Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive23

WQA Archive index

User:Johnpacklambert
This user is a prolific contributor, adding and editing facts on a wide variety of pages, but seldom leaves edit summaries or cites sources. Most of the added facts appear credible, but some are nearly impossible to verify (and of doubtful validity). His talk page has accumulated many polite requests for sources and/or summaries, but without results.--orlady 12:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I left a personal message on his talk page (not a template) with a request for him to cite and use edit summaries. We'll see what happens. --User: (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I left a quick edit summary request to that respect earlier today. --  Chris B •  talk  •  contribs  21:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but I think he needed a little more than the template. :) Hopefully he'll check out the edit summary prompt preference, and it's just absent-minded forgetfulness. --User: (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Johnpacklambert has taken heed of the message from Darkwind and is leaving edit summaries and adding citations. Thanks for facilitating the communication. --orlady 17:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Georgewilliamherbert
This has been marked as stuck because there is no violation of etiquette here. The comments on Epbr's talk page are entirely appropriate for the matter at hand, and are a response to his (arguably) disruptive editing, by an administrator no less. Epbr, please note that removal of this {stuck} template without discussion would be inappropriate. If you would like to lodge a complaint based on violations of etiquette, please do so. Until then, this matter belongs somewhere else, like in one of your 11 AfDs. Discussing reliable sources is not an etiquette matter; it should be happening on those AfD pages. --Cheeser1 02:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Motion seconded. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  03:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Template removed. This has not been referred elsewhere. Epbr123 11:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I mark it resolved then? There is nothing here to do. I hope the explanations have helped; but basically there was no violation of any etiquette issue. You got a legitimate caution from an admin. You are, of course, free to ignore it or to take it into account. But there's nothing for wikiquette to consider further. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  11:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I do not accept a warning for AfDing articles an administrator is interested in as legitimate. Epbr123 12:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK then. You brought this alert; here is a ruling some feedback. I am 100% certain this will be consensus shared with any reasonable person looking at the events.


 * You are way out of line. If you want to ignore a warning, that is of course your right, but there was no violation of etiquette by Georgewilliamherbert. His warning was apt, mildly given, and you would be well advised to consider it seriously. It is not one isolated person's perspective.


 * On the other hand, this wikiquette alert was frivolous and unfounded. It just wastes time. You've not got any shred of a case here. You have been advised to take any issues you have elsewhere. That is what is meant by being referred elsewhere. But actually, my own suggestion is that you are much better just to drop it entirely.


 * The great pity of this is that you seem to be for the most part a hard working and very productive editor. Disagreements over the some issues are par for the course, and you need to accept them as being given in good faith. The advice about how to manage large numbers of delete nominations is also good advice, which you can keep in mind for the future as a better way to proceed.


 * My advice; let it go. Pursuing this can only get ugly and backfire on you. And you deserve better. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  12:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it bizarre that you find my AfDs disruptive. All the AfDs I made have recieved at least some support and it seems like the majority of articles will be deleted. I have resolved the issue with Georgewilliamherbert now, but I find your judgement totally unfair. Epbr123 12:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not expressed any personal view on the deletions, and I have said nothing about being disruptive. I said only that the the warnings you were given were mildly stated, and reflect more than just one person's opinion. In that case, you are well advised to take this into account. There is already some formal guideline on bundled deletions (WP:BUNDLE). It's only a guideline; there's no hard and fast rule. You have to pick the means you think best; and I'd like you to weigh in the balance the effect bundling or not bundling will have on other editors and on the general atmosphere of wikipedia.


 * What I advise (not being an expert on the deletion process myself) is that you should look over the guidelines and try and pick the approach that will contribute best to smooth running of the process and community good feeling. If a lot of people think that bundling would have been a good idea, then I think you should consider it seriously. But the main feedback I am giving you is that the warnings you received were not abusive and involved no violation of etiquette. Even if you disagree with the admin in question, which is entirely your right, you've got no basis for calling it an etiquette violation. Dispute and disagreement is normal, even with admins. It takes more than that to be an etiquette violation. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  13:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is my final word on the matter. I don't find it mild to be called disruptive for making AfDs someone disagrees with. As stated in the AfDs, I did conider WP:BUNDLE but each article was to dissimilar. Some were about professors and others were about spammers. Epbr123 13:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This was referred elsewhere: If you want to argue about reliable sources, do it in the AfD or the talk page of the article(s) in question. If you want to make a point, do it somewhere else. This is a frivolous and unsubstantiated accusation launched at an administrator who warned Epbr that his AfD spree violates AfD conventions and was highly disruptive. This entire discussion has no place on the WQA and should be closed.
 * It has not been reffered. Epbr123 12:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This WQA post was the first contact I had with this AfD-spree issue. It was immediate and obvious that there was no breach of etiquette here, and I have repeatedly directed you elsewhere. Rather than do so, you've continued to the point of personally attacking me above. This has no place on the WQA, and I'm not the only one saying so. You can't start making frivolous accusations (nor personal attacks) whenever an administrator tells you to follow policy. --Cheeser1 12:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Left this message on my talk page after I made these good faith AfD nominations: 1, 2, 3, 4. Epbr123 00:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Disruptive AFD nominations have been discussed elsewhere including the wikien-l mailing list over the last day. Attempts to remove whole categories of articles are at best likely to engender disruptive debate; the specifics here make me question good faith.  The concept that categories of historical stuff aren't relevant or notable all of a sudden is highly suspicious.  I am not the only administrator who is looking at recent AFD events with an eye towards pushing back on irrationally enthusiastic deletionism.  This is not the only case, and I don't want to be rude to you Epbr123, but there's a real substantiative bigger issue here and specific problem with your nominations.  Georgewilliamherbert 05:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree wholeheartedly with Georgewilliamherbert. I suspect that this is either a sorely misguided attempt to remove Usenet-related content from Wikipedia as if it were some random internet forum (of course, notability isn't inherited, but the notability of many ), or it's some other sort of attempt to prove a point. I've also made the following point in one of the AfD pages: This user is being very underhanded in this deletion spree - when a set of related articles is nominated for deletion in this fashion, their AfD is supposed to be combined. Instead, we're dealing with a slew of AfDs (which mostly appear to be going leaning towards keep), and if a few slip through the cracks and get deleted, it will be because of this senseless barrage of new AfDs. See: here. It makes me wonder what kind of person creates eleven different AfD debates about the exact same issue - was it some desire to do unnecessary and redundant work? I doubt it. Was it a good faith effort to delete all those articles at once? It seems doubtful. This user didn't put alot of thought into it - "Non-notable Usenet personality." is his exact rationale for every one - not that it's not valid, but you see what I mean. It already appears that this user is trying to make a point, and by forgoing the multiple-pages-for-deletion process, his deletions become disruptive and have the potential do delete a few articles that shouldn't be deleted, due only to the sheer volume of related article's he's put up for deletion. This behavior is disruptive and detrimental to Wikipedia; while I would like to assume good faith, I find it difficult at this point. He should have nominated them together, and I think he should have given more consideration for this - perhaps asking on the relevant talk pages about this before simply presuming that these articles (some of which are sourced pretty darn well) are automatically non-notable because Usenet isn't as well-known now as it was a decade or two ago. --Cheeser1 06:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To address the issue here more clearly: While this is, apparently, a complaint against GWH, I believe that Epbr123 is totally overreacting to the concerns of two editors, expressed on his talk page. One clearly delineated the fact that his nominations of all these articles is a huge barrage of stuff for people to deal with. The other (the user against whom this complaint is lodged) simply pointed out that this kind of thing is disruptive. There's nothing wrong with saying so (even if GWH were mistaken, if it were not disruptive). If anything, these AfDs are more of a problem than the harmless comment to that effect left on Epbr123's talkpage. --Cheeser1 06:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Further abuse has been left on my talk page by Georgewilliamherbert. Epbr123 00:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you think this is abuse, but I'm an administrator, and part of our job is to express concerns and take action to end or mitigate disruption when we see it. There's a wide consensus that you're being disruptive.  You're currently under the threshold for blockable disruption, but another round of AFDs with this type of behavior would exceed it.  Feel free to report this to WP:ANI if you feel like I'm abusing you.  Georgewilliamherbert 00:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel it abusive that you're threatening to block me for calling this an unreliable source. Epbr123 00:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not made any statement to you or any other Wikipedia user regarding that website, which I have never seen before nor seen mentioned in any debate on Wikipedia. My recent comments are primarily focused on your insistence that the Jargon File is not a reliable source.  I fail to see what elsewhere.org has to do with the Jargon File.  What does Joshua Laros have to do with any of this?  Georgewilliamherbert 00:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the site you referred to at Articles for deletion/B1FF. Epbr123 00:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I referred to the Jargon file generically. There are copies of it hosted in umpteen million places, plus it's been published in print in at least three editions as The Hackers' Dictionary.  Did you not even look at the Wikipedia article on it or the comments that it's been published as a book?  That something also appears in a blog or web archive somewhere doesn't make a canonical version, particularly a multi-edition printed book source, unreliable.  Georgewilliamherbert 01:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * EPBR - THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR A WP:RS DISPUTE. TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. You've brought a complaint to this board that cites no breach of etiquette and have now dragged an argument about reliable sources into this page. Stop it immediately. I am marking this as stuck because it does NOT belong here. No wikiquette violations have occurred - the only thing close to "abuse" is a set of comments on Epbr's user page explaining to him why a particular source is reliable. He has dragged that argument into here. This is not appropriate for this alert board. --Cheeser1 02:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As my (hopefully) final word in this "complaint," I would like to say that it appears Epbr has disrupted not only the AfD process by running-around it's guidelines, but now he has disrupted this noticeboard, all as a part of his deletion-spree. This is a seriously bad situation that only seems to be getting worse, and I am trying to put a stop to it, at least as far as this alert page is concerned, by ending this discussion. I would implore the involved editors to stop posting here. It is out of place and inappropriate to bring this discussion here. --Cheeser1 02:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The second comment that Epbr says is "abuse" is nothing but an explanation of the reliablity of a source that Epbr claimed was not reliable (when it is, in fact, a published book). Epbr seems to think that someone who strongly disagrees with him is automatically abusing him. There have been no breaches of Wikiquette by anyone, except perhaps Epbr himself when he ran-around the customary deletion procedure in an attempt to get as many of those articles deleted as possible. --Cheeser1 01:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(Housekeeping) I've re-opened this WQA as "In progress" because, according to the conversation above, the issue has not been resolved. (This overrides Duae Quartunciae's earlier marking as "Resolved" - I didn't see anything in Epbr's statements that the issue was resolved - only that he feels it doesn't belong in WQA.) The issue should either be closed as Stuck or more work should be done to bring it to resolution. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If we all agree that it doesn't belong here, what will keeping it open accomplish? I consider "we all agree this discussion should be going on elsewhere" to be resolution, and it appears that everyone else felt that way too. --Cheeser1 13:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Point taken - changed to "Stuck" and a note added saying that WQA isn't the place for this dispute. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I had marked it resolved because Epbr123 specifically said: I have resolved the issue with Georgewilliamherbert now.

