Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive81

Rossdegenstein and communication
Hello. I've indef-blocked a user,, because of edit warring and refusal to follow directions with properly citing census data. The user has an awkward communication style and has recently branched out into creating an alternate account.

Even though I'm reaching my WP:AGF limit, I really believe this user could be a productive member of Wikipedia. If nothing else, they could use someone to patiently explain what the issue was. I've tried, as have others, and it doesn't feel like we have gotten anywhere.

I'm reaching out, hoping that someone here on WQA can 'adopt' this user and see if they can demonstrate more civility and AGF than I've been able to. tedder (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * His facebook profile is also quite confusing. Could it be that he's not able to write intelligibly and understand normal communication? --Jonund (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a couple theories about his communication issues but I don't want to elaborate here for privacy/libel/minding-my-own-business reasons. Someone with enormous patience and perhaps even experience with speech and language pathology might be able to work with him. He seems to want to update the population figures for various cities, but he's not citing his sources. If there's someone who wouldn't mind doing such a repetitive task, maybe s/he could do the edits for him. I just can't get that worked up about population data but I know some folks are into that stuff. Any takers? I guess this should be requested wherever folks request adoption. Do we do forced adoptions? Katr67 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They don't appear to have the minimum competence necessary to be an editor. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I point out User:hopiakuta who's output is extremely strange, due to some problem, but they still make constructive edits. Anyway, I think it's clear that they're making these edits in good faith, and can communicate, but are simply unable to communicate at a normal level (simple english will probably get a better response). I'll drop this by Adopt a user and see if anyone's willing to help.   S warm  ( Talk ) 08:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought of hopiakuta in relation to this user, actually. Thanks for following up. Katr67 (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob: personal attacks
I am rapidly reaching the limits of my tolerance with User:Off2riorob, who after a previous Wikiquette alert and a discussion at AN/I has followed me to an article he or she does not edit to make personal attacks: "COi, is an essay, it is not big deal, there appears to be a lot of opinionated discussion here on the talk page, wikipedia is not an excuse to assert negatively on people that would intellectually eclipse us."

Is there any reason for this type of behaviour? Or any reason why Off2riorob gets away with it repeatedly? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an absolute rubbish report, the comment was not even directed at this User. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Who was it directed at? Gerardw (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimbo. Look at the indent levels. → ROUX   ₪  22:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So O2rr was saying that Jimbo Wales is intellectually inferior to Aubrey de Grey or me? Look at the comment and the user's history, not the indent levels. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So incivility is okay if it's directed at Jimbo? Gerardw (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You have completely misread the statement. O2rr was saying that WP:COI is only an essay and thus has no binding force/is not a big deal, and that we can't use Wikipedia as an excuse to attack others. → ROUX   ₪  22:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was accused, by Jimbo Wales no less, of possibly attacking the subject of the article. That's the context. I had apologised profusely for any misunderstanding. There was absolutely no need for an uninvolved editor with a history of confrontation directed towards me to comment. Off2riorob, who has in the past accused me of stalking, just happened by the article to make a comment on the only person (me) accused of "asserting negatively on people" and proceeded to comment on my intellectual status: Aubrey de Grey "would intellectually eclipse" me. Is it OK, in your opinion, for Off2riorob to follow me about and make baiting comments? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would behoove you to node O2rr's statement above; the comment was not even directed at you. Ergo he was not baiting you. And frankly, de Grey would eclipse all of us, I suspect. → ROUX   ₪  22:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're telling me that O2rr, who has had me in the crosshairs for weeks, just happened to show up and just happened to make a statement that could only apply to me, and furthermore that now I must take his word that it was all a big coincidence and had nothing to do with me? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, clearly I am an idiot and unable to read English. Thank you for clarifying matters. → ROUX   ₪  22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I found O2rr's comment unhelpful, and its poor wording would only inflame the situation (which it did). Verbal chat  23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz
Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk has deleted information from the article on Peace Now, in my opinion partly to push his POV. He is unresponsive to my arguments, scornful in his tone, accuses me of not understanding the concept of NPOV and refuses to discuss. I'm thankful for constructive input. --Jonund (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you justify "refuses to discuss"? It looks to me like there is a reasonable discussion at Talk:Peace Now, and I can't see that you've attempted discussion anywhere else.  It also looks to me like, as Malik says, your edits have serious neutrality issues.  You should perhaps be aware that Malik has a strong reputation as one of the few admins who can be effective in the face of the battleground mentality that dominates many Israel-Palestine articles. Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you provide diffs of the specific contributions by Malik Shabazz you consider incivil. Gerardw (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to discuss WP:NPOV with somebody who doesn't understand why the use of words like "appalled", "disinformation", and "infiltration" in the encyclopedia's editorial voice is a POV issue. I don't think my comments were scornful or uncivil. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jonund, I had a look at that article yesterday and it needs a lot of work. It doesn't even say what Peace Now's position is on various issues like the right of Israel to exist, that they advocate for a 2-state solution, how many members they have etc etc, basic facts. Why don't you actively demonstrate your neutrality by adding basic infomation like that rather than focusing on criticism ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a discussion on Talk:Peace Now, and it did not lack constructive elements, although some of my arguments were ignored. But then Malik withdrew from it, although there are open points, ascribing to me unability or unwillingness to understand the concept of NPOV. On this page, rather than discussing disagreements, he declares his unability to discuss.
 * A serious contribution, including explanation of the edit, was met with the comment "if you want to write an editorial of your own, start a blog", along with a revert that seems to be partly POV-pushing. An earnest attempt at discussion returned, along with answers, the comment "if you want to write an article about how evil Peace Now is, write a blog." It all ended with a refusal to either try to understand or to explain.
 * I have experience of Malik, and his ways of running roughshod over his opponents by ignoring their arguments and deleting material that doesn't fit his POV are untoward to him. That looks like the exact opposite of being "effective in the face of the battleground mentality" (which is not to deny that he behaves far better in many cases).
 * NPOV, in my understanding, means that all POVs are taken into consideration and together work out a version that all can agree about. That is how many good articles emerge. My experience is that where a constructive attitude reigns, a diversity of opinions is an asset, also when they are strongly held. Unfortunately, such an attitude isn't always present.
 * The suggestion to add some basic information to the article is a good idea, and I will consider it. At the present moment, I'm a bit discouraged but I hope I will overcome that feeling. --Jonund (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * After reviewing Talk:Peace_Now I'm not seeing personal attacks; I seeing disengagement from an editor who is not hearing well Gerardw (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but your comment doesn't invite confidence in you. Your accusation of refusal to 'get the point' recoils on yourself. This is a place for constructive attempts at dispute resolution, not for joining POV-pushers in their dismissals of contributions by those who disagree with them. --Jonund (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I advice Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk to be more patient and answer all arguments. The discussion about Martin Luther King (where I weighed in with a couple of comments) showed that you are, at times, wanting in preparedness to consider opposing arguments, and I think the same problem is present now, at least to some extent. I hope you will seek a solution by consensus and not by force. --Årvasbåo (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jonund, you wrote "NPOV, in my understanding, means that all POVs are taken into consideration...". This is the root of your misunderstanding:  that's not what NPOV means.  NPOV means that the information is presented from a neutral POV, not from multiple POVs.  If it is necessary to describe the views of various parties, they must be explicitly attributed to the people who hold them. Looie496 (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I expressed myself unclearly. I wrote in response to Sean Hoylands suggestion that I actively demonstrate my neutrality, which looked like a suggestion that all parties contributing to an article should be neutral. I think that's a misunderstanding of NPOV. Editors need not be neutral (on many subjects, neutrality is a vice rather than a virtue). Individual edits may well reflect the editor's view. But the resulting article should be POV. For instance, I may add material that I find important, and correct stuff that I react against, while Malik adds material he finds important and corrects things he reacts against. As a result the POV's cancel each other out. That's perhaps the most common way in which articles progress. Of course, there's also a need to discuss and reconsider one's edits. And we should never push our own POV at the cost of other's. --Jonund (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not how it works. Every editor must at all times comply with WP:NPOV in their editing. The editor's personal POV shouldn't be relevant. NPOV is a core policy and is "absolute and non-negotiable". You are responsible for ensuring that your edits don't distort the neutrality of an article. You have to make sure that you balance postives and negatives etc. You can't rely on anyone else to do it. Even if you were allowed to work on the basis that NPOV is an emergent property of individually biased editors working together (e.g. someone else balances your edits, you balance theirs etc) it wouldn't work. Read about genetic drift to see why. What happens is 'fixation' where one POV dominates and may even eliminate others. There simply aren't enough editors working on any given article, discussing things, etc etc to be able to rely on neutrality emerging all by itself. It's major problem in the Israel-Palestine area of wiki because so many editors think it's okay to only make edits that advance their preferred POV whereas, in fact, it's inconsistent with a core policy.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, the "dueling POVs" approach just doesn't work. It leads to articles written in the form "X is true. But some say X is false. Y is bad. But some say Y is good.", etc. The result is almost always unreadable junk. The only way to get a good article is for editors to be committed to neutrality from the start. Looie496 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, and then there's the Israel-Palestine discretionary sanctions that make NPOV compliance even more strict and encourage editors to simply walk away if they can't be neutral...not that anyone ever does.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I had not been online for a couple of days, and to my surprise Looie has taken the opportunity to close the issue, claiming falsely that there is a consensus against my complaint. I don't know his/her motives to this action, but it certainly seems suspect.

As to the POV-issue, I wrote: "Individual edits may well reflect the editor's view. But the resulting article should be POV...And we should never push our own POV at the cost of other's." POV was, of course, a misspelling for NPOV. What I meant is, the article should be kept NPOV during its emergence, but that's possible also when various editors offer input informed by their POVs, as long as they don't push it at the cost of others' POV.

This premise is a huge advantage, as it activates many editors and tends to make articles grow in an impressive way. For instance, the article about Antony Flew has developed this way, making the part of it that deals with his revised views a good reading. Hopefully, the rest of the article will also develop, but for lack of "edit warriors" it goes slowly. 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy is an example of articles that have developed more completely, in the same way.

