a daily basis. He is not; judging by the comments on this page, he seems to labour under a delusion that he is being persecuted by a cabal of tendentious editors and racist admins. Such a delusion is not a basis for the abandonment of a core policy. Hornplease 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks are not incivil? Dab really does not need a wikilawyer. Incivility is something you create by misrepresneting statements made by myself and other users. Those who you are in agreement, such ads dab are not incivil. Those who you ideologically are opposed to are reoutinely dubbed "incivil" which has turned into a term of doublespeak. I am exposed to incivlity on a daily basis, an insight into my userpage history would establish this. The "core principle" is being misrepresented for ideological gain by users such as Hornplease, who have much to gain with the loss of constructive editors from the India pages. Baka man  03:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose this edit summary is just another example of the level of discourse we can expect in this area of Wikipedia, where WP:CIVIL does not apply. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sad, and true. Note that Bakasuprman has indicated nothing in the above statement except that he believes that these concerns about civility are the product of 'misrepresentation'. And as for being exposed to incivility, all of us face trolling regularly. As I pointed out earlier, trolling by anons or users subsequently banned is no excuse for incivility to users in good standing, none of whom are rude to Bakasuprman. Note, finally, his dismissal ofthis entire process here. Unless he is told sternly that random incivility and motive-questioning poisons the atmosphere here, he will continue in his ways. Hornplease 03:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It stands to note that the only two editors pressing the issue are editors that wish me banned and have broken Wiki rules multiple times to attempt to do so. Masquerading as a "concerned user" and presenting oneself as a victim really adds an emotional touch. "Bakasuprman is a demon that deals with everyone incivilly" is nothing short of misrepresentation and defamation. The policy on civility is not objective. Users trying to gain the upper hand in conflict take advantage of the subjectivity of the policy to stifle discussion and engage in ad hominem demonization. This case is nothing short of caprice, considering this "process" has been hijacked by partisans hoping to broadcast their opinions. Baka man  04:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of a single "wiki rule" I have broken to "attempt" to ban you. I am not even sure whether a reply is warranted here, as it should be obvious by now from this discussion alone that ad hominem attacks on you are not the rule; instead, you continue to be engaged by established editors with the patience and good faith that is mandated by our core policies. (Nobody, for example has called you a "demon".) Incidentally, wikilink to 'objective' aside, your complaint about the subjectivity of policy has completely mystified me. Hornplease 04:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Neutral editors reviewing this post may also like to comment on this revert by Akhilleus.nids(&#9794;) 07:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman has announced on several occasions that "civility does not apply" in contentious areas of Wikipedia. (Contentious areas are anywhere he edits.) My last words on the subject - when he repeated this "defense" yesterday, which Sarvagna seems to share - are here:. Please do read them. Hornplease 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If holders of virulent bigotry continue to be praised when editing, some mildly charged rhetoric is nothing to worry about. Baka man  03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is great Hornplease. All Bakasuprman stated was "willfully making false statements" and there is a long line of commentary by you and Akhilleus. When we take a look at a larger diff around the same discussion [] we Restating something in different words--how is this now uncivil?  Kkm5848 11:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 *  Civility is an official policy in Wikipedia. It is always something to worry about. It can be hard to remain civil in a highly charged atmosphere; but there is no excuse whatsoever for dismissing this as a minor consideration.
 *  No personal attacks is an official policy in Wikipedia. You are not permitted to throw around accusations of virulent bigotry. If virulent bigotry is impacting upon articles, you must deal with that through appropriate channels, and not by just making personal attacks on the bigot. If a virulent bigot is making personal attacks themselves, then deal with that through appropriate channels, not by attacking in return. Otherwise, if the bigotry is not affecting articles and not leading to attacks, then I am afraid the official Wikipedia  editing policy applies; anyone can edit.
 *  Assume good faith is a behavioural guideline. It is not set in stone; there can be exceptions and common sense applies. But the idea is a fundamental principle, and exceptions are never a basis for disregarding the official policy on civility and no personal attacks.
 * &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  04:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that Hornplease brings up uncivility and violation of WP codes of conduct when he takes part in much the same. Hornplease has routinely pushed his pov on the Hindu Students Council page and posted citations in bad faith [] and removed WP:RS sources w/o discussion   [].  I don't edit all that much on WP, but do notice improper behavior when I see it. Kkm5848 10:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is about incivility. Your remarks about POV-pushing are not striclt relevant, like BAkasuprman's similar ones above. (Incidentally, if anyone's interested, those articles need massive cleanup.)Hornplease 17:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My comment is in regards to the person bringing the charge of incivility on another editor of WP. And specifically, the person bringing the charge frequently violates WP policy and thus does not have a lot of credibility in bringing up charges against another user.  Kkm5848 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Akhilleus has a lot of credibility. If you cannot point to these 'frequent violations' of WP policy, perhaps you should withdraw that. Hornplease 18:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In the same vein that The Onion has credibility among the journalism community, so too does Akhilleus among this community. Baka man  22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This thread is making me wonder about this noticeboard's utility. Instead of getting outside comment about the issues at hand, this thread is simply offering Bakasuprman another venue to cast aspersions on my character, credibility, etc. If we're not going to get any comments from uninvolved parties, this "discussion" ought to be closed. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I agree. It's apparent by the ongoing argument here and the fact that Duae Quartunciae's comments above about civility policies were almost completely ignored, that continued discussion on this board will probably not accomplish much.  