Sandbox vandalized
I have no clue as to what is going on or how it happened. I have posted to my mentor about this but thought it should be brought here for attentions. My sandbox originally stated [] and now says [] I haven't a clue how this got changed nor do I understand most of the items posted to my sandbox. Would someone please explain this to me. I am disabled and use my sandbox for reminders and how to learn how to do things. I appreciate your attention, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what happened, but you're actually linking to two different pages above: your sandbox and your sandbox's talk page. So your sandbox still seems to look the way you want it to. Sarcasticidealist 14:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since there doesn't seem to be a wikiquette violation here, I'm marking it as resolved. I'd be happy to help you more with this, though - just drop me a line at my talk page. Sarcasticidealist 14:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Disparagement and insult
A user recently made a personal attack at Talk:Point Isabel Regional Shoreline stating that another editors' comment(s) was "shitting all over" [the page?, the comment section?] (|diff), This most uncivil remark is a personal attack according to WP:PA (No Personal Attacks) which states, "disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" I believe this editor should be warned and temporarily blocked for this disruptive editing.CholgatalK! 22:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * While I agree that the comments made by were definitely un-WP:CIVIL, I don't really see that they constituted an attack (although I am similarly confused as to what "courtesy" your comment was "[defecating on]").  Also, this page is run by volunteer editors, not all of whom are administrators, and this is not part of the official dispute resolution process, so we do not have the ability to block or make any other binding actions.


 * Just remember to stay cool when discussing matters with your fellow editors, and things should calm down. I'll leave a note on that user's talk page as well. Also, when opening a WQA, it's helpful if you refer to the editor you're bringing to our attention by name in the visible text of your alert rather than "hiding" it behind a link. --User: (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

user:Grant65
The above users appalling behaviour is ultimately why I'm making this complaint. On the Hans-Joachim Marseille page ([]) he has made insulting and slanderous remarks about me personally inferring at one point that I was a Nazi, and the sources I have provided were written by "Nazi-lovers". I regard these comments as personal attacks - whilst he is claiming the thinly veiled excuse of "hypothetically".. He has also consistently accused me of reverting/removing sourced material. I have done no such thing, and its clear from the articles history this is untrue. I have been civil, I believe, in-spite of his behaviour. The only text of I have reverted relates to his changing of "kills" to "claims". Kills has been the word used to describe that particular section and many editors that edited the article havn't had an issuee with. He know claims that I have violated the 3RR whilst "defending unsourced material" which is ludicrous. The irony of all this is that I supported his contention and input questioning the validity of this individuals claims.I have also defended his source from unjust attacks from another editor. Having suffered personal abuse, insults and having tried my best I have had enough. I would appreciate it if some other authoritiative editor could step in and have a word with him about his conduct. RegardsDapi89 11:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Best advice I have is to relax a little. He has never inferred you were a Nazi, and he did not infer anyone was a Nazi-lover. The phrase showed up in a remark as follows:


 * Grant is explicitly noting that this would be unfair. Its a poor argument; a kind of tu quoque fallacy; but it is certainly expressed as a clear hypothetical. You've been a bit rough with Grant yourself; I think this is a case where taking a day off to do something else might help restore a bit of perspective. I'm hoping that with a bit of good will and a willingness to assume good faith even when disagreeing with the conclusions, that this can resolve itself. Good luck with it &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Your mistaken- A comment he made:

''No ingenuous and/or intelligent reader would have read me as accusing Kurowski and Wübbe of being Nazi sympathisers. Of course, they could be — who knows? It's also possible that you are. I haven't actually said either thing. But such subtleties appear to be lost on you, so I will wait for further sprays of mock outrage.Dapi89 14:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)''


 * I would have to agree with Dapi, Grant has threatened to ban him for disagreeing with him (wtf? how is this man an administrator?), he has referred to those disagreeing with him as either "Nazi lovers" or "Nazi sympathisers that focus on Nazi propaganda", discredited noted historians as "just accepting Nazi propaganda" and seems to instead be solely interested in noting the "theory" of one retired schoolteacher that was made in the appendix of a book on an "unrelated" subject, trying to incorporate it into the opening paragraph of the article and claiming it "smacks of censorship" when people pointed out that he was giving undue weight to the claims and should limit the section to a sentence or two. On top of all that, he doesn't even seem terribly knowledgable or academic on the subject, referring to "the Nazi airforce" instead of the Luftwaffe, "allies" instead of the RAF or Desert Air Force, and any attempt made to show him that all sides in the war were accused of "overstating" their own kills and "understating" their losses, he claims that we have turned Naziism into "hero worship" - so I'd have to disagree with Duae...Dapi is entirely justified in bringing up this incident as being conduct unbefitting of an established editor...muchless an administrator. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 14:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The additional remark you have quoted is still not saying that anyone is a Nazi-lover. It was made in response to some rather blistering comments by Dapi89. Reading the whole sequence, it still looks to me like you are as much at fault for assuming the worst where it was not warranted. I read the whole exchange, and my advice remains as given originally.


 * Grant did not use the term "hero worship". Don't put it in quotes if it is not quoted; it is better to supply a link to a diff where you feel there is a problem. The one occasion where Grant does speak of heroes does not say a thing about Naziism. Similarly, there is no threat to ban anyone. If Grant bans people with whom he is in a serious dispute, then he'd be in a world of trouble, but all he has done is to say Dapi, I'm considering how to bring home to you the consequences of your blatant disregard for and violation of Wikipedia writing style and policy, for which there is ample evidence.


 * He also, like you guys, is making a mountain out of a molehill and escalating conflict rather than trying to calm it down. But he has a point. Your original reactions did fail to assume good faith, and continue to do so. You can disagree with him; and consider his scholarship poor and his arguments invalid. But at every point you are taking what is said and putting a spin on it well beyond what is warranted. This doesn't help.


 * That being said, I would like to see another editor look at this one and give an independent view. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  19:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have also added a warning to the talk page advising that both Dapi89 and Grant65 have recently made more than three reverts within 24 hours. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have followed these discussions on the Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille page at a "safe" distance since I had recently seen the Talk:Amelia Earhart page become embroiled in a similar emotional and heated discourse. One of the first things to realize is that everyone is acting in "good faith" in this "flap," regardless of personal interpretations of the issue. A good "rule of thumb" may be to gain a perspective by looking at things from a distance in time and taking a "breather" from the over-charged atmosphere of claims and counter-claims. Some people can react and work well in a "pressure cooker" situtation while others, myself included, tend to find the tension isn't condusive to my rational thinking. Regardless of the actual contentious topics, a resolution that can be reached by consensus on the discussion page is the most practical means of resolving a dispute. Thank you for asking my opinion, besides the cat, that isn't usually the norm. [:¬∆ FWIW, I will "tag" the discussion page with an appropriate disclaimer. Bzuk 20:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure how to respond to the request to comment on this dispute and I feel a bit uneasy about this too.

