Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive73

User:Mjroots and Railway electrification system
I reverted an edit by User:benlisquare on Railway electrification system, as per this diff. My reason was that i considered the edit summary to be unnacceptable due to the use of obscene language. The was then undone by the editor and I was told to be ashamed of myself! On the talk page Talk:Railway electrification system editor (and Admin) User:Mjroots claimed that I was engaged in an edit war. I had made one (justified) revert and not attempted to undo it, yet alone engage the other editor User:benlisquare is any kind of "edit war". I was then further admonished by User:benlisquare on the talk page.

When I attempted to defend my position, I was accused of making a WP:POINT by User:benlisquare. On my talk page I was next given a warning of a block by User:Mjroots for no other reason than he wanted to "nip in the bud" what he saw as an edit war.

I repeat, I undid ONE edit for an inappropriate edit summary! On the talk page of Talk:Railway electrification system I am now being re-accused of WP:POINT, although my discussion has never been about the isse of the korean flag, only the reaction to my edit!! Further edits have accused me of WP:WIKILAWYERING. I have never disputed the isse of the flag, not engaged in any war about it, ONLY the language in the edit summary!!! User:benlisquare is also trying to justify profane langauge due to being an "australian"!!

So in summary, for a SINGLE reverted edit (which I clearly explained in my edit summary) I am "edit warring, given a warning of a block, accused of making a WP:POINT and WP:WIKILAWYERING!

I would like to have comments on what I beleive to be the extremely severe escalation by Admin User:Mjroots of this issue. In other words the accussation of edit-warring and the threat of being blocked. Bhtpbank (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologise for causing such WP:DRAMA; I should have upheld my responsibility in accepting that all people are different. As Carl Sandburg has said in the old lawyers' nostrum, The People, Yes (1936), "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell." Today, I will exit this dispute without pounding any tables, because I am aware that I have my views on the facts and laws, and others have theirs on their feelings. I apologise for being youthful. I apologise for being a young male, a young male with his naïve view of the world, a young male who types before he thinks. I apologise for being human; I apologise for having emotions. And I apologise for applying unnecessary load to the Wikimedia servers by causing 40KB of text to be formed on its server drives. Thank you, and good night. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)
 * Comments by Mjroots
 * At no point did I threaten to block Bhtpbank over the edit in question. I realise that I made a slight error in the initial sentence I posted on the talk page of Railway electricfication system. "There seems to be an edit war going of[f] over the use of Korea and  ROK" would have been better worded as There seems to be an edit war brewing over the use of  Korea and  ROK.


 * The edit by Benlisquare was a correct edit, but the edit summary was not. Bhtpbank reverted the edit based on the edit summary alone. I don't know whether or not Bhtpbank checked the diff before reversion but suspect that he did not. Benlisquare reverted and added an edit note in which he said in the edit summary that Bhtpbank should be ashamed of himself. I then changed the flag country display and raised the issue on the talk page, leaving talkback for both editors pointing them towards the article talk page.


 * My motives for doing this was to nip any potential edit war in the bud before it became a serious matter that would lead to admins stepping in and possible further action against either editor. I am sorry that Bhtpbank has misinterpreted my comments on his talk page. I did state that I didn't want to block editors if it could be avoided, but that I would do so if necessary. I did not intend that I meant I would block Bhtpbank for that edit - he appears to have made an honest mistake in relying on the edit summary alone. I apologise to Bhtpbank if my communications with him came across as being in any way heavy-handed oir threatening and hope that he will accept this apology. Mjroots (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Benlisquare seems to be aware of his error and doesn't need any more chastisement. Bhtpbank needs to think about whether it is really a good idea to keep bad information in an article simply because of a dislike for the edit summary used in removing it -- this really isn't helpful to anybody. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Pedsnursing
I could use some advice here. This user was previously warned for repeatedly blanking a section of the Doctorate in Nursing page and not engaging on the Talk page. He has now taken to blanking and self-reverting it many times a day in rapid succession. The last 50+ edits to that page are all of this form. Attempts to engage in discussion on his Talk page are also blanked. I don't know if this is a policy violation or not--can you 3RR yourself?--but it's certainly annoying. JJL (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd take this straight over to WP:AIV as blanking and self reverting in this way are a form of vandalism, or alternately report at WP:ANI for disruptive editing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I figured it had come up before but couldn't find a clear statement of it. JJL (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Southbankmolineux
This user clearly has a problem with me and has now resorted to childish name-calling (see here). Intervention would be appreciated. – PeeJay 17:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See also similar message on User_talk:Southbankmolineux. I believe this started as a dispute concerning the height of a football player? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Ridiculous, no? – PeeJay 00:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ive just taken his comments down again. If he puts it back, the next step would be to take this to WP:ANI --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a relatively new user...no welcome template in talk page history.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've left him one now. He seems to have stopped anyway. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Providence Crime Rate
Hello All, looking for help on the Providence, Rhode Island page. We have been discussing the crime rate stats for a while now and would like some input from outside eyes. You will see the discussion on the talk page, but here are two versions being discussed.

The number of violent crimes committed in Providence rose 19.5 percent in 2008. Property crimes also increased in 9.7 percent in 2008. [1]Crime overall was up 12 percent in 2008, for which police implicate cell phone robberies, gang-related incidents and a poor economy. Police chief Dean Esserman said that initiatives have been taken and crime in 2009 has dropped as a result.[2][3][4][5][3] Those increases follow flat or declining crime rates in 2005, 2006 and 2007. In 2006 there were a historic low of 11 murders, though this rose to 14 in 2007 and 13 in 2008. Averaged over three years, murders had highest concentrations in Olneyville and the West End neighborhoods.[6] Of the 239 United States cities with populations over 100,000, Providence's violent crime rate ranked 84th in 2003, as compared with New York City at 94th and Boston at 28th.[7] Notwithstanding its comparatively low rate of violent crime, Providence has the fifth-highest rate of property crime per 100,000 inhabitants in the country,[8] which is 50% above the national average, with car theft in particular at 150% higher.[9]

OR

Of the 239 United States cities with populations over 100,000, Providence's violent crime rate ranked 84th in 2003, as compared with New York City at 94th and Boston at 28th. Notwithstanding its comparatively low rate of violent crime, Providence has the fifth-highest rate of property crime per 100,000 inhabitants in the country,[8] which is 50% above the national average, with car theft in particular at 150% higher. Both property crime and violent crime rates were heavily dependent on neighborhood. The rate of violent crime in the city had dropped from 2002 to 2007 running contrary to contemporaneous national trends in comparably sized cities, though it rose 19.5 percent in 2008. Crime overall was up 12 percent in 2008, for which police implicate cell phone robberies, gang-related incidents and a poor economy. Police chief Dean Esserman said that initiatives have been taken and crime in 2009 has dropped as a result. The 11 murders in 2006 was a historic low, though this rose to 14 in 2007 and 13 in 2008. Averaged over three years, murders had highest concentrations in Olneyville and the West End neighborhoods

Thanks for your help You Can&#39;t Clap with One Hand (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, please note that this is the Wikiquette alerts page. Your request for help is a content issue, not an issue with one or more other editors. Since there is no civility issue or other user conduct concern, this is the improper forum for requesting help. If two editors are involved in the debate and you want a third opinion, go to WP:3O. If you have several individuals on each side of the debate and you want to break the deadlock with wider community input, go to WP:RFC. Thank you.  The   Seeker 4   Talk  14:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Helen Goddard
There's an AfD debate which is going on, where reasonable points are being made on both sides, but there has been one anonymous editor who has been insinuating that other participants in the debate are motivated by homophobia. (I hope it's fairly obvious what the offending phrases are.) He/she followed up my first warning against personal attacks with another insinuated accusation against other editors, and responded to my second warning with an outright refusal to do anything different, so I'm wearily taking it here. Do whatever you have to do. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Diff's would still be helpful to us, as well as alerting the user if you haven't already. Here at WQA, we do not block. This is for dispute resolution.-- SKATER  Speak. 18:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The two offending posts are this and this. I don't like the look of this post either, but this appears to be someone else as a one-off. Anyway, this post is the indication that anon has no intention of listening to me. I've already said I would take these attacks here if this behaviour continued, but I'll post confirmation. I fear this may already be beyond straightforward dispute resolution, but in case this user does listen to people who haven't been involved in the debate I'd like to give this a try first. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The first IP to accuse me of homophobia, 82.132.139.133, has already been identified as a sockpuppet of User:PODs Watch. Fences  &  Windows  19:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They are taking it very personally, it may just be best to try and ignore it, because the closing admin sure will.--Otterathome (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have complained in the AfD about my edits being misrepresented in a damaging manner by an anon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

User:Tothwolf
Also been discussed extensively at WP:ANI --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The AN/I discussion was moved to its own subpage here --Tothwolf (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been struggling the last week with this editor and his increasingly strong inability assume good faith and throw around name and accusations, (for instance: here where I am a troll and center of a conspiracy to harass). These accusations have now grown to other users as well (here, accusing another user of retaliatory AfD voting, and here, accusing the same editor of bad faith deletion nominations). The arguments here have not yet gotten quite so inflammatory, but they are certainly hostile and accusative, lacking good faith.

Can an editor that is not usually involved with these deletion discussions intervene and try to bring some more polite discourse with Tothwolf before this devolves into a complete flameout? Miami33139 (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe User:Tothwolf citing wp:dftt might not have been the best way to go about things, but he has brought up concerns recently that do not appear to have been motivated by bad faith. It may be best to disengage, but I don't see any blatant incivility, bad faith, or personal attacks that warrant action here.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please not the hostile language towards Joe Chill, and the accusations and JBsupreme before basing your reply entirely on my past interaction. Miami33139 (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not disengaging. Posting an alert here and then heading over to bash User:Tothwolf over the head, while simultaneously attempting to stir up additional resentment really is not going to help the situation.  Take a step back,  and disengage from User:Tothwolf (and I'd advise him to do the same if he were here).  user: J  aka justen (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide advice on disengaging. If I follow AfD, and dare to comment on anything he has ever touched, I get accused of stalking. I refuse to "disengage" if that means removing myself from public discussions based on his accusations against myself and several others. Miami33139 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you happen to come across an AfD, you should feel free to state your opinion. If User:Tothwolf raises legitimate concerns regarding your opinion, feel free to respond, but stick to the facts (and don't comment on him).  If he comments on something you don't believe is relevant to your position, don't respond.  It's really quite simple, and I think it'll make things a lot easier for you and him both going forward.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What you are failing to respond to, is that Tothwolf is accusing three editors of acting in bad faith in AfD, not just myself. I'm perfectly happy to just edit and discuss. I'm not perfectly happy to see every AfD discussion devolve to his commentary about other people's motives. That isn't addressed by "disengaging" Miami33139 (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, this comment does not comment on J's reply). Additionally, it is not to "stir resentment" to bring in the other people who Tothwolf is lashing out against, as Joe Chill brought this same issue to ANI earlier, Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. If we are to have a centralized discussion among the partipants, we need to have the participants notified of the discussion. Miami33139 (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever your intent, if the other users have concerns regarding User:Tothwolf, they are perfectly capable of addressing them without your invitation. As I've said, your best bet at this point is to give a solid course of disengagement a try.  Take care,  user: J  aka justen (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification, this most certainly is not disengaging. In fact, it would appear to be a direct attempt at engagement.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, just trying to put off another outburst like this. Miami33139 (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have tried constantly to stop Tothwolf's accusations by having civil discussions, but he still assumes bad faith and even went through my editing history to twist around stuff and use against me. Joe Chill (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to invest much time in this, but yes Tothwolf has been routinely making bad faith accusations despite our WP:AGF behavioral guideline. He is borderline stalking me, which I don't really care about, but the lame accusations do need to stop. Pronto. JBsupreme (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * | i posted this on ANI. an admin previously documented, in detail, various specific examples of tothwolf's failure to assume good faith, amongst other things. the link is on the ani thread, but must be restored by an admin Theserialcomma (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not trust you, TSC, to say "failure of good faith". -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 05:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See for a few important details that Theserialcomma left out (and would prefer not to talk about). --Tothwolf (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Tothwolf does have a history of crying "wolf" whenever anyone does something to an article that he doesn't like. If he has ever touched the article, it suddenly turns into "wikihounding", when those users had no such intentions. I think Tothwolf has thrown the words "wikistalking" and "wikihounding" around more than anyone else I've come across on WP. Tothwolf always manages to avoid any sort of rebuff for his actions, because he always manages to paint the user he is after as the bad guy. This instance is just another in a chain of continued behavior which I find completely unhelpful and inappropriate for a Wikipedia user. Honestly, it needs to stop. Yesterday. Mikaey, Devil's advocate  03:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This had nothing to do with an article. It was a revert of something found in my contributions and seems to have been what originally set things in motion. That said, Miami33139 and I did later discuss it and that issue was settled. This  also came from my contribs after I had reverted vandalism on that article. These were not isolated events. Since the discussion over this is taking place elsewhere, I don't see a reason to bring up anything else here that may potentially offend someone. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Felicia Tang
There seemed to have been an edit war over a more references tag out of all things between two users. The war was then taken to the talk page. I'm trying to mediate but I would welcome some fresh eyes to look at this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cody Judy
This can now be found at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