We can only help mediate when all parties involved are interested in resolving the dispute.  We cannot really help when one or more parties are still jabbing at each other throughout the process.  I would recommend you move on to a higher form of dispute resolution, such as informal or formal mediation. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the recommendation--but my understanding is that dispute resolution is for article content. This is an interpersonal issue that has almost nothing to do with any Wikipedia article. Do you still think mediation would be an appropriate way to deal with this? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The dispute resolution process also applies to interpersonal disputes. Check out WP:RFC/U.  And the mediation processes are there mainly to help resolve issues between editors, so hopefully they can help you. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 01:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't really think a WP:RFC/U is likely to attract univolved editors, but thank you for the advice. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Bakasuprman is one of what appears to be an affinity group of users with similar ideas and open contempt for wikipedian standards (read their talk pages and editing history), who often support each other. IMHO, it is a waste of time to consider mediation with such repeat, unrepentant users who share common values, one must try to go to arbitration where meaningful sanctions can be enforced. One of this group, Bharatveer, has been taken directly to arbitration for similar behavior, and of course "Baka" has taken his usual combative approach in supporting him there. I suggest reviewing the arbitration case [] and initiating a similar approach with "Baka", documenting his plethora of offenses. --Dseer 01:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben & Jerry's flavors
There has been a slight battle over at this page from Chunk Champion. He created and actively edits the article, but I stepped in to try to improve the page. Since then, he's fought me left and right on edits. The reason I bring this issue here is that we had a discussion over what to name the section that refers to the discontinue flavors. I went ahead and got a third opinion that seemed reasonable and went ahead and made the edits, and he reverted them and left a fairly inflammatory comment on the talk page. This whole thing seems to stem from his not understanding how Wiki ownership works, and it's starting to bug me. Where can I go from here? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t · c ] 14:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing I've read is the conversation on your talk page, in which he's perhaps slightly sarcastic, but not totally out of bounds. I suspect that the larger issue isn't any violation of WP:CIVIL, but rather of WP:OWN - and reading between the lines I can certainly see a possible ownership issue there.  However, before I can comment on it, I'd need to see some diffs in which he reverted your edits for the sole apparent reason of protecting "his" version of the page (i.e. without making reference to policy or otherwise justifying his reversions).  Once I see those, I may be able to discuss the issue with him. Sarcasticidealist 15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay. Since we got the third opinion today, he twice reverted my edits ( and ); previously, he reverted an edit when I removed trademark symbols . Beyond that, I guess it's just the stubbornness against change. I spent a bunch of time putting everything into a wikitable, and his comment was "Maybe next time you could contribute some actual content." &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 15:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, one more addition. Even after the third opinion today, he twice reverted my edits. We're getting kind of close to 3RR, but I still think that the suggestion given in the third opinion should be made. Should I go back to third opinion, or take it to RfC? Seems like a big step for such a relatively minor issue... &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 15:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on his talk page encouraging him to accept the change (which I personally think is clearly more in keeping with Wikipedia's policies than is "Flavor graveyard", although I'm not here to adjudicate content disputes). I've also asked him to confirm that, if an RFC results in a clear consensus in favour of "Discontinued flavors", he will honour it.  I'd give him a chance to respond and, if he continues to insist on "Flavor graveyard", start an RFC.
 * I hope this is helpful. Sarcasticidealist 19:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm changing this from Resolved to In Progress. Chunk Champion continues to ignore the slight consensus that has been reached on this page (see the talk page) and has contacted Ben & Jerry's for their opinion. Two people (one here and one here) have told him that this action is irrelevant. If this continues, I'm considering starting an RfC. Does anyone have any other suggestions? It seems silly/excessive to apply for an RfC, but it seems there may be no other choice. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t · c ] 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Issue is now resolved. Thanks to everyone for their help. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 04:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by User:TharkunColl
Editor seems to have been causing undue disruption across a number of articles for some time now, including at English people, God Save the Queen, Passport, Commonwealth of Nations, Head of the Commonwealth, Monarchy in Canada, British monarchy, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Second city of the United Kingdom, Commonwealth realm, etc. There seems to be two main, though intertwined, issues with his overall actions: Overall, TharkunColl's moves show that he: Hence, TharkunColl's general actions seem to place him squarely under WP:DISRUPT. His talk page and block log show some of the extensive evidence of his conduct.
 * 1) TharkunColl's main modus of operandi is seemingly tactless and irrational reverting; in the edit summary he either offers no explanation at all, claims to be removing POV, or claims to be reverting vandalism, of which only the second reason could possibly be seen as valid.
 * 2) Following on the above, when prompted to participate in discussion about that which he alleges is POV, TharkunColl simply dismisses presented evidence that contradicts his claims, and puts forward little to none in support of his view, thus making his edits original research.  This obstinacy can, and has, resulted in ceaseless debate on talk pages, edit wars, page locks, and his being blocked from editing.
 * is tendentious; continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
 * cannot satisfy Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopaedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
 * rejects community input; resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.
 * has violated Civility, No personal attacks, Ownership of articles on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