Please allow me to elaborate on my personal historical view of this controversial issue. The top scoring German Luftwaffe pilots claimed about 10 times as many aircraft shot down than their western counterparts and about 5 times as many as their Russian adversaries (plus or minus a few percent). Ever since the end of hostilities this (the magnitude of the German numbers) has been questioned and doubted. The most trivial and lopsided explanation for this is German or Nazi propaganda and the more thorough historians compare the actual losses against what was claimed by the other side. Both numbers naturally do not match up because both sides may use different accounting schemes or the pilot claims a victory because the plane goes down in flames and after losing sight of the victim the plane might be landed safely and restored again. Nevertheless, historians who have thoroughly studied the topic have accepted these figures to be true. Some authors point to these discrepancies and make us believe that the numbers are exaggerated. These effects happened to both sides and these effects are also independent of the individual pilot. Both sides made errors in the score keeping. This seems natural because in combat you have other concerns than keeping exact score. Personally I feel that linking this "over claiming effect" to individual pilots (like Marseille in this instance) lets me assume that he exaggerated his figures and discredits him as an individual. On the other hand if sufficient substantial evidence can be provided to show that this particular pilot abused the system significantly I would want to add this to the article. With respect to Marseille and his individual style of aerial combat (fast attacks in tight maneuvers with low consumption of ammunition) I can imagine that a number of his claimed victims might have landed safely with a different degree of damage. The Germans counted this as a kill while the Allies repaired the plane. However, I cannot assess if Marseille deliberately lied about his claims. My feeling says no, he made his claims in good faith. Thus, my personal choice here would be to introduce a new article on "over claiming" and unlink this topic from the individual pilots. Innocent until proven guilty!

The style of the conflict between Dapi89 and Grant escalated in this setting. I feel both sides took a black and white position where the truth is probably grayish. Stepping back for some time is probably a wise idea. Thus I concur in Bzuk point of view.MisterBee1966 21:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to add. I think Bzuk and Duae Quartunciae have assessed the situation well. Grant  |  Talk  03:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fernando Caldeiro
User:68.4.54.209 is using the Edit summary in a creative way to insult me in Spanish after I have reverted unsourced edits about the nationality of Fernando Caldeiro, who, being a NASA astronaut, is obviously a US citizen. Hektor 05:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there's not much point to opening a WQA on an anonymous user. Due to bug 9213, they may not even see the alert telling them about the message we might leave in response to the WQA.  I'd just advise you to let it go, and if it keeps up, report them to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. --Darkwind (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User: 69.123.66.156
I will be leaving Wikipedia after this because I have been rather angered by comments made by this user. I followed up his history, and found that my run in was not the only instance of problem:

2:19, 9 September 2007 (hist) (diff) 1983-84 United States network television schedule‎ (If it should be a note, rather than in the time block, fine, EDIT. Don't delete. The title is 1983-84. NOT fall-83.Look at Cagney and Lacey above, bold despite not a new FALL series. Get a life.) (top)

3:00, 1 April 2007 (hist) (diff) List of Americans in the Venona papers‎ (fuckface. Define "many" and "a few". It is COMPLETELY non POV as it is. You have no right to revert to POV)

04:17, 10 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Stephen Harper‎ (removed obnoxious POV adjectives)

1:21, 13 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Glyconutrient‎ (if a citation is needed, then show the dictionary definition proving the fabricated MLM term is correct. You can't so bugger off.)

Talk: 20-20-20 Club is the page where I encountered this user. Despite my attempts to apolgize for what may have been a miscommunication, the tone and language continued.TeganX7 04:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A warning for WP:AGF and WP:NPA has been left on the anonymous user's page. I'd suggest that you not let one anonymous user with a blatant disregard for Wikipedia policies discourage you from contributing.  However, if you choose to leave, you have that right. --Darkwind (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User BenB4 on Ron Paul
This has been going on for awhile, and this user even complained about another user previously, in a situation which is still going on and for which I had made a comment. The editor BenB4 has repeatedly accused me of editing with a partisan bias, despite the fact that other users (whether they think they agree with me politically or not) have more than once asked him to knock it off and that I'm a good editor for this article. Other editors have agreed that my edits are not biased; Ben doesn't like Ron Paul's positions and that's fine if he acted in a civil manner and edited neutrally, but other editors have asserted that his edits are not neutral, and his talk page comments speak for themselves. Some of the discussion can be seen here and the latest here. I can provide more examples if they are needed. Thank you for any help you can provide with this situation.--Gloriamarie 00:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have called Gloriamarie's edits biased. I have not made any personal attacks against her.  The issues involved are fundamentally a series of content disputes.  My first suspicions of bias were that she has edited and advocated in a manner which always puts Paul in the best possible light, without regard to the sources.  For example, she has recently suggested that she thinks Paul is accurately described as the "standard bearer" of the Libertarian Party, even though the only article we have on the legislation he has introduced, the We the People Act, shows his preferences are quite distant from the ideal of individual liberties.  Moreover, Gloriamarie states on her user page, "Ron Paul 2008! How could a guy THIS GOOD actually be running for president??? http://www.ronpaul2008.com."  Jimbo has stated, "using userpages to ... campaign for ... anyone is a bad idea." Contrary to her assumption, I do like many of Paul's positions, but there are many that I do not like.  This is a content dispute with a large contingent of editors, most of them IPs, who would like to have a hagiography.  I am proud that I have refrained from personal attacks while calling bias as I see it, as we must be allowed to do if we expect to counter it at all.  I do not intend to alter my behavior in this situation. &larr;Ben B4  01:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with User:BenB4 that the links provided by User:Gloriamarie are devoid of personal attacks. I do think that it would be more productive for User:BenB4 to refrain from commenting on User:Gloriamarie's motivations for her edits, and to stick to crticizing the edits themselves (among other things, I don't think the accusation that she was violating WP:COI was helpful).  Ultimately, though, User:BenB4 is right: this is a series of content disputes, and I'd encourage making use of WP:RFC (and possibly eventually WP:MEDIATION).  In the meantime, try to avoid accusing each other of policy violations, except those accusations that are absolutely necessary in discussing edits. Sarcasticidealist 01:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * BenB4 does not attack just my edits, he attacks me when he says, as he did above, that I make non-neutral edits or that I edit "without regard to the sources." I consider that a personal attack because I take Wikipedia's policies seriously and I work hard to edit neutrally and improve the articles I come across. I "called" Ron Paul the "standard bearer" because I added references calling him that from The Economist and The Dallas Morning News dating from 1988, and I mentioned these when BenB4 said that Ron Paul wasn't libertarian on the talk page. I wasn't necessarily calling him that, I said that he had been called that by multiple sources. Contrary to BenB4's assumptions, I don't agree with Ron Paul on many things, including things I have put in the article myself. When he says that I edit to put Ron Paul in the best possible light, I consider that an attack because it is not true, other editors have refuted it on the talk page, and I can cite specific examples where I have fought to leave certain things in the article, for instance the Newsletter section, which many have tried to take out.--Gloriamarie 03:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You say that he attacks you, and not just your edits, by saying that you make "non-neutral edits". I'm sorry, but if that is a personal attack then it's impossible to discuss edits on Wikipedia without making personal attacks.  Think about it: how should somebody respond to non-neutral edits if not by calling them non-neutral (and, by extension, the editor who made them an editor who makes non-neutral edits)?
 * I'm not saying you're wrong to include the descriptor "libertarian standard-bearer" int he article. I'm not saying that your edits put Ron Paul in the best possible light, either by design or otherwise.  All I'm saying is that User:BenB4 has remained well within the bounds of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF in his discussions with you.  He's said your edits are no good, but editors need to be free to say that, or they have no way of discussing edits.  I can see why it upsets you, since you obviously take pride in your edits, but it's not a personal attack.
 * This is a content dispute, and I wish you the best of luck in resolving it. But all I can do is comment on breaches of Wikiquette, and I haven't seen any on either side.  If you have new evidence to bring, or if any other WQA volunteers want to provide a perspective different than my own, then by all means go for it.  Otherwise, I think this has been quite properly marked as resolved. Sarcasticidealist 03:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I was of the opinion that saying that someone's edits were not neutral, unless it was blatant, was a personal attack, and I considered it to be in my case because it's not backed by the evidence of my edits and refuted by other editors, but I can see your point and I guess it's a bit of a loophole in the system (that since editors must be allowed to call edits biased, they can do so even when they are not.) I will keep this in mind. Thanks for your help. I'm glad that BenB4 has agreed not to question my motivations in the future, and I'm very pleased with this service.--Gloriamarie 03:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is an RFCpol pending, and the issues it concerns have been pretty unstable over the past month, but I think there is hope. I will take your advice and stop commenting on motivations. Thank you. &larr;Ben B4  02:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Dogru144
Hi. I've had an interesting day. I was new page patrolling, and flagged this The_REAL_Rudy for deletion via speedy under WP:WEB. The user then responded with this on my talk page, which lead to me autoresponding (in error) with | this. I did some reading, and confirmed that I had made a mistake, and notified him | on his talk page.