DrBat
This user has been blindly reverting changes (something he's been warned about as recently as last month) at the article Abomination, despite being encouraged to help rather than hinder. While this is a tad annoying, it can be worked around. What I object to is the personal attack made on myself in the form of a derogatory mock website placed in an Edit Summary in lieu of a Wiki-correct comment here. Can someone speak with him regarding this conduct? I am willing to discuss most anything but draw the line at personal attacks. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have warned the user about the personal attack. He's been here long enough, and been blocked often enough before, that he really should know better. -  Kathryn NicDhàna ♫ ♦ ♫ 04:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The user admitted to deliberately making the article "dry, didactic and hard to read" just to prove a point. How is that not trolling/vandalism??
 * And if you'd checked the user's history, you'd know he's been blocked numerous times as well and has been involved in conflicts with several editors. --DrBat (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not true, and the issue was your personal attack. Thankn you. Asgardian (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is true. --DrBat (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you've both been blocked before, for a variety of things. But I don't see trolling here, or admission of trolling. I could be missing something, as I haven't dug through both your edit histories. I don't know if Asgardian's "writing experiment" was WP:POINTy in the sense it was disruptive, or if it was just a good-faith experiment. If the edits were not disruptive, it is wrong to compare them to vandalism and trolling. DrBat, are there diffs that specifically show Asgardian making disruptive edits? -  Kathryn NicDhàna ♫ ♦ ♫ 05:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it counts as disruption, but the two most frequent complaints I have seen (and occasionally filed) regarding Asgardian are that he uses inaccurate edit summaries and reverts articles back to his preferred version, although likely he does not feel that he does either. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Asgardian said, To show the naysayers I deliberately wrote an article (Abomination) in the in-sentence style and it becomes dry, didactic and hard to read.
 * That is not "a good faith experiment." He deliberately went out to make the article unreadable to prove his point, which other editors called him on. It is these edits that I am trying to revert. --DrBat (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, DrBat, that's not a diff :-) (This is a diff:, for example.) While the citation style in that version is clunky, it's not unreadable, and some articles do use that style. Citing sources in that style is not a blockable offense or a violation of policy, it's a stylistic choice. It seems there has been community discussion and consensus on how to handle citations on these articles, so as long as that consensus does not violate policy, I think you should both stick to it.
 * Lot's o' Numbers: If there is revert-warring (either 3RR violations or a long-term pattern of revert-warring) you should file a report at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Do you have any diffs on misleading edit summaries? -  Kathryn NicDhàna ♫ ♦ ♫ 23:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Abuse from anon
This may well be an immediate escalation to WP:ANI, but I'll try here first. It's this edit, and the reason should be self-explanatory. I don't know whether it's the same anon who's been accusing other users of homophobia (see Helen Goddard AfD, above), but it makes me wonder. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Update. He/she's done it again. Any change of temporary semi-protection? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In case no-one spots it, someone who I presume is the same IP opened a spoof account and had a go on this page. Blueboy96 has indef'd the account, but I'm not sure he made the connection with this thread. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Emarsee
This user is being very manipulative and appears to be "owning" pages and bullying new users. This user attempted to incite me into making a third revision on the Broadway (Vancouver) article as he thought I was a new user. This user is posting factually wrong information. As a result, numerous pages about the road system in B.C. is now incorrect, the most glaring is the highway 7 article. I attempted to discuss this on the user's talk page, but he deleted the comment and turned around and said I was launching a personal attack. 24.86.118.7 (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You should raise this issue on the talk page of the article. To come complaining to WQA directly after making an edit like this is absurd.  Also you should notify editors when you make complaints about them, so that they are able to respond.  (I've done so for you.) Looie496 (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't done anything wrong. You're the one who is posting incorrect information regarding Highway 7. The BCMOT states the Highway is in two sections. I'm not owning any pages, I am simply correct incorrect information you are posting. This will be the last time I will be discussing anything with you directly until you change your attitude.  єmarsee •  Speak up!  00:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * More personal attacks targeted towards me. I wonder why is he spreading lies?  єmarsee •  Speak up!  04:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy (talk)
This editor went crazy or someting. Personal attacks[] [] and the last one, make your own impression. Last sentence.[] Also somewhat disruptive with editwarring povediting sillyness(?) etc. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe this dispute falls under the purview of Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, and I have formally notified both of you of the remedies in that decision, which you should read carefully. I'm not making any presumptions about which side is right here. Looie496 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In case of further problems I bring it there. Thanks for for the notice. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not turn this into a Wikipedia editor war. I got a suggestion, why not tell User:Jiujitsuguy to edit other Wikipedia articles for a change. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 13:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why you're focusing on me over here. I suggest you look below and please do not tell me which articles I may or may not edit--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Unsigned Anon
Here's what another Wiki reader wrote of Mr Unsigned Anon:

I don't know what to make of it or do with it but I analyzed Mr Unsigned Anon's contributions. I can't believe this can be seen as productive, collaborative editing! He has been here for just over a month and worked almost entirely on the issue of the Gaza War. There are few (if any) positive edits, all seem to be editing from a strong anti-Israel bias (POV) and consist mainly of removing material that has been added, with quite a lot of discussion on the talk page, but little or any of it actually calling on Wikipedia policy.

90 total edits since Sept 24, 2009 - 27 of these on just two articles (Gaza War & International Law and the Gaza War) and virtually all of the rest on their talk pages : of the 27 actual article edits, some 15 -over half of all edits were '' removals of (mostly substantiated) material or reverts.


 * 1)   -rvt


 * 1)  -- moved material to lede
 * 2)  rvt
 * 3)  rvt
 * 4)  rvt sourced material
 * 5)  rvt sourced material
 * 6)  rvt
 * 7)  rvt
 * 8)  rvt
 * 9)  rvt
 * 10)  removed material
 * 11)  removed material
 * 12)  totally reworked article called it "restructured section"
 * 13)  removed sourced material "removed israeli[sic] side exlanation [sic] that it is undue weight in lead"
 * 14)  removed sourced material "remove superfluous opinions fron not involved parts" [sic]
 * 15)  removed sourced material

I didn't even know there was such a thing as Wiki etiquette alerts, but anyway, that is the only other place besides your talk page and Roma's that he has "contributed" besides the Gaza War. Somehow I find something not terribly polite can be seen in the results of the above analysis. Again not so sure what can be done about it, but maybe something.? Stellarkid (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This fella has gone crazy with reverts and will not even entertain discussion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm... in the first edit diff is: codenamed Operation Cast Lead (מבצע עופרת יצוקה) by Israel, and called the Gaza massacre (مجزرة غزة) by Hamas, the government of Gaza, added by  or ? Can an admin please come over and cool down this "Wikipedia War of October 2009"?? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 14:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems both are at fault. Jiu, is at fault of name calling.  And Unsigned Anon is at fault of reverting materials.  Why not work together and include both materials? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 15:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise for the name-calling. Not one of my better moments. But I was distressed to see so many reverts by one lone editor over such a short period of time. Many of the reverts were directed at issues that were discussed and debated at length on the discussion and talk pages and compromise language was hammered out. The article was shaping up to be pretty good, though when it comes to Middle East, no one can be entirely satisfied. But comes along Mr Anon Unsigned and starts reverting like a mad man with out regard for any etiquette or decorum. It was very frustrating to see the long process of editing going down the toilet.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Warning Unsigned Anon for disrupting editing. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 20:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Requesting for an experienced moderator to help me here! Jiu, those edits don't seem like reversion (at least the first 3 doesn't). --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 22:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In short: A personal attack but of the more calculated kind. If needed I can put effort and commenting the editdiffs one and one but as a whole this is nonsence. The reverts that might be controversial, but explainable, (48 to 51) is duplicated. Oldest trick in the book. This is a seriuos attempt by Jiujitsu (and the editor of the editdiffs Stellarkid (talk) )to smear me and it raises further questions. Also see my answer at Tyw7:s talkpage. Regards Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User:The Transhumanist
This user has been making renaming a substantial number of pages without any clear consensus, discussion, placing information or reasons on talk pages and not informing those likely to be affected (particularly project groups).

This user now has many people complaining on their talk page, , , , , 

The last item was posted by User:Charles Matthews who is a highly respected and well known editor.

I posted an complaint, regarding the List_of_rail_transport_topics which has now been changed to Outline of rail transport. My complaint was that there had been no mention of the proposed rennaming on the talk page and that it had not even been added to the "list" (an oxymoron!) on WP:OOK. The response from this user was this.

The page isn't listed at WP:OOK yet, because it needs to be reformatted. If the name sticks, I'll be happy to reformat it. Reformatting first is problematic, as it could strand the format if the name change doesn't stick. To prevent such a problem, it is better to build a new outline from scratch with the proper formatting

This clearly demonstrates a complete lack of respsonsibility from User:The Transhumanist in that they admit that the page that they have renamed (without consensus) is not yet listed at WP:OOK, and may not even be in a suitable format!! This drive to change "lists" to "outlines" is therefore clearly premature and needs to be halted until there is consensus and the issue of "format" has been sorted out. What User:The Transhumanist has done is half-baked and is clearly making things less organised than they were.

Furthermore, at the top of this new page it states the following: "A list of topics associated with rail transport, railroads and railways.". I thought this page had been renamed to avoid using the word "LIST"!!

Worse still, having made all these moves, there is no commitment from this user to do the re-formatting required, which is utterly irresponsible. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * He also renamed List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, a highly controversial article (as should be obvious from its convoluted title, if nothing else), apparently with the intention of 'completing' it to an "outline" later on. I have difficulty trying to imagine what such an "outline" might look like. (Surely it must be less one-dimensional than this list. Perhaps a section on classification of alleged pseudosciences according to whether they really are pseudosciences or not, according to whether they are dangerous or harmless, etc? A section on notable pseudoscientists? A section on theoretical pseudoscience and another on applied pseudoscience?) Fortunately the standard reaction of the warring factions at such high-temperature articles when someone drops a stick of dynamite on it is for the factions to close ranks, swiftly remove the foreign body and attack the offender. Therefore in this case we should actually thank The Transhumanist for supporting the development of a cooperative spirit at a contentious article.
 * A stroke of pure genius was renaming List of triangle topics to Outline of triangles, and List of circle topics to Outline of circles. This is currently under discussion at WT:WikiProject Mathematics. In the course of this discussion The Transhumanist has evaded my direct question: "Outlines are controversial. Renaming lists to "outlines" is predictably controversial. We have two processes for controversial moves: Proposing them on the article talk page, and WP:Requested moves. Which of them was followed in these cases?" Hans Adler 09:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The real stroke of genius is using a list of "Outline of..." articles as an excuse for his renaming of the "Outline of triangles" article, even though it is himself who have renamed most of those examples mentioned (5 out of 7). --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are unlikely to achieve any sort of resolution here. TheTranshumanist is the most diligent practitioner of WP:IDHT I have seen on this site, and flatly refuses to comprehend that anyone with objections to this bizarre project has anything valid to say. The patronizing, in particular, is fantastically annoying. I would suggest an RfC on the entire concept, just beware of a flood of his acolytes jumping in to say--no joke--"But this has been discussed and it's good." "Lots of people have objected." "But the benefits are obvious." "We disagree." "Well since the benefits are so obvious, we'll keep going."
 * The entire project is a duplication of lists that already exist, is completely impossible to maintain, and is not IMHO in titles for which anybody would search. It's an utter waste of time, and even more of a waste of time attempting to discuss this with TT. You will have noticed this at the Mathematics page. → ROUX   ₪  13:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "It's obvious" is a completely invalid defense. If it's obvious, shouldn't it be easily explained? Sounds like misplaced vigilantism for a nebulous 'greater good'. -- King Öomie 13:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about the outline project, not The Project when you say Roux wants something deleted. Just so we get our accusations clear. -- King Öomie 14:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarified in text. -- King Öomie 14:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Kingoomieiii, the truth is, the collection of outlines is actively being improved, which invalidates the "impossible to maintain" claim. There are editors who focus primarily upon editing outlines, and there are some who specialize on a single outline, those who process the outlines with AWB and other automated tools, and a great many more casual editors who add or fix things here and there as they spot them.  The watchlist of outlines reports so many edits daily that I don't have time to read them all - that shows there's lots of maintainence going on with the outlines.  The project matches Wikipedia as a whole in this regard.
 * Roux stated that "The entire project is a duplication of lists that already exist". This is also untrue.  Let's take the outlines from the culture and arts section of the OOK for example:
 * Outline of culture •  List of culture topics
 * Outline of literature •  List of literature topics (redirects to an alphabetical index)
 * Outline of poetry •  List of poetry topics
 * Outline of critical theory •  List of critical theory topics (redirects to outline)
 * Outline of performing arts •  List of performing arts topics
 * Outline of dance •  List of dance topics (redirects to an alphabetical index)
 * Outline of film •  List of film topics (redirects to a list of lists)
 * Outline of music •  List of music topics (redirects to an alphabetical index)
 * Outline of theatre •  List of theatre topics
 * Outline of visual arts •  List of visual arts topics
 * Outline of architecture •  List of architecture topics (redirects to an alphabetical index)
 * Outline of crafts •  List of crafts topics
 * Outline of drawing •  List of drawing topics
 * Outline of painting •  List of painting topics  (redirects to an alphabetical index)
 * Outline of photography •  List of photography topics
 * Outline of sculpture •  List of sculpture topics
 * Outline of entertainment •  List of entertainment topics
 * Outline of fiction •  List of fiction topics (redirects to outline)
 * Outline of James Bond •  List of James Bond topics
 * Outline of games •  List of games topics, List of gaming topics (redirects to outline)
 * Outline of sports •  List of sports topics
 * Outline of martial arts •  List of martial arts topics
 * Outline of cooking •  List of cooking topics
 * Outline of chocolate •  List of chocolate topics
 * Outline of wine •  List of wine topics, List of wine-related topics (redirects to outline)
 * Outline of classical studies •  List of classical studies topics
 * Outline of sinology •  List of sinology topics
 * As far as I can tell, none of the outlines above duplicate another list. ZERO. It is much the same with all the other branches of the OOK. The Transhumanist  15:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have suggested that the proposed policy Outlines, related to this discussion, should be marked as failed due to the controversy and resistance found across the mainspace. See the talk page for my suggestion that it be marked as failed. Verbal chat  15:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't about that project. This thread is about TT's conduct. -- King Öomie 15:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, looking at the editing history of that project you can see that it is entirely of TTs creation. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Such as e.g. refusing to obtain consensus, refusing to answer direct questions about same, and repeatedly calling me a liar, for which he received no threats. Me, I get pissed off, and I get threatened with a block. Good job Prodego! → ROUX   ₪  15:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Though it pains me to say it, as your both experienced editors and one of whom I class as a good friend, and I know it's not my place, but if it were up to me you'd both be blocked until you could at least be civil, never mind agree. Highfields (talk, contribs) 15:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Need new editor
Please help me. I have been working on adding information to Dr. Erika Schwartz. the editor WLU deleted and edited my work and left a page with mis- information, misspelled Dr Schwartz's name, did not refer to Dr. Schwartz as a Dr, wrote incomplete sentences, incorrect grammar and deleted a significant article written by her in the Medical Clinics of North America. I do not understand why he is permitted to write and do as he pleases with no regard to a doctor's long, hard work. I would appreciate a third neutral party please.LaKr (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was the initial contributor to Dr Erika Schwartz and have been having an ongoing dialogue with WLU. He/she deleted everything I wrote, refused to discuss or explain how to make corrections. WLU informed me that Dr Schwartz, a 59 yr old doctor who has dedicated her life to helping people and has a huge media presence, has no expertise, is a fraud of a doctor and he does not agree with her as such he is deleting her information. He actually completely defamed her character on a public website. I am happy to submit my talk page to whomever can assist to see his inappropriate behavior and horrible disrespect. Please helpLisaW24 (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Having looked into it a bit, Dr. Shwartz seems like a relatively nonnotable private practitioner who is advocating for an unproven and poorly-regarded set of interventions that have minimal support within the scholarly community. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)"- this is from WLU. I cannot believe that an editor or anyone would have the right to pass judgement like this on a doctor who spends her existence for the benefit of people. SHe has authored 4 bestsellers, has a private practice with thousands of patients, writes for conventional medical journals is regarded by the medical community as an expert and this WLU just degrades it all at his whim. I am appalled that a editor such as WLU exists and is permitted to write like thisLisaW24 (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Not using titles is standard practice in wikipedia (see our WP:MOS). I agree with WLU that the article doesn't make much of a case for notability, see WP:NOTE (also WP:BIO and WP:PROF). It also needs to be neutral (including the well sourced criticisms of her hypothesis, which one of you recently removed) per WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE may also apply. The key to establishing notability and expanding the article is to propose additions on the talk page, backed up with reliable sources; WP:RS. Lastly, one of you set of a conflict of interest alert. Have a look at WP:COI and make sure you follow anything relevant there. Verbal</b> chat  15:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, it seems that both the accounts above belong to editors employed by the good doctor. They probably need advice from an admin about COI. Any takers? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I have provided extensive links to policies and guidelines and explanations on the inappropriateness of their actions, as can be readily seen on their talk page - here, here and here (the original account was named DrErikaTS). I consider my actions completely justified and firmly within the editing guidelines regarding biographies of living people, the use of reliable sources, editing by conflict of interest accounts and many others I have already pointed out to this account.  The original page, as one would expect from what is essentially a marketing team, was unsourced, full of self-promotion, and wildly off on tone.  The second edit by what I assume is another COI account was also very puffy and media-friendly, as well as being a coatrack for bioidentical hormones.  As the first posting on the talk page states, it was written like a blatant advertisement.  If I've had too much asperity in my talk page comments recently, perhaps it is due to my lenghty and detailed comments being ignored and reverted.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * don't fucking call her Dr. Erika, this isn't a talk show; rewrote to remove puffery and actual sources When experiencing early menopause, Shwartz became disatisfied conventional hormone replacement therapy and began using ...
 * Thanks Cygnis, did you have a comment to accompany this? Per my comment here, though the use of "Dr. Erika" plays extremely well on talk-show and alt-med circuit sites where it presents a friendly, informal, inviting and trustworthy image on the client-slash-salesperson, it is inappropriate on wikipedia per WP:SURNAME.  Wikipuffery is also a concern, particularly given the account in question not only shared the same name as the person in question, but were in a clear position of conflict of interest.  Above pretty much everything else, I consider the use of wikipedia as a form of advertising, sales or promotion vehicle to be contemptible and angering, hence the profanity (particularly after over a month of polite notes on their talk page).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex
 * WLU, you're right on the facts but please keep your temper. I'm sure you know that if you need help to keep from being overwhelmed, you can ask for it at WikiProject Medicine. Looie496 (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

accusations of sockpuppetry / BLP issues at Garth Paltridge
I need some help / advice dealing with an editor at Garth Paltridge.