Furthermore, it's sometimes hardly possible to avoid POV-edits. Neutral point of view/FAQ recognizes that "Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias." Correcting one POV is often seen (and perhaps rightly so) as expressing the opposite POV. Demonstrating one's neutrality, as Sean would have me do, places the focus on the editor rather than on the article and disqualifies many, perhaps most, prospective editors.

What I want to stress is that a constructive attitude is always required. This was not present in Malik's edits. Interestingly, we get entangled in a disucussion about the meaning of NPOV, while Malik's lack of such an attitude is passed over. What does this say about the editors' neutrality? --Jonund (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus was Shabazz wasn't being incivil. As WQA is non-binding, it's just the opinion of the editors who choose to respond. Sorry we were unable to help. Gerardw (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Nmate
Nmate permanently appears to have a problem with civility. He personally attacks me and other editors, many times reverted good faith edits without explanation and made false accusations of wikistalking.

Last personal attacks:
 * Yopie, he needs to consult a doctor, seriously.
 * Yopie is sick
 * Needless to say what I think about Yopie
 * It looks that Yopie needs to be humiliated by a community ban from editing wikipedia for indefinite time
 * No need encouraging Yopie to make unconstructive edits

Last reverting without explanation:
 * 
 * 
 * 

He reverted good faith talk in talk page as here.

He falsely accuses me and others of stalking:
 * , but I was invited here and here
 * to Iaaasi
 * to Wladthemlat

He also accuse of sockpuppeting and communicate in Hungarian in talk pages.

--Yopie (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WQA won't have any effect unless you notify Nmate of this thread. It's part of the process of starting a discussion, and we won't do it for you.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, before we go on, could you please leave a comment on their talk page notifying them of the discussion with a link? I think your evidence speaks for itself, so the primary purpose of this WQA would be for Nmate to hear other opinions of his behavior so that they might be more mindful of it.   S warm  ( Talk ) 21:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done .--Yopie (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Great. In that case, let me say that Nmate's actions are extremely uncivil and are the antithesis of "Comment on content, not on the contributor." This name calling and these personal attacks are absolutely unacceptable. In addition, accusations of sockpuppeting and wikistalking are very uncivil and reverting without an edit summary and deleting others' comments on talk pages is disruptive. Together, this looks like a user with very problematic behavior. On top of this, Nmate's incivility has been the subject of past complaints at WQA, AN and ANI (a search of their username in the project space reveals this), and they have also received multiple warnings on their talk page regarding disruptive reverts. Nmate should really know better by now. This is at the point where if they want to avoid AN/I, they need to choose to stop this behavior and act civilly, now.   S warm  ( Talk ) 04:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am one of the users involved in disputes with Nmate and want to inform that:
 * I was accused by Nmate of Edit warring and, after a not very detailed analysis, I got, because of him a 48 hours block, even if the assumed edit war enemy recognized that my edits were made in good faith . Not to say that Nmate had entered there by wikihounding and his only purpose was to revert edits, not to express a opinions. Me and Rokarudi were involved in the subject for a long time
 * He made edits without giving reasons for his action, and when i tried to initiate a discussion, he replied "Go elsewhere.--Nmate (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)" (Iaaasi (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

Nmate also accused Yopie of following him when entering the discussion, even if he joined the debate as a result of an information from his own talk page (Iaaasi (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

Copy of Nmate´s reply in Swarm´s page :

User talk:Lycaon
I have bitten, following an Accusation of Vandalism Here; any neutral input to help us get back to consensus editing would be gratefully appreciated. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Characterizing the edit as vandalism is definitely uncivil. And using twinkle to do so is a policy breach Edit_warring. Gerardw (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In case it isn't clear to other contributors, there's an ongoing dispute between leaving that page as a disambiguation page or having it redirect. That being said, I'm not sure what Lycaon was thinking when they reverted that as vandalism. Perhaps they can explain why they did that here?   S warm  ( Talk ) 20:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Focusing on the worst problem here, the most important thing is that CyrilThePig4 has been edit-warring against mutiple other editors by repeatedly making this change without getting consensus. That is considerably wronger than the "vandalism" characterization (which was, however, not the right thing to do).  CyrilThePig4 is advised that continued edit-warring can result in a block even if it does not amount to more than three reverts within 24 hours.  I have undone Cyril's latest revert. Looie496 (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lycaon's explanation here.   S warm  ( Talk ) 21:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, after some thought, I believe Lycaon's accusation of vandalism was still uncivil. CryilThePig's reverts should have stopped after it was clear that their preferred version was controversial, but Cryil's actions certainly do not constitute blatant vandalism as Lycaon claims they are. Characterizing someone as a vandal, though disruptive they may be, serves to do nothing but inflame the situation. Next time you see someone you feel is being disruptive, Lycaon, I recommend that you assume they are trying to help the project, not hurt it, rather than assuming they are intentionally trying to disrupt and damage the project (which would be blatant vandalism). This is blatant vandalism. This is blatant vandalism. This is blatant vandalism. Edit warring between a redirect and a disambiguation page is not blatant vandalism.   S warm  ( Talk ) 01:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, sorry about that, got carried away. On many small wikis this would've been vandalism, on enwiki you're used to the more heavy stuff ;-). Let's call it a disruption then. Lycaon (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we call the matter settled??? Gerardw (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm concerned, yes. Lycaon (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Keepcalmandcarryon and editing practices on Whittemore Peterson Institute
A few of editors myself included are having difficulty engaging constructively with Keepcalmandcarryon on the Whittemore Peterson Institute. She recently backed out most of three days of work by three editors including some 35 changes to the article and the accompanying 30 comment posts on the talk page with some 5,000 words of discussion, in a single mass revert, justifying her decision not to respond to the previous points with this terse statement. OK, it's bit unusual and inconsiderate to the other editors and I could live with this. However a number of these changes relate to issues where checking the RSs indicate that the content fails WP:V, and this editor refuses to engage constructively in these discussions and justify her logic in mapping the RS to the content. I just don't know how to work constructively with such an editor when she flouts Wikipedia policies. I have documented these issues in the talk page.

Things has come to a head with this flame: where she described a text that I quoted (from the lead author of a recently published paper in Science) thus:
 * [the text] "must be presented accurately, not in a slapdash and scientifically inaccurate manner"

(and I had responded, BTW).

She does a lot of valuable work on other pages, but it is very difficult to work with an editor who won't accept that changes to meaning or pulling in inferences from other (often unnamed) sources constitutes constitutes breaches to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH and whose main response is to redo her text without engaging in sensible discussion, often just repeating her original explanation. Have a scan of the last three sections: 08 February 2010 edit summaries onwards, and the history for the page and talk, and you'll see what I mean. -- TerryE (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing edit warring and lack of consensus, not incivility. I've left comments on article and the user's talk page. Gerardw (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaredkunz30: Uncivil editor that does not care about NPOV or RS
I am putting this here because there are several issues with the editor Jaredkunz30 (talk). He made drastic and controversial edits to Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, removing reliably sourced information and replacing it with unsourced information that contradicted the sourced info. When I reverted these edits, he began to make personal attacks against me. I pointed him to WP:NPOV and WP:RS and explained that it would be more in line with the guidelines to present his views (with sources) as representative of the Mormon view while leaving the mainstreak view in place, but he has said that he does not care about sources or the site's NPOV policy. He has blanked his talk page of the generously numerous warnings he received for violating the NPOV policy and for making personal attacks. He then went to the Archaeology and the BoM talk page and lied about his actions and mine, and when other editors said that he should not have made the edits he did, he became uncivil to them. He made a reasonable post asking if a source he was planning to use is acceptable, and I did my best to find how the source could work under WP:RS and explain why the source couldn't be used in particular ways, but he began to make personal attacks again. I will state again: he has blanked his talk page (as can be seen here), so the warnings do not show on his current page. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please notify user of the WQA. Gerardw (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How dare he!? I find it uncivil to label me as uncivil and to purport that I don't have strong feelings and high respect for NPOV, RS etcetera, but I am a forgiving soul, so I will be nice to Ian.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As can be seen, I have. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the personal attacks are uncalled, as is the edit warring. Jaredkunz30, please be civil in discussions with other editors and achieve consensus before making further edits to Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a civilian. I can be civil. I will try to behave myself better, mostly because Gerard asked nicely saying "please" and because I like his name. I have made no more so-called "personal attacks". A real personal attack from me would hurt a lot worse than the joking around I did with Ian. It's all good. All hail to the wikipedia civility police!  May they live long and prosper...civilly of course (Nanu nanu).Jaredkunz30 (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You repeatedly named called anyone who did not agree with you. Upon seeing on my userpage that I identify as a Christian and consider that to be important to my identity, without bothering to understand my thoughts or beliefs at all, you started insisting that I am not a Christian, denying that I am what I believe myself to be before anything else.  How could I not take that as a personal attack?  How can you call that a joke?  And why is it that when you violated the rules and multiple users told you that you were violating them you didn't stop, but when you finally were reported, you stopped?  I have no reason to believe this is something other than an attempt to avoid punishment instead of honest remorse.  I forgive you, but that doesn't mean that I understand your actions nor do I have to accept that you're actually sorry.  A look at your talk page's history shows that you are unconcerned with breaking rules (otherwise you would hve stopped after a few warnings), just so long as you do not get in trouble (which the level 4 warnings for NPOV and civility pointed to).  I'm not saying that you can't reform, but I'm skeptical.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jared, sarcasm doesn't help anything. Your edits were unconstructive, and that's something you should accept rather than insulting the editor who has to undue your edits. civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and should always be observed whether you agree with someone or not. Furthermore, comments on contributors, such as the ones you made to Ian, are inappropriate and not tolerated. You also don't seem to understand the purpose of this board. Essentially, it provides outside opinions of one's behavior, and if someone is acting inappropriately, hopefully convince them to change their behavior. This isn't a joke. I advise that you try and be more civil so further means of dispute resolution don't need to be taken. Thanks,   S warm  ( Talk ) 02:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaredkunz30 has stated on my grafitti page that he is going to continue in his behavior: "I'm going to keep after this, warnings and all." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. And he states Who knew there were such scribes and pharisees out here in this day? I'm going to keep after this, warnings and all. I've read all the rules and nobody can block you unless you do something really horrendous repeatedly. Don't worry about it, just assume he'll be better; if not, and he continues to disrupt WP, report him again: eventually one of these folks will put him on this list.Gerardw (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Keep an eye on him and if he causes any more disruption, report to WP:ANI. If he's not here to be a constructive encyclopedist there's no reason to continue to put up with him.   S warm  ( Talk ) 03:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary of incident