Since then, Dogru144 has extensively cross-posted personal attacks on other talk pages, and accused me of key logging, among other things (see this diff: , ).

At this point, I'm not sure what to do. I feel I've made every reasonable effort to explain my actions, but I'd prefer that this user not continue to make cross-posted attacks against me.-- B figura (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved without recourse to this venue. Yay! -- B figura (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ronz - bullying and baiting
Ronz has been identified by many, many editors as a Wiki-bully. He is consistently rude with those whom he disagrees with. I know that I am only one of many who have complained about his blunt rudeness. Today, he started this exchange on my Talk page. And while this isn't the worst example of his bullying, it is one which ended with me telling him not to continue or I will report him. So here I am to report this. And though - as I mentioned - this certainly isn't the worse example of Ronz's bullying, I am reporting it to show that I will not stand for this rudeness anymore. This particular discussion/harassment on my talk page stems from a policy discussion found here. I know it is a little lengthy, but you will see how once a good policy argument is made counter to Ronz, he descends into name-calling and personal attacks. I will not suggest a remedy for this particular instance, as just looking at this one wouldn't seem to suggest the need for one. However, I would ask that you remember the user name "Ronz". Put it on your list on user names to look out for. See how many times other users complain about him. Hopefully, his poor behavior will end with this post here, but I know in reality either he (or one of his usual gang) will retaliate against me for posting this. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Without commenting on the editorial content problems, I will just state that this particular complaint is wholly unjustified. Ronz was questioning Levine2112's provocative and baiting response (a reply to Ronz that pretended and implied that Ronz was in agreement with Levine2112, when nothing could have been further from the truth. That's baiting and very provocative. Ronz took the matter to Levine2112's talk page (as is quite proper to do) and confronted him with it. Levine2112 will not admit to his use of a distasteful debating technique and has now brought it here.


 * While this has happened before as a common debating tactic he uses (and used by others I mention), this incident started in this section - Journal of Scientific Exploration and Joel M. Kauffman (just start reading it and it will immediately become evident what happened) - with this edit. I called him out on it, and Ronz took it to his talk page. Levine2112 would not admit he had used a very unfair and baiting debate tactic and has now complained here. He is definitely in no position to complain about baiting. POT! -- Fyslee/talk 18:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fyslee is one on Ronz usual gang which likes to gang up on people. Quite frankly his lack of good faith here is appalling. When I questioned Ronz, it wasn't a baiting technique as Fyslee states. Rather, I was just trying to get Ronz to clarify his position on the application of the policies to the material at hand. That's all. But because Ronz and Fyslee assume bad faith in me, I can't even ask a simple question without them jumping on me, telling me what my motivations are. Please help rectify their behavior either proactively or just by monitoring the situation. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * After examining the facts, I have to say that I agree more or less entirely with User:Fyslee. It's even a little difficult to see this as a good faith alert, but because I am such a seasoned editor I'm able to.  User:Levine2112, did you want to shed some additional light on how User:Ronz's questions for you constitute "bullying"? Sarcasticidealist 18:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, coming to my page to complain about something where there is nothing to complain about has become a tactic of Ronz's. He likes to get on my nerves and bait me into incivility. This time I am just reporting it to Wikiquette. That's all. By the way, Fyslee is now leaving posts on my talk page contiinuing to assume bad faith, even after I attested that my motivations at Talk:Quackwatch are just an inquiry and not something sinister. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I welcome anyone to examine my comments on Levine2112's talk page. Trying to calmly and civilly explain the situation is certainly proper. -- Fyslee/talk</b> 19:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How is your initial comment - "The question mark doesn't save you. QuackGuru uses this distasteful, provoking, and baiting trick all the time" - supposed to be and example of your calm and civil explanation? To me it demonstrates that you assumed bad faith right from the start. I said it once and I will say it again: I was merely trying to get Ronz to clarify his position. I was not trying to bait him or provoke him. That you assumed that was my motivation shows a lack of good faith on your part, Fyslee. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 19:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "So you agree" that I acted in good faith? "I'm just trying to get you to clarify your position." -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 20:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My comment above (struck out) is an obvious illustration of precisely the situation that started this debacle. If Levine had responded negatively to my (now struck out) comment, it would be very understandable, and if anyone else objected, that too would be understandable. That's precisely what happened, and I used some of his exact words, which I will now show by placing them in quotation marks. I hope this illustration makes the point quite clearly, because if anyone read my comment and got irritated at me, then I have succeeded in recreating the original situation and have succeeded in stimulating the feelings that it created. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 21:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the main thing to note is that I didn't respond negatively to your comment because I assumed good faith and knew exactly what you meant. However, if you feel that this type of dialogue is innapropriate, I wish you have pointed it out to QuackGuru, who you say does this regularly as a means of antagonizing. It would demonstrate a lot of goodwill to know that you come down on people on both sides of the debate. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 21:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical Information: This is now the third time I've seen a dispute between any combination of User:Levine2112, User:Fyslee, User:Ronz and User:Shot info. The first was another WQA between Levine and Fyslee, which later involved Shot info. The second was a post at WP:ANI by Levine against one of these editors. (It was quickly closed without action by an administrator.) All of these cases have arisen from disputes in Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch, and related articles.

While the situation might turn out to be different in this particular case (I have not researched it yet), Levine2112 has been shown in both of the previous two cases as engaging in troll-like behavior, mainly by provoking other users into acting uncivilly and then reporting them for uncivil behavior. I also chastised Levine2112 for abusing the WP:NPA warning templates and threatening blocks when they apparently were not warranted. I just wanted to point out to other WQA volunteers what I've seen regarding this group of individuals. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 19:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that infomation, but KieferSkunk I urge you to look at the situation at hand. If you are going to ask people to assume bad faith based on your past experiences, then how can I ever look good in your eyes? Ronz and Fylee are accusing me of baiting when all I was doing was trying to get Ronz to clarify his position. Please read the entire threads on these posts (on my page and on theTalk:Quackwatch page). I really am making a concerted effort to be civil. If you can show me specifically where I am not, I will stand corrected. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that I have taken time to review this, I'll respond more specifically. Levine, I believe that the way you began the discussion (the quote that Fyslee mentioned and you responded to) was very leading, appears to have misrepresented Ronz, and seems to have confused the matter in general.  When Ronz said that there was no consensus, you then, in essence, said "Then you agree with me?", which to my eye he had very clearly said he did not before you asked.  While I haven't seen examples of QuackGuru's tactics, I agree with Fyslee's comment that it looked more like baiting than a good-faith attempt to discuss the matter.  You had gone into the discussion simply stating your point of view as fact and then apparently expecting others to agree with you without providing arguments to back up your point of view.


 * Additionally, I do not believe that either Ronz or Fyslee were acting uncivil toward you when they questioned you. Ronz took the discussion to your talk page, which was appropriate when the discussion appeared to be heading toward a personal argument and away from the article content.  He simply asked you to clarify your statements.  I think that your response to him, and later to Fyslee, was unnecessarily defensive, though I cannot say that it was in bad faith.  I think you would have been better served by keeping the discussion focused on the content - if you had explained why you felt the author in question was a reliable source, rather than trying to defend your statement on syntactical grounds, things would probably have gone more smoothly.


 * To everyone involved: Please do not try to make judgements about a person's motivation when getting into a content dispute, as it's all too easy to make bad-faith statements, act uncivilly and make personal attacks while doing so. Nobody can read minds.  We can only go on what we see, so if you keep your observations to simply what was typed, and avoid trying to figure out why they were typed, you'll probably avoid a lot of unnecessary drama. :)


 * Hope this helps get you guys back on track. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It does help. I thank you for your insight. Again, appearances are deceiving. I was first confused by what Ronz wrote and thought that he may be conceding that Kauffman was a RS, but clearly I was wrong in assuming that. Then when I asked for clarification, Ronz was wrong for assuming that I was baiting him. When he took it to my talk page, I believe that I had clarified the issue, but in my eyes he was continuing to harass me. Fyslee's involvement there (likening my behavior to QuackGuru's) was not helpful either and just seems to enflame the issue more. After I explained that I was merely inquiring and trying to gain clarity, I wish Ronz and Fyslee could have assumed good faith rather than assume I was lying. Anyhow, this whole debacle stems from a misunderstanding. Isn't that usually the way? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 21:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * KieferSkunk (or anyone else), I would like your take on this exchage too. Is this a misunderstanding, baiting/bullying, or something else? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 21:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, in that conversation I do see you acting in good faith and asking the right kinds of questions at the start. Telling Ronz that he is "baiting" you was probably not the best approach, as it does step into WP:POT and WP:NPA just a little, though it's certainly not nearly as bad as stuff I've seen from you before.  Ronz did step over the line himself in that conversation.