A new editor is accused by  of being a sockpuppet of the subject. I believe it is quite wrong to be using the talk pages of BLPs to be making these accusations, i.e. it is violation of WP:BITE and it is also casting suspicion on Professor Paltridge that he's up to no good. As far as I can see it is a personal attack / assumption of bad faith to be stating that you don't believe another editor is who he says he is. I tried to remove the comment twice under WP:RPA but Ratel is edit-warring to keep it in. What can we do here? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add, the only evidence given by Ratel is a "similarity of writing style", and an "interest in Paltridge's pet subject", which are absurd accusations, as the writing style is not even remotely similar, and the so-called "pet subject" (non-equilibrium thermodynamics) is of interest to thousands. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the article's edit history and it does look like that user is edit warring to keep the category in the article without discussion; left a message on their talk page but the accusations of sock puppetry are groundless unless substantial evidence, including but not limited to similar editing contributions, are present. You may want to follow the procedure to open a sock puppet case and flag the account appropriately. -- A3RO (mailbox)  08:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * per this user violated WP:PA, user's edits will be reverted as vandalism. -- A3RO (mailbox)  08:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I am not "accusing" anyone of anything, least of all "sockpuppetry", as you well know. I asked this SPA if he is the subject, and if he is, to consider COI issues. There is nothing wrong with doing that. End of issue. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 08:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't you have any response to the diff AERO noted above? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like there are a couple alerts opened up regarding him, also on the WP:ANI and here. -- A3RO (mailbox)  02:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by ThylekShran
Thank you for your time. User:ThylekShran edited Star Trek (film) here - As neither the date nor citation date for the ref was updated, I undid his revision and noted that the cite date had not been updated.  A conversation ensued on my talk page in which ThylekShran made several comments I would consider personal attacks (note that I'm not claiming I necessarily behaved entirely properly), including phrases such as "laziness and pointless reverts" and "stupid reasons". Furthermore I directly asked him not to reply to my final comment, a request that he ignored. I would appreciate guidance on this matter, as it's my opinion that once an editor asks you to stop speaking on their talk page, the conversation should be considered over. Doniago (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Lazyness and pointless reverts?" The information reflected on the page must, must match the source. Undoing an edit that fails this is perfectly reasonable. -- King Öomie 21:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, three things: as you can see from the link provided by Doniago above, I did indeed update the access dates for the information I updated, except for one which I missed. Instead of simply contacting me or updating it himself, Doniago undid the entire edit, thus removing valid, updated information. Yes, an edit like that is called lazy and pointless. Second: at no time did I attack Doniago, I called into question his reasons behind his edit. Third: when he asked me to stop replying on his talk page, he accused me of not updating the access dates a second time when I actually did, so I felt the need to continue the discussion to correct him. Sorry, but if you accuse people of doing something wrong when they didn't, don't expect the conversation to end just because you say so, no matter whose talk page it is on. I felt the matter hadn't been settled. I settled it, and it was settled as far as i was concerned... until I got a message to come here. Now I'm being accused of personal attacks. Great, fun, thrilling. I didn't know questioning someone's reasons behind a pointless edit was considered a personal attack, but then again this is Wikipedia, you have so many rules and policies that I may have missed the one saying it's wrong to point out when someone else is wrong, or the one where it says we can't correct people when they're wrong. If such policies exist, please let me know and I'll be sure to apologize to Doniago and be on my merry way. The last thing I want is to be affiliated with a site that promotes the lack of common sense. Until then, I stand by my statement that his edit was both pointless and lazy. --ThylekShran (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I stand corrected on the matter regarding the second update to the Star Trek page which Doniago pointed out (October 4th), as I did indeed miss the same access date I missed the first time. I don't know how I didn't catch that the first few times I checked. So, Doniago, while I still stand by my statements regarding your undo of my September 29th edit, I offer a my sincerest apologies to you for stating that you were wrong about the October 4th edit and for continuing the discussion on your talk page when you asked me not to. Had I bothered to check closer and seen that you were right, I never would have left that last message. So I'm sorry for that. --ThylekShran (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * UPDATE 2: You know what, screw it, I apologize for everything. It was such a minor edit anyway, and all I needed to do is undo your undo but fix the access date. However, I do still ask that, in the future, unless it's a major mistake (like, if I didn't update any access dates), please just let me know rather than undoing the edit and I will fix it ASAP. --ThylekShran (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Thylek. Greatly appreciated, and I in turn apologize if I did not handle things with you as well as they might have been handled. We can consider this closed as far as I'm concerned. Doniago (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

MR Unsigned Anon
Mediator pulled out of agreement. Seeked third party help, which, hopefully, ended the dispute. --<font face="Lucida Calligraphy">Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 12:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This user has decided to take the conflict with Jiu to my user page. He is apparently not happy with the resolution has asked me to "investigate" the issue:

Taken from my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyw7&oldid=318571501

Mr Unsigned Anon
Hi, Tyw7. I wanted to weigh in since I just saw my contribution here. I did spend a fair amount of time on that list, but as in all things there may be (probably are) errors. I did not really expect it to be in an official forum or I would have double-checked everything. It was motivated by what I saw as a systematic attempt at removing and destroying material that had been put in by other experienced editors, and being reverted (not sure they were all technically reverts, but certainly they were in spirit) with little to no policy-driven arguments. When you remove the crux of the material that someone puts in, it essentially reverts the idea. I was really attempting to document what I was seeing, and for any mistakes I do apologize. I don't apologize for having made the attempt to document, though. MrUnsignedAnon came into the article on the 24th September with a very strong POV and went so far as to suggest to Juijits (have a hard time with the spelling, so, "Jui") (more than once) that he recuse himself from all Israel-Palestinian area editing. Frankly I was outraged by that. (will those diffs if you insist, but would be happier to move on). And by the way, I think how you handled this so far was very fair. It looks as if an important compromise has been reached in the lede as well. Not sure why, or how, but maybe you stepped in at the right moment! So, thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of help. --<font face="Lucida Calligraphy">Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 13:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you would like to be a admin. Good. Then you shouldnt answer this "weigh in" with a "Glad to be of help"! as if you agree to all statements in this above (Im afraid you got royaly manipulated by him and Jiujitsuguy on Wikiquette alerts). If I was you I should feel damn angry being used like this and make sure to go deeper investigating wtf going on. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you suggest do I investigate. I was simply agreeing to the bottom sentences to quell the arguement and prevent escalation to a Wikipedia Gaza War between you and jiu.  I'm quite inexperienced with this Gaza War article. --<font face="Lucida Calligraphy">Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 23:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You could for start investigate the list of editdiffs (the ones stellarkid compiled) and come to the conclusion that it was a load of crap. If not so redicilous I would brougt it to Wikiquette when Stellarkid put it on jiujitsuguys talkpage. And presented (by jiujutsuguy) at Wikialert it is a personal attack followed the ones I started to present there in first place. It is a false accusation, with bad intent. Manipulative to give the impression that im a editwarrior. Take a look at jiujitsuguys edithistory, the talkpage of gazawar where he neglect policybased advice from experienced editors. This say much [] and this []


 * Then the above "weigh in". Look, he got "Frankly I was outraged by that" by "and went so far as to suggest to Juijits" "he recuse himself " You saw the editdiffs from jiujitsuguy on Wikiquette I presented first? first of them:


 * "Your English is barely understandable so it's difficult for me to respond to your incoherent, illogical arguments. Again, I suggest you take a two-year English course and come back when you can articulate a coherent thought."


 * He (Stellarkid) compiled the list and state accusations here on your page that contains lies. Easy understandable if you just look at his own presented diffs. Read edit summarys, talk.


 * What happen? I get serious warnings on my talkpage (still one there). Fuck my life.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm therefore asking an experienced moderator help me out. --<font face="Lucida Calligraphy">Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 02:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * comment: This thread is related to this thread above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Jiujitsuguy_.28talk.29 --<font face="Lucida Calligraphy">Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 13:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * comment: This issue has flamed up with another usr as well:

Censorship and Vandalism on Gaza War (Operation Cast Lead)
A mutual friend informed me that you might be able to help me with a serious problem that I've encountered editing this piece. Well documented, relevant, Sourced edits are continuously reverted because they don't present a particular point of view. I'm not presenting any point of view, just well-sourced relevant material. Please go to this site and you'll see what I am talking about. I have also published an article concerning insidious censorship on Wikipedia. When accessing this site, you'll see what I mean. Any help you can extend would be greatly appreciated.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Before I even saw what the reverts were over, I see it needs full protection, so we'll start with that.  Enigma <sup style="color:#FFA500;">msg  04:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The most vile of the bunch is Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) who was already warned that he would be blocked for persistent vandalism to this site. Please go to his talk page to see what I'm referring to. Another "editor," Da&#39;oud Nkrumah (talk) accused anyone making an edit inconsistent with his views, to be an Israeli agent and working for the Israeli government and this can be found in the discussion page under the sub-heading "Garlasco" There are a few of us who are only trying to restore some balance into the artice and not turn it into a platform for any particular side. Please check out the two "editors" that I've mentioned. Thanks--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the latest drivel from Mr Unsigned Anon (talk)"Finally I found that recruitment office. Now where is jiujitsuguys bankacount so he can get that recrutbonus? Lookie new bombwest. Wonder what happen if I push this red button. Oh shii.... Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2009"
 * And the latest pearl from Da&#39;oud Nkrumah (talk) "like that because of the strong pro-israel contingent on Wikipedia. I think they work for the Israeli government myself. Da'oud Nkrumah" 03:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)
 * Something should be done about these two characters who contribute nothing except for name-calling and discourse--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Im quite tired of Jiujitsuguy (talk) way of accuse me of things. A very manipulative guy. Quite sure his editing and edit warring is a good reason you had to protect the side. "The most vile" is a interesting way of describe me as I refrained to edit Gaza War sinse both me and Jiujitsu was told to calm down for almost two days ago. See his talkpage for notes to behave [] [][] He has editwarred quite much since and neglected experienced editors policybased views.

About "the latest drivel". Its easy to say he taking things out of content in the 'most vile' way. And almost laughtable, if not trgic, when one read what is just above my sentense:

"It's good to see that we still have our senses of humor.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)" That was obviously not true... see the section here. []

Allso se this on Wikiquette [] [] [] and carfully check his responce after I desided to exit the dispute. He got help from Stellarkid (talk) :s spurious collection of editdiffs and false comments. I could go on but at whole Jiujitsuguy is very disrupive both in his way of editing article Gaza War and in false accusations like here on your talkside.

So concluded: Isnt Jiujitsuguy (talk) :s advaced bickering enough for banhammer I dont know. Stellarkid (talk)(probably the mutual friend) is not without blame in both edit warring and bickering. Please take a good look at those guys, specially Jiujitsu who had the stomach to write the above (your intervention at Gaza War but needed though)