 * In a recent discussion at WP:DRV, User:Alansohn responded to a comment I made by suggesting that my comments constitute "threats":.
 * I assumed that this was just a misinterpretation of what I meant, so I tried to clarify that I was making a prediction about what might happen in the future, and that it was in no way a threat:,.
 * I asked Alansohn to withdraw that characterization of my comment after I clarified it:
 * Alansohn refused and restated that I had made "rather explicit threats" and (in the edit summary) that I had "a very vivid sense of paranoia":
 * User:Postdlf pointed out to Alansohn that I had not made a threat, just a prediction:
 * I confirmed what Postdlf said and again requested that the allegation of threat-making be withdrawn:
 * Alansohn refused for the second time and accused me of harassment and (in his edit summary) of trolling on his user talk page:
 * Outside third party views welcome. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alansohn notified of this report: — Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments
This incident described by User:Good Olfactory above is merely the latest in a longstanding pattern of incivility, failure to assume good faith, personal attacks, and general hostility expressed by User:Alansohn at WP:CFD and WP:DRV. On repeated occasions and regarding multiple editors, he has made comments about the motive and conduct of commenters at both forums, turning content disputes personal and hostile. He also makes passive-aggressive general remarks about CFD and its participants that, while not expressly naming individuals, in the context of opposing others' comments can only be taken as personal attacks. This conduct is not incessant, and it is not the sum of Alansohn's contributions, as he is undoubtedly a valuable and prolific article editor and article vandalism fighter. But this conduct in discussion forums is recurring and longstanding, and it is a problem that needs a solution.