WP:RFCC has been considered, however I wished to start this informal RfC first, and, perhaps, have others directly communicate with TharkunColl regarding his behaviour. --G2bambino 18:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

PS - as User:TharkunColl's talk page is currently locked, I have not, as of yet, notified him of this posting. I will do so at the earliest possible opportunity. --G2bambino 18:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You might be able to have an 'Administrator' notify him (or allow you to notify him). GoodDay 21:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly, if the blocks and such haven't yet served as notice to him that his behavior is unacceptable, I'm not sure what additional good a WQA will do (i.e. a user who's already been blocked for disruptive editing isn't likely to respond positively to the kind of gentle reminders WQA volunteers typically leave). I'd refer this to RFC/U if it continues after the block expires. --User: (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I considered RfC/U, however a minimum two people who have already previously contacted the user in question regarding his/her behaviour is required to file one. I currently have no such counterpart.  Hence, I wanted to bring his actions to wider attention.  Hopefully another editor discussing TharkunColl's attitude with him would be sufficient for him to take a second look at himself; yes, multiple warnings and blocks seem to have done little, but maybe - just maybe - a frank opinion expressed to him might work (?).  If that does fail, then said other editor could thus be the second person required to file an RfC/U. --G2bambino 14:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem here is G2bambino's obsessive pushing of a certain POV across all pages relating to the British monarchy. This complaint here is part of a pattern of disruption that includes excessive arguing on talk pages, using all possible administrative processes (such as this one) to cause further annoyance, and general editing of articles to suit his POV. He calls for discussion on talk pages but often refuses to answer direct questions, hardly ever provides citations, and derides other people's citations as irrelevent or out of context. He instigates disruption on articles by inserting his POV, leading to edit wars and article locking. Almost every article he has altered in this way has been subject to disruption. TharkunColl 15:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find that there are more than enough citations in the relevant articles themselves to support what's inserted, either at the same article or elsewhere - and you should be aware that I didn't create all that content myself (I'm never sure why you continue to convince yourself of the opposite). You have been directed to said articles time and time again; that you refuse to either look at or accept the cited content therein is nobody's issue but your own.
 * And here is where the root of your issue lies: it is your arguments that are mostly unsupported by actual evidence, and, indeed, your edits that contradict other Wikipedia content. Your refusal to accept this, along with your personal attacks, revert wars, talk page trolling, and the like, is why I've started this process - I want to see it cease so that editing can be more productive.  I want to see less annoyance, not more.
 * The record stands: by all four criteria of WP:DISRUPT, put together with your block log and comments on your talk page, you seem to be a disruptive editor. That's not to say you can't change, but as it stands, things don't look good. --G2bambino 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I essentially concur with Thark's assessment. User G2bambino (aka Gbambino/Gbambino06) has a long history as the epitome of a tendentious editor, going back to his inaugural attempt to put "Canada is a kingdom" into the opening of the article on Canada. While I don't condone some aspects of Thark's behaviour, G. is much the more disruptive of the two. -- Lonewolf BC 16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I caused shit early on in my time here; mostly out of ignorance of the processes of Wikipedia combined with bouts of tempermentality. I never claimed to be perfect. But, let's let the records speak for whom is more disruptive than whom - yourself included, Loner. --G2bambino 16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In my observation you've never ceased to do so, but merely gotten craftier about it. However, let the full records say what they may to anyone else. -- Lonewolf BC 17:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * G2B is equal if not worse than tharkie, with his edit warring and downright bizarre views and changes to articles that would be misleading to readers. What tends to happen is G2B goes to an article and changes it according to his particular beliefs and obsessions.  Then Tharkie comes across the article and changes it in line with his views/normal rather than convoluted views.  These are in effect content disputes between these two editors in particular, over a range of articles with themes about the commonwealth etc.  G2Bambino has been blocked for 3RR for this himself in the past over this. From what Lonewolf said above, as you can see I am not the only one with this opinion about the ongoing G2B vs tharkie issues.  Call it a 'personality clash' or a clash of agendas/POVs.Merkinsmum 19:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's frustrating: here we have 'two' editors G2B & Tharky (both who obviously care about the accurarcy of 'Commonwealth' related articles) ripping each other apart. They have more in common then they both care to admit- 'strong willed', 'intelligent', 'demanding accurary', in otherwords 'well meaning editors'. If only the All are equal VS UK, first among equals schism could be sorted out. Perhaps both should take a break from those articles & see how the 'rest' of the Wiki community edits them. GoodDay 20:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, he and I obviously face off often. However, he's been riling people up at other pages and has been blocked for his actions there as well as where he and I cross paths. --G2bambino 06:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The situaton can be assessed by G2B's own words "Yes, I considered RfC/U, however a minimum two people who have already previously contacted the user in question regarding his/her behaviour is required to file one. I currently have no such counterpart.  Hence, I wanted to bring his actions to wider attention."  i.e.  No-one else objects to Tharkie's stance on this issue enough to upbrade him about it, and G2B has to go telling tales and canvassing in order to try and get someone to do so.Merkinsmum 21:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So, you actually have no evidence that counters what presently speaks for Thark's behaviour. --G2bambino 06:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You've provided no evidence yourself, though, it's just wingeing. Please provide diffs of what you claim he has done wrong, and no doubt dozens could be provided as examples of your bizarre behaviour too.  My point is that tharkie might be stendentious but you are too.  I don't have to defend thark it's up to you to back up your claim in the first place.  Thark would not be petty and buerocratic enough to go round pages like this trying to get people in trouble that's for sure.Merkinsmum 13:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * His talk page and block log are evidence enough, and both show he gets himself in trouble well enough without my help. I've already admitted that I'm no saint, but I think the main difference between he and I is that I can be reasoned with. I don't know if others have, but I've tried to reason with him, many, many times; unfortunately, to no avail. Thark continues with his anti-British paranoia, and to throw jabs at people even when they're generally being respectful in return; and those are just a couple of the things I know of him, editors who contribute to Second city of the United Kingdom or English people, or other articles would have other things to say. If he won't be reasoned with, what other options present themselves to bring a resolution to the ongoing problems? --G2bambino 13:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If I can offer an observation: I respect both TharkunColl and G2bambino as editors who do their research and offer useful comments. I have been in lengthy discussions with both of them. I have both agreed and disagreed with them on a number of points. From what I've observed G2bambino and TharkunColl clash frequently on many pages. They seem to argue most about the relationship of the UK monarchy with other Commonwealth monarchies: in particular, the Canadian one. In my opinion TharkunColl does seem to ignore some points and sometimes offers (in my opinion) irrational arguments. But on that score you could castigate many of not most editors at some point or another. On the other hand, if you stay with him long enough and patiently enough, he will address your points. G2Bambino, in his discussions with TharkunColl seems to assume motive and resorts sometimes to personal attacks. He also on occasion ignores valid points TharkunColl makes. They are both red rags to each other, as many talk pages show. I think this issue is more about a personal feud. Both parties are equally responsible for disruptions. I agree with GoodDay: if you read a lengthy exchange them, they actually agree on more than they argue about. And yes, following another good idea from GoodDay, why don't you (Tharky and G2) both retire temporarily from the UK vs equal monarchy thing and see how it plays out without you? You might be able to get some fresh perspective. --Gazzster 07:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that this issue of Thark's behavious goes well beyond his interactions with me; as I keep saying, his talk page and block log show well enough the wide range of his offences, and where they take place. My opening this discussion here wasn't the start of some personal vendetta.
 * That said, it seems you, Gazzster, and GoodDay should know that I'm not unaware of what Thark and I agree and disagree on; I thought this comment I made on his talk page clarified my position on the entire UK first/all equal situation between he and I.
 * But what he and I agree on is of minor consequence here; the main issue is that the UK first/all equal subject already has been debated by a wider group of participants; the majority of people saw, in each case, that there were no grounds on which to give the UK primacy beyond certain specific occasions. Thark's reasons for elevating the UK in every and all instances – the non-UK countries are colonies, they are "non-kingdoms," they have vice-regals, and so on – certainly were not accepted. It's the fact that Thark refuses to recognise these decisions, and, of course, any of the provided evidence that supports them, combined with the aggressive reverting, and NPOV and NPA breaches, that makes Thark generally disruptive.
 * I have, however, taken seriously people's observations here regarding me. I certainly hope Thark has done the same. --G2bambino 20:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather than being disruptive I would say Tharky pushes his point. You could call that a strength as long as his arguments are supported by evidence. And he does put evidence forward, no matter how much we may dispute its worth. And I agree, it can be annoying. But as I say, if you stay with him long enough, and treat him with respect, he will respond to your arguments. I'd suggest simply rely on the safeguards Wiki already has in place (the 3 revert block rule, etc)to deal with difficulties, and most importantly, don't respond in a personal manner. As youve read from my comments to Tharky, I get riled by him, but it is important to keep my cool. When I stopped feeling riled, I noticed he put forward some bloody good points that made me think. I will of course, continue to spar with him. It's all good fun, as long as noone gets hurt! Cheers!--Gazzster 02:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as Tharky keeps his arguments to the 'talk pages', doesn't get overly combative on the 'edit summaries' & restrains from Edit warring - I'm at peace. GoodDay 17:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin; Removal of maintenance tags, exhausting circular discussions
A long-simmering dispute at Battle of Jenin has seen much heat and little light over the past several weeks. A tag was added, belatedly, on 3 August, and I soon changed it to, which I thought was a more accurate characterization of the debate. (POV-check is generally for minor issues, such as when a new article is created by someone who doesn't feel they can be entirely neutral, and voluntarily asks for a "sanity check" by a second editor.) Anyway, the tag was reverted and unreverted a bunch of times over the next few days, without explanation, until User:Jaakobou argued on 6 Aug that we "did not open a talk page subsection explaining this dispute", and that "i see no reason for the orange tag except that one side is unhappy that they look bad with the material in the article". Myself and other editors discussed this and the tags seemed to stick.