Regards Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've tried to get this editor to read WP:NOTVAND after he several times called me a vandal, and increased his vandalism counter after I left a comment asking him to read WP:NOTVAND on his talk page. This revolves around a WP:BLP dispute, where I felt per policy it is better to be safe than sorry. If someone outside of the Polinski (sp?) / child sex row (as I was) could explain how to handle BLP disputes to him, and AGF, CIVIL, and when to call people a vandal and use the template, maybe he'll listen. I doubt it, but it's better than the alternative. I became aware of this problem following a post on WP:BLPN and then multiple accusations of vandalism swiftly followed, the one he claims on my talk page is a diff of me fixing his talk page breaking comments! <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This is maybe the 3rd or 4th page where the same group attacks me with identical false accusations, after The Wrong Version (from their point of view) of the Roman Polanski article was protected a week ago. Such gang-stalking, spamming of countless pages when their views does not get support, and harassment of other editors, is simply unaccaptable and disruptive. It was the same group who started using the vandal template when referring to other editors, despite being told not to do so by me, which have already been pointed out elsewhere. I'm not inclined to repeat what I've already said at least five times now at WP:AN/I and elsewhere. Urban XII (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Accusations of any group (involving me, at least) are unfounded - I only partly know Off2riorob from a previous disagreement (I think), and know none of the other actors, including Urban. My request here is specifically to do with improper accusations of vandalism and resolving BLP disputes. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think using the vandal template is a personal attack (and I agree unless it's use is justified), why are you using it when the edits are not vandalsim? In what way is the diff you present on my talk page evidence of vandalism? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I only used the vandal template when referring to an editor who insisted on using it when referring to me (despite being told to stop), because he provoked and harassed me. The incident on your page followed your accusation of vandalism against me which I considered totally unfounded, but may have been a misunderstanding. Urban XII (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think both of you should probably make an effort to back off at this point: when you "fixed" his comment you asked him to refrain from vanalizing other's comments - despite all indications being that he had made a good faith error when adding his own remark. That was distinctly unhelpful. At this point, the matter has been brought to the attention of third parties and you both should probably cool down and refrain from exchanging fire. It's quite evident that nobody here is engaging in vandalism and the exchange of accusations to that effect is unhelpful. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no parity of action here I'm afraid. If you look I then fixed his comments. That in no way justifies my being called a vandal, my in no way vandalistic edits being removed as vandalism, repeated warnings on my talk page for clearly not vandalism edits, and the provocative increasing of the vandalism counter. My point is this user has responded in entirely the wrong way to valid BLP concerns by making accusations, reverts, and edit warring material that clearly falls foul of BLP policy. You may be trying to be even handed but it comes across as uninformed I'm afraid, and patronising - which I'm sure you didn't intend. It's a very school-mamish method of dispute resolution. Urban's response, however, is a definite step forward. Hopefully this problem has now been addressed, Urban? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You did fix his comments. You also asked him not to engage in vandalism, when he was not. You are issuing warnings of blocks to him when you have no power to block him and are obviously conflicted. If I'm coming across as patronising it's because you imagine yourself as enforcing standards against a user who is acting unconstructively, while I believe you are one of two parties engaged in a edit war/personality clash in which neither party has much excuse for their disruptive behavior. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, of course I can issue block warnings. The user is in clear violation of several policies. Do you not think that BLP should be enforced, as that isn't the opinion on the article talk or BLPN. I was uninvolved with this editor and this topic until this incident I believe you are totally wrong, and you are enflaming the situation with your patronising attitude. Can you please provide some diffs to support your accusation against me of "disruptive behaviour"? You also apparently need reminding of several of our core policies. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not in violation of the BLP policy at all. This claim that has been repeated over and over again by your side has been refuted over and over again by an (at least) equal number of other editors. Urban XII (talk)
 * You certainly may issue block warnings, and so may he. That doesn't mean they are productive, especially since they are empty, and given that you are hardly a neutral third party, warnings coming from you are bound to inflame the situation. Unsurprisingly, they did. You accused him of vandalism for a good faith edit; unsurprisingly he did the same. Although you evidently do not agree with this interpretation and that's fine, I also believe you edit warred with Urban at the Mitterrand page. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not edit warred (see WP:3RR and WP:BLP) and my warnings are not empty, they allow another administratorr to block if the behaviour continues without having to warn again and allowing more damage to the project. They are also warnings, designed to warn about the consequences of the behaviour. They were placed correctly, well within standard wikipedia norms. I was not involved at the time and do not become involved by nature of enforcing BLP policy. Have a look at the relevant guidelines. Your accusations are really surprising, and totally incorrect. How did you think your decidedly non-standard interpretation of policy and guidelines would be helpful to resolving this problem? Instead you have enabled a problem editor who has now gone back on the good words he gave above. Have you previous involvement with this editor or this topic? I have none. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion became unproductive a long time ago. Leave it, and please refrain from referring to other editors as "problem" editors, it will only backfire at yourself. Urban XII (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've so far seen no "valid BLP concerns" at all. I've been the target of a vendetta-spree by some users today, but I have no interest in continuing a fight with Verbal. I may have been over-using the word vandalism a bit when I reverted content deletions that were not supported by policy, but this was after other editors on "the opposing side" in the Polanski-related controversy had provoked me by using the vandal template when referring to me on the Polanski talk page and attacking me in other ways, including by mass-templating not only me, but a bunch of other editors on "my" side in the conflict. My tolerance for being templated thus was low at the time. Urban XII (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not on any side in this dispute, and see WP:BATTLE. The section heading (clearly) and the editorial slant were a clear BLP concern and should therefore, by policy, be discussed. You did not engage in good faith discussion but instead editwarred, against BLP policy. I am not involved in your dispute, and you contribute to the dispute by resorting to the level which you find disruptive. That discussion is now happening and coming towards a consensus, despite continued disruption by some. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I initiated the discussion, and we are reaching consensus thanks to me. You never started a discussion, you just reverted in contravention of Wikipedia policy. Whether you like it or not, I must consider you part of this dispute. You started an edit war over the content of the article, remember. Urban XII (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I wont take your word for it that your edit, that was removed per BLP and you warred back in (and remember clear BLP removals are exempt from WP:3RR), wasn't in contravention of BLP policy. Discussion has established that it was. I had already taken part in the discussion on the WP:BLPN, and discussions on the talk and BLPN were initiated by another concerned editor. The consensus is emerging despite your continuing belligerent attitude and repeated accusations, such as your unreasonable attack on Bilby and incorrect placement of a comment that made it look as though I agreed with your rather than him. This is very poor behaviour. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat
 * It was not a clear BLP removal, it was deletion of sourced and notable content which is not exempt from 3RR. The false claim does not become true just because you keep repeating it. I've asked you to show us some evidence at the talk page to back up your claim, so far you've refused. We are reaching consensus despite your continuing edit-warring and your belligerent attitude and repeated accusations. Your accusation of "incorrect placement of a comment" is false and ridiculous, and I suggest you make yourself familiar with the manual of style. I can respond to a signed comment after the comment. Well, now I really don't intend to waste more time on this unproductive discussion with you. Urban XII (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Continued editwarring? The page was protected about 24 hours ago at my request because of BLP editwarring. The title "Peadophilia controversy" in a BLP where there is no conviction for said crime is a clear BLP issue that requires, at the very least, discussion. Also, my comment said "I agree" directly after Bilby's comment. You then, later, added your comment between mine and Bilby's, so the "I agree" came directly after your comment, which was contrary to the one I agreed with. That is clearly an incorrect placement, whether intentional or not. The indenting was also at the same level. The bulk of my accusations, I'm afraid, have been admitted by you - that you knowingly described edits and editors incorrectly as vandals. If you continue with this behaviour, and your attitude towards BLP you will be blocked - the point of all this is to try and stop that from happening. You need to accept BLP policy, even if you disagree with it. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is my last comment to you: The heading "Peadophilia controversy" did not suggest he was convicted of pedophilia as has been explained several times, besides, I never insisted on that heading. I reverted the removal of the main text of the section, supported by reliable sources. You never stated during the edit war you initiated that you disputed the heading, nor did you change it or suggest an alternative heading. The fact that our comments were at the same indenting same level is because we responded to the same comment by a third user, and also means that your comment was not a response to my comment. You are wrong, my comment was placed correctly. You've spent hours today harassing me, edit-warring without reason, and if you continue, I'm afraid you're the one who will be blocked. The false claim by you that your revert-warring was supported by the BLP policy has not been backed up in any way. You cannot use unfounded allegations of BLP violations as a free card to edit-war. It has been established that the section that you removed was not a violation of the BLP policy in any way. Urban XII (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The page is protected due to the BLP problems, the section title is problematic per BLP (confirmed per the talk page discussion, ANI, and BLPN) and discussion required if challenged, the content of the section is still causing problems (a discussion I haven't been much involved in), you repeatedly called good faith editors vandals and edits vandalism, and you edit warred in violation of WP:BLP. The moving of comments was poorly thought out but probably unintentional, and your general attitude has been confrontational and non-collegial. These are supported by the edits to the talk page of the article, your talk page, and my own talk page. More impossible accusations of edit warring today and following WP:DR isn't normally a black mark against an editor. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, this is indeed going nowhere fast. The fact that this is already at WP:ANI should have invalidated this WQA. However, there is a civility issue at play here, and it has to do with the naming of "vandals" and the use of templates. Remember, Wikipedia is not about the truth, it's about verifiability based on what the community considers are reliable sources. What I might think is a reliable source may not actually be one. Although consensus is always key, the biography of living persons policy is extremely tricky, as Wikipedia could be held to certain legal requirements. Negative issues about any living person must be very careful to meet the reliable sources, verifiability and consensus tests equally. Note: I am making no comment about the article content. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 22:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * undoing a controversial edit is not vandalism
 * repeatedly performing an edit that has already been determined to be against consensus can be vandalism
 * all Wikipedia users have the right and requirement to advise other editors about policy violations - templates were created for this purpose
 * just because a certain editor cannot block does not mean their valid warning is "empty", it takes a quick note to an admin to fulfill it
 * playing a game of template tag on each other is not simply unproductive, it's downright dumb
 * Thank you BW, this was brought here about the continued labelling of others and their edits as vandalism, which was what I wanted to address. I thought it was a separate issue, but felt I had to reply to the incorrect accusations made. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  22:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems with Wiki Libs
I am reporting the user User:Wiki libs for some specific recent reasons, and some more general reasons. This user does a lot for the cause of preventing vandalsim on wikipedia, but does even more damage for the reputation of wikipedia. The user rarely ever WP:AGF (which you are supposed to do even if you suspect otherwise), uses inappropriate langauge regularly, and forcefully reverts edits of new users/IPs when some explanation is definitely warranted. I reported libs here not long ago Wikiquette alerts/archive71, and since then, Libs has given me a sarcastic barnstar, and then proceeded to behave as before. I believe that this behavior, and blatant disregard for WP:AGF and WP:DICK does much more harm than good for wikipedia.* Has been nominating articles for deletion without notifying the authors, or posting to relevant forums/articles (as detailed in Guide to deletion) - in many cases, the authors do not notice and the article gets deleted. This seems to be a bad faith action to get pages sneakily deleted:
 * Articles for deletion/Truth and Janey
 * Articles for deletion/Cromagnon (band)
 * Articles for deletion/The New Thing
 * Articles for deletion/The Shells
 * here has done what could be considered a light form of pre-nomination Canvassing for biased votestacking, specifically targetting articles I edit heavily/created. Biased because of the language used (words such as glorious), as well as targeted for voetstacking, given the readers of that talk page.


 * Reacted to me accusation of canvassing my coming close to attempting an WP:OUTING by finding connections between keep-voters of an obscure (but notable for other reasons) band whose page was up for deletion. Regardless of the validity of their claims (Which are merely circumstantial), the posting of profiles on others sites believed to be those of wikipedia users seems to be a violation of privacy.
 * and response refused to WP:AGF and even accused an apparently longstanding and active user (who I may have even met at the NYC wiki conference) of being a new user and lame duck.
 * called an editor's completely justified actions "foolish"
 * A long meandering post full of insults and presumptions such as "'whined about my post ... cause he doesn't like like that I identified that he makes frequent mistakes (he does", "Lumi... you need to grow a sense of humour about this place or it will make you lose sleep", "The only people I truly anger here are the ones who've earned it. I know I am loved.", "that oughta say more than anything how much I love the little youngster.".
 * User talk:Kingoomieiii as reaction to the deletion discussion, and my accusations there, is (I believe) suggesting that I should be banned outright, and is involved in a wiki email conversation presumably to determine how to do that.
 * [] likewise, again, is attempting to perform a more blatant (regardless of correctness) WP:OUTING.
 * for a time, had listed some personal attacks on their user page (note that someone else, not libs, removed them).
 * Despite a conversation at User:Wiki libs/talkarchive, continues to do countless reversions with no explanation text (or notification to new users), even when the reason is not clear. A few examples:
 * 
 * ]
 * 
 * 
 * ]
 * these edits may or may not warrant removal, but they are not blatant vandalism, and their removal should be explained.

As detailed in many articles, such as, "Over time, though, a class system emerged; now revisions made by infrequent contributors are much likelier to be undone by élite Wikipedians. Chi also notes the rise of wiki-lawyering: for your edits to stick, you've got to learn to cite the complex laws of Wikipedia in arguments with other editors. Together, these changes have created a community not very hospitable to newcomers. Chi says, "People begin to wonder, 'Why should I contribute anymore?'" — and suddenly, like rabbits out of food, Wikipedia's population stops growing.. I believe libs' behavior is a prime example of the kind of behavior that is causing huge problems for wikipedia's growth and diversity, and that it needs to be investigated, if as nothing more then as an example.

Due to the attempts at WP:OUTING I am likely to cease contributing to wikipedia from this point on, as I do not appreciate the invasion of my privacy. If anyone is concerned about the future of wikipedia, and how it is percevied by vital new users, I seriously recommend further investigation (there is a lot more than what I posted here). Luminifer (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you don't want anyone investigating, maybe you shouldn't recruit meatpuppets. Just saying. -- King Öomie 21:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They are not meatpuppets, and I did not recruit them. Any commonality is concidental - it is a small world. Any claim you can make at best would be canvassing, and that is something that is more proveable in the other direction. Regardless, I do not believe that libs took the correct course of action in investigating their suspicions. Luminifer (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it absolutely absurd, and a little insulting to my intelligence, that you continue to claim that the link Libs found is a coincidence. Your username, next to theirs, in a forum HIGHLY related to the AFD at hand.
 * A forum? Libs found a user page - which I believe it is inapporpriate discuss - that only confirms that we - or people with the same handles - are acquaintances. There is also clear evidence that you, libs, and Skater are also acquaintances. I do not see the difference. Luminifer (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I used the word 'Forum' as in
 * "an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest."
 * -Referring to the profile's location at a music-based site (I won't be linking it here, knowing how you feel about it); I didn't mean to imply that it was literally an internet forum- just that not only were these users associated with *a* (christ) Luminifer, they were assosiated with... *him*... through a site intrinsically related to the AFD these same-named individuals CREATED ACCOUNTS to comment on. And the difference is that Skater and Libs arriving at the AFD didn't violate WP:MEAT-
 * "It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate." -- King Öomie 21:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree completely - although I WP:AGF when Libs brought it to the 'forum' of your talk page to discuss with 'friends'. All you have shown is that there is a possible social connection between the keep votes - but there is also a proveable connection between the delete votes up until that point. I don't know why we are debating this here, as this has little to do with the complaint against Libs. Regardless of suspicions, Libs acted inappropriately. Luminifer (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just realized you are still accusing both users of creating accounts for this purpose. I don't know how you were verifying it. While Amalthya had only one edit (from over a year ago), Mozucat has many edits over a span of over a year, and was apparently at the Wiki conference in NYC User talk:Mozucat. Luminifer (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ( This could explain the increased visibilty of the page. )Luminifer (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Kingoomieii, correct me if I am wrong... but I am pretty sure that we are not relations. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I neglected to mention the glee Libs (a self-proclaimed deletionist) seems to take in reverting and deleting things, and being rude to new users - to the point of it seeming to be for self-gratification and a power high rather than for the good of the encyclopedia. Luminifer (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to head you off and request that you not dredge up any joke edit summaries. -- King Öomie 22:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? If they are inappropriate, shouldn't they be mentioned? Luminifer (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What? I can't check on my boyfriend talk page stalkers page and vote in an AFD I agreed with? I keep my friendship with King completely seperate from my actions of wikipedia, and that vote was from my own opinion after seeing the sources, Our actions are not WP:Meat As I have been a user since 2007, it's not like king found me On another site and told me to come here. - SKATER  Speak. 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your sarcasm there (are you trying to bring your sexuality and relationships into this discussion, or are you being making fun of queers?), nor is it appropriate or helpful. Response to point 1 - I didn't actually accuse you of anything - you saw a notification and followed it, and that seems fine to me. It was the potentially strategic posting itself that is problematic. Response to point 2 - I did not find any people on other sites and tell them to come here either. Those accounts existed long before any of this discussion occurred, at least one was highly active, and there was a message sent out on the Pain Hertz myspace website that might explain the increase of visibility. However, this is not even relevant - regardless of whatever questionable actions might have been occurring, Libs' response to their suspicions was incredibly inappropriate. Luminifer (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an inside joke, the last WQA skate and I were involved in was regarding a user who called me skater's boyfriend because I intervened in a discussion. -- King Öomie 12:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Though Skater, I'd advise you stay away from inside jokes like that- they tend to make people that don't get it feel like they're not part of our 'club' (that is, a small conglomeration of users that constantly find themselves working together due to shared interests). I'd like to get to 5,000 edits before being accused of being in a Cabal. -- King Öomie 13:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you knew already... there is no cabal. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh, I always try to bring humour into situations, try to lighten em up ya know? But yes, that was innapropriate and I apologize. As for their being a "cabal" My snowballed RFA, and 2800 edits should show I'm not "highly" respected.-- SKATER  Speak. 15:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some people feel otherwise: . Luminifer (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd advise against putting too much stock in what a genre warrior thinks about a vandal-fighter. -- King Öomie 21:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you just call that IP a genre warrior? In accordance with No personal attacks, you are supposed to refer to edits, not editors. That seems like a personal attack to ::::::::When has 'reality' ever stopped an accusation? Are you WATCHING American news channels? -- King Öomie 14:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