See also this recent thread on his talk page, which was the most recent substantive attempt by myself to try and bring these issues to his attention in a constructive manner, and has numerous relevant diffs of his recent conduct. His response, as can be seen there, is largely dismissive of complaints about his conduct and tone. He makes comments about other users and their intent, and then labels their criticism of those comments as trolling, threats, etc., or part of a clique of admins or CFD regulars who are apparently out to play games. I think everyone who has been affected by this has tried ignoring him, but it's difficult to let attacks go unanswered. I've been pondering an AN/I or an RFC for awhile on this, because there needs to be an end to this hostile atmosphere. postdlf (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this (combined with the broader issues) really needs to go to one of those other forums. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I do enjoy how Postdlf and Good Olfactory are working together to manufacture a controversy. There is apparently no remark so trivial that it can not be used as fodder for further abuse of Wikipedia process. I'm still wondering where this imagined "incident" is. Alansohn (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a decent example of the tendencies outlined in Postdlf's comment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * . Is this the best you can manufacture? Even Eusebeus appears unimpressed. Alansohn (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment This is certainly in keeping with the editor's longstanding truculence. Alan can be quite ornery when he feels he is defending the interests of Wikipedia, and that, sadly, extends to an inability to admit ever that he is wrong in his language or manner of engaging other editors. I participated in an extensive User:RFC about Alan a while ago that detailed his more outrageous incivilities and he has improved his behaviour as a result considerably. In this instance, his response is so absurd on its face, I would simply dismiss the incident. Eusebeus (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment These threats just go to show how little "consensus" at CfD has to do with what the community as a whole thinks. A little snarky? Maybe. Incivil? Not seeing it. It's a comment about the preceding comment not about an editor. Gerardw (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that it characterizes the preceding comment as a "threat". Perhaps others use English differently than I do, but I understand "threat" to carry a considerably more malicious flavour than "prediction" or something similar. Rather than that quote, however, the more salient points are the reaction that emerged after the request to remove the comment. Perhaps it's true that this was a minor incident in isolation, but it is indicative of an overall pattern, as roughly outlined above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I honestly don't see how Alan managed to turn such a benign comment into a big deal. While the incident alone is nothing to worry about, if it is part of a larger pattern of improper behavior, there is cause for discussion. Whether or not Alan is deliberately trying to cause trouble or made an incorrect interpretation of a comment and doesn't want to admit it, I don't know, but accusations of making threats (over comments that clearly don't do so), and referring to an editor as a "troll" when they try and respond to the accusation is both uncivil and, when occurring as a pattern of behavior, disruptive in the long term.   S warm  ( Talk ) 05:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I also note Good Ol'factory's numerous attempts to point out uncivil comments on Alan's talk page, which Alan seems to be ignoring. How long ago was this RfC?   S warm  ( Talk ) 05:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This may be something other than Eusebeus was referring to above, but see Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes, a case closed in June 2008 that imposed editing restrictions on Alansohn upon a unanimous finding that he "repeatedly engaged in unseemly behavior, including personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith." He was blocked six times during the year the restrictions were in place (including by myself and by Good Ol'Factory) for incivility towards others.  His comments that earned him the block the last time, though a while ago (April 2009), are rather illustrative of his continued attitude generally towards many CFD participants.  Since then, we and others have tried ignoring him and imploring with him, but the personal attacks, incivility, and failure to assume good faith continue.,,,,,,.  And he continues to refuse to take any of these complaints seriously, instead calling them "trivial" and "attempts to manufacture knowingly false disputes".,,.  postdlf (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Found the RFC, at the likely place: Requests for comment/Alansohn.  postdlf (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My view
 * Good Olfactory's comment could not reasonably be construed as a threat. Alansohn could've clarified that was how he interpreted Good Olfactory's comment, or ideally, admitted it was an overreaction by apologizing and refactoring. However, he is not obligated to change his reading, and there is little point pushing that issue as the claim he makes is so obviously absurd/foolish, and is certainly not widely held, let alone correct.
 * Alansohn is permitted to give notice and warn users that particular commentary will be deleted (other than block/ban notices) if it continues to appear on his talk page. Alansohn did so, but accompanied the notice with an accusation of harassment. Serious accusations require serious evidence; there was a failure to explain the (or provide evidence) of harassment by either Good Olfactory or Postdif towards Alansohn.
 * Alansohn has also continued to engage in uncivil and unseemly conduct, including personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith or other gross inflammatory commentary:   . Of the other diffs mentioned so far, these were the ones that I considered relevant.
 * Alansohn was previously under a civility restriction for similar conduct.
 * WQA cannot impose binding remedies. It is hoped, however, that Alansohn will make assurances to avoid repeating such conduct, and make those assurances mean something, so that this WQA may be marked resolved.
 * Alansohn was expected to avoid repeating the improper conduct for which he was previously sanctioned if he wished to continue participating at Wikipedia. Although there has been a significant improvement since the previous sanction, there is still further room for more improvement. Should he not make greater attempts to improve his commentary in the future, then as is standard practice, I'd urge that a sanction is (re)imposed on Alansohn. A sanction proposal may be discussed upon a request being made to the community at an administrators noticeboard, or alternatively, a request for amendment being filed to the Arbitration Committee. However, I hope that no such proposals will become necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope so too; I've always retained hope that identifying these problems would prompt him to change. As an uninvolved third party, would you mind posting something along the lines of your comments above on his talk page, and then we'll go from there?  postdlf (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Hope it all works out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do too. Thanks for your time and helpful comments.  postdlf (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks Ncmvocalist. It's clear from Alansohn's response on his talk page that he feels he's being persecuted, particularly by me. It would be helpful if some other less involved users provided him with some outside perspective and acknowledged that some of his behavior is not acceptable for normal human interaction. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Both Good Olfactory and Postdlf, who have been directly involved in this conflict, have imposed blocks and threatened to impose blocks for various manufactured incidents, despite their rather clear and continuing conflict of interest. This pattern of harassment has continued despite rather clear changes in the tone that they have requested. Good Olfactory, in particular, has made an effort to actively misinterpret any form of communication, whether he was involved or not, and no matter how trivial, as some sort of personal affront. Just as you make the far clearer and ominous threat of some oogie-boogie "further sanction proposals", the word "threat" that has become the cause celebre here was rather clear as well; If the category in question was approved at DRV it would be deleted via CfD. This is a rather clear definition of the word "threat" as "an indication of something impending" straight out of Merriam-Webster. As such, your bad faith insistence that "Good Olfactory's comment could not reasonably be construed as a threat" is uncivil and unacceptable; I will not apologize or make changes for what you describe as Good Olfactory's "overreaction". Despite Good Olfactory's persistent and abusive efforts to shut me up, I will not be silenced. As has already been done, I will make further efforts to tone down my remarks so that even the most sensitive among us can not be rationally offended. Best regards, Alansohn (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself (as usual) I'd appreciate that -- not that I thought your threat comment was that far down the incivility spectrum in the first place. Are we done here???? Gerardw (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll see. It will depend on how Alansohn acts in the future. I think one could be both simultaneously optimistic and pessimistic based on the content of his comment immediately above. But again, Gerardw, you seem to be overlooking the principal point, as has Alansohn, I think. The principal point was not the "threat" comment itself. It was the post-comment reaction when comments were left on his talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My guess is we'll see some similar overreaction made into a mountain from a molehill, though we'll see how Good Olfactory acts in the future. If the issue is not your overreaction and misinterpretation of the word "threat", what is it? Alansohn (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing about WP is it's really hard to make a mountain in a molehill all by oneself. The issue is the tendency of the editors involved to escalate, rather than de-escalate, the disagreement. Gerardw (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't bring myself to WQA about an overreaction to and misinterpretation of the word "threat". My faith in the Wikipedia justice system is such that any escalation serves no purpose. I want this over, done with and archived. Alansohn (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer the question posed to me above, of more concern to me were the comments and edit summaries made at User talk:Alansohn. As I've said above my principal concern was not the "threat" comment itself. It was the post-comment reaction when comments were left on the user talk page. And now the comment to Ncmvocalist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My response to Alansohn is here. The answer to Gerardw's question (are we done here?) can only be answered based on Alansohn's response (if any) to my response. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: Alansohn suggested here that no one had denied his accusation that I had blocked him in a situation where I had a conflict of interest. For the record I denied it here. I post this here because my comment was removed by Alansohn as "trolling". Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have been asked by me and by Ncmvocalist to stay off of my talk page. Your refusal to do so is further evidence of trolling. Regarding your denial. Are you claiming that these blocks don't exist or are you claiming that you were not an active party to a conflict at that point in time in rather clear violation of WP:COI? I will be more than happy to show that an active conflict existed at the time of both blocks if you are to persist in this denial. Alansohn (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't asked Good Olfactory to stay off of your talk page, Alansohn. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I normally would not have made a comment there, but my silence was being used by Alansohn to impugn me, which is not acceptable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarity, do you still dispute Alansohn's conflict-of-interest allegation? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To tell you the truth, I'm not so clear on what the allegation is. If it's that I blocked him for his behavior in a conflict in which I was an active party, then yes, I dispute it. If it's that I blocked him at a time when he didn't like me or held a grudge against me—I couldn't say. (The reason I'm unsure is that Alansohn has a history of making allegations against users and meaning one thing but using WP-style language that means something quite different. For instance, more than once he has said users are being "disruptive" in starting CFDs and proposing that categories be deleted. In these situations, I can only assume he means something different than "disruption" of the WP type.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The allegation is rather simple: Were you an active party to a conflict when you imposed not one but two blocks in the span of two weeks? Your tag team partner Postdlf has a fig leaf of imposing only one block, but with two in two weeks you're clearly in the middle of a conflict. Tell me how many diffs you need to prove that you were in conflict at the time and that you imposed the block in violation of your obligation to act honestly and independently, and I will be happy to provide as many as needed to prove otherwise. The word "threat" is a very real issue when you're willing to abuse administrative powers and then blithely deny the simple truth. Alansohn (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Will Alan admit he's in the wrong here? No. Is Alan going to change his pattern of behaviour? No. Will Alan continue to bandy around accusations of trolling, disruption, harassment and the like? Yes. However, I recommend closing this because I think it has served its purpose. In the event that Alan is placed on civility review, or some such similar, this WQA filing can be used to show the continued pattern of behaviour that we documented at his RFC, and later at the footnote case. One final point: I haven't had much opportunity to rise to Alan's defence. (In fact, Gol'f, Alan has long banned me from his talk page for my abusive pattern of vicious harassment and incessant trolling, so I am glad to be in such good company now.) But this originated with a pretty insignificant exchange that has escalated much further here and, while it shows the problem with the editor in question, Alan has agreed to moderate his tone in future. So I'd say we leave it at that and let Alan get back to doing what he does best - editing Wikipedia - and not provoke him by further engagement, which, Alan, I think you'll admit (no, he won't) is not your strongest suit. Eusebeus (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Alan currently, as previously, is overreacting to perceived slights with escalating incivility.  This is extremely unfortunate, because Alansohn frequently has incisive perspectives worth consideration, but the incivility detracts from his message.  Good Olfactory does sometimes respond with a curtness that is easily misread.  I would urge Alansohn to continue to make his points, but to not engage in debating Good Olfactory.  Typically, Alansohn is clear enough with his first statement, and if others express disagreement, the rest of us are perfectly capable of coming to our own reasoned judgment.  Rarely have I seen Alansohns retorts (as opposed to his initial statements) add substance to a debate.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. "These threats just go to show how little 'consensus' at CfD has to do with what the community as a whole thinks. I'm glad that this issue has been taken to a broader set of editors than the cloistered few who participate at CfD." Articles and categories are threatened with deletion when brought to AFD and CFD, why the fuss? The snarky part is not "threat" but the scare quotes around "consensus", and I agree with him. A CFD is much less participated in than an AFD, and just three votes can bring about a deletion at a CFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You wanted diffs? Here's an example of a recent edit: With such an immature attitude, I wonder how users become willing to give you the time and keystrokes to teach you. Whether it's your stubbornness or inability, it's clearly having a bearing on your lack of understanding as to why the distinction between uninvolved and involved is important, while the admin distinction is unimportant, in such a discussion. From moi? No. This is one of Ncmvocalist's most recent edits. A misinterpretation and overreaction to the word "threat" pales compared to this patent incivility on Ncmvocalist's part. Can we get an explanation for this one? And how about the warm and fuzzy What part about "do not edit others comments" do you not understand? Do you always act disruptively when you know that "you are involved and that it is not appropriate for you to edit uninvolved input that disagrees with you"? Such deliberate attempts to compromise the integrity of this project will not tolerated if you ever touch my comments in any way outside of your userspace. at this edit. Is this the best example of civility from one who lectures others? Alansohn (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that one must never have been incivil in order to recognize it in others? --Kbdank71 17:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the word we're looking for is "hypocrisy". Ncmvocalist seems rather determined to find incivility in what he acknowledges is an overreaction on Good Olfactory's part, in his misinterpretation of the word "threat", while Ncmvoclaist seems to have no problem dishing out infinitely more blatant incivility. A response on his part would be helpful here before a separate WQA is started. Alansohn (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone else wants to start a WQA regarding Ncmvocalist's comments to others, that's an entirely separate matter that has nothing to do with you and whether you have made personal attacks, failed to assume good faith, and been generally uncivil. None of us here were a party to those threads and their introduction here is just a distraction.  Pointing out instances where other people may have been uncivil to other people in other contexts does nothing to excuse or explain your own conduct.
 * Several people have said that your use of the word threat was an overreaction to Good Ol'factory's initial comment. Even assuming he in turn overreacted to your use of that term, you then escalated the issue as you're doing now.  In the course of responding to requests that you tone down your comments and refrain from personal attacks and incivility, you've laid out even more accusations of harassment, trolling, bad faith, and abuse of admin powers, all without any support, and all just serving to distract from your own conduct.  And all of this has to be viewed in the course of a longstanding pattern that (I'm dismayed to realize) has been continuing for well over a year now just in the contexts where I have seen it.
 * It's frustrating that you don't seem to pay any attention to what people tell you, or maybe you just don't trust anyone? I don't know how many times I've told you that I know you're a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, and that my sole issue with you is your tone and comments towards other users (and now towards myself as well, it seems).  I look at the observations others made in the RFC that led to your editing restrictions, and the behavior they describe is still disturbingly familiar even though I had no interaction with you at that time or in those other contexts.
 * Incidentally, if anyone else is curious about my own block of Alansohn, it occurred over a year ago and was made pursuant to his editing restrictions. I explained it to him here, and logged it here.  The review of and denial of his unblock request by an uninvolved admin can be seen here.  It was regarding an extremely hostile comment Alansohn made towards Good Ol'factory in a CFD that I did not participate in.  I can only explain Alansohn's accusation of a conflict of interest on my part as some perception of his that I was just taking the side of a friend, but ironically I don't think I had much interaction with Good Ol'factory until we both independently encountered Alansohn's problematic behavior at CFD and both tried to deal with it, and both became the target of it.  Thus getting stuck in the tar baby (as Ncmvocalist is now regrettably learning).  I hope it would go without saying (to others at least) that I would not and never have blocked or threaten to block Alansohn to win my way in a content dispute or to retaliate for perceived slights against myself, nor do I believe Good Ol'factory ever has.  Again, this is all distraction, and an avoidance of responsibility by Alansohn for his own conduct.  postdlf (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Postdlf, while your block may have a fig leaf of noninvolvement (and I'll be happy to provide diffs of your prior involvement in other disputes before your block), though describing that you imposed a block because you were "just taking the side of a friend" hardly comes across as uninvolved. Good Olfactory will have a far more difficult issue with squeezing out of his blatant conflict of interest violation in imposing multiple blocks while involved directly in a conflict. It's nice that the two of you are now working together now on a tagteam basis. Alansohn (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I clearly said "just taking the side of a friend" was your perception of why I blocked you (you said as much on your talk page at the time), not mine or anyone else's perception. You were under editing restrictions at the time, under which you could be blocked for incivility, failure to assume good faith, or personal attacks.  Another admin reviewed your unblock request and denied it, finding my block proper and finding incivility in even your unblock request.  There's really nothing more to be said on that topic.  postdlf (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, I am closing this off before the shouting and accusation-mongering gets further out of hand. Eusebeus (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not reasonable to think closing the discussion with a pejorative comment will have a de-escalating effect -- escalation would be the expected reaction. Gerardw (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Always keep in mind that the aim of this page is to solve ongoing problems, not to punish misbehaviour. The goal here is to seek peaceful resolutions of problems. The current complaint involved a poor choice of word (threat) that was mild on the incivility scale. This was escalated by a talk page warning and a poor reaction to the talk page warning and so on. Alansohn has stated -- apologies if the paraphrase is not 100% accurate -- that while perhaps he doesn't think his choice of words was particularly wrong he understands the concern and will be more aware in the future. The reaction has been -- as I see it -- well, ''okay, but we really probably don't believe you et. al.'' This is not an attitude which is likely to encourage someone to be more civil in the future. On the other hand, trying to parse one borderline civility contribution against another is not helpful, not particularly relevant, and unlikely to bring peaceful resolution. If the goal is to keep as many people editing as possible, then every should put their sticks down and -- as difficult as it is -- assume future behavior will be good. If the only outcome some portion of the community wants/will accept is a groveling mea culpa from Alansohn -- it's not really necessary. All that is necessary is for improvement in the future. In any event, I don't see the mea culpa happening. If the goal is not to non-coercively encourage peaceful settlement perhaps RFC/U would be the preferable forum. Gerardw (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC) I couldn't agree with you more about the purpose of this page but I disagree entirely with your decision to maintain this as an open discussion. This has veered from its initial purpose into a back-and-forth spattering of accusation and counter-accusation, and has ceased to be useful. I believe that SmokeyJoe has put it best and his observation is germane to this page as well: the longer Alan is allowed to engage in further exchanges, the higher the potential that he will fall into greater and greater incivility. What you seem to fail to grasp, Gerard, is that when one simply can never admit to being in the wrong, the resulting dialogue is an exercise in vexation. I'm not going to edit war with you, but this should be closed. Eusebeus (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a failure to grasp anything, it's a difference in opinion. I don't see it as a requirement that Alansohn admit he was wrong. It's the goal that he be better in the future. Gerardw (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think that Alansohn is overreacting here and Eusebeus is on the right path. This isn't going to improve and should be closed; if an RFC or further action is desired, users can proceed down those alleys. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if folks stopped acting Alansohn would stop reacting. Gerardw (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I agree with Stifle and I'm fine for this to be closed. It's a trite fact that debating with Alansohn is futile. If nothing else, this entire discussion gives everyone an idea of the kind of behavior emanating from Alansohn that has been a problem ever since his editing restrictions were formally removed (not to mention before that). Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Taken to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Frank777w
On The True Furqan in edit summaries, and Talk:The True Furqan, he is repeatedly accusing me of "vandalism" and "censorship" for what is good faith editing to improve the article. He is certainly free to disagree with the edits, but vandalism or censorship they are not; such baseless accusations are rather uncivil. Furthermore, rather than seeking to engage in constructive discussion of my (and other editors) concerns with his preferred version of the article, he just keeps on restoring it. --SJK (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't really a WQA matter. The article is an atrocity and  is an SPA devoted to maintaining it in its atrocious state.  I am going to bring this up at WP:FTN in hopes of getting additional eyes on the article. Looie496 (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * True the article isn't a WQA matter but the "vandalism" accusations are. Gerardw (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is indeed an atrocity and has been tagged with multiple issues for many months. Such issues are usually not dealt with without some major changes. We all understand this. I'm not sure if this is an issue of incivility per se as much as it is an issue with Frank refusing to understand why the article needs such changes. This is a matter where WQA can help, but a discussion on this page probably wouldn't help as much as contributing our opinions to the talk page where the conflict is taking place.   S warm  ( Talk ) 02:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm the Third Opinion Wikipedian who gave the Third Opinion in the page being discussed here. Though I agree the page as edited by Frank777w is wholly unacceptable (and said as much in my opinion), I'd like to defend Frank himself. I've gone over his user contributions and don't see a SPA or someone to who WP:IDHT probably applies, but instead someone to whom WP:BITE should still be applied: someone who is attempting to edit in good faith, but who is genuinely having a problem figuring out what WP is all about albeit after having had a number of opportunities to do so. Regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 14:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