 * If it's true that you were edit-warring on this issue before that conversation, though (which would have occurred outside of that conversation), then the initial poster probably had reason to believe that your motivations weren't sound. Plus, as I mentioned above, your track history can help to warrant accusations of bad faith - they're less likely to believe that you're acting in good faith now when you've shown a tendency not to do so in the past.  It takes time to build that trust back with the community.  Ronz in particular has interacted with you before, so I can see how he may have been frustrated.  Nonetheless, as I said, I believe he stepped over the line a couple of times as well, so nobody in the situation is completely blameless.


 * This is another case where avoiding any statements that try to say what a person's motivation is or may be would be helpful. The original poster accused you of removing that category because of your own beliefs and opinions (indirectly accusing you of going against consensus).  That's over the line I'm referring to, and led to a situation where you apparently felt you needed to defend yourself (not just your actions).  Your telling him, and/or Ronz, that they're "baiting" you is also a step over the line.  These are just examples, and I hope they'll help keep things in check for future discussions. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: My personal take is that Levine is trolling purely and simply. Unfortunately in Wikipedia, WP:DENY only takes one so far, because silence is consent. So one needs to step into the ever escalating fray. I note that when Levine was recently blocked, the edits and tone improved considerably in all affected articles. Rather than laying the blame at "all parties" how about we try laying the blame at the actual troll (unconventional yes I know but worth a try) :-). Even recently Levine was making off-discussion remakes, countered on them, and escalated them when countered, then said "it's all off-discussion" and attempted to lay the blame on everybody else except the person who started it...him.  I do believe this is called "baiting" something that he is wont to call everybody else.  Don't forget what the Cabal says "When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you."  Shot info  22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point.
 * Also, I'd like to add a response to something I missed in Levine's comment further above: If you are going to ask people to assume bad faith based on your past experiences, then how can I ever look good in your eyes?
 * My reply to this is that I'm not encouraging people to assume that you're acting in bad faith. What I'm pointing out is that this is the second WQA and the third incident overall that I've seen you involved in, and related to the same exact set of articles as what occurred two months ago.  Therefore, some context would definitely be useful.  My later comments on this topic were to tell you that BECAUSE you've previously made complaints about other people and have been found to be a large part of the cause of those problems, you're on shaky ground when you make further complaints, especially about the same people.
 * It's a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" thing (classic Mother Goose parable), where if you've given people reason to believe they can't trust you, then they probably won't trust you in the future even if you suddenly do everything perfectly and with the best of intentions. You need to work harder to build that trust back.  I pointed out the historical significance to this discussion because I saw the same pattern in the ensuing argument as I saw in both of the previous incidents, and among other things, I wanted to save everyone some time, before we ended up rehashing all the same old stuff as before. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I've worked with Ronz on a few issues. He has been courteous, cooperative, mindful of policies and guidelines, and very, very far from being “a bully.” — Athaenara  ✉  05:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Users João Felipe C.S and Dalillama
João Felipe C.S and Dalillama are united to manipulate the article Brazil. Both users do not leave other users make contributions to this article. For months nobody is able to post anything in the article Brazil. This article is totally stopped.

My last try I posted a picture of Brazilians of different races to represent the Demographics session of the article, and I was reverted with no justification. Other users were trying to post there before me, and were also reverted.

João Felipe C.S and Dalillama have an obsession with including the Brazil article between the best ones of Wikipedia. But, in spite of that, they are destroyng the article, diminishing the informations and reverting other users' good faith contributions.

The main thing is that both users have never written anything in the article and feel free to manipulate it. User João Felipe C.S cannot even speak or write in English, but is there reverting everyone.

By the way, both users are writing in Portuguese in talk pages, to avoid English-speaking users to be able to understand their plans of manipulation. In this page they make a plan (in Portuguese) to make me be blocked. 

You people must do something about it. Opinoso 04:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the article is under GA Status, and needs stability. The alterations intervene with the stability, because aren't accepted for all users. For months, many discussions had been opened by Opinoso, but didn't have success. One of these discussions was this. Look at… Beyond everything, you also write in Portuguese, including the articles. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 04:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why you feel free to manipulate the Brazil article, since you cannot speak or write in English and ask for somebody's help (as you did above) to write for you.

The pic I included in the article was nothing even discussed by you or any other user in the talk page. It was just reverted by you and Dalillama, who are trying to manipulate the article.

You should learn some English and make good faith contributions to the article, but you have never written anything there. In spite of that, you prefer to cause fights with other users, reverting pics and written things that you cannot even understand. Opinoso 05:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Opinoso: Felipe didn't do anything at Wikipedia except help Brazil become a Good Article. Where were you when that happened, since you're so concerned about this page? Felipe may have his faults (sorry Felipe), but he does act in good faith.--Dali-Llama 05:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

But I digress. First of all, let's get some background on Opinoso. Take his most recent 3RR incident report:


 * This user was reverted by two separate editors, and was warned before breaking the rule.
 * User has also labeled legitimate content dispute reverts as "rvv" and "Vandal user erased it", violating WP:AGF.
 * Opinoso launched WP:SKILL personal attacks against one of the other reverting editors (here) immediately after havign broken the 3RR.
 * Has been blocked before for violation of the 3RR and stopped short of breaking again after being warned several times in the recent past: here, here and here.

But wait, there's more!
 * He previously made legal threats to Felipe C.S. (here), which led to administrator (Carioca) involvement, with Opinoso eventually backing down. The legal threats, were, ironically enough, written in Portuguese.


 * Opinoso has previously accused Felipe C.S. of "manipulation". The first brouhaha is here for all to see. It was satisfactoraly dealt with through consensus with the other editors of the Brazil page and Opinoso was admonished for WP:NPA and WP:OWN violations.
 * Same thing a few weeks later: here
 * And here, which resulted in the page being fully protected.

But if you call now:

Dali-Llama 05:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right around the time Opinoso wrote this WQA, he "cleaned" his talk page, removing previous warnings from other users, such as A.Z., and for editing other pages, such as Nelly Furtado. Fortunately for us, there's no memory hole in Wikipedia.
 * As an update, Opinoso has received a 72hr block resulting from his 3RR violation. I've pinged him to see if he'd still like to pursue this WQA further, and I'm waiting for his reply.--Dali-Llama 20:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

tension myositis syndrome
There is a user, Pacula, who has been rampantly vandalizing anything to do with the article, "tension myositis syndrome". This began on Sept 9, 2007. First he posted it for rapid deletion, even though it has been around since January, 2004, then he has gone to the many references to it and deleted all references to it, making it totally unusable. Tension myositis syndrome is a diagnosis for chronic back and other pain, which has been in use since the early 80's and which has been very successful in curing chronic pain. Many other doctors now use this diagnosis to heal many chronic pain disorders. Please help. Ralphyde 19:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Removal of blatant advertising is not vandalism. Wikipedia is not the place to make a personal link farm, doc. - Pacula 19:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There was and is no advertising on this site. Ralphyde 23:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * True, I'm not sure that 'blatant advertising' would be the best description, but it does seem to fail WP:SOAPBOX, as discussed in this AfD. (Full disclosure: I voted to delete in said AfD). -- B figura  (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam doesn't just refer to external links, but can in aggravated cases apply to wikilinks used as advertising. Wikilinks and external links should be used very precisely, and in context should add to the articles they appear in. Notable sources end up appearing on many articles because of their notability or because they are exceptionally good or valuable resources. Sources that haven't achieved such notability risk being considered linkspam when they get scattered all over the place. Such placement is often a disguised attempt to achieve (not increase already established) notability. That is misuse of Wikipedia and can even get the one so doing chastised or even blocked. I too have voted delete. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 04:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Pacula continues to delete all the links and cited references which were related to the article Tension Myositis Syndrome. I have attempted to repair the damage he has done between the articles, but he continues to revert my repairs to the damage he has created, and he accuses me of spamming, when it is his vandalism that I am attempting to repair by putting the articles back to the way they were before his destructive edits.  I am adding nothing new.  He knows nothing about the topic, is simply engaging in rampant censorship and vandalism and calling me a spammer for attempting to put things back to the way they were before.  He marked the topic for deletion, and on the very same day, deleted all the links between it and any other article, as well as deleting cited references.  Then he has threatened me with blocking for trying to repair his damages.  This is very wrong.  Ralphyde 20:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nominating articles for deletion by following the deletion policy is most assuredly not vandalism. Also, excessive links to an article can be considered a form of spam, especially when the article in question has links to amazon.com book sale pages at the bottom (which this article did until recently) and removing those excessive links is also not vandalism.  Regarding excessive reversions, we need links to those diffs so we can see what's going on; none of the volunteers here have time to go through your contribs and 's to find the correlations.