me. Luminifer (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC) How can there be a violation of WP:OUTING when it was you who had already revealed yourself to be Alex from the band Pain Hertz? You had already outed yourself by making this information available already. 202.174.177.48 (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite warnings from others, several complains from me, and this alert being filed, Libs continues to violate WP:OUTING: . Luminifer (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 202 is correct, that information was posted on your userpage, and later removed when you expanded that page. As a result of the 'outing' at AFD, all revisions of you userpage containing that information have been oversighted (which is your right). I'm not sure how this affects the current situation, but I DO know that it doesn't retroactively make Libs pointing to it 'outing'. -- King Öomie 12:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's necessarily true. If steps were taken to hide that information for privacy reasons, revealing it could still be considered "outing" under the guideline.  That would also mean that the IP user 202.174 would also be in violation of that guideline.  Powers T 13:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I was referring specifically to Libs posting the link before it was oversighted not retroactively making that action 'outing'. -- King Öomie 13:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not see any text posted anywhere regarding a connection between my account and Alex from Pain Hertz. Can you show the diff reports to back up your claim that this information was what was OUTED previously? My original complaint was that Libs posted profile pages of someone named Luminifer that he claimed was me, which was not a direct violation of OUTING, but did make me uncomfortable. THIS NEW complaint, which is after the cleanup of my page history, involved more solid accusations about my identity. Any accusations of connections between Luminifer and Alex, as far as I can see, were made after the clean up.Luminifer (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, of course not, you had it oversighted. A link remains on my talk page, posted to Libs, and has since been emptied. I find it distressing that you're framing this as a series of false accusations- the evidence was there, and you had it removed. This "what are you talking about?" nonsense is grating on my nerves. -- King Öomie 15:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not true. I never had an oversight request entered on the AfD page. That's why all the links Libs posted are still there. As far as I noticed, no one had attempted that OUTING on the page, and I'm being completely honest with you. If you did post THAT, I did not notice it - if that had happened I might have come here sooner. I didn't have the AfD page changed, as it's in my interest to show what Libs is actually doing, since I believe the greatest good for wikipedia would come from that, and not from any articles I might edit or create. Luminifer (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You had your USERPAGE changed. This was posted to my page, an hour before you requested it be removed. -- King Öomie 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I then posted the link myself to the AFD (again, before it was oversighted) as a self-correction to my posting that you should be open with your conflict of interest regarding the subject at hand (which apparently you're committed to denying now). At the time, I wasn't aware that you were uncomfortable with that information. -- King Öomie 15:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the correct procedure to follow would have been simply to tag the page with COI (as it is now tagged), and suggest that I may have affiliations with the band. Attempting to reveal my identity, time and time again - and continuing to discuss it now, even though I have made it clear that I do not want it discussed - is still a violation of WP:OUTING, as Powers pointed out above. If there is a COI, it does not need to be explicitly defined. Continuing to try and prove my identity, despite my requests not to have it discussed, is still a violation. Even if I am who you think I am, I prefer to remain anonymous on wikipedia. Libs, and now you are still insisting on violating that preference. You have stated yourself that you know this is inappropriate, so please stop this particular aspect of your accusations. Luminifer (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually I'd say 'hindsight is 20/20', but in this case, posting a COI template and making that allegation with no evidence would surely have been met with skepticism and requests for more evidence, leading to exactly this. -- King Öomie 20:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd have appreciated an alert to this WQA, seeing as how your original posting actually linked to my userpage. -- King Öomie 13:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that its annoying to have a discussion take place about yourself without receiving notification, but Luminifer only had 5 minutes opportunity to notify you before you posted on the thread anyway, if you look at the page history you can see he spent that 5 minutes formatting his post and the time between his last edit formatting his first post and your first comment was a mere 1 minute. It seems unfair of you to bring up such a point here, we should be disscussing the subject at hand not getting side tracked on minor details. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 15:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I was in the process of notifying everyone I could think of when you'd already responded... and it's interesting that you would make that accusation to me when, when I'd made that accusation to you here, you'd defended yourself by saying "you found it well enough, didn't you?"... After making that defense, your accusation seems, well, to be in bad faith. Luminifer (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I found it ironic, is all, that I'd been berated several times for the same. I found the WQA when you posted an alert on User talk:Amalthya. It almost seemed as though I'd been left out of the loop to prove a point. -- King Öomie 15:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To prove what point? Luminifer (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "He didn't alert me, I don't think I need to alert him". Again, purely supposition. -- King Öomie 15:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I imagine you'll point out that you knew I could find this anyway, King, but I find the fact that you are completely defending Libs here, but admitting that I have some valid points on his talk page here, a little questionable. Luminifer (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I felt it more appropriate to post that there rather than here, because there was a very, very small portion of this complaint I wanted to validate. But thanks for completely ignoring that and posting it here anyway. -- King Öomie 15:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Libs is continuing with the personal attacks and presumptions about my identity/WP:OUTING at :
 * The fact that he is a member of Pain Hertz is no secret to anyone anymore.
 * . But he is only 20 years old. And suffers from extreme wiki-paranoia 
 * It's like I've told him... this project will drive you nuts unless you approach it with the highest levels of jocularity, sarcasm and oh-wellishness.
 * (mybelief: sarcasm is an inappropriate public attitude for wikipedia, espcially given the negative press it has been getting, and the fact that new users may not catch on/understand/appreciate. Libs may believe wikipedia should be treated like a game, but I do not. We also do not want to encourage wikipedia to be an environment where you need "the highest levels of jocularity, sarcasm and oh-wellishneses" - we need to attempt to prevent it from being that kind of environment, as that will severely hamper the kinds of people we can have on here, and thus the socioethnic userspace of wikipedia and the kinds of articles/information we host here.)
 * I'm pretty tired of seeing WP:BITE brought up in reference to someone maligning an experienced editor with thousands of edits. If you're going to quote libs out of context, would you mind also pulling in his responses to your complaints located not an inch above on his talkpage? Or would that suddenly become 'crossing the line'?-- King Öomie 20:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be tired of seeing that, but other experienced editors with thousands of edits, like myself, are pretty tired of seeing violations of WP:BITE drive away newcomers who are unfamiliar with wikipedia and have great things to contribute. In the past I have always tried, when I saw them, to smooth things over (such as at User talk:Rockgenre), but it would help a lot if editors would take upon themselves to _invite_ newcomers rather than yell policy at them. This is all detailed in various existing policies. Luminifer (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to quote me then quote in in proper context please.
 * "I did not use his name after he tried to hide. The fact that he is a member of Pain Hertz is no secret to anyone anymore. But I did not indicate which one."

Out of respect for you I did not use your name.
 * I respect Lumi's dedication to the project. But he is only 20 years old. And suffers from extreme wiki-paranoia (we all have at some point)"... the 'we all have'.. that includes me

Heloo.. I respect Luminifer's dedication...etc Ummm personal attack where???
 * "It's like I've told him... this project will drive you nuts unless you approach it with the highest levels of jocularity, sarcasm and oh-wellishness."