TransporterMan, I've got nothing personal against him. And I'd have to add, he's no longer using incivil language, which is why I brought it up here. So from the perspective of this page, we can consider the issue closed. But he's still edit-warring though, constantly reverting to his version despite multiple editors agreeing my version is better. (Not that my version is perfect by any means, just it's more encyclopedic.) He's obviously very interested in the topic (much moreso than I am), so I think if he could be convinced to contribute in a constructive manner it would be very beneficial - e.g., stick with the pruned version of the article, and then add back in material from reliable secondary sources. But that's not what's happening right now. --SJK (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say, Frank777w appears unable or unwilling to understand WP policies and is merely edit warring at this time. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Was going to post 3rr warning but see that you already did. It's really not an WQA issue anymore. Gerardw (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Randy2063
Randy2063 has a long record of incivility, aggressiveness, and disruptive editing. He is regularly involved in drawn-out, heated disputes with other editors, primarily over what he calls "anti-Americanism", mostly in articles related to the United States, terrorism, and U.S. foreign policy. See, for example, Talk: Human rights in the United States and Talk:War crimes committed by the United_States, and most of his edit history for that matter.

Numerous editors have attempted to contact him, and ask him to be civil and calmly work on articles, and to refrain from arguing with other editors about his personal opinions. (see, , and , for example), and have attempted to go through formal mediation with him, all to no avail.

He continues to be aggressive, sarcastic, and writes long POV/OR rants on talk pages (see his talk page history for example).

I support at least a temporary, if not a permanent, community ban on him for his repeated disruptive and uncivil behavior. I understand that this noticeboard cannot impose or enforce such a ban, but I wanted to gather more opinions on this before taking further steps.

146.187.151.57 (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC) (writing anonymously to avoid harassment)
 * Please notify user on their talk page. Gerardw (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. 64.183.151.210 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I reject those claims. Some of those are about lengthy discussions in which I was only one player. In fact, I said a good deal on those talk pages because I didn't want to do any disruptive editing. In many cases, I simply left when the consensus had concluded.

Moreover, it has been shown that my view on this is the same one shared by The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the BBC for their own reporting. As the NYT public editor explains, they do not render a judgment as to whether or not CIA interrogation was "torture" in the legal sense. Why should Wikipedia have lesser standards for NPOV than than those publications?

And if I share the NPOV standards of the NY Times, then why am I the one who gets called out?

As for civility, I think I've been reasonable. I've been editing here for five years on some very contentious topics.

Most of those cites were where I've disparaged the subject of an article or source, and not another editor. Complain about that if you like, but I'm not the one trying to call people "war criminals" in articles when a really objective newspaper would not. That's a BLP violation we'd see a lot more of if not for me.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing a lot of normal rhetoric on talk page but nothing jumps out as particularly incivil. Diffs would be good. Gerardw (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I've been called uncivil right here. (Just above that, actually.)
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I was asking the anonymous editor of specific diffs where you (Randy2063) was incivil Gerardw (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Diffs
Generally, Randy's behavior is very passive aggressive and his problem is more of an overall pattern of edits, rather than blatant incivility specific diffs are generally to narrow in scope to demonstrate his problem behaviors. But here are a few that do.

In addition to the article that Randy2063 just linked to, where he seems to currently be embroiled in his latest argument, and those that are listed above by the OP, here's several more:
 * -- see links pertaining Randy2063
 * -- "Not surprisingly..." ... "The bottom line is, would making this connection be honest? I say no. We know too much right now for these kinds of leaps to be useful in any manner that tries to maintain integrity." ... Then consider that much of this article was inspired by a politician during an election year. That's pretty pathetic. ... It's patently obvious ... Are you serious? Is it truly your position that... ... Why allow a deliberate distortion of the truth?, etc. -- note the sarcastic, passive aggressive tone here. This is what I mean by "overall pattern". Each of these taken alone might be just taken as him being a little too sarcastic, and minor assumptions of bad faith. But once someone uses passive aggressive, weasel-wordy, sarcastic language like this consistently in his/her interaction with other editors, I believe it to be a problem with civility.
 * -- "What's to be gained if readers don't take this article seriously? ... that's IRRELEVANT AND DECEPTIVE.You are using the label "non-partisan" to make it appear as though the ISS is a neutral observer. It is not. NOBODY believes Julian Bond is an objective judge of the facts surrounding Katrina. Got that? NOBODY. To label the ISS as "non-partisan" serves only to blur the facts. Blurring the facts is not what we're supposed to be doing here. ... You're right only in that it's a complete waste of time trying to reason with you. ... Perhaps they'll be like you and believe that an organization started by Julian Bond is objective. ... Did you even read what I said? ... They're loons. ... The fact that they were founded by Julian Bond should tell you enough. ... But if you want to sit with a smile on your face imagining that everyone who reads this article is going to be fooled by the word "nonpartisan" then you'd better think again. Some people will be fooled. Others will read about Julian Bond and start laughing at you. ... also note how User:Viriditas repeatedly tried to explain Wikipedia policy to Randy2063 and was ignored. Randy2063 was more interested in arguing, as usual.
 * : see his comments about "covering up history" and responses. As in the links above and below, Randy consistently uses ad hominem attacks, and makes claims that editors are "covering up history", and fails to assume good faith. It is abrasive and uncivil to claim that because someone doesn't agree with you, that they are trying to mislead people and cover up history.
 * -- "That may be how it is in the movies", etc.
 * -- what do you think this editor meant by "so you know what to expect" ... why is it that so many editors seem to have a problem with him, and expect problems with him before a conversation even begins? ... why do you think that this editor considers him to be a troll?
 * -- Seriously, no one who supports this guy ever cared about "civil rights". But if you want to quote him as some kind of authority, then please go right ahead. The more these articles are pumped up with glaringly obvious agit-prop, the more complete a picture we get of the critics of the war. They never tell their friends either that they need to respect the Geneva Conventions. ... Every fascist who's been detained claims he was tortured. Even the hunger-striking Islamists that the Canadians detained say that. ... They may have gotten it from one of his sleazy lawyers ... Yee is the camp's angry ex-chaplain who's currently spreading hatred of the U.S. His incitements may not be as likely to have gotten people killed as Begg's but he's in the same dark league. ... is beyond parody. ... It's true that we can only infer how his war stories are being received by his fellow jihadis, but it sounds rather obvious to me. ... can you at least say with a straight face that you personally believe it to be true?

... that should provide at least a taste of his pattern of disruptive behavior. Picking a page at random from his talk page history will most likely demonstrate more arguments, etc.

But most importantly, if you look at the links that the original poster placed above, you can see an overall pattern by looking at Randy2063's talk page history where he consistently writes long rants about his personal viewpoints on talk pages, using language such as "fascists", "terrorists", and "leftist anti-Americans", etc., misrepresenting editors' viewpoints, and generally dealing with other editors sarcastically, argumentatively and abrasively. Look at his talk page history. Notice the amount of time he is spending arguing with other editors. Notice the repeated suggestions from numerous editors that he stop ranting about his POV, provide reliable sources ([this discussion] or the end of this section, for instance), and stop doing original research. The fact that numerous editors have seen the same exact problems with him, probably demonstrates that there is some kernel of truth to them. --66.225.4.6 (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank for the effort. Honestly, I think the nature, longevity and complexity of the behavior is beyond what WQA is set up (which, I think, is why you've been getting little response). The next step would be a RFC/U. Gerardw (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Take a closer look at those cites.
 * I don't have time to go through them all, but the third one is an obvious issue for objectivity. Somebody wanted to call an organization run by Julian Bond "non-partisan."  This was in the article.  Sorry, but that was a deceptive label.  It lures the reader to conclude that the organization is unbiased, and therefore, that his opinion is unbiased.  Does anyone here really want to say I didn't have a valid point?
 * My "may be how it is in the movies" phrase was apt. I was making the point that CIA planning requires legal guidance, which is true.
 * In the one about the Haditha article, someone had said that I broke 3RR. But that turned out not to be true.
 * In the last item, I was referring to a former Gitmo detainee. It's the same guy this former Amnesty leader refers to as a Taliban supporter.  Please note that I was opposed to using his words to lead the reader to believe the events happened the way he described.
 * I'm not perfect, but I find it hard to believe these items were the issue.
 * Note that the items I listed were cases where I was trying to promote objectivity. It's one thing to say I was ultimately wrong.  It's quite another to say I didn't have a point at all.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As for where he points to "the end of this section," that one was about waterboarding. As I said above (with a reference), my position is the same as that of the New York Times editors.  They have a NPOV policy, too.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Tom Reedy
For a considerable time now, I (and other editors) have been the recipient of numerous personal attacks by user:Tom Reedy. We are on opposing sides of an ongoing debate contained in the article Shakespeare authorship question. Tom represents the Stratfordian side, and myself the anti-Stratfordian side. As a result things often get heated. Unfortunately, in spite of being warned on numerous occasions about the policies against personal attacks, he continues to make disparaging remarks and invective against myself as well as ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees with his position.