 * On the article itself, its nomination for deletion is perfectly valid, and I personally intend to comment Delete in the AfD linked above (and have done so. --Darkwind (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)), as I feel the article violates WP:FRINGE, that is, the diagnosis is not mainstream enough to have its own article. While this is my own opinion, this does help me see how someone can perceive excessive links to this article as spam.  Also, please note that this opinion on the subject matter doesn't affect my interpretation of policy in my response here.


 * Regarding your own behavior,, I feel compelled to point out that you seem to have some feelings of ownership about this article. This is based on your comments in the AfD, and here in this WQA. I'd advise you to let go of that before you start taking this more personally than you are already. --Darkwind (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad bin Qasim
We have a newbie, but really much a newbie either in User:Intothefire. Have tried not to bite the newbie to educate him and try to get him to learn to make good contributions etc. however he seems to always see a conspiracy around him and resorts to questions of bad faith. Can someone step in and see if they can make a difference before the mood changes and things get ugly. I am not quite sure how to deal with this further--Tigeroo 15:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Its amazing to see this post ....Tigeroo has been hounding my posts with deletions after deletions spanning various articles ...inspite of my engaging in discussion ...the discussion page of Muhammad bin Qasim is a good record of whats been going on . The tone of his message is telling !
 * cheers Intothefire 15:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh my. You're clearly having a huge content dispute, and you're almost certainly going to need to involve other editors in that.  In the meantime, User:Intothefire needs to be clear on a few things:
 * The deletion of sections of material qualifies as "vandalism" only if the intent is something other than to improve that article. Looking over this article, I think it is ludicrous to accuse User:Tigeroo of vandalism on it.
 * Your accusation that User:Tigeroo is thwarting you by pulling out "obscure Wikipedia policies" is misplaced. While Wikilawyering is certainly discouraged, it is very important - especially in content disputes - to make sure that you are acting in accordance with policy.  This also means that people arguing their cases on the talk pages should, wherever possible, use policy to explain why their preferred edits are desirable.
 * Much of what you write is, in my opinion, in violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. These two policies are extraordinarily important, as it is no exagerration to say that the project would collapse if everybody showed the disregard for them that you have.
 * When you are disputing edits made to an article other than Muhammad bin Qasim, your comments should be left on the talk page of the article in question, rather than on the bin Qasim talk page.
 * Not everybody always gets their way on Wikipedia. The tool that is used to determine who gets their way is WP:CONSENSUS.  On the article's talk page, three separate users other than User:Tigeroo (User:Ugen64, User:IP198, and User:Bless sins) express their support for Tigeroo's edits.  This means that on this question, Tigeroo has consensus behind him, and it is inappropriate to attempt to overcome this consensus simply by re-inserting your own edits.
 * User:Intothefire, I think you have the potential to have a long and enjoyable career as a Wikipedia editor, but I can promise you that that will not happen if you continue along the road you're currently travelling. Instead, you will either find yourself banned or you will quit in disgust after concluding (falsely) that experienced editors have formed some sort of a cabal to block your edits.  Please accept my advice in the spirit in which it is intended: suggestions for a relatively new editor to make his Wikipedia experience as pleasant as possible.
 * All of that said: User:Tigeroo, if this behaviour persists, you will have no choice but to bring it to the mediation and arbitration levels. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that. Sarcasticidealist 19:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not going to argue with you on the conclusions you have arrived ....!

but be aware that through the use of placing highly selective content from sources then aggregration of such informations , of sources , secondary sources , construction , deletion and presentation on this article as is being thrust by Tigeroo has generated a contorted comentry that provides a false depection of the subject.

I did not see an objection from you on the sources of the content I have provided which I would like to have seen ....since that is really at the crux of the debate ...do  the informations, sources ,secondary sources  provided by me stand the wikipedia test or not ?

I see an important pont here and that is the importance of form ....which can be improved !!, as to the rule on WP:CONSENSUS ...well when the spirit of consensus is being held hostage to the mob I dont see how this is going to be overcome on this article.

I think I see the way forward then is a bit by bit approach, hope you will be attentive through the debate then

My congratulations to you for the speed of response on this complaint by Tigeroo and the quick conclusions you arrived at.

Cheers Intothefire 01:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me be very clear: I'm not taking a side on the content dispute. I haven't followed the content dispute closely enough to have formulated a position, and that's not the purpose of WP:WQA anyway.  I'm here only to discuss editors' conduct, and I am concerned that you
 * have been making unfounded accusations of vandalism,
 * are frequently violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF,
 * are disregarding Wikipedia policy when it is cited to you, and not countering with citations of your own, and
 * are disregarding WP:CONSENSUS.
 * The last item is the most troubling, because consensus is the basis of all decision-making at Wikipedia, and if an editor is unwilling to adhere to it, he is essentially refusing to participate in the Wikipedia community. Your suggestion that you are justified in ignoring consensus because it is "being held hostage to the mob" does not hold water; it is easy for any of us to attribute consensus going against us as being the fault of some cabal or mob, but that does not justify disregard of a core Wikipedia policy.
 * There is no point to arguing this. My perspective was requested, I provided it, and you are free to take or ignore my advice.  I sincerely hope you will opt for the former, because it will prevent this dispute from being escalated to a messier level and because I think it will help you have a much more enjoyable career as an editor.  But I don't pretend to be able to direct you to do anything.  The decision is yours. Sarcasticidealist 00:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK thanks for feedback ,considering your strong response to me,  would now appreciate your continued interest in the debate on the discussion page of the article as it is going to determine the going ons on the article and the questions of civilised debate you have pointed to me.
 * Cheers
 * Intothefire 10:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As is my habit, I'll continue monitoring the issue for a little while to see if my suggestions were helpful. I won't participate much in the talk page, and I certainly won't get involved in the content dispute (I'd be in well over my head in any event), but I will monitor the behaviour.  So far, there does seem to be some small progress towards building consensus, so I'm hopeful. Sarcasticidealist 17:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Need your help.

I am surprised to find a huge big edit ...the last one on the Muhammad bin Qasim page ...which I have not made but the page is showing my username .There was a small edit that I did ....but most of what is appearing is not by me ..what does this mean ?? has someone got my password and used it or is it a technical problem ?? Please advise Cheers Intothefire 17:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you provide a link to the relevant diff? That will help us determine what's going on. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 19:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist -Hope you have been following up with the going ons on the article ..and the talk page ...! KieferSkunk just saw your comment whats the "relevant diff" please explain and I will revert. Cheers Intothefire 18:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have, and I think you've been commendably civil. You folks don't seem to be making a lot of progress on resolving the content dispute (which, to be honest, I'm having trouble following on account of being totally ignorant of the article's subject), but I haven't seen any Wikiquette violations. Sarcasticidealist 20:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist- Regret my contributions are being vandal edited ...deleted by tigeroo ...in my earlier avatar I took a lighter view ...of continuous deletions I recorded on the talk page ....the sarcasm of my tone was noted but not my problem ....subsequent to your strong note I have been meticulously careful ...however its back to square 1 ...continuous deletions vandals of my posts..Please either intervene or advise next steps. Please also see the record of other editors who have noted these unfair deletions and restored in the articles edit record. Intothefire 14:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Cheers

John Orman's page
Since Susan Henshaw has chosen to make an issue of her deaffiliation with the Connecticut for Lieberman party, here are the facts:

On June 12, 2007, Susan Henshaw changed her party affiliation with the Trumbull Registrar of Voters.

I received written confirmation of Sue Henshaw's deaffiliation with Connecticut for Lieberman from the Trumbull Registrar of Voters. Upon learning that I had discovered this, she went back and reaffiliated on June 22.

Sue tried to cover up the facts, and that coverup apparently included not telling John Orman the truth about what she did. The information on Sue Henshaw's affiliation shuttle is readily available to anyone. Contact Kathleen Mironti at Trumbull Town Hall.

Since Susan Henshaw is mentioned prominently in the article, information on her disaffilation with the party is relevant as well as factual and should be included.

In addition, Susan Henshaw's repeated vandalization of the Wikipedia articles on Connecticut for Lieberman and John Orman should not be tolerated by NPOV. Facts are facts, and are not malleable.Skorchin 00:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There has been repetitive, unsourced information that has nothing to do with John Orman's biography added to his page. It originated on 7/3/07 with SKorchin, where information about Susan Henshaw was added. Susan Henshaw has emailed Wikipedia to dispute this information - she has never disaffected from the CFL Party, and has the paperwork to prove it. Skorchin cannot back up these posts.

This has not stopped SKorchin. He added the Henshaw information again on 7/8/07, 7/9/07, 7/10/07 and 7/11/07. He/she was warned on 7/12/07. The same change came again on 7/30/07 from an unidentified IP address, and twice more after that. The last Henshaw post was done on Sept. 7th by Bluedawg1.

One of the Henshaw posts (by 71.252.64.8) made "The Most Shameful Wikipedia Spin Jobs" Top Rated list on Wired.com.

This persistent vandalism of Prof. Orman's page has to stop.