Your actions and lack of faith lately show that you should listen to these wise words of advice. Wikipedia needs dedicated editors. But an editor will only stay dedicated if they do not let the project get to them as it has done to you. Those are wise words that all new editors who want to make a difference should heed. Trust me. I have been here almost as long as there has been a Wikipedia to be here for. And I have seen a hundred excellent editors/admins/good friends leave this project forever because they couldn't handle the stress. It is why I have rejected several dozen prods to become an admin. If I did I would be roped in too tight... it would get me down... and I would leave. I have almost 30 years on you. Trust me. You don't want to be stressed out thin at 20 years old. Right King? The Real Libs-speak politely 21:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Could be my age, but I've never taken wiki so seriously that it has caused me so much stress that I wanted to leaver forever. Then again, most people my age are the same one's going around adding "Penis" to articles and then telling me how inaccurate the place is. Without my sense of humour and the fact that I occasionally get "lulz" from wikipedia, I would of been long gone. Maybe people shouldn't be so uptight aroung here...-- SKATER  Speak. 22:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm 21 myself, actually, but I know what you're getting at. -- King Öomie 22:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks/presumptions: accusation of suffering from paranoia, as well as presumptions/accusations on my gender and age which could well be seen as personal attacks. Luminifer (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We have two issues here:
 * 1. Yes, it is stressful having someone attempting to determine your real identity and reveal it during a deletion discussion. Incredibly stressful. And threatening. And a violation of policy. If you had suspicions, there were correct ways to go about researching without violating privacy policy. You went above the law/rules on this one. Luminifer (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. Stress has nothing to do with my belief that new users need to be encouraged. What I am stating here is that you (or anyone) should not be adding to anyone's stress if it can be avoided. Your reasoning lacks, well, reason. If people reading this can't see that, then my time here is being wasted anyway. Luminifer (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (In additon, libs, I'm not sure how the context helps what you've said. It's up to any arbitrators to decide) Luminifer (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't arbcom, though I'm sure you didn't literally mean 'arbitrators'. This is WQA, where all topics are open to third-party comments (even from non-admins). Me and skater are reasonably active with the moderation here, but obviously we can't function in that capacity for this one. Unfortunately, this will go nowhere until another moderator pipes up- so I suggest we leave this alone long enough for one to do so. -- King Öomie 22:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean "Skater and I". *ruler slap* -- King Öomie 22:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, with that I'll continue to watch this but will not post unless directly asked a question. Happy editing my brothers (no, I don't me /b/rothers).-- SKATER  Speak. 01:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Luminifer, putting the quotes in proper context helps everything I've said. I really can't explain it to you any better. You are lost in some sort of conspirocy theory. And it has caused you to make a grand list of complaints that were A) not valid because you only included potions of the events and not the accurate chronology of what really happened and B) confusing due mainly to A) but also to the fact that you seem to have misunderstood every single thing that every user has posted here... and on the other pages related to the AfD of articles that are connected to you personally. Everyone has tried to help you see things for what they really are and have been extremely patient waiting for you to understand. But, for some reason you do not want to accept the assistance that has been given and instead keep turning things around to try and convey a story that just didn't happen in the way that you have made it appear here. No one wants you to leave. As stated several times, by me, Wikipedia needs dedicated editors. But every editor needs to approach the project with a spirit of humour and brevity and not stone-cold seriousness and paranoia or else they will just abandon it. That is why most of the bailers have left in the past... because they took it too seriously. It's supposed to be fun... have fun with it. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Libs, even in the context you provided, the quotes look bad to me. You say that everyone has tried to help me see things for what they really are- does this include your violations of WP:OUTING that I complained of above, posting links to profile pages that might or might not have been mine, and accusations that I am a member of a band, thereby stating my identity is 1 of 6 easily found people? and continuing to do so despite many requests not to do so? and wrongly accusing users like User:Mozucat of being SPAs while in fact Mozucat is apparently a long-standing wikipedia contributor who has attended wiki conferences? does it include the countless personal attacks you have made to me over the past weeks? your assumptions of my gender and age? this has nothing to do with the matter at hand, yet you continue to make blanket statements about who you think I am - you even did this before I was supposedly a member of this band. If anyone really looks into this, they should be able to see the truth one way or the other - nobody should take action based on my accusations or yours alone, they should do research. King has requested that we leave this thread alone so that that can occur - can you please do so, and I'll do the same? Luminifer (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My reasons for leaving have nothing to do with frustration at wikipedia - I was more than willing to fight for what I believe in. My reasons for leaving are my horror at the lengths you went to in your attempts to have an article deleted - including, as we've said many times, WP:OUTING and accusations/personal attacks to myself and everyone else involved in that deletion review. Particularly your attempts at WP:OUTING, though, make me feel that it is unsafe to contribute here further. If you will go to those lengths, what will someone else (or you, in the future) do? I'm leaving for my own safety. Luminifer (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding "wikipedia is supposed to be fun", no, it's not. It should be fun, but it is a very serious venture, with very serious real-world and legal implications. This is why the changes re: BLPs discussed recently will be introduced. It is not just fun, and even if it is fun, it doesn't mean you should resort to name calling, generalizations, etc. Luminifer (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One final point - it's hard not to see you (libs) as being a little two-faced. Here (just a few lines above this comment I'm writing now), you state " No one wants you to leave....", yet here  you state "Lumi has the ability to make grand contributions to Wikipedia. But the drawer should stay shut at all times.", which seems to imply to me that you'd like me to be permanently blocked. I don't see another way to interpret that text. Luminifer (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean that at all. How do you even get that out of that statement??? That says
 * Luminifer has the ability to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia but hopefully without any of his work regarding Wiki-process (like AfDs) tainted by having his internet friends adding a suspicious haze to what would otherwise be a simple Wiki-maintenance procedure.
 * Your reputation was already tainted enough with the meat-puppetry investigation looming over the sour voting procedure at the PH AfD. I wasn't going to repeat it again on King's talk page and have your name drug further into the mud. So I put it into vague speech that King would understand.. but that anyone else eavesdropping would simply ignore. Ignore that-is until you, once again, went and made up some false soap opera about something that was rather simple... and, on top of everything else, in your defence?!? The PH AfD screamed of meat-collusion. It would have been a forgotten subject had you not re-dug it up for all to see in your post above. I'm flabbergastigated?!? You seem to forget that, even though all events pointed to doing a checkuser, no one, myself included, ever formally requested one on you and your internet friends. You explained yourself and everyone quietly AGF'd it. AGF'd it even though the evidence almost forced that one should have been done. But one wasn't. I know I certainly didn't fill one out. You really need to take a breath and think... there is NO conspirocy... there is NO cabal... this is just a hobby... You'll end up having a stroke and Wikipedia will have lost another regular editor. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please calm down, in accordance with the tag associated with this request. What you've just typed is not really an accurate description of what happened, nor does it even seem to be consistent with itself - as you pointed out just now on my talk page, but I was avoiding pointing out because it didn't seem appropriate. How is a checkuser warranted if the accusation is meatpuppeting and not sockpuppeting? How were you AGF if you constantly complained about the meatpuppeting, and in fact went and asked some other users how to get the suspected (but not proven) meatpuppets stricken from the discussion entirely (here )? Wikipedia policy in fact acknowledges that meatpupping is in incredibly bad taste, but the AfD policies account for that in the way an admin is supposed to tally the votes. "A close variation is to enlist "meatpuppets", people from outside Wikipedia to "run in" (for example, if my article about a web forum is up for deletion and I post a call for other forum members to "help keep our website in Wikipedia"). Signs of these tactics are that a contributor's account was created after discussion began, that a contributor has few edits or that a contributor's other edits have been vandalism.... ... Because of our past problems, opinions offered by new or anonymous users are often met with suspicion and may be discounted during the closing process. This decision is made at the discretion of the closing admin after considering the contribution history and pattern of comments. In practice, civil comments and logical arguments are often given the benefit of doubt while hostile comments are presumed to be bad-faith." (from Guide to deletion). I should point out that neither of those two accounts User:Amalthya nor User:Mozucat actually fit that description exactly - and of the two, only Amalthya is suspicious (few edits) - Mozucat has a long contribution to wikipedia and has apparently attended conferences. This is all completely irrelevant; regardless of what I, or anyone else did, or what you think anyone did, you acted inappropriately based on your suspicions - and this is not a single occasion where you did so. Luminifer (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm?? You have me confused again Luminifer. Calm down from what exactly? My previous post is 100% calm. It is 100% obvious that there is 0% anger in that post (it was written while I was laughing and playing with my dogs... they make it impossible to be angry) How did you misunderstand yet another post and get anything other than the clear correction of your earlier misunderstanding and, as always, helpful advice on how not to have a Wiki-stroke. Somehow you missed the point again. We'll keep this clarification short... hopefully you won't misunderstand it or read something complicated into it when it is clear that there isn't. The Real Libs-speak politely 07:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you saying it's calm and rational does not cause it to be read as such by me. However, this is a particularly useless discussion to have, so please do not respond to this comment I am posting right now. Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we sit and let this be parsed by a willing neutral observer now? Luminifer (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing- Mozucat has been referred to three or four times as an editor with a 'long history'. And to that I say "Eh". -- King Öomie 14:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you bringing this up after many requests (including, I think, some from yourself) to let this WQA sit and be read? It doesn't even have anything to do with the points at hand, and I'm sure any neutral observer would check my links to see whether they agree or not. I never said 1000s of contributors, but this is clearly not a SPA, and clearly someone who is actually involved on some level. Luminifer (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One from myself. In this case I felt a clarification was in order. Am I going to have to explain ALL of my edits to you? -- King Öomie 15:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, calm down... Let's just let this sit a while, ok? Luminifer (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Blantant arrogance and rudeness typifies the character that I have come to know as Wiki Libs - The Real Libs and possibly others that might possibly have awarded barnstars to themselves. The user is very intelligent, has a great/dry sense of humor, and I appreciate him or her in some ways. I have examiined some of the numerous edits and many have been appropriate.  I have even learned about how to make an article more encyclopedic from the user.  However, some edits (now that I am learning the rules) have not been appropriate in that there is a repeated editing of sound materials without commenting or responding to comments, coupled with ongoing rude, offensive comments makes the barnstar bragging smell like the stuff on the floor of barns.  With a change of mind to become more polite and, at times, more open-minded, the user could be one of the best.  Without the change, the user could discourage many great editors and editors with potential to become great from participating in Wikipedia.--Smoovedogg (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the interest of helping illustrate here:
 * "Wiki attracts freaks, losers, a**holes and immature babies like a magnet. Good editors like you just have to remember that the project doesn't improve with editors like them... it only improves with editors like you. " (note the hateful language attached to a compliment)
 * "Do librarians do that? I thought they just sat in front of their little narrow file drawers thumbing through endless ranks of 3x5 cards. They worship a great God named Dewey. Oh... and they all wear those black framed glasses that have the strings attached to the sides and the string wraps around behind their necks." (inappropriate possibly sarcastic criticism/joke about librarians)
 * Smoovedogg, if you have more like this, this is how you should document it. Luminifer (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Smoovedogg is now indefinitely blocked . I'd just like to add that I too am extremely offended by his shameless, abhorrent lighthearted poking at fictional librarians. For shame, libs. For shame. Now that you've informed the entire encyclopedia of this WQA, Lumi, I expect we'll hear more in short order. -- King Öomie 06:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unblocked with assistance from Luminifer. -- King Öomie 19:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there relevance to mentioning "help"? (If by help you mean asking for clarification on the user's behalf). Luminifer (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: re: newest series of misconceptions posted above. A) My first comment was truthful not hateful (you'd be hard pressed to find a veteran editor who doesn't already know that little tidbit) and B) My nickname is Libs. It is not a name I chose for myself. It is the friendly nickname given to me by a group of administrators back in the my days as an anon IP editor. Do you know why they chose to nickname me Libs? It is because I spend my days in a library... sometime multiple libraries in a single day. I own a consulting company contracted to manage and maintain the library services of several Universities. My office is in the main library of the campus I frequent most. I am the uber-librarian. There was nothing inappropriate about my post. It was a joke. It was funny. The only thing funnier... was that it was added here to this discussion in the manner in which it was posted above. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. That post was really, really reaching. I take it the large picture on your userpage is actually your domain? -- King Öomie 13:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * An opulent representation of my domain(s). I have several University libraries under my control... plus every faculty on every campus maintains their own library as well... again... all under my thumb. None are quite so pretty as the one on my page... we don't have the dome... but the picture represents what a "typical" would look like (plus its free-use). I didn't put that picture on my userpage. An administrator did... long before I actually started using the account. In my work as a lecturer/guest speaker I have visited many grand libraries throughout the world. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Library of Congress? -- King Öomie 13:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I am only 7 years from my retirement. Perhaps before I take my shingle down. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, you know, only the largest library in the world (and therefore our largest weapon against claims that all Americans are ignorant stooges who can't even read maps). No biggie. -- King Öomie 14:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The two reasons why Canada only maintains a military 1/10th the size of the American military... 1) Americans can't find us on the map any ways and 2) In the freak event that they do... 1/10th just keeps it a fair fight. :-D haha!The Real Libs-speak politely 14:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this. Sorry, can you find Canadiastan for me? :P -- King Öomie 19:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get the "used to" part. The Canuckle Arctic Circle is loaded with silos. Sure we don't own them (we just rent the land out to which "red" space makes the highest bid for use).. but it doesn't negate that they are there. The highest bidder gets a years supply of caribou steaks. Mmmmm yummy! :-) The Real Libs-speak politely 19:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The graph refers to military or governmental control. I'm sure that area is chock full of armed guards. -- King Öomie 20:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to say that it is not safe to assume that everyone reading a joke like that will know all of your background and be guaranteed to take it in the right way. I think it's even safe to assume that given your background it's still not clearly "merely" (if that can be said of your comment) a joke. (Never mind that it being funny is a completely subjective claim). Again, though, this is all up to the interpretation of any mediating peoples reading this, and that's how it should be. Luminifer (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that this quote from Jimmy Wales on the front page of wikipedia highlights exactly the problem that I think is being exacerbated by this kind of behavior: " While hundreds of thousands of volunteers have contributed to Wikimedia projects today, they are not fully representative of the diversity of the world.". Luminifer (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Smoovedogg seems to have restarted activity here - I suggest again that we leave this alone for now. (.. in case someone accuses me of intentionally bringing the user into the particular alert: when I mentioned WQA to that user, I had thought that they might start their own complaint regarding whatever was going on, not add it here...) Luminifer (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If any librarians were offended, let's hear from them. Barring that, I'd prefer to write that complaint off as looking for problems. That comment was so pedestrian, so obviously facetious, that I can't even comprehend someone actually finding it offensive. -- King Öomie 01:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we poll librarians on wikipedia to determine if it is an offensive statement? The fact that (perhaps) no librarians are monitoring this or libs' talk page does not mean it could not be conceived as an offensive statement. I don't think that's necessary - again, I state that I think it is inappropriate for wikipedia, for the reasons I go into above. You think that it is. Isn't that all there is to this? I don't appreciate my attempts to prevent new users from being alienated, and in fact bringing up statements that I find to be in bad taste "looking for problems". Luminifer (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would you even pose that question? It's absolutely ridiculous. I'm saying that at this point in the alert, you're now combing Lib's edits for anything you find even potentially offensive to anyone and adding it to the pile here, hoping to entice someone to respond. I'm saying nothing about new users, and I don't know why you keep bringing it up. It's completely irrelevant here. -- King Öomie 04:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would I pose that question? I could ask you (but did not) why you keep reactivating this, usually immediately after my requests to let this thread sit for a while. I asked that questions because, if you'd read my primary reason for complaining, it is not entirely about me, but about how new users are generally affected by these sorts of actions. Many people are more easily discouraged than I am - but we do not WANT to discourage them - at least, it seems like Jimmy Wales does not. Luminifer (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (additionally, those two quotes I posted were in direct relation to the interactions between libs and smoovedogg, and thus were relevant) Luminifer (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if I posted the complaint in the wrong place. I didn't mean to stir things up here.  I have read through all of the above and admire all three contributors for their brilliance.  I mean this sincerely.  You are all very talented.  I also marvel at Lum's tenacity in the face of two other clever talents in opposition to him.  It would be easy for one to be discouraged/frustrated and quit, as Libs mentioned above.  But something inside drives one who has solid knowledge about a particular topic or topics to persevere.  And if one believes that another is being unfair, you do your best to bring that offence to justice and alert others who appear to have been the subject of similar action so that they can proceed in the same manner.  I am so green at how to proceed with complaints (although I have a keen legal mind - please do not misconstrue this as threatening legal action because I am not - I am just stating that I have a keen legal mind), I sit back and marvel at how well you know the policies and abbreviations, etc.  I will do my best to learn (with the limited time I have) and hope that Lums and other fine editors drop in on my edits (and the at times unjust reversals made, often without commenting or responding to the comments that justify the original edit) to help ensure that users are properly working the system.  I have been aware of users that have broken the rules of Wiki, so if keen individuals with more experience help watch the conduct of others, they will be caught in their own traps.  I have faith that they will begin to be more open-minded and play by the rules, believing that they are editing in good faith and not playing some sick, twisted mind game.  Please forgive me if this seems naive (maybe I not aware of all that I should be at this point) but imagine if we four users teamed up to help each other in our contributions to WIKI!  My sincere hope is that we use our energy in positive ways in the future, collaboratively, rather than in battle.  I guess we'll see if this is possible based on the coming responses and based on future conduct.--Smoovedogg (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "re-activating"? Would you prefer I mark it stale and wait for it to be archived? (Actually, I think I would). It's become apparent that outside involvement is not forthcoming. -- King Öomie 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a little difficult to get involved if people keep adding to the thread, isn't it? Luminifer (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently, all of the people who've commented so far have had no problem at all. Do you suggest we leave this alone another two full days? -- King Öomie 13:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify that I agree with Lums opening paragraph regarding this topic, based on personal experience with the conduct of the user in question. I am hoping that there is appropriate followup, or failing appropriate intervention, that the user will at least make a decision to become more responsible and willing to follow the WIKI rules in the future.--Smoovedogg (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's clear that this is going nowhere, Might I suggest just calling Truce and calling it a day?-- SKATER  Speak. 18:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is clear that this is going nowhere, I agree. I had actually given up and left wikipedia, but upon checking a wiki page, I had seen an update on my talk page, where King Oomie came very close to what I consider harassment (by a: ignoring my request at the top of the talk page, b: joining in a conversation that they were not involved in simply to accuse me of "not getting it", and c: misrepresenting/misunderstanding my grievances yet again) here: ... This causes me to notice further demonstrations that Libs is not even concerned that some people find their behavior inappropriate, such as:
 * : libs attempts to make fun of my typo, and then implies (wrongly) that if I had typed it as intended, it would be a personal attack. In fact, I did not say that Libs is inappropriate, I said that some of the edits/behavior was. I do not believe that this is a violation of that policy.
 * here, Libs was asked by an IP to explain yet another unexplained reversion that they did, which I agree seems unwarranted. The reversion was not a reversion of clear vandalism, so should have had an explanation as to why it was reverted. Libs does not seem to have responded as yet to the question. Removal of unreferenced text is, I believe, always an option on this site.
 * Regardless of these complaints - provided for anyone who cares - I have seen no reaction from anyone who is willing to explain to Libs why Libs' behavior in these situations does not help the wikipedia - I've only seen a few people agreeing, and Libs' wiki acquaintances coming to the defense.. So again, I'll try to leave, and hope no one gives me another reason to post here. Luminifer (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't even describe in words how very tired I am of this habit you seem to have of piling on every tiny, tiny thing. I figured the top bullet didn't apply to commenting to a point you just made, apparently I was wrong. I completely and entirely stand by my comment, regardless of the flagrant misinterpretation and problem-seeking you've thrown at it. You continue to bring up the same debunked points, insisting we've missed something (and you continue to link people here at every opportunity- "Oh, by the way, apropo of nothing, I'm retiring due to privacy concerns, come help me spank the bad guy here").
 * So yes, this WQA is completely stalled, in no small part due to your method of attempting to sandbag people by linking half a dozen diffs of completely insignificant incivility (And I'm sure I'll see the diff for THIS at some point). -- King Öomie 13:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no point to this. You accuse me of doing what it is that you actually do - there are more nitpicky references to MY behavior, posted by you, here than there should be - especially considering this isn't a WQA about me. This WQA is not only about a huge grievance (which it IS), it's about the small thigs too, that add up cumulatively to a huge negative effect on wikipedia. If you have accusations of canvassing, please make them in the appropriate forum. Your constant accusations of me (and others) of various behaviors in the wrong forum could easily be seen as problematic, and trying to sway people to believe your accusations without actually going through the proper channels. Please, this WQA is apparently closed - why are you still posting to it? Just to prompt me to respond to an already-closed WQA? Luminifer (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * More then there should be? According to who, you? You opened the gate on this, and you don't get to dictate what we can and can't post. I said the WQA was stalled, not closed.
 * And no, I'm not trying to goad you into posting. But I think this is the fourth time you've commented about me and immediately followed it up with "Don't post here again". That's not your call on this page. 'Huge grievance'? Laughable. A GOOGLE SEARCH RESULT (easily acquired by anyone- and yet to be removed by anyone, despite it being in your power to do so) showing a clear, obvious link between you and two almost completely inactive votes for your side of a debate, immediately after you accused Libs of canvassing by speaking to one person. After your persistent explanations of how those people could possibly have found their way here without your input, and your ABSOLUTELY INSULTING lawyerspeak over whether the obvious link was even really YOU (or them), I don't trust you any farther than I can throw you.
 * Oh, but WHAT IF all this happened to a new user? WHAT IF a new user asked his friends to come help him out, and repeatedly accused his opposition of the same in a variety of aggressive and passive-aggressive ways? WHAT IF a new user stretched the definition of Wikilawyering to its absolute limit? Well, they'd be banned. That's what would happen.
 * But that's NOT what happened, so I'd appreciate you dropping the idealistic mantra. -- King Öomie 16:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to assume that the only reason you keep posting here is because you actually think that my points are valid - if that were not so, why would you be "wasting your time" responding? I _would_ appreciate if you stopped the unproveable accusations of (what? is it sockpuppetry? meatpuppetry? canvassing? you've used all three words to describe the same set of users), and stop accusing both users of being inactive. I will ask you this : what is the point of you constantly bringing it up? Is it an attempt to defame me? To prove that I shouldn't be listened to? That's irrelevant - if I'm the worst wikipedian in the world, if I have a point about something, I should be listened to... One should comment on content, not users. So what _was_ the point of those paragraphs you just posted, other than an angry response? (Please try and be civil as per the tag). Luminifer (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You could assume that, but you'd be wrong. I'm not going to simply stand by while you lambaste people I've worked with, especially not with overblown complaints and hyperbole. And if you're looking for me to drop the unprovable accusations, I request you do the same. Which requires closing this thread, actually, as many of your accusations go to malicious intent.
 * I quite specifically and deliberately referred to those users as "almost entirely inactive", actually. And I'd call them a combination of canvassing (using your definition, talking to one person) and meatpuppetry- users, at your behest, logging into old, almost completely unused accounts to support your side of a debate. And in fact, I DID bring it up to make the point that I don't trust you. But you should already know that, because at the end of that sentence, it says "I don't trust you".
 * Comment on content, no contributors. Well, THERE'S one you haven't whipped out yet. That only applies to content disputes, or else this page wouldn't exist, its sole purpose being to comment on contributors. The POINT being, I'm fed up with you. Was that hard to figure out?
 * I have a question, actually- now that your direct request for an investigation (including handy link to this page, with a request to comment, this is new) has been denied, what's your plan? -- King Öomie 17:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Some responses:
 * Your tone once again is very heated, your facts are skewed, and I don't believe any of what you just said says anything constructive. Anyone who wants to find the facts can find them in this WQA - you don't need to keep misrepresenting them.
 * Once I am sure that this WQA will amount to nothing (and I am reasonably sure it will, now), as I've said, I'll leave wikipedia, due to harassment, outing, disillusionment, etc.
 * Finally, I want to point out to anyone reading this, this conversation: ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiki_libs#WQA
 * Among other things (including attempts at attacks guised in AGF descriptions), Libs claims that the WP:OUTING is completely false. There are two sides to this: first, if my identity was supposedly listed in my user page history (as claimed - I don't feel it's appropriate to acknowledge the truth of this claim given wiki policies), then it was not an easily accessed piece of information. Libs displaying it draws attention to who I might potentially be in a very major way. This can also be said for the posting of social networking profiles belonging to 'luminifer'. Regardless of literal rules, these seem to be against the spirit of outing. Given that my user page history currently has no indication of my identity, Libs continuing to mention who Libs thinks I am, and draw attention to it, is further violation (as someone commented elsewhere here).
 * I do agree that further discussion here is pointless, as there should be more than enough for someone to assess the situation and do whatever they see fit, so I will not respond (though I expect others to respond, I will not respond to them, so bear that in mind.) It does not matter if you, or anyone trusts me or not. The diffs are all listed here for anyone who cares to look at them. Luminifer (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, your edits to your own userpage are few enough that it takes about 20 seconds to read them all. Popups FTW.
 * Also, your claims of misrepresentation are both misplaced and ironic. But if you don't intend to post here again, that's fine by me. -- King Öomie 18:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate claims at MfD