 * Here are 3 near identical postings he left today: [], [], and [].


 * And only yesterday he stated "That confusion seems to be endemic with anti-Strats, which cause me to think that there's some kind of common cognitive connection that predisposes them to becoming anti-Stratfordians." contained in this edit: [].


 * Yesterday he also accused me of having someone write my edits for me "Yet somehow you have the time to make sweeping changes (or consult with someone to write them for you, because I think I recognize that style)" contained in this edit [].


 * I have removed his attacks and insults in the past - [], [], and his posting of personal information [], as well as his accusations against other users [].


 * All of the above diffs came after a plea to stop this kind of behavior [].

I respectfully request assistance in this matter. Smatprt (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As for ad hominem attacks against anti-Stratfordians in general, I will only list one (of many) -[].
 * Please notify user on their talk page. Gerardw (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Smatprt (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tom Reedy appears not to wish to discuss here, which is perfectly fine. Another editor has left warning on User's talk page User_talk:Tom_Reedy.

I'm sorry, was I supposed to respond to this point-by-point? I considered this just another tactic by Smatprt to try to stop my edits, as he is a master of Wikipedia policy to gain advantage and I am not. If anyone reads the entire context of the incidents he rehearses above, they will find that I am guilty of WP:SPADE. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Entirely up to you, I was not being sarcastic or ironic when I said it was perfectly fine not to participate. A review of somebody's talk page shows a long-standing conflict being you two, with dispute currently being assisted by EdJohnston. I'm just trying to close the thread out. Gerardw (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I've already taken down the three incidents he found so objectionable. As far as I'm concerned you can close it out, but I don't really know what the procedure is for this kind of thing. I don't feel like going into a tedious he-said-she-said about it. I'm just weary of his tiresome tactics and I think the time could be more profitably spent improving the article. It's obvious by his comments how he operates as the faultless wounded victim, as almost anybody familiar with transactional communication analysis theory can see. You have to admire the mastery and artfulness of the passive-aggressive style, even though in the end it has devastating psychological consequences for the user. I was warned here and here against editing that article with him, and I probably should have listened, because I have a couple of real academic projects I've been neglecting because of it. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's disturbing that Tom chooses to defend his behavior by incorrectly quoting WP:SPADE, which specifically says "One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks." For the record, I filed this report here precisely BECAUSE no block can be instituted by this body. I have actually valued Tom's edit's over the years, but after numerous warnings and requests to stop the personal attacks, they actually escalated recently. There is simply no excuse for this ongoing behavior. It is apparent, though, that Tom simply refuses to see this. Smatprt (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Incident with Ncmvocalist
Ncmvocalist has had a great deal of trouble in responding in civil fashion to other editors. Rather than have these issues get lost elsewhere, it appears best to take them here on a standalone basis. These two edits in the past 24 hours are indicative of the problem:

I sincerely hope that an appropriate reaction here will discourage further such blatant incivility on Ncmvocalist's part. Alansohn (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the first is a little snarky but not a big deal. I don't have any problem with the second. Recommend no further action. Gerardw (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk about understatement! A "little snarky"? I'll have to remember that one next some calls me uncivil. Alansohn (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither of these were posted to your talk page Alan. This is childish retaliation; you are giving in to exactly the kind of behaviour that led to your civility parole from arbcom. Stop it. Eusebeus (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't claim that Ncmvocalist has been uncivil with me, merely that he seems to have a major incivility problem with editors in general. My review of WQA procedures finds no indication that the quotes in question must be left on my talk page. My comments haven't reached the "a little snarky" level that Ncmvocalist appears to be fond of. Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite true with regard to location of comments. But the comment themselves mild grey area. Gerardw (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When a WQA is filed by a non-party for the purpose of retaliation, and the top of this page says to avoid filing a WQA against those who commented and possibly closed it, that does tend to mean something, in case you forgot, Gerardw. I won't tolerate such abuse, and have therefore taken the matter regarding Alansohn to ANI; I have no intention of responding any further here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bemoaning your antagonists as having an "immature attitude" and their "stubbornness or inability" in acceding to your demands. This is not retaliation; This is taking to task in the appropriate forum an editor who has a rather sever and quite genuine civility problem. Acknowledging the problem will be the first step in dealing with this persistent bad faith and incivility. I will be happy to provide further diffs, though they seem to hardly be needed. The person who claims retaliation has now retaliated himself. The same editor who sees problems with civility in other editors refuses to acknowledge that he himself has a far more severe problem with civility. Alansohn (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist
I have had a number of troubling interactions with this editor. Here and here he engages in a condescending personal attacks which I ask that he refrain from here. He responds here with a particularly problematic characterization of my professional abilities. In an unrelated interaction, he makes a bad faith accusation of gaming and is less than civil here. When asked to refactor he engages in semantic loops, as is evidently his practice given the notice at the top of his talk page.

SA appears to think that thinly veiled attacks directed into the wikipedia ether are acceptable. I hope he can be disabused of that notion. JPatterson (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The link you provide to SA's talk page & related WT page don't appear problematic to me. In fact, he appears to have gone out of his way to write a very reasonable reply. Eusebeus (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Eusebeus ...I'm seeing a failure to communicate more than any incivility. I've left a couple concrete suggestions on ScienceApologist's talk page. It's good that you've sought assistance rather than continue be frustrated. Gerardw (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would contend that if X calls Y an asshole, and Y asks X to retract their remarks, and X responds "help me understand why being called an asshole is offensive to you", X is not engaging in reasonable discourse. JPatterson (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would too. But SA did not call you an asshole. I don't think spending time on hypotheticals will be useful. Gerardw (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the unreasonableness lies in X's final request, not his initial characterization. JPatterson (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope my attempt to address this matter has been to the satisfaction of those here. I really do take accusations that I'm being uncivil very seriously. I have refactored the one statement that was explained to me as being uncivil (essentially it came down to it being a comment on the contributor and not the content) and for that I apologize and have refactored with what I believe to be a suitable synonym. If there is anything more I should do, please let me know. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate SA generous response and thank Gerardw for his help in getting this resolved. JPatterson (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was your and SA's willingness to listen that made it work -- nonetheless, thanks. Gerard PFA W 23:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible Trolling on Asperger Syndrome Talk Page
Talk page semi-protected against trolling. Fences &amp;  Windows  20:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)}}

I don't find this to be resolved at all, as the discussion has been re-opened - even against user Daniago's best attempts at stifling debate. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Because of recent discussion of the removal of Asperger syndrome from the DSM, a rather ugly debate erupted on the Talk page, particularly after some people tried to summarily delete/redirect AS, and then said AS should be merged with the Autism article. Getting tired of the talk without formal discussion, I started a formal discussion. Now there's an IP user who is responding to every viewpoint that they don't support in a manner that I would consider consistent with trolling. I feel as though anything I might say to said user at this point would be construed as a conflict of interest. I also feel as though if -I'm- the one who closes the discussion then matters may only escalate. I'd really appreciate any advice/feedback, and wouldn't be at all opposed to direct intervention. Doniago (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Left appropriate notices on user talk page. Gerardw (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Closed discussion per request. Gerardw (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So someone cries and all debate is squashed immediately? The real world doesn't work like this, and that is why Wiki will never be credited as a reputable source. Q.E.D. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's funny the anonymous user is 'trolling' only when they don't agree with your views, user 'Doniago'. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This childish namecalling is your idea of 'debate'? That's not how the real world works.  Endorse the close, no merit to the merge argument - merging the articles now based on a change that may be published in 2013 is OR - and 'trolling' a mild term for what was going on in that discussion.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 04:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edit so I could respond to this poorly thought out attack above. So, it is childish namecalling to use a term used by current Aspergers syndrome sufferers to refer to themselves? Who knew? Please, you are embarrassing yourself. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, wrong diff (although that's not exactly your finest moment, either.) I was going for This one.  But if my comment is your idea of a 'poorly thought out attack' then I think we're done here.  Bye, now. :-) -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 04:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Self diagnosed Aaspergers sufferer found, apparently? I can see that one got to you. No, you were not "going for that one". Check the timestamps, user 'Vary'. I posted that in jest after the debate had already been callously closed, you were caught end of story. Beyond that, this is an informal board low on the escalation totem. It notes this at the top of the page.