Seraphim55 01:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * WQA is not the right place to bring up a content dispute. If you feel the biography of living persons policy has been violated, then bring it up at WP:AN/I, although I feel confident that you can let OTRS handle it if the issue has been e-mailed to an official contact address for the Foundation. --User:Darkwind (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a BLP problem because neither side of this tempest in a teapot can present any information that complies with WP:V and WP:RS. Mr. Korchin says, "The information on Sue Henshaw's affiliation shuttle is readily available to anyone.  Contact Kathleen Mironti at Trumbull Town Hall."  That doesn't constitute a published source.  Similarly, on Talk:Connecticut for Lieberman, Ms. Henshaw has claimed to possess a document signed by Ms. Miranti that supports her version of events.  That also doesn't constitute a published source.  Accordingly, I have removed all assertions about the Henshaw registration wherever I've seen them.  I agree with Darkwind that the matter doesn't belong here.  Both of these editors have WP:COI issues on the Connecticut for Lieberman article, so both have been strongly advised to bring suggested changes to the talk page in lieu of editing the article themselves.  That includes, but is not limited to, any assertions about who registered with what party when. JamesMLane t c 02:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Anyeverybody
He called me anal!! Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki Wah! Not only do I need my mommy, I can't engage in consensus building with this guy. He has also made several unilateral edits to the page. We need marriage counseling. Bsharvy 14:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If this is indeed an earnest alert, please post some diffs to the behaviour you consider to be a violation of Wikiquette. Sarcasticidealist 17:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess this diff must be what they are talking about. He/She left a WP:NPA warning asking me not to call him/her anal and to further not edit controversial pages without a WP:CONSENSUS. I mean no offense to Bsharvy, but I don't think he/she is having much success understanding how Wikipedia works and may have misconceptions about the processes here.


 * If this has a beginning it would be when I made a WP:BOLD edit on Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I created a WP:SS article for the large section dealing with debate over the bombings to their consternation. I found everyone else to be supportive of the action during a WP:RFC Bsharvy created about it on Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I tried a few times to explain why it was a fair edit, and how consensus had actually favored the change when he/she reverted it, diff.


 * In the interest of full disclosure, just over a month ago when Bsharvy was blocked for his behavior on the same page, I made an outreach attempt which was rejected. Anynobody 21:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see much in the way of Wikiquette violation in what you've posted, but I'll hold off until I hear from User:Bsharvy first. Sarcasticidealist 22:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Bsharvy seems quite upset about this so I agree, that's the best way to handle it. I want him/her to feel that he/she has been given an opportunity for an unbiased forum. Anynobody 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to his comment to me beginning "If you're just being anal...." in the referenced Talk page, but also to the increasingly personal drift of his recent comments, and to his editing of a controversial subject without prior discussion. Unproductive sarcasm (mostly from frustration) has come from both of us, but he is now escalating in a way that makes collaboration impossible, and his unilateral edits make discussion seem pointless. Bsharvy 01:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's nothing personal, Bsharvy, you're simply focusing on what I believe to be misperceptions of concepts and rules. I've honestly tried very hard to explain these issues to you...Controversy vs Contention - WP:BOLD - Short, short version. Yet you continue to insist that I did something wrong ...He has also made several unilateral edits to the page... despite both my and other's explanations. Which led me to point out your possible obstinate nature. Anynobody 02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, User:Bsharvy. I have not yet seen anything that constitutes a violation of WP:CIVIL.  While possibly he could have said "if you're insisting on treating the words 'disease' and 'infection' differently..." or something to that effect rather than using the word "anal", but using the word "anal" to suggest that you're perceiving a figmentary difference is not uncivil (I emphasize here that I'm not taking any position on whether the use of the word "anal" was accurate, just as to whether it was civil).  As for the suggestion that he is making consensus-violating edits, I'd appreciate it if you could point me to some specific diffs, at which time I'd be happy to comment. Sarcasticidealist 03:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think obstinate would have probably been the better way to describe what I was saying, it's harder to confuse that with anal related insults. Anynobody 04:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I didn't request a ruling on whether he had violated Wikiquette (it's obvious that he did, however). Bsharvy 08:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This page is for editors to get help dealing with Wikiquette violations. Before we can help you deal with such a violation, we need to confirm that such a violation has occurred or is occurring.  In this case, I cannot see any evidence of a Wikiquette violation.  Without such evidence, there's really nothing I can do to help you. Sarcasticidealist 08:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest citing an example you've seen of a recent Wikiquette violation, Sarcasticidealist? I would honestly cite some myself but given the nature of this disagreement I'm not sure there is anything I can say that will serve to change Bsharvy's opinion. Anynobody 09:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please review the stated purpose of this page: "This page is an early step in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process. It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite or uncivil behavior or other stressful situations to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum." (emphasis added). I already know he is being rude; I don't need a ruling about it. I requested "marriage counseling" i.e. mediation, a moderator not a judge.
 * But, it never occurred to me that anyone would consider "If you're just being anal" as civil. Please review examples from your source (WP:CIVIL):
 * Judgmental tone
 * Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."
 * ...and...
 * Argue facts, not personalities. (Etiquette)
 * If starting a comment with "Not to make this personal, but..." is uncivil, then so is "If you're just being anal...." Do you believe it is non-judgemental? The policy overview: "personally targeted behaviour that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." Calling (or "suggesting") somebody is anal will increase conflict and stress. My first impulse was to tell him to quit being such a patronizing snot (I supressed the impulse). I don't know what your social circle is like, but in most civil conversations people don't call each other anal (or "suggest" it). Bsharvy 10:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really know what to say. I think you seem to find the descriptor "anal" much more insulting than it actually is.  By suggesting that you were "being anal" (not that you were an "anal person"), he was suggesting that the the words "disease" and "infection" could be used interchangeably.  As I said, it probably would have been helpful if he hadn't used the word "anal", and he's agreed with me on that point.
 * You're quite right that this forum is to seek perspective. My perspective is that no Wikiquette violation has occurred.
 * In any event, it's clear that I'm not helping matters, so I'm going to remove myself from this alert. Hopefully another volunteer will step in and prove more satisfactory. Sarcasticidealist 18:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Bsharvy, I honestly didn't mean anything overly personal by saying you were being obstinate about the disease/infection issue.
 * Let's be clear, there is personal information like one's religion, race, sexuality, etc. that is almost always unacceptable to mention in a dispute and then there is information about one's behavior in regard to others. My point is/was that bickering over a word choice which has no wrong answer either way is irrelevant, but since you have been prickly on other such minor issues; we'll call it what you want. That's not personal in the same sense as race, etc., it's about your behavior. Furthermore, I honestly don't think comment on content not editors means don't point out bad behavior. If it did, everyone who posts a NPA, or other warning template would be violating that idea.
 * Sarcasticidealist I appreciate the effort you made here, and I completely agree that my word choice was rather poor especially in hindsight, so please don't feel your effort was wasted. Anynobody 06:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I came to this dispute entirely randomly when I ran into the article Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki which shouts out "edit war!" True enough, the talk page has reams of back and forth. I didn't bother reading through the entire bickering, but I think Bsharvy is way out of line here, bordering on bad wikiquette himself. Anynobody has committed no real incivility but was instead working to introduce a compromise wording which was met with nitpicking, weaseling and POV-pushing. Perhaps the word choice could have been better: I would suggest obdurate, rigid or refractory as the mot juste. Eusebeus 13:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Third opinion" (so to speak): As a somewhat active WQA volunteer, let me give my take on this alert. , you opened this alert because you felt insulted by the term "anal [retentive]." However, you later posted that you weren't looking for a judgment on 's Wikiquette. In that case, may I ask what you were hoping to accomplish by opening this alert?