 * Drama containment; let's keep this all on a finite number of pages. Jack Merridew 04:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Jtrainor: "Ottava Rima has a history of harassing Bishonen and this is just more of the same."
 * Unitanode: "Disruptive in the extreme, and little more than an excuse for Ottava to take out his anger on Bishonen".

Users claim I have a history of harassing Bishonen in this way and that I am doing this out of anger without any evidence or proof. This is part of their rationales to delete, which is inappropriate to make without evidence. I have asked these individuals to provide proof to the claim, and asked those who made similar claims at ANI to do the same, and no one does nor do they retract their claims. I believe these accusations fall under CIVIL, fail AGF, and are difficult communication that needs a third party. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Inappropriate closure restored, the close was not in process nor appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is where Jack Merridew makes it clear they were involved in the matter, so their closure is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * SarekOfVulcan has attempted to close the thread while being involved in the same dispute. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Advice needed
I've been involved in a content dispute with a few other editors on an article related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a couple weeks now. We don't all disagree, but there are several points of contention, making the dispute resolution process more complicated than usual. I'm not here about that dispute. I'm here to ask for some advice on how to best handle the comments recently made by one of those editors. I don't want to name that editor, because this is much a question about myself as their comment, and I'm not looking for any sort of punitive outcome - just advice.

The discussion is surrounding a video shot by a Palestinian journalist in the Gaza Strip, and an interview they did after shooting the video. The user's comment that drew my attention was: "In the Arab media, the 'truth' is more about storytelling than about minute facts and I've seen a video, I think on the 2nd draft website, where an Arab reporter is showen to clearly distort a story, and then he says he told 'the truth' without any semblance of emotion that he would fail a lie detecting examination." I told the editor that I considered the comment to be racist, at which point they apologized to me, adding ''"I've seen a brilliant documentary made by two Arab-Israelis from Yafo about the very same issue. They go around making up funny stories about buildings and discuss about the truth and in the same time, they dedicated the film to the Jenin 'massacre', which was a Palestinian fabricated news story. I also saw an interview with the director of this film, who agreed with the interviewer when asked if its fake stories but he also said that it wasn't intentional to dedicate the film to Jenin. He said that to them - saying that there was a massacre in Jenin is the truth and that they didn't intend to suggest that it might not be with their film (which is made up stories)." (Side note: One can read more about the Jenin massacre here) . I explained that they hadn't offended me personally, but that labeling someone a liar because of their race is never a good idea. They responded that they hadn't labelled anyone a liar, but that "Arab media have a different cultural perspective on storytelling, which is a researched cultural observation." I noted that I was concerned, despite their apology, that the user didn't see (what I view as) the racism inherent to their initial statement, which I consider to be stereotyping based on race, and dehumanizing (per the phrase "without any semblance of emotion"). The user replied that they weren't making the statement because of the journalist's race, but that "I'm sure that there's nothing controversial or racist in saying that reports from the Arab world about Israel are mostly exaggerated. If you disagree with this, you must be putting your head in the sand... this is not a race-specific issue but more of a cultural norm between two nations in conflict... maybe the novelty here is that I suggested that people who are part of the culture, honestly believe that they are merely reporting the truth." I expressed my dismay with the editor's failure to recognize how their statement stereotyped Arab journalists, asking them to consider how insulted they would be if someone had made a similar statement about Israeli journalists, to which they replied that I shouldn't "read some hidden bad faith agenda" in their comments. Another editor involved in the dispute chimed in, sarcastically (and probably unhelpfully) saying: "So we have finally reached the principle that underlies this... all Arabs are liars, therefore the Arabs are lying about this incident. Glad that's now out in the open." The other editor responded that the discussion had gotten off topic (it had), and that it much ado about a small note to another editor that "the Palestinian cameraman may have enhanced the story a bit, which fits a generic Arab press storytelling culture that is not even handed when it comes to Israel."''