Over the past 3 or 4 weeks the dispute has certainly not quited down; if anything, it's become more heated. Those who follow this board (and AN/I and even CSN) have probably cseen some fallout from it. Anyway, the point I'm making is that we seem to be getting further from consensus, rather than closer. This being said, User:Jaakobou removed the tags saying that "factuality has been established and there's no massive neutrality issues. feel free to open the issues on talk in separete subsections." (Actually, that's another issue here - Jaakobou has been aggressively trying to structure the discussion to his liking, moving around comments to "on" and "off" -topic sections, insisting that he won't comment in a section if he finds the title "NPOV", etc)

Anyway, I reverted the tag with the summary "re-add tags; the fact that some editors have been worn down or driven off by excessively circular talk page discussion does not mean that issues are "resolved"!", Jaakobou re-reverterd the tag with the summary "rv, i don't follow your commentary/edit summary - what factuality problems are you contesting exactly ?", and User:PalestineRemembered restored it saying "This is a hugely disputed article..Lead stuffed with inappropriate "context", written to the "minority view" eg over whether it was a massacre, lots evidence missing." I have given in and written an extensive summary of the POV problems with one paragraph, which I believe is very typical of the entire piece.

I'd like opinions on two issues:

1) Under what circumstances are maintenance tags removed? Whever I've done it, it's been by posting on the talk page and getting unanimous consent. I realize this may not be practically required in all cases, but I'd never dream of removing a tag when two or three editrs disagree, without having some overwhelming exceptional reason.

2) What do we do when a discussion simply goes on and on without any resolution? Is it just time for mediation? I'm worried that the extremely wearying nature of this discussion is driving people to leave, or at least seriously reduce their involvement - causing those editors who stay to jump in proclaiming that the dispute no longer exists.

Thanks, and I apologize for the length of the post, and for the summary which will necessarily exclude all kinds of details - this has been going on for 6 weeks at least, with at least 6 or 7 editors posting extensively, so I'm sure I've missed many things. Eleland 13:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Much of the discussion is based on who called it a massacre and when. This is not really relevant to an encyclopaedia article on a battle, which should focus on current knowledge of strategies used and casualties; as a method of defusing tension, I strongly suggest you all take a break and consider creating a sub-article on the earlier controversies about body count. That is certainly more in line with the expectations from the encyclopaedia; the media battle and the real-world battle were two different things. If nothing else, I find that focusing on too many things at once on a talkpage can lead to extra frustration. Hornplease 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, another reason we need some help. You're saying that we're focusing on too many different things, Jaakobou is saying that the disputes are only really narrow and minor. Eleland 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We might both be right if what the central foci of difference are (the polemics surrounding the use of the term 'massacre') are, in a sense, tangential to the real subject of the article. Hornplease 05:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Greg L's behavior on Kilogram
Kilogram is a class-B Vital article that Greg L has been doing an enormous amount of work on. Unfortunately, the user's behavior on the talk page shows signs of ownership. There was a fair amount of constructive, collaborative editing sparked by Greg L's contributions, but one exception was the response of other editors to the huge expansion of the "mass versus weight" section. I initiated a Request for Comments on the issue, but Greg L has stated the he is not interested in what other users on the page have to say, and he has been attacking other user's suitability to edit the page.

Involved parties:

User:Yath deleted the expansion very early

User:JimWae is engaged in editing and discussion on the talk page

User:Enuja I am engaged in discussion on the talk page

User:Greg L

I would like advice on how to make editing and discussion on this article constructive again. Enuja (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To the committee: I’m sorry you’ve been dragged into what I feel is a dispute over childish behavior. While I am quite interested in the consensus of reasonable people, by Enuja’s own admission no consensus had been reached on an issue of great interest to her (see record of dispute here). Nevertheless, in bad faith, she suggested that since no consensus had been reached, that this was evidence that one somehow had been reached and proposed action based on this false premise. In blunt terms, but ones that fall far short of a ‘prohibited’[1] “personal attack,” I told her what I thought of that stunt. It is a dispute over this issue that underlies her claim that I am “not interested in what other users on the page have to say.”


 * Please note that I’ve recently done to Kilogram article what I had previously done to the Specific heat capacity article: I completely re-wrote it. And in the case of Kilogram I also created the CG illustration for it. Both articles had degraded to the point that they were difficult to read and had significant factual errors. Please see this positive reaction on Specific heat capacity’s talk page regarding that rewrite. I also engaged in professional and good-faith debate with other editors during that rewrite (see example). Here’s what the Kilogram article looked like before I started on it 22 days ago. The authors over on the Specific heat capacity article behaved very maturely, welcomed the improvements, and sought to assist (one of them even solicited my efforts to merge a now-redundant article into it).


 * However, my experiences on the Kilogram article have been entirely the opposite. A small group of the people—those cited above by Enuja—have seemingly not ‘warmed’ to a newcomer. One of them seemingly sought out conflict by following me to Kelvin just to make a bad-faith edit by flat deleting a table that had been in the article for years. He deleted it only nine hours after I had edited the table (I had restored it to full size after someone truncated it). This was very suspicious timing given that his previous edit to Kelvin had been a year prior. Further, his post to the Kelvin talk page betrayed an underlying annoyance with recent events over on Kilogram (see that discussion).