I request someone escalate this, I want to know how many of those anonymous votes on the page really -are- sock puppets of probably one or two highly interested Wiki editors. A usercheck, whatever the guy called it. Let's do it. See who is the real troll, sounds fair to me? I am sure there is a rule in there about a single user throwing bias into the consensus process by posting multiple votes for or against a proposition. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So, all he had to do was request the topic be closed? I formally request the topic be re-opened, it was obviously under intense discussion. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed in all of you, especially Doni. 66.36.155.207 (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Questions regarding possible sock puppets go here WP:SSP 10:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's all trolling from Something Awful:. I've archived both discussion threads, if they continue trolling I'll semi-protect the article and talk page. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So just because that forum has a thread on the issue, all anonymous users MUST be trolls? Amazing bias. Discussion needs to be unlocked, bias is obvious. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm most concerned that User:Studmandudebro (who's ONLY activity here has been to !vote on this issue) and User:96.236.176.181 (an IP that's also only ever been used for this single issue) are possible socks of the (now blocked) User:Zengar_Zombolt who started the merger debate and took precipitate action after the merger debate was closed (resulting, quite justifiably in a 2 week block). The IP account and Zengar Zombolt have a remarkably similar style of invective and use of language and have very similar editing habits...although Studmandudebro has only ever typed one sentence into Wikipedia (that being to vote on this issue), so it's rather hard to tell in that case.  It's odd that Zombolt would have fired off the merger debate and then not returned to type even one sentence to defend it - then return to slap a "COI" complaint on my Talk page.  If '98 really is Zombolt then he/she is evading a 2 week block - which is uber-bad karma wikiquette-wise - and using a sock to vote on an issue that he had proposed - which is double-uber-bad karma.  Perhaps someone who is more familiar with the process than I would be so kind as to fire off a checkuser request.  (And apologies in advance to '98 if this is a mischaracterization). Thanks. SteveBaker (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, -I'm- the one who formalized the merger debate, after I got sick of the back-and-forth that wasn't going anywhere. Nobody said you had to support a merger to propose one, and I fully expected it to fail, but figured at least then it would be on the record. As for the rest...Zombolt dug his own hole quite effectively. As far as your sock puppet concerns go, you should check out WP:SOCK. This isn't really the appropriate place for them. Doniago (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I honestly wish you would hurry up and do your little 'checkuser' already, because I sure as hell can't figure out the mess that the request page is. Unless that's another thing which holds anon users as the 'second class citizen' and simply doesn't allow us to post. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright that's mean, but you are acting like a real 'sperger. You will feel dumb when you are proven wrong for everyone to see. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That comment gained the IP a 48 hour block for incivility. Fences  &amp;  Windows  05:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Breein1007
The breein user be call me disgusting on me talk page over and over, and it also revert my edit by call them "vandalism".

He attack me and call me disgusting here and here. and now he stalk me and undo me edits by call it "vandalism" here and here. It not vandalism to improve article or remove un relevant information, especially when other user like the Gilabrand agree. Please help me. Ani medjool (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * While Breein1007 shouldn't refer to good faith edits as vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND), you should note that neither diff shows Breein1007 calling you disgusting. In the first diff, Breein1007 refers to your disgusting beliefs, and the second comment is aimed at Chesdovi, not you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: You neglected to notify Breein1007about this discussion. I took care of it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i not familiar with all rule on wikipedia. I will remember this for future. thank you much. Ani medjool (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Should Breein1007 be discussing another editor's beliefs (disgusting or otherwise)? Gerardw (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Under normal circumstances, probably not. But if you review Ani medjool's comments and edit summaries, you'll see that Ani medjool is very "generous" in sharing her/his beliefs about Zionists and Jews with other editors. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification Malik. To clarify, I most definitely was not referring to Chesdovi. As you pointed out Malik, Ani medjool has done his fair share of commentary about his beliefs. If he is going to insult me on a political, religious, national, and personal level, I am most certainly going to respond with what I think too. The fact that he has been allowed to continue editing while he says such things on not only his talk page, but also on article talk pages, is ludicrous. Gerard, if you believe that it is wrong for me to be discussing another editor's beliefs, I would request that you comment on whether it is wrong for Ani medjool to be continuously spewing racist hate-speech on Wikipedia. What happened to WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM? Breein1007 (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How about yall just leave each other alone? The conversation should not have even started to begin with and it went down a predictable path.  nableezy  - 00:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This may be cold by now, but Breein1007 is also dropping bogus warning templates on my talk page, but he doesn't like it when his POV-pushing is reverted. I find this, along with his co-operation with close cooperation with sockpuppets of banned users such as User:Lovely_day350 to be troubling. Newt  (winkle) 18:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks, incivility and false accusations by User:Chowbok
Moving this here from WP:AN/I since it has been clearly disregarded by Chowbok and admins on AN/I. I filed this yesterday at WP:AN/I and notified Chowbok at the same time. Chowbok, while editing through the period, has chosen not to respond to the report. Since AN/I seems extremely busy, I decided, almost 10 hours later, to bring it here.

Chowbok launched full-fledged personal attacks, incivility and false accusations against me. He came to the article John Wayne Gacy for the first time on January 14, 2010 and proceeded to change the style of referencing to a lesser known and utilized style without first broaching the change on the article talk page clearly in violation of WP:CITE, which says editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus. (Bolding emphasis not added). There was no effort to garner consensus prior to this change and it was reverted and a talk page discussion started, where it was protested. One of Chowbok's responses to the protest was to make accusations of ownership. He later moved over to the Dawn Wells article and returned content that had been taken 3 different times to WP:BLP/N as inappropriate content, which I reverted and took immediately to WP:BLP/N. I posted notice to Rossrs and Pinkadelica about this issue since they had both been involved in discussions about this in the past. Chowbok followed around my edits and posted comments on both user's talk pages  and to mine. I replied here that I knew the editors' opinions and knew they had not changed and replied in greater depth here. He was further asked by Rossrs not to leave sarcastic posts on his talk page, a sentiment that was echoed by Pinkadelica. He went so far on Talk:Dawn Wells to say "I wonder how seriously to take WP:BLP/N discussions anyhow, when you're doing things like going around calling in favors in an attempt to rig the discussion." Editors also posted protests to his actions and comments on his talk page.

Chowbok returned to the John Wayne Gacy article yesterday and once again implemented wholesale changes to the style of formatting used in violation again of WP:CITE and falsely claimed in an edit summary that "No objections stated on talk page to anchored ref format, starting implementation." Again I reverted it as an undiscussed change without benefit of consensus and posted discussion on the talk page. When I didn't respond fast enough to his comments to suit him on the article talk page, Chowbok posted this demand for response to my talk page. After some discussion on the subject, Chowbok withdrew his suggestion and launched a personal attack against me, making false accusations of "meat puppetry", where he said "Yeah, and basically it'll be impossible to gain consensus because of Wildhartlivie's vast army of meat puppets that she can canvass at a moment's notice. No doubt Pinkedelia and LaVidaLoca will show up should anyone else express even tentative approval for this change, or indeed anything else she doesn't like. Consider the suggestion withdrawn." An editor, Doc9871, clearly stated "I'm no meat-puppet, I can assure you. As for a "vast army of meat puppets"... what, is she Saruman? "You will taste... Man-flesh!!!" ;P". Chowbok responded and ended his comment with the personal comment "Anyway, that's all I'll say about it, I know we're supposed to be commenting on articles, not editors. Wildhartlivie, I'll let you have the last word: commence freak-out and attacks below." At that point, I posted a formal request that Chowbok withdraw his attacks here and also at his talk page here or I would bring his behavior to this board. His response to me was "I don't respond well to threats. I stand behind everything I wrote. Go ahead and report me wherever you like if it'll make you happy. I'm busy editing an encyclopedia." True to his word, Chowbok failed to respond to notification of the post at AN/I or to defend himself. His comments not only attack me, they attack other editors, such as Doc9871, Crohnie, Pinkadelica and Rossrs and in fact, any editor who responds who doesn't agree with him. This is absolutely unacceptable commentary and attacks and Chowbok needs to try and understand this is not an acceptable standard for here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You did a very similar thing on the Fort Hood shooting article last year – removing the article’s established citation style then complaining to an Admin. about it . This fragmented exchange sets out the issue and the fact that your analysis of the situation in that instance was incorrect  - (the style was not novel as you persistently claimed and had in fact been discussed).


 * Here, you have used the same argument that was used against you on that occasion and correctly retained the previously established citation style. So what’s the big deal? The other editor has walked away from that issue, he was wrong, you were right. I don’t understand the constant bleating of righteous indignation because someone alters something you are personally set against. His accusations might be harsh to stomach, but your recent record with alternative accounts is bound to leave you open to scorn in some quarters. Even though that might be a harsh judgement on you.


 * I think you could have resolved this matter without the AN/I reference and then bringing it here because you’ve failed to get a response there. What exactly is it you want, for him to be warned or worse? You are coming across as being vindictive by pursuing remedy in a dispute you have already won. Leaky  Caldron  09:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to wonder if your post would have been quite so critical regarding the Fort Hood shooting had you not been personally involved in the discussion of that. In fact, I had forgotten about it entirely. However, the point of that discussion was that one shouldn't change over citation format without clear consensus and I apparently learned clearly from that. Beyond that, the aspersion about "bleating of rightous indignation" is more than extreme. When someone comes into an article and institutes a wide-ranging change like this, meets resistance, clearly lies in his edit summary when he returns to again institute his change, it's hardly "righteous indignation" to protest. As for the alternative accounts history, thank you very much but I served my block and, yes, I find it at least a harsh judgment to drag that up to throw in my face because you apparently are long in memory and short in forgiveness. What? A person encounters an issue on Wikipedia and it is the only thing that comes to mind when inappropriate conduct and comments arise down the road? I made a clear effort to resolve this by requesting that Chowbok retract his statement, which was not so much an aspersion on my "alternative accounts" history and instead was a direct attack upon me and a variety of editors who disagree with him. Calling them "meat puppets" is less about me than it is about them and their integrity, backbone and opinion. I brought it here because AN/I flatly ignored the post and yes, I want Chowbok to retract his statement or be clearly warned about personal attacks upon not just me, but the other editors upon which he cast his snarky web, like Doc9871, Chronie, Rossrs and Pinkadelica, none of whom are guilty of anything but disagreeing with Chowbok. Whether you like me or not, I frankly don't care, but this attack extends to any editor who happens to agree with me and not with Chowbok and that is contemptible and his comments were inappropriate and his dismissal of dispute resolution processes was blatantly clear. As for "already winning", that hasn't been determined. Other factors are at work here, upon which I am not permitted to comment by condition, but you are free to explore. What I want is an unbiased, non-judgmental outcome which is free of previous bias and aspersions cast on those others editors reneged, if anyone here is capable of that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have successfully argued your point against changes to the citation style. This is as it should be. Although it clearly took the other editor some time to get the point, he clearly now has it. His insinuations against you and your supporting editors can surely be seen as a parting shot by someone who has failed to prove his point. He has moved on. Why not do the same? The other editor’s you refer to haven’t chimed in with complaints about his remarks, why do you need to on their behalf? Just move on WH, and concentrate on your exceptional content work. Forgive and forget. Leaky  Caldron  13:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue of citation style has been resolved, and it would be good to move forward as painlessly as possible.  One point to consider is that Chowbok's comments were not merely a "parting shot by someone who has failed to prove his point."   He made several comments previously at Talk:Dawn Wells, the strongest of which accused Wildhartlivie of calling in favours in an attempt to rig the discussion and he left messages on my talk page and that of another editor.  I don't owe Wildhartlivie any favours and the accusation rests just as squarely on me as it does on her.   I do not want this to escalate, and I do not want this to continue.  Both Chowbok and Wildhartlivie are long-term editors who have each made strong contributions.  Whether Chowbok likes, dislikes, approves or disapproves of Wildhartlivie and her "meat puppets" is his business.  He needs to stop peppering his comments with personal observations and accusations.   Let's nip it in the bud.   Everybody needs to keep to the facts and the edits in discussion.   I don't ask that Chowbok be given a warning or that this goes any further, but if he has this watchlisted and he reads this comment, all I ask is that he avoids making any more personal comments no matter how sorely he feels tempted or how strongly he feels justified.  That's all, and it's not much to ask or expect.  Rossrs (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User Leinad removing warnings from his page talk
I warned Leinad, he removed my warning and warned me instead. Not polite. Slijk (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone can remove warnings from their talk page. You seem to be in a bit of an edit war about someone who's just died. The issue should be the reliability of the source, and consensus should be worked out on the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Miqademus
I wish to have this editor discuss their interactions with me, in particular their stance on the adding of unverified material to articles and their indication that they would prefer me not to edit the articles at all. They have been informed on their talk page (diff).