So, this brings me to the crux of the issue. I still view the editor's initial statement as racist stereotyping, and I'm more alarmed by their subsequent statements, which, while spiced with the occasional apology, mostly reaffirmed their initial statement. Am I off base here? ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 13:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on the above text, and obviously not having any background info or knowing who the other editor is, I would say you are, in fact, off base. Saying Arab news has an anti-Israel POV is not at all racist; saying the Israeli news has a pro-Israel POV (or anit-Palestinian if you prefer) is not racist either. Those statements are simple facts. It is a common characteristic that if someone belongs to a group, be it a national, cultural, racial, religious, etc. group, that they tend to write more positively about their own group than they do a group directly opposed to them, or antagonistic with their group in some way. Noting such is absolutely NOT racism. It also is not racism to describe studies which support the charge that Arab news agencies have fabricated stories, assuming there is evidence to back up those claims. It is also not stereotyping anything if they support their statements with evidence (as it seems this editor did). It would only become stereotyping if the editor said something like "Arab journalists have been known to fabricate stories, so we shouldn't use or consider anything written by them." The editor you describe did not inject racism into the debate, from the above description. Your charges of racism, which you persisted with even after the editor tried to explain themselves, inflamed the situation. The "dehumanizing" charge also seems off base since it appears the editor who said that, based on the above provided text, was describing how the reporter presented the information, and was not a description of the reporter himself. I suggest not jumping to conclusions about racism, and not persisting with such charges after someone explains their reasoning. Mere mention of a group does not automatically equal discrimination, bigotry, etc. so it would be best in the future not to treat others as if it does.  The   Seeker 4   Talk  14:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the outside view Theseeker4. If you read the editor's initial statement, they didn't say that the Arab media was inherently anti-Israeli (something I would tend to agree with), they said that the Arab media was known to distort and fabricate stories. The editor did say there were studies to support this, though they didn't provide any. They linked to this website (I don't totally understand what it's supposed to show), and to three videos from a website that promotes something called Pallywood, a term used to describe allegations of Palestinians staging massacres or killings. But again, these weren't studies showing that the Arab media distorts stories, just allegations others had made. Regarding the dehumanizing statement, it's unclear to me if the editor was describing what was reported in the video, or their opinion of the reporter himself (as they didn't provide the video, just their assessment of it). I regarded the first portion of their statement to be relaying what they saw in this video, while the statement "without any semblance of emotion that he would fail a lie detecting examination" sounded like a personal assessment to me. To be clear though, I didn't allege that the editor was racist, just that the statement struck me as racial stereotyping. But thanks for your feedback. ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 15:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I accept that explaination. As I said, I had no links, so I was unable to assess the validity of the editor's claims. If the editor also has a history of race baiting or actual stereotyping as Tiamut says below (assuming the editor in question is who he thinks it is, and I have no reason to believe otherwise) then I accept that the editor may, in fact, be pushing a racist POV. Again, I only could go by the quotes you provided above, which is what I based my opinion on. Considering the editor has been sanctioned by Arbcom I suggest Tiamut's recommendations are the best course of action. Good luck. The  Seeker 4   Talk  15:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Without even checking into the edit history, I could tell who the editor was, based on my previous interactions with him. He has a long history of making remarks that skirt the boundaries of, and in my opinion clearly cross the line into, racial stereotyping when it comes to Arabs. For some reason, people seem to accept all kinds of shit when it comes to dissing Arabs that they would never countenance about other groups. Imagine for example if I wrote: "In the Latino media, the 'truth' is more about storytelling than about minute facts and I've seen a video, I think on the ___ website [fill-in-the-blank with some anti-Latino advocacy group], where a Latino reporter is showen to clearly distort a story, and then he says he told 'the truth' without any semblance of emotion that he would fail a lie detecting examination."
 * I would urge that other uninvolved editors re-read the quotes excerpted by George above and dig a little bit more into the history of the editor making the statements (User:Tiamut/Jaakobou) to get a sense of how this is a pattern in his engagements with Arab editors. In fact George, I think you should file a report at WP:AE, since Jaakobou has been sanctioned for similarly disruptive talk page behaviour previously.  T i a m u t talk 15:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just one note Tiamut, I disagree with the assertion that "people seem to accept all kinds of shit when it comes to dissing Arabs" as my comments above were directly relating to the Israli/Palestinian conflict. It is simply a fact that both the Arab media, and the Israeli media favor specific POV's. This statement is not anti-Arab any more than it is anti-Israeli. As to the evidence of fabrication, I stated above that I did not have links to analyze so I would be unable to know when I wrote the comment that the cited evidence was from an anti-Arab site. Try to assume good faith please. The   Seeker 4   Talk  16:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, your comments are related directly to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but Jaakobou's (as excerpted by George above) are not always framed so carefully, and you seem to have missed that. Take this statement for example: Arab media have a different cultural perspective on storytelling, which is a researched cultural observation. This is not about how Arabs may be biased against Israel in their reports due to a history (and present) of conflict. This is about how Arab media has loose connection with the truth in general, based on a different cultural perspective of the truth, implying that its okay to tell stories without basis in reality as part of media reporting in the Arab world. That's simply untrue. We have journalistic standards just like everybody else in the mainstream media outlets. Such a statement, particularly when totally unsupported is racial stereotyping. And harping on it over and over again on the same page after people tell you they are offended by it, is tendentious and disruptive.  T i a m u t talk 16:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you guessed correctly Tiamut. Jaakobou and ChrisO just did finish off over at WP:AE (Jaakobou reported ChrisO here; ChrisO was the other editor with the sarcastic comment towards the end of my first post). I'm really unsure what to do here. As I had stated in that enforcement request discussion, I just don't know how there is ever going to be a consensus on that page, with editors entrenched in polar opposite viewpoints. There's this odd cycle of apologizing, promising to tone it down and be civil, followed by conspiracy theories and more heated debates, and it's been going on for weeks. This sort of thing makes it nearly impossible to come to consensus on anything. And I'm not sure that yet another enforcement request will accomplish anything - in the last one, both editors just agreed to tone it down, and it was closed shortly-thereafter. There was recently an attempt at a quick mediation, which also fell apart. Apparently they have quite a history together, so maybe I should just let them try to work it out amongst themselves? ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 16:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that an enforcement request linking to diffs of the statements you provided above, and the diff to the prior AE enforcement request I linked above would be enough to get the attention of some admins there. This is a chronic problem with Jaakobou. I was planning on filing a request about a month ago and amassed some other info at User:Jaakobou, some of which is also relevant. If you want help drafting the request, I'd be happy to draft something tonight. I'm tired of having to deal with these off-topic rants that contribute to a toxic editing environment and would like to see them dealt with more definitively.  T i a m u t talk 16:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Alright, I agree with you about Jaakobou now that I know who George was referring to above. You seemed to be referring to me (in that your comment was directly below and in response to mine in this thread) which is why I took exception with your comment about "people seem to accept all kinds of shit when it comes to dissing Arabs". I am not disagreeing with you regarding Jaakobou, I simply took your comment quoted above as being directed at me, which is what I was responding to above. Again, I agree with your assessment of Jaakobou's behavior. The   Seeker 4   Talk  16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I offended you with the comment. It stems from my frustration with the lack of action on Jaakobou's behaviour when it is brought to the attention of others time and again. (Contrast for example against what happened to User:Epycwin this last week, but that's a whole other story.) Of course you didn't have enough information then on the editor's history and the context of the discussion. Thank you for your revisiting of this issue. No hard feelings I hope.  T i a m u t talk 16:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no hard feelings; I simply wanted it to be clear not only to you but to anyone else who read this thread that my first posting in this thread was not evidence of any anti-Arab POV by myself but rather based simply on the text provided, not knowing that the editor in question was known for POV pushing and was under Arbcom sanction. I was not really offended as much as wanted to make clear that people slamming Arabs should NOT get a free pass in my opinion. That is all. The   Seeker 4   Talk  17:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"In the Arab media, the 'truth' is more about storytelling than about minute facts and I've seen a video, I think on the 2nd draft website, where an Arab reporter is showen to clearly distort a story, and then he says he told 'the truth' without any semblance of emotion that he would fail a lie detecting examination." Clearly racist, insinuates that all Arab reporters in the media lie consistently. Clear cut.Stargnoc (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's try this. "In African American society, the 'truth' is more about storytelling than about minute facts and I've seen a video where an African American is shown to clearly distort a story, and then he says he told 'the truth' without any semblance of emotion that he would fail a lie detecting examination." Racist? Yup. It insinuates that African Americans as a group are untruthful and lacking emotion. You can even change "African American" to "African American reporter" and it's still racist.Stargnoc (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer
In May I brought up at this board at Wikiquette_alerts/archive63. My concern was that he would not stop calling me Metros even though I changed my name about a year and a half ago at least. Neutralhomer is continuing to call me by Metros. Is there any way someone can have a word with him? It's clear that the previous Wikiquette Alert had no major effect on him. Thanks, either way (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * According to our name-change policy, this isn't a privacy issue. It is, however, a harassment issue. Leave Either Way alone. -- King Öomie 13:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to say this seems a little lame - name changes can be confusing to other editors, and I don't see that calling an editor by a previous name is exactly harrassment - annoying perhaps, inconsiderate too, but as the Metros name was retired without controversy (as far as I can recall), it doesn't seem particularly heinous to use the name. DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see EW/M is stalking my edits again, oh well. Anyway, this will be my only post on this.  I use "Either way/Metros" as a way to let others know who I am talking about.  Most don't know Either way as Either way, they know him as Metros or previously Metros232.  This isn't some way to "jab" at him and piss him off, it is letting everyone know that I am talking about the same person.  EW/M takes it one step further and adds something to it that isn't there that I am harrassing him.  I personally think that when I post something somewhere and within moments I have a WQA post about me, that is the harrassment here not my calling him by his former name. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 14:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "stalking my edits again" You showed up at the same page talk page I was on...that's not me stalking you if you're right there where I am.  As for DuncanHill's point, I do believe it is harassment as there is no purpose to keep bringing my old username into it as this situation does not involve my old username.  My dispute with FMAFan1990 (which is where Neutralhomer is commenting) has only occurred under this username, so there is no need for Metros to be brought into it.  I have kindly requested him to stop using it, but he continues to with no need.  He would be (and has been) upset if I started referencing his old user names/sock puppets, so I believe he should respect my request here.  either way (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * After FMAFan1990 has posted on my talk page requesting I be apart of an RfC against you. I essentially told him while I find your actions rude, crude and mean, I don't take part in heated, long-term conversations anymore...which would include an RfC.  So, no I wasn't stalking you, I was responding to a comment from another user. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 16:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying you were stalking me. I was just saying I wasn't stalking you because you were at a place where I was.  It wasn't like I actively searched you out.  either way (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is explicitly covered by WP:OUTING: "It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently". As such, this probably belongs on WP:ANI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's outing - no personally identifying information revealed by it surely? DuncanHill (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is outing as defined by WP:OUTING and the sentences I quoted. It couldn't be any clearer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew Delicious carbuncle would turn up. Now all we need is ChildofMidnight and it will be a party.  Can we close this as lame and ridiculous? - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 15:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you agree to stop bringing it up I'd have no problem with this closing. It's been requested of you on many occasions, and people other than myself have asked you to stop.  I find it harassing, and others agree.  either way (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will consider it, if you answer me two questions...1) why does that name bother you so? and 2) why did you change it? Just curious and if you can answer those, I will gladly stop using it. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 16:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutralhomer, this probably isn't the right place to make snide comments. I'm sorry if you feel like my comments are an attack on you, I was simply pointing out that WP:OUTING defines your actions as harassment. This issue here is your actions, not my comments. I don't know any of the background here and I'm not interested in finding out. I suggest you immediately and unconditionally stop referring to any editor by a previous name. 16:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My reason for requesting the change is here. (To amend my statement in the beginning here...it was almost a year ago.  For some reason I thought it was a year and a half ago).  I'm not going to go further than that into it on here since they are personal reasons.  Like I said, I'd appreciate it if it would stop.  either way (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to continue to refer to the user as both names, even in the case of alerting other editors (or rather, especially in that case). The links in all Metros signatures now redirect to Either Way's userspace. To continue to deny a user a clean break from their previous username is deliberate annoyance, especially having graced this page. Drop it. -- King Öomie 19:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) There are many valid reasons (including protection from stalking issues) for someone changing their username. Once officially changed, there's no way in hell that any editor should be referring to them by their old name. Because of the severity of some of the reasons, using their original name becomes a violation of WP:OUTING. Now, if the editor says "I used to be so-and-so" even once, then they have outed themselves, and WP:OUTING cannot be violated. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that referring to either way as Metros doesn't violate WP:OUT. Everything in the section quoted above is predicated upon personally identifying information having been revealed. Unless personal information was posted about either way while he was using Metros, referring to him as Metros doesn't violate the policy. Doing so is clearly intended to antagonize, which says more about the editor doing it than anything, but the only policy or custom it violates is our general proscription of being petty and rude. ÷seresin 22:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not here because I'm thinking he's attempting to out me, I'm here because I believe he's doing this to antagonize and harass me. His explanation above of "making it clear to others that Either way is also Metros" is ridiculous in my book as Metros redirects to Either way, and my edit history can easily be searched all the way back to the founding of this account in December 2005.  either way (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone's being stalked that's one thing, but I don't know if being tied to a previous accountname is outing per se. Account name changes are a matter of record - as Either way noted and displayed with the diff above.
 * It's rude - and possibly harrassment if it's kept up a lot - but barring off-wiki issues such as stalking or harrassment that provoked the name change I'm not sure if it's otherwise abuse. If there was personal identifying info or abuse issues associated with the name change someone associated with that should be able to confirm such (OTRS, Arbcom, Legal, etc).
 * Either way - if there are such, can you email me a confirmation and some idea of what the issue was? I'm one of the OTRS volunteers and an administrator, I will keep anything you reveal confidential etc.  If you want you can mail it to info-en@wikimedia.org with an "Attention George Herbert" tag somewhere, so that it goes into OTRS for your security.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. If it was a very recent name change then there might be a case to be made for linking the two in order to prevent confusion.  But it wasn't, it was a long time ago now, and it should stop. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 22:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, are you sure you want to continue your annoying behavior? hydnjo (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, been away at an Autism function for most of the evening, just back. To respond to Hydnjo's reference to my former name, I actually make a connection to my previous name on my userpage.  I am not ashamed of it.  For the record, it was blocked under a previous block of my own (which is neither here nor there).  But I make the same connection on my userpage, that has been there since I took the Neutralhomer name. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 03:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no valid reason for Neutralhomer to be referring to Either Way as Metros, other than in an attempt to annoy him. Neutralhomer, consider it a matter of respect. Either Way has a new identifier and nobody but you and he cares that his previous name was Metros. Anyone searching for Either Way's responses will see Metros' as well, yes? So what is your reason for using the name? It irks Either Way when you do it and I can see his point. What other purpose does it serve to refer to his old name other than to harass him? None.Stargnoc (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Niteshift36 continued personal attacks & accusations of sockpuppetry / also edit warring
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sean_Hannity. Niteshift36 has insinuated that I'm a sockpuppet before and he has actually helped gotten another user, FuriousJorge, blocked for sockpuppetry (unproven) and edit warring. Today he directly accused me in the talk page. I added the word "helped" here because Niteshift36 was not the user who actually initiated the investigation but certainly made accusations.

Niteshift36 has consistently edited the Sean Hannity article as you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sean_Hannity/Archive_1 and in all the other archives. You can find here clear examples of confrontational tone and baseless accusations by Niteshift36. I have to question good faith based on all this. As you can see in Archive 5 Niteshift36 said he would add information on Sean Hannity's position on abortion to get the article started down the right path where it includes content on Hannity's views & reception, but over the last month and a half he has provided no additions to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stargnoc (talk • contribs) 05:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is true. I began working on that and found there was a LOT of info to sift through. Unlike the "important" controveries you want included that were only covered over a very brief period (about 2 weeks) and a couple of sources, this issue spanned a decade and involved hundreds and hundreds of sources. Then real life events cut my available editing time down significantly. You can look at my edit history to see the drop. But I am still working on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I come back to Wikipedia every once in a while - today it was to check out the wiki page on Obama's Nobel Prize. When I do, I check up on the Sean Hannity page, which is consistently being vandalized. There has been plenty of edit warring / vandalism on Niteshift36's part during this whole time. He has had plenty of confrontations with other users on the Sean Hannity page, as you can see if you view the archives, as well as in at least one other article. Stargnoc (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stargnoc (talk • contribs) 01:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I haven't made an edit to the Hannity article since Sept. 21, 2009 and that was to remove the WL from a term. The last edit of actual text from the article was Sept. 2, 2009. So where he gets this "edit warring" accusation from is beyond me. As for my "insinuation", I did point out an interesting coincidence wherein another user (who was blocked as a sockpuppet over this article) and Stargnoc both stopped editing on the same day, then both returned within 48 hours of each other, only to make the EXACT SAME accusation that "vandals" had removed negative information. Jorge did it here: and Stargnoc did it here: . I found it interesting that neither of these editors (the ones who had absences that started on the same exact day) both failed to look at the edit history and realize that no vandalism happened, but that the material had simply been archived by MiszaBot and pointed out that it looked pretty unlikely to be a coincidence. Lastly, I didn't get FuriousJorge blocked. That SPI was initiated by another editor, and upheld by an uninvolved admin. So, that allegation is demonstrably false. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering Niteshift had nothing to do with FuriousJorge's SPI, your accusations come across as baseless. Apparently disagreeing with you is now vandalism. Soxwon (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I'll correct that. Niteshift36 partipicated in accusations against FuriousJorge, although he was not the user who submitted it.  That is clear on FuriousJorge's talk page.  In the Sean Hannity article I also see a pattern of users who don't want to have the article changed accusing those they disagree with of sockpuppetry.Stargnoc (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for input from users who aren't already heavily involved in making edits to the Sean Hannity page, users who do not already disagree with me, FuriousJorge, and everyone else who feels the Sean Hannity article is shamefully incomplete. Niteshift36, Soxwon, Daedalus969 all are heavy participants so please keep that in mind, outside observers!Stargnoc (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well guess what? When you come here and make false and inflated allegations about me, you're going to get my input too? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of what I initially accused you of was not totally accurate, I've already corrected that and in spirit it WAS pretty much accurate - you certainly participated in getting FuriousJorge blocked even if you didn't initiate it. I only wished to point out users who are already involved because I would like outside observers to understand where this is all coming from.Stargnoc (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, then you come to my talk page and say "If you "say" it was....". It is a provable FACT that I didn't initiate the SPI. How odd is it that you can come here, complain about me "insinuating" something you claim is false but, in doing so, you mae an accusation that can easily be PROVEN to be false? It would be laughable if it weren't so telling. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I corrected myself already. You participated in the accusations even if you were not the one who initiated the investigation.  Before the other user initiated the investigation you had insinuated that several users were sockpuppets.  It's not as if you had no involvement in triggering the investigation.  But it's a moot point.  And there you go again accusing me of sockpuppetry.  I've posted before when I wasn't logged in and my ip showed up, plus I have this account and one other that I never use and have never done anything remotely sockpuppety with.  I barely care about the Sean Hannity article anymore but I do wish you would spend some time contributing to the content instead of reverting.  It really could use a "views" section because that's what Sean is notable for.Stargnoc (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I told you that I wasn't the one who initiated it before this was done. BTW, why are you ignoring my point that I haven't made a change to the text in that article in over a month, yet decide to come here and complain I'm "edit warring"? What is your other account? Care to make it public? And where did I make the accusation "again"? I merely spelled out the "coincidence" that I commented on for those who haven't seen it before? And for someone who "barely cares" about that article, it's strange to see you return after being gone over a month and make 23 edits in one day.....21 of them being about the Sean Hannity article in some way. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Stargnoc is so concerned with ensuring that the univolved have the whole story: He is the same editor who called me a "liar" and "hypocrite" on that same talk page: and claims to "barely care" about this article, yet has made at least 90 edits regarding this article out of only 135 edits in total. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was given a stern warning for how I phrased that by Daedalus969 and I learned my lesson. I assure you I don't hold a grudge about that.  I would like to add that the discussion was heated between everyone there and I, as a brand new user at the time, used colorful vocabulary to express myself.  But accusations were flying back and forth on both sides.Stargnoc (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also I said "I barely care... anymore" because it's true. No matter how I, and numerous others, try to improve the article we are lambasted by the folks who don't seem to want the article to include anything remotely negative about Mr. Hannity.  It's a game I don't want to put forth the effort to win.  If someone wants to get reasonable information on Sean Hannity I'm sure they can go somewhere other than Wikipedia, because due to obstruction by editors Wikipedia's article is devoid of meaningful content.  If that's how Wikipedia editors want it then fine.Stargnoc (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually maybe I do still care a bit. But I probably shouldn't because it's not going to matter.  Also I think my other account is just my real name so I don't care to post it here.  It's not an established account so I couldn't edit the Sean Hannity article with it anyway.Stargnoc (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So you have another account but refuse to disclose it? Have you disclosed your alternate account to the Arbcom? When did this other account begin? Has it ever been used in this article? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I refuse to disclose anything to you, Niteshift36. If an admin requests the information he or she is welcome to it.  I've never posted anything in the Sean Hannity article.  Besides, this alert section is not about me, it's about you.  If you'd like to try to report me for the sockpuppetry you keep insinuating, go ahead.  I've done nothing wrong, I assure you.  Let's be civil.Stargnoc (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * About me? About me mentioning sockpuppetry and you admit having another account. Sounds relevent to the discussion. Oh yeah, about my "edit warring" in an article I have made a total of 2 edits to in the past month. Talk about old news. You have nothing. Just live with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Continued harassment by Niteshift36: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Hannity&action=historysubmit&diff=319064160&oldid=319063663 Stargnoc (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you consider that harassment, you are clearly using a different dictionary than I have. One "harassment" is to ask you to stop posting the same question in multiple locations. The other is pointing out that obvious. This is becoming a farce. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Look Stargnoc, if you think that Niteshift's behaviour is so disruptive then please open an RFC. Wikiquette's won't work w/o both party's working together and Niteshift has made it clear he doesn't think his behaviour has been an issue. Soxwon (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)