 * As regards Enuja’s claim of seeking advise and guidance from you to make “editing and discussion on this article constructive again,” that strikes me as disingenuous posturing in an attempt to appear as a wise source of reason who seeks only to avoid conflict. The same applies to her claim that I am displaying “signs of ownership”; I believe the true facts to quite the opposite. I am particularly galled by her above statement of…


 * “I initiated a Request for Comments on the issue, but Greg L has stated the he is not interested in what other users on the page have to say…”


 * She withdrew (deleted) her own Request-for-Comments form after having receiving insufficient interest from others in her “issue” and obtained mixed results from those who commented (see discussion). Further, I said nothing about not being interested in what she and the others had to say before she withdrew the form; quite the opposite, for I posted my best case and waited for others to weigh in. My ‘don’t care’ reaction was only after she falsely claimed a consensus and solicited JimWae to start deleting recent additions to the article. Her above allegation to you seriously mischaracterizes the true facts and seems nothing more than another attempt to garner support for her cause. I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for years and can assure you that all good-faith edits by others are treated in the proper Wikipedia manner and any good-faith disagreements with other editors that are discussed on talk pages are debated professionally.


 * Respectfully, Greg L (my talk) 04:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I took some time today to read Talk:Kilogram, and what I see there is slightly disturbing in the sense that you all started out so well, but then it quickly degraded., I agree with  insofar as your responses to her and to  do indeed have the ring of "I worked hard on this, don't touch my stuff."  From there, your responses also start to lose the appearance of "assume good faith." I don't see that she performed any kind of "wholesale deletion," especially since information is very rarely permanently deleted on Wikipedia (and such requires the intervention of oversight and/or developers to effect.)  Rather, I see she was trying to follow WP:SUMMARY.


 * Wikipedia would not be where it is today without contributors like you, Greg, who take the time and effort to improve our coverage of scientific topics. However, Wikipedia would also not be where it is without editors like Enuja, who take the time to ensure that each article covers what it should, and valuable but misplaced information is relocated.  You compared the article on Kilogram to a Britannica article, and said "it's nowhere near as long" and "Britannica articles have some depth."  The beauty of Wikipedia (and the World Wide Web and hypertext in general) is that you don't have to have all of the information on one page for the article (and the encyclopedia) to have depth.  If the information is moved to, say, mass or weight, then a brief summary can be left in summary style, and the bulk of the information can be moved to the most appropriate article where someone who wants to find out about the relation between mass and weight will logically look first.  Nothing is lost by doing this, since it's just a simple click away.  Personally, I enjoy the aspect of being able to open linked articles in a new tab for additional information when I'm done perusing the first article.  The exploration of additional linked articles is part of what makes Wikipedia fun to learn from!


 * That being said, I also think you were a bit quick to call a "vote" on the Mass vs. Weight section (on 12 August). Discussion is indeed the correct first step, as  pointed out.  Someone has an idea, you respond, they rebut, you rebut, and by then or there abouts, if neither of you changes your mind, THEN perhaps ask for a third opinion, or perhaps consider RFC or a vote.  I am also deeply concerned by your comment, regardless of the circumstances, that you "[weren't] interested in what ... regular editors feel."  Regardless of the size of the group of editors expressing a concern, how often they contribute to the article in question or scientific subject matters, or how experienced they are at Wikipedia, you should always be interested in what your fellow editors have to say.  That's the basis of consensus and the operation of Wikipedia and any wiki in general.


 * Your response here also indicates a lack of AGF. There was indeed a lack of consensus from the RFC on keeping the information on mass vs. weight directly in the article.  A lack of consensus doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a lack of action.  Enuja's attempt to move the detailed information to the specific subject article(s) was supported already by WP:SUMMARY, and no consensus was needed on that from the RFC.  I suspect she opened the RFC to see if there was consensus to support YOUR view that the information should remain in Kilogram, since you seemed upset by the idea of moving it, and if such a consensus had formed, then I believe she'd have left the information intact in Kilogram.


 * Basically, Greg, I think you need to learn to let go a bit and allow the wiki process to take its course. Correct any obvious scientific errors that are introduced, but please acknowledge that others have valuable contributions they can make—if not to the scientific information, then to the formatting and layout of the article. --User: (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Darkwind: Thank you for taking the time to respond to this issue. Volunteers such as youself serve a very valuable service since unresolvable disputes can really ruin the Wikipedia experience. A third party can be just what it takes to break logjams.


 * Most of what you’ve said above seems like good, common-sense dispute resolution advise. I take issue with one observation you made: A lack of “AGF” (assuming good faith). It is inescapable that humans often behave in ways that are clearly childish or not in good faith. People can do bad things. Wikipedia can experience its share of all of this; you can I both know this. Any reasonable interpretation of, for instance, Yath’s behavior in following me to the Kelvin article looking to create conflict, would lead to the conclusion that this wasn’t in good faith. As I explained above in the third paragraph of my statement, his motives are unprovable, known only to him and God. I’ve carefully studied the timing of the edits he made to the article and his posts to the talk page. He hadn’t edited that article in the previous year. So in that particular case, considering the totality of the history preceding that, a simple common-sense test shows he very probably went looking for conflict with a provocative deletion. This is not a court of law where the burden of proof must be “beyond a reasonable doubt” before society revokes life and liberty. This is not a civil trial where liability to the tune of millions of dollars is established based upon the “preponderance of evidence.” For the purposes of interacting with other editors on Wikipedia, only one common-sense test can apply: treat others as you would have them treat you and assume good faith until they demonstrate otherwise. Once someone has violated that trust and does childish stuff, the “presumption of good faith” is no longer deserved. Greg L (my talk) 01:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't take the time to examine 's behavior outside of the comments that appeared from him on Talk:Kilogram. What you say in reference to him may very well be the case, that he had less than honorable motives in his edits to the various articles involved.  However, what I was referring to you when I mentioned the concept of AGF was the portion of your response referring to Enuja's motives in opening a WQA.  I don't see her behavior at all deserving of a re-examination of her motives; and to see it in that light would really require you to have dropped your good-faith assumption about her behavior a while ago.  I'm not just tooting a policy horn, here—I really believe that AGF is what greases the wheels of Wikipedia's operations, so to speak.  When we start seeing ulterior motives behind every editor, then we spend more time addressing our paranoia and less time improving the encyclopedia. --User: (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well. Greg L (my talk) 03:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the tag on top to "resolved" as it seems to be so. Thanks for the help from Darkwind, and thanks to Greg L!  Enuja  (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Tony1
is posting silly personal attacks about me and other people he disagrees with, and disrupting discussion with ad hominems, as well as by alluding to conspiracies and "ploys" against him, and calling people Nazis. Could someone have a word with him and get him to calm down?    &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just on the basis of that fourth diff you linked, I left a message to remind him about NPA and the usage of ad hominem arguments, but I don't have time to go over the whole situation at the moment.  I'll come back later on today and give it another look. --User: (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I left a message on Tony1's talk page and on Wikipedia talk:Build the web as well, pointing him to several civility policies and advising him that there are better, more civil ways to discuss a policy dispute than the way he's currently doing it. I looked through all four of Radiant's diffs and read through the conversations, and for the most part I believe Radiant has been remaining calm and civil (though citing Godwin's Law was not a good move, in my opinion).