In regards to the term that started this whole mess, "anal [retentive]", I personally feel that term has a rather negative connotation. I'm fairly certain that if the Quality department overheard me using that term in a discussion with one of my customers on the phone, I'd be written up; I'm also fairly certain that none of my college professors would have appreciated me using the term in reference to one of my fellow students. To me, that makes it inappropriate for use in Wikipedia discussions as well, which should at least have the dignity of a college-level debate. I have no problems at all seeing why Bsharvy would be insulted by the use of the term (even if he knew, as I do, exactly what was meant by its use) as I would have felt similarly insulted. I do seriously doubt I would have opened a WQA on it, never mind posting to the editor's open Editor Review in violation of WP:MULTI.

was correct in stating that no violation of WP:CIVIL has occurred, because Anynobody wasn't trying to provoke you or escalate the discussion. Since you were insulted by the term, it became a de facto violation of WP:CIVIL, but there's nothing to be accomplished by berating Anynobody about it now. Anynobody has admitted that the use of that term was ill-considered, and has apologized for it in so far as explaining that nothing personal was intended. I'd accept that apology and move on, Bsharvy. --Darkwind (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

For God's sake people: READ. "...you later posted that you weren't looking for a judgment on 's Wikiquette. In that case, may I ask what you were hoping to accomplish by opening this alert?" Already answered, in my post before yours.
 * READ.(WP:CIVIL):
 * Judgmental tone
 * Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."
 * ...and...
 * Argue facts, not personalities. (Etiquette)

Maybe most of you are just being anal. I dunno. It takes some serious anality to insist that "If you're just being anal..." is non-judgemental, and isn't a comment on personality. Nothing in the policy says that bad ettiquette is only a violation if the person is trying to provoke or escalate--rightly so, as that would require telepathy.
 * READ. The purpose of this page isn't limited to reporting violations. I said I wasn't interested in a ruling about whose sense of rudeness was "correct." I said I was interested moderation.
 * READ.Nothing started with the "anal" comment. Rather, something ended with it. I didn't say that was the main problem. I said "I can't work with this guy." And if that wasn't evident at first, it should have been obvious after I said it explicitly. I didn't say he made edits in violation of consensus. I said there was no consensus.
 * Remind me not to come here again. Nobody involved in the so-called dispute resolution processes ever bothers to READ. If you are going to moderate (or judge, which seems to be the bent of most of you), you need to exhibit attention to detail. Bsharvy 04:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ???Bsharvy I've avoided pointing out two facts since there is a good chance of them angering you by their very basic nature but 1) WP:EQ is a guideline, and while it should usually be followed to the letter it also makes clear that common sense type exceptions exist:


 * Seriously, if one editor's personality has become disruptive to the point of affecting the ability of others to edit an article, common sense dictates that it should be dealt with somehow. Pointing out the behavior to such an editor is the logical first step. :::2) You may or may not have noticed, but nobody has criticized the point I was making, only the word choice. Insisting that other editors who are trying to moderate here re-read the guidelines and policies they already had in mind when answering here is only serving to prove a tendency toward being obdurate. Anynobody 05:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Bsharvy, if you want people's opinions, take them. If you want people to always agree with you, this may not be the place. There is a clear difference of opinion - you perceived something as a personal attack. Nobody else seems to think so. Maybe you're overreacting. I suggest you cool down, instead of berating people who are volunteering their time to try to help you resolve the issue. We did "READ" it. If someone called you pedantic instead of anal, how would you feel? How about too meticulous? The point was about your side of the discussion - it was too focused on details, or some such. "Anal retentive" is a common way to say this. "Pedantic" is another. Both of these can be taken as insults (as could virtually anything said in a disagreement), but they shouldn't be. --Cheeser1 06:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The only response to that is to point out for the third time that the term "anal" was not the point. I didn't characterize it as a personal attack. I argued it was uncivil only in response to another commentor here. I didn't say it was the reason for coming here. I have now said three times that my reason for posting on the page was not to claim any violation. READ Nobody was asked to be a judge of civility, so stop acting like judges of civility. As for volunteering time, do you think I am paid? Bsharvy 07:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This argument is starting to show signs that something else is contributing to the misunderstanding. I mean no offense by this question, honestly I wouldn't do that on the Wikiquette alerts board; Is English not your first language? I've had discussions both online and in real life with people who spoke English as a second or third language better than most natives but tended to be susceptible to taking comments/words out of context or fixate on one word being more "right" as in the disease/infection issue. Or the edits which prompted a neutral editor to ask ...you opened this alert because you felt insulted by the term "anal [retentive]." However, you later posted that you weren't looking for a judgment on 's Wikiquette.  In that case, may I ask what you were hoping to accomplish by opening this alert?
 * I just came from the WP:RFC thread opened at Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki that wasn't meant to actually improve the process itself.
 * Note* I honestly feel it is a good faith assumption that there must be a language barrier between us, otherwise you're really starting to sound like a menace. Anynobody 08:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I ask, if you didn't ask anybody to be a judge of civility, and you didn't feel you were attacked, and being called "anal" wasn't the point (which is all you brought up in your first post here, by the way), then again, why did you open this alert? What were you trying to get done here?  You say you answered that in the post above mine, but all I see is that you bolded the words "informal mediation."  That's accomplished here at WQA by determining if there has been a wikiquette breach and speaking to the party who committed that breach to remind them of proper wiki behavior.  We do not mediate content disputes as a rule.


 * As it stands now, my personal opinion is that you, Bsharvy, need to grow a wikishell, and you need to do it soon; as I'm having a wikiprophecy that you will soon grow disgruntled with the WP community and depart, well, wikiwiki. As for myself, I recuse, as did Sarcasticidealist. The input of WQA volunteers is obviously not what you were seeking, and I'm starting to take it personally. --Darkwind (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Image:Gtk-dialog-info.svg


 * (for the second time) "This page is an early step in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process. It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite or uncivil behavior or other stressful situations to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum." That is the input I was seeking, which I have now stated, what, four times? What I got instead was editors who think the only purpose of this page is to pass judgement on whether a WP:CIVIL violation has occurred (and who think "If you're just being anal" doesn't violate policies against judgemental tone or personal remarks). But, hey, thanks for all the personal remarks. It showed good style. Bsharvy 11:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Against my better judgement, I'm responding because there seem to be some things that need clarification. WQA exists for situations when you feel another editor is behaving inappropriately according to established community standards.  I've changed the text at the top of the page you had quoted from in order to make that clearer (hopefully), and discourage the apparent wikilawyering you seem to have resorted to (judging by the constant quotations from the page text).  Such 'lawyering will not change the way WQA operates or the type of situations we currently handle.


 * If you wanted help with your content dispute, another informal process like third opinion would have been a better choice. I'm sorry you didn't get what you were expecting by posting here.  I'm sorry the de jure text at the top of the page didn't 100% accurately reflect what the de facto process of WQA is today.  I truly am.  However, just because you didn't get what you were expecting doesn't mean you get the right to insult the WQA volunteers or our efforts to help.  In doing that, your behavior is no better than what you were complaining about from Anynobody.  See WP:KETTLE.


 * I'd strongly suggest at this point that you let this go. There is a consensus of at least three regular WQA volunteers (myself, Sarcastic, and Cheeser) that you were trying to get something from WQA that we don't provide (at this time. Whether we did in the past, judging by the old version of the text at the top, is largely irrelevant.)  Continuing to push the issue is rather pointless at this point, since you've already made it clear you don't have any interest in what WQA provides today. --Darkwind (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I do wonder why you keep posting here, since you don't seem to listen to anything I say. You wanted to know why I came here, if not to accuse someone of a violation, so I told you. Then you asked again, so I told you again, and pointed out it is consistent with the purpose of the page. Then you accused me of "lawyering" for quoting the purpose of the page. I wanted aid in working with the individual in question; I wasn't interested in accusing him of anything because that isn't productive. (I've said this 4 or 5 times now.) But, you have decided you already know what I wanted, so why keep asking? Bsharvy 04:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Redacted comment. --Darkwind (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you mean retracted? In case anybody's confused, I thought I'd point that out. --Cheeser1 23:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, not quite, though redacted isn't exactly it either. My comment is still in the history if anyone wants to read it.  I meant every word, I just don't think it's appropriate for the main WQA page -- it might scare off potential visitors by implying that we always conduct our discussions this way. I removed it for that reason only. --Darkwind (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It ought to "scare off potential visitors" by implying you think its appropriate to conduct any discussion this way.
 * To what "alternate forum" was this referred? Bsharvy 07:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear here. Although I have never run into him before, it is clear from a mile away that Bsharvy is a highly problematic editor. The edit-warring that spawned this in the first place is largely due to his recalcitrance, which is troubling enough. His tendency to picayune wikilawyering is rather worse, topped off with doses of self-righteous conviction, the pointless repetition of his (non-)case in the face of good faith comments and the passive-aggressive badgering. Bsharvy accept some advice: you need to change the way you interact with other editors forthwith; you will find yourself the subject of an RFC if you keep this up. And please don't bother with some aggrieved response which throws out lots of policy this way and that. You behaviour at the moment is childish and intolerable and you need to cut it out. Eusebeus 07:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I'm problematic: I insist on accuracy.
 * Whose sounds "aggrieved" here? Hm? Bsharvy 08:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I will add this in, again, since User:Bsharvy deleted it here

"I want to point out for the volunteers who took this posting seriously...I think this post (as well as others on RFC, admin notices, etc.) are simply a tactic to run off editors that disagree with User:Bsharvy as several have already left the single page the dispute is centered on (Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki)."

Not only does deleting it prove a point, but adds another...perhaps this users' issues could be addressed...elsewhere? Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 21:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete anything. Bsharvy 05:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooops, it looks like I did. Such a loss (it was an accident). Bsharvy 05:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Darkwind I agree the discussion has proven fruitless as far as satisfying the editor who posted this thread. I'm not really interested in taking this further, but if Bsharvy wants to, do you think a WP:RFC/U would be more appropriate since he/she has had very similar difficulty with other editors? Anynobody 05:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish to assist in this noble effort. User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken is your man: User_talk:Eusebeus Bsharvy 13:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean you want to help write a RFC on yourself Bsharvy? How appropriate. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 19:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)