 * Radiant: Some advice for you as well: Please ensure you're up to date on WP:CIVIL, WP:COOL and WP:POINT. I think you're allowing Tony1 to get under your skin a little too much - I'm referring specifically to where you cited Godwin's Law and told him that he'd lost the argument.  While I agree that his calling you a Nazi was way out of line and generally discredits his arguments, you allowed yourself to respond in kind, thus inflaming the situation more.  (Telling someone that they're losing usually only prompts them to fight harder.)  I think you'd be better served by refocusing the discussion only to the policies at hand, and politely asking the other editor to remove all personal attacks from his comments and focus on the content discussion.


 * I do thank you for bringing this issue here, though. For the most part, I think you're doing a good job in the dispute.  Just a few rough edges to polish off, that's all.  We're certainly willing to help mediate, though. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 18:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While Tony does tend to be unusually aggressive, and believes that the MOS should be used to promote "modern" views on English, he also tend to cool down and consider arguments after a few days. I find this section particularly indicative on both tendencies. It happens to be political; but his idea that the MOS should simply mandate Socrates's is equally dismaying. (His habit of speaking of "MOS breaches" at FA suggests that he does not understand what a guideline is.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That was an inaccurate summary of the apostrophe-s siuation; not only is Tony arguing for the MoS to recommend (a guideline cannot actually "mandate" anything) consistent possessive indicator usage, instead of mutually contraditory and incompatible rationales for dropping the final s sometimes, he is backed up in the matter by other editors (myself included, by way of disclaimer), with actually logically-defensible rationales for why to prefer one over the other, which fans of "Moses' " have yet to counter. I do agree with Tony can get a little hot around the collar, but that appears to be equally true of both you and I, and Radiant, and...  So I wouldn't put too much store in that.  I do agree that he also does calm down.  So, I'm not sure why we are here.  His over-the-top "like a Nazi" comment got him admonished by multiple parties, and I'm sure that's sufficient. Also, takes two to tango, and while I don't condone the incivility, it is sometimes not difficult to understand how someone can feel driven to it. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 04:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not "here". This alert was closed on this page two weeks ago. --Darkwind (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see a conflict erupt between Tony1 and Radiant, two good editors. IMO the problem actually originated with Pmanderson, and Radiant found himself in the middle of Tony1's exhausted patience after long-standing disruption to Wikipedia's manual of style by Pmanderson, while Tony has attempted to improve the MOS to common professional standards in use elsewhere. I have limited computer access for the remainder of this week and next, but I have left one small example of how difficult it has been to work on MOS because of Pmanderson's editing on Radiant's talk page.  I do wish someone would look into Pmanderson's behavior as part of this whole issue; I can't help but notice he's lodged what I consider to be a spurious issue two sections below this one, and suggest that someone might ask Pmanderson to consider his own editing style and the effect it has on others. I also note that someone actually left a template on Tony1's talk page, perhaps never having read WP:DTR. For someone who has worked as hard as Tony1 has to improve Wikipedia, that's just insulting and the whole point behind DTR. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Have to strongly agre with SandyGeoria on eery word of he above.
 * Thanks for the update. It does look like a strong case of frayed nerves.  A dispute between Tony1 and Radiant can be quickly resolved with a couple apologies in both directions if that's all it is, and then work can resume on the content issues at hand.  My advice to both parties stands, though.

&mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 01:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see the new section "Block" on my talk page (unfortunate coincidence in a whole-ISP block I've been caught up in). I hope this is the end of the matter here. Tony 02:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, just discovered a bit of a conflict here, which I wasn't aware of before. Requests for adminship/Pmanderson 2  At any rate, I hope the analysis I left for Radiant of the issues that are occurring at MOS, and how difficult that editing environment has been, will still be useful.  Perhaps it would be appropriate for Radiant to withdraw from this conflict?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why Radiant should withdraw; Tony attacked him for daring to disagree on GNL. Nor am I saying this out of gratitude for an unsuccessful RfA nomination nine months ago; Sandy is far more closely tied to Tony than I am to Radiant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nor are you the only one who noticed this rather out-of-place accusation. I just didn't comment on it when I noticed it yesterday because I didn't want to reopen the discussion in this section. --User: (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Because this issue has now been raised at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I've marked it as Stuck here. I don't see that there's anything more we can do in this situation - the situation is apparently much more complex than we're equipped to deal with here on WQA. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 16:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Epbr123
-- An RFC has been filed against User:Epbr123. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Does anyone else find Epbr123's part in this conversation gratingly condescending, particularly his idea that  the FAC regulars are entitled to educate the rest of Wikipedia? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please try to avoid mischaracterizing someone else's comments as "educate the rest of Wikipedia". No FAC reviewer is obligated to make the changes to the article; some may choose to do so, but it's not generally wise, as some FAC nominators have ownership issues and editing "their" article is a good way to get your head bitten off.  Epbr123's responses there were reasonable; perhaps you're being overly sensitive to other editors pointing out issues on the article you nominated.  I assume you've notified Epbr123 of this alert?  If not I shall do so now.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did think Epbr's responses were less than helpful, but perhaps that's to be expected since the discussion in question started with a severe critique of the FAC process. Ironically enough, Epbr's responses could easily be seen as a demonstration of one of PMAnderson's criticisms--that the FAC process focuses on formatting and copyediting, rather than addressing the substance of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OT:That has been my interpretation of the FAC process, that the reviewers primarily were concerned with presentation clarity, not so much the content (though if it stinks, they point it out). But most articles should be close to not having content issues to be serious FAC contenders I would think.  --Rocksanddirt 23:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Akhilleus. The fact that there were so many MOS problems with the article after it had been promoted shows that formatting was not heavily focused on during the FAC. Epbr123 23:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Epbr123's exact words are If reviewers fix articles themselves, the main authors don't learn anything. If you guys fix these things yourself, you'll be more likely to remember to do them with your future articles. If this is not the point of view of the country schoolmaster setting tasks to his pupils, it really needs recasting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, he has a valid point, even if it could have been stated more politely. It is a little condescending as written, and generally editors are encouraged to just fix obvious problems, as that is more efficient and helps promote the constructive and cooperative nature of a wiki.  But I can see his point, that if he just goes and fixes the problems himself, the fixes may not necessarily gain the notice of the original editor, and thus the original editor may just go make the same mistakes later on, requiring more fixes.  I believe his intentions were good in promoting the "fix it yourself" approach - wording could have been a little better, but I don't see any clear violations of civility here. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * even if it could have been stated more politely. It is a little condescending as written - I find this a little bit condescending to be honest. I'm not complaining, but I just thought I'd point out the irony of a system where people are told off for telling people off. Epbr123 11:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize if my analysis seems condescending - I assure you it wasn't meant to be. As I said, I didn't see any particular lack of civility there. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 16:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No one else can make you wear a shoe if it doesn't fit; I don't see how Epbr123 can be responsible for you feeling like a pupil when issues that need to be corrected are pointed out. No reviewer is obligated to repair an article you bring to FAC, and the WP:FAC instructions encourage nominators to respond well to criticism.  Epbr123's comments are not in the least uncivil; this alert looks unnecessary.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotta agree there with Sandy and Epbr, not that my word is worth much now. Tony 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've had several encounters with Epbr123, and will share some impressions, for what they're worth. His behavior in the English municipality and FA articles and discussions show him, by far, at his most constructive. Once he leaves these areas he is unceasingly arrogant, condescending and destructive to all other editors. He follows what he feels are Wikipedia rules with rigid literalism, usually as an excuse to mass-nominate articles in a subject area for deletion. These mass-deletions always follow his loss of an article through AfD. Once he has lost an article, he goes on a deletion-tagging rampage, invariably showing contempt for consensus and an inhumanely literalistic interpretation of the rules, apparently to prove a point. When his actions cause an outcry from editors with long experience in those subjects, and administrators offering him advice, he refuses to budge, and instead increases the rate of his nominations. My most recent such encounter with him was at the List of big-bust models and performers. Here, he instigated an edit-war by removing a large amount of entries without discussion. I never reverted him, though other editors did, and he engaged in edit-war like behavior with them. Attempting to find good faith, prevent an escalation of the edit-war, and improve the article, I attempted to engage him in discussion. Instead of taking this opportunity to improve the article, he instead nominated the article for deletion, on the pretexts that inclusion criteria (which I was attempting to discuss with him) were poorly defined, and that this had caused an edit-war (which he had started). I realize he has done some good in the work on English municipalities, but even here it seems that he is taking advantage of the rules-- articles on towns cannot be deleted as non-notable-- in order to spin out hundreds of stub articles. I have serious doubts about the validity of his purposes in editing here. Dekkappai 04:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that the vast majority of AfD I make end with a deletion show that the Wikipedia community backs my "destructive" actions. Epbr123 09:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, the vast majority of all AfD's end with a deletion, so that doesn't show much. See Bayesian statistics for more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No need; I have a degree in statistics. It doesn't matter if my "win" rate is lower than average (although I think it's way above average), my supported AfDs still vastly outweigh my rejected ones. Epbr123 21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you had a degree in statistics, you'd realize that what you just said is nonsense. I'm really good at getting wet when I swim. I get we 100% of the time I swim. Is that at all remarkable? No. Everybody gets wet 100% of the time when they swim. --Cheeser1 05:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would point everyone below, where he actually filed a frivolous WQA complaint against an administrator who warned him that his deletion rampage was disruptive. --Cheeser1 05:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This guy seems to be stalking me. He's just a schoolkid, though, so I'll make allowances. Epbr123 09:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an inflammatory personal attack, which has no place on Wikipedia, especially not on the WQA. Your behavior is inappropriate and you should seriously reconsider how you are approaching this issue (and for the record, I am a 22-year-old graduate student pursuing a Ph.D. in mathematics). --Cheeser1 10:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cheeser1's statement here. Epbr123, the comment above is definitely a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA - please refrain from making such remarks.  It is okay to say that you feel as though you're being stalked (though I doubt that's what's happening in this case), but when you start judging other people's character like you did above ("He's just a schoolkid, though"), it can be quite insulting to other users, and it only tends to inflame the situation further, rather than helping. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Cheeser1. I misread the part of your userpage which mentioned graduate school. You are stalking me though. Epbr123 22:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In my recent conversations with Epbr123, in addition to his recent remarks on Talk:List of big-bust models and performers and Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (5th nomination), he seems to be violating civility, no personal attacks, and, in an odd sort of way, even taking ownership of the aforementioned article in a deletionist sort of way. His behavior has me concerned, particularly his sniping of people on the linked AFD and I feel that it requires mediation, which may even result in a request for comment on this user sometime in the near future. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 17:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. He has made a dozen bad-faith AfDs this week, and among other things, has personally attacked several users (including the frivolous complaint here at the WQA against an admin), and has sniped at almost every "keep" vote in these AfDs. He claims that he is being "abused" when people point out his bad-faith nominations, and seems to believe that accusations of bad faith are themselves bad faith (when in fact, WP:AGF only goes so far). --Cheeser1 18:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like more people's input (from an outsider's point of view) regarding this before we proceed with a possible RFC. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 20:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are there any specific diff's you'd like an unbiased observer to look at? The whole big-bust thing went on for a little too long for me to entirely follow. Best, -- B figura (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed it did. However, as I tried to diffuse the situation myself near the climax/end of it all, I'll get the attention of the users who could probably best help you (and other outside observers) out. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 21:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition to engaging in mass deletions (and refusing to explain why), edit warring, refusing to try to discuss things out, mass related AfD creation without grouping them together (in order to increase their chances of succeeding), and then calling an AfD in bad faith as he was clearly losing an argument -- as has all been pointed out -- he is now adding bulk bogus entries to the List of big-bust models and performers page. Assuming good faith is not really an option here; he is clearly attempting to be disruptive for whatever reason.  In my opinion, this has escalated far past a mere etiquette violation and constitutes abuse. Xihr 22:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And now he's proposed renaming the page -- before the AfD he's started on it is even complete. This is beyond silly now. Xihr 23:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to add too much exposition to these points right. Well, we'll see how much I crank out. On this very WQA, Epbr took it upon himself to accuse an intervening administrator of etiquette violations just because the admin told him to stop disruptively nominating articles for deletion. He also made a personal attack against me, just a few paragraphs above, calling me a "stalker" and a "schoolkid" in order to discredit my complaints against him. Interesting that his condescending "schoolmaster" approach was the initial reason this WQA was opened (although it's widened quite a bit in its scope since then). He nominated 11 articles for deletion in a single day, from Notable Usenet personalities, but instead of grouping them, he nominated them all at once (this is why the admin warned him). He justified it using an (invalid) citation of WP:SNOW, here. He has been extraordinarily uncivil for example. He constantly marks people's comments as "ILIKEIT" and makes other unfounded remarks in order to antagonize and discredit them.

Unsubstantiated accusations of "bad faith" or frivolous accusations of "ILIKEIT":
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Personally insulting responses:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Other non-constructive responses to keep votes:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Other non-constructive comments:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Sorry, I know that's alot of links. If you only click one, click this one instead (note: this one is not included on the list). All these antagonisitc, non-constructive comments, the result is undeniably to sour the AfD process and make it impossible to work together to discuss policy and work to form consensus on the issue. Instead, these bad-faith AfD nomimations are marked with continued acts of unreasonable and uncivil behavior. It seems entirely inappropriate to respond condescendingly, or at least non-constructively, to every single "keep" vote. He even admits that his AfD was an attempt to prove a point about the subjectivity of the criteria - a point he could have made on the article's talk page, something to be discussed and resolved with other editors. Instead, he jumped ship on the discussion, because he has decided unilaterally that the article wasn't worth keeping. He's made it a point to drag irrelevant topics into the AfD by asking pedantic leading questions, as pointed out here by Xhir. He believes that the AfD page is the place to discuss content issues (see here). It appears that he believes that he is in charge of clean up, and that when edit wars ensue, he is in charge of fixing it by AfD'ing the whole thing (see here). He also seems to like to accuse people of the violations that they are accusing him of (when accused of bad faith, he accuses bad faith, and the same with POINT and CIVIL). He seems to believe that he is the only one in charge of deciding whether an article can be properly sourced. He seems to think he is appointed by Wikipedia to delete bad articles - he thinks he speaks for the entire Wikipedia community (despite the fact that many of his currently-running AfDs have snowballed-keep). He seems to be very proud of it, in fact. And yet he would accuse an admin of an abuse of power with no evidence whatsoever. His behavior has, from the start, been entirely out of line. I first encountered him here on the WQA, where he had accused User:georgewilliamherbert of abusing administrator power by warning him about his AfDs. I looked and was immediately surprised to see him going on what can only be described as a deletion spree. I can't speculate as to why, but User:Dekkappai has some ideas. Regardless, this is way out of hand. I believe something needs to be done. I may have more to add later, but I am fairly busy and may not be able to find the time. But this is what I've come up with now, in a bit of spare time I had this evening. Of course, there are also plenty of other users making points that I have not covered here (like Xhir's point about Epbr trying to move a page in the middle of an AfD he started for that page). Oh, and one more point: he lists every single one of his edits as "minor." Many people filter out minor edits, and he would effectively be able to edit without being noticed by these people. He could respond to their points, appropriately or not, and they'd never even see it. The "This is a minor edit" button is not supposed to be abused in this fashion. --Cheeser1 03:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I'd say that's being more than a little point-y, except that I'm not sure what the point of the behavior would be. (I'd like to AGF, but it's a bit of a stretch). Is there an RfC up somewhere, or has this gone to AN/I? -- B figura  (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no RFC yet... Given that there is growing consensus that one is necessary now, it's in the process of being established. Unless anyone else beats me to it, I plan on working on it sometime tomorrow afternoon. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 03:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably not a bad idea, given that he just put another few dozen articles up for Deletion. (I haven't read through them all, so I can't comment on whether it was appropriate or not, but at the very least, WP:BUNDLE should have been used. -- B figura (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree; an RfC or mention to AN/I is wholly appropriate now, given his track record. Xihr 04:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also going to point everyone here. Another user is deleting people's "votes" in Epbr's AfDs, and Epbr is helping that user out by telling him/her that his removals (which I would consider serious vandalism) are being reverted. See . He seems to be supporting these absurd claims of "trolling" (probably because that's one less keep vote) however, even if a poorly justified vote on an AfD isn't great, but it is not trolling. --Cheeser1 11:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've notified the administrator (yes, Picaroon is an administrator, much to my surprise) to justify his actions. I've also reverted his changes on the AFDs I've found so far, with additional comments as needed. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 14:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, User:Cheeser1. User:Picaroon brought up the uncommented deletions on my talk page, where I pointed out why I thought his actions were inappropriate and what a more appropriate solution would be (he replied, dismissing my objections, not surprisingly).  I was unaware that User:Epbr123 had alerted him to my (completely appropriate, I still believe) reversions to his deletions on his talk page, but obviously I'm not surprised.  (And yes, I gathered that Picaroon was an admin, which is why I let it be without engaging in further efforts.  Why bother trying to do the right thing when the deck is stacked against you?) Xihr 21:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've begun breaking ground on the RfC on Epbr123. For those of us directly involved with this, please feel free to modify my work, since it's been a long while since I've ever had to file an RfC against anyone. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I've contributed a bit, and while I don't think I have more to contribute, I might come up with something later. --Cheeser1 17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thank you for all the work that you've done. I've officially launched the RfC against Epbr and will be notifying users involved with the dispute shortly. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: I notified the user about the RfC against him; he has since blanked the notification. I wish to restore it, however I did not read anything in RFC guidelines regarding the removal of notification messages one way or the other, so have held off for now. Regardless, the user knows about the RfC, so I guess it has served its purpose. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * According to WP Talk Page policies, Epbr is allowed to remove the notice from his Talk page, and putting it back on there could then be considered vandalism or harassment of a sort. You can safely assume that he is aware of the RFC/U now that he has deleted the notice, so if he chooses not to respond to the RFC, you should add a link to the diff of your original notice to the RFC so that other users are specifically aware of his refusal to participate. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I just remembered that, and another user let me know of the same as well. ;-) As it has been already said, he knows about the RfC and his refusal to participate only makes things more likely to go against him, sadly. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 20:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)