By way of most recent example, the subject of the article Fields of Glory was classified in a certain manner. I disagreed having consulted some external sources but was reverted by Miqademus. I requested a third opinion, which was then declined by Miqademus. They explained their rationale in terms of original research (theirs not mine) and refused to allow so much as a citation tag in the article.

Miqademus has made up his/her mind that the classification of certain video games relies on editors can rely on their judgement and not cites and some verbose and baffling arguments were supplied to support their opinion. Miqademus has declared a preference for me not being allowed to edit at all. Alastairward (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This is a counter-sue in response for my comment on Alastairward's wikiqette alert, above. Please read for context. Miqademus (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Miqademus, that's a pretty poor response. I noted your earlier response in this section if you had cared to read it. I'm not "counter-reporting" you, the reason for this section is laid out pretty clearly, that dealings between you and I are problematic. Is your only response to suggest that I'm doing this out of spite? Alastairward (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2010


 * I'm partial in the sense that I've complained about Alastair's behavior myself, but it's very obvious that this is really just a counter-report rather than a separate complaint. I see nothing approaching incivility in the diffs posted by Alastair. At most frustration and maybe, just maybe, being wrong about how strict certain policies should be enforced. Disagreeing heartily is not being uncivil, so please try reply to Miqademus complaint in the thread above rather than starting a separate case.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Peter, are you saying I shouldn't have reported Miqademus? The incivility comes from the hostile response I've had from them (requesting I be banned from editing etc as their "dispute resolution"). Alastairward (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. Miqademus has always been friendly and encouraging with me, and has always come across as editing in good faith. SharkD   Talk  19:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This entire thread was quite obviously started to "get back" at Miqademus for his posting at the AW thread on this very same page and by its very nature is "bad faith". I think it would be for the best of all concerned to close this thread and focus on the matter of Alastairward. -OberRanks (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the contributor. Speculation as to Alastairward's motivation for posting is not helpful. In any event, no evidence of incivility has been presented, so I'm marking NWQA. Gerardw (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User UKER's false accusation of vandalism
and I had a content dispute (not my concern on this page) during which he requested page protection of the article in dispute. In requesting this page protection, UKER accused me of "vandalism" here. I never vandalized the article. He and I both reverted several times but did not violate 3RR. We had discussions about the content dispute on the article's talk page, but there was never any vandalism by anyone. I have asked UKER to explain this accusation several times. His only excuse so far is "vandalism" was automatically used as a reason to request page protection when he used Twinkle. I have asked him whether he considers it appropriate to make as serious a charge as vandalism simply because that is a choice he has with Twinkle, and whether he thinks it's OK to routinely accuse someone of vandalism when no vandalism occurs because he wishes to use an automated editing tool. His only response is that he does not wish to be a "drama partner". He has carefully skirted the issue of this false accusation by making other false accusations against me (mainly accusing me of being disruptive), but he has never responded regarding the false charge of vandalism. This is only one of several false accusations and personal attacks he has made. My primary concern is not about the past but the possibility that UKER will continue to respond to content disputes with editors by accusing them of vandalism, which is entirely inappropriate, and his seeming attitude that he does not have to explain himself when he does so. I would appreciate other opinions here. Thank you. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Selecting "vandalism" when requesting a page protection now equals false accusation of vandalism? All I can say is LOL!!! BTW, this + this + this = 3RR violation. As I have said before, you also showed total disregard for the BRD cycle by dropping into an article, boldly editing and then repeatedly reverting to your version instead of waiting for a resolution in the discussion I created. And I won't go into your endless threats and false accusations of votestacking. Make of this what you wish. I won't be devoting more time to you than I already have. --uKER (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Here again, he never explains his false accusation, he only avoids the issue by trying to make a joke out of it and make additional false accusations. There was no violation of 3RR, and he reverted as much as I did. Uker, why did you accuse me of vandalism? Please answer the question. And more importantly, do you realize that it was inappropriate, and do you plan to avoid doing so in the future? 71.77.21.198 (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You deny violating the 3RR even in presence of the diffs? LMAO! You violated 3RR. I did not. And no, you making a drama out of this won't take you anywhere. --uKER (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Three reverts does not violate 3RR. Read WP:3RR. You also made reverts. But this page is regarding your false accusation of vandalism. I would appreciate your not trying to make a joke about a serious matter. Again Uker, why did you accuse me of vandalism? And more importantly, do you realize that it was inappropriate, and do you plan to avoid doing so in the future? 71.77.21.198 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are responsible for the use of your tools. Selecting vandalism requires a conscious act -- my version of Twinkle defaults to "Dispute." Are you saying yours defaults to vandalism? Gerard PFA W 20:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Selecting "vandalism" when soliciting page protection does not constitute a personal accusation. Forget it. I'm not taking the blame. --uKER (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. You could have selected "dispute", but you purposefully selected "vandalism" when no vandalism occurred. Even worse (and this is my major concern here) you don't appear to consider it inappropriate to accuse someone of vandalism when no vandalism occurred, and apparently you don't have any intention to avoid such inappropriate behavior in the future. I really don't care at this point that you falsely called me a vandal. My concern is for the next editor who has a dispute with you, perhaps a newcomer who doesn't know what's going on, and you decide to deal with the dispute by making false accusations. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Because UKER has had ample opportunity to explain himself and seems to be oblivious to the seriousness of false accusations, I now would like to ask opinions about whether this should escalate to a request for admin involvement. That does not mean that I would request a block, but simply would report UKER's inappropriate behavior and let an admin decide whether further action is needed. As I have said, my concern is not this one incident, but the potential that UKER will continue this behavior since he appears to think it is perfectly acceptable behavior. Thanks. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's let it go for a few more days. Typically we get more third party editors reviewing the board during the week day, so perhaps we'll get fresh eyes on the issue. In any event, I think this falls into "the accusation was wrong and the best response is to ignore it." Gerardw (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Continuing accusations against contributors by Keepcalmandcarryon dispite being asked to stop
Myself and others have asked Keepcalmandcarryon to please comment on content, not on contributors. Some examples (there are others) of Keepcalmandcarryon's previous comments on editors, "That CFS patients and advocates view this information as threatening, to be deleted at all cost, further establishes its significance." Speculation on editors, "That Ward20 and other editors present no such sources, object to researching the issue, and elect to portray such trivial differences as an NPOV dispute, a matter for the BLP noticeboard or indication of personal bias on my part is, quite frankly, a bit curious." Speculating on and accusing editors, "It would appear that at least one of the editors here is involved personally in the scientific debate over the WPI vs. McClure results, intervening to attack McClure over patient selection.".

More recently:

I asked if a sentence was original research at WP:NOR/N, listing pro and con arguments that were on the talk page.  Keepcalmandcarryon posts after mine, "Ward20 is attempting to remove reliably sourced, verifiable information from Whittemore Peterson Institute... Many, many sources, some of them provided in the article until deleted by Ward20 and like-minded editors..." This is a distortion of trying to resolve a dispute on the talk page and WP:NOR/N, the material and sources are still in Whittemore Peterson Institute. I don't know what to call an unfounded accusation that I am attempting to violate policy except a personal attack to discredit my post on WP:NOR/N.

I proposed sourced material to the XMRV article on the talk page. Keepcalmandcarryon opposes it and posts a request to WP:MED. I ask the reader to determine for themselves if Keepcalmandcarryon's request is leading. Later Keepcalmandcarryon states to another editor about my editing behaviour, "I would also note the characterisation of Ward20's editing behaviour as "soapboxing". which refers to the comment, "Agree that WP is not a soapbox for extrapolation from a correlative study to regulatory impact." This was before I added clarification on the sources. IMO this is pattern of subtle personal attacks. At first I ignored them. I then asked Keepcalmandcarryon to stop commenting on editors but it continues. Help would be appreciated. Thank you. Ward20 (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made no personal attacks. I have simply noted an obvious and consistent editing pattern by Ward20 and several other editors that strikingly resembles advocacy for a somewhat fringe (or, at least, well out-of-the-mainstream) idea of disease causation in the case of chronic fatigue syndrome. As another editor observed at WP:MED, Wikipedia is not a soapbox from which to advocate one's chosen view of an illness, especially not when that view is based solely upon primary sources, all of which have at one time or another been disputed. Rather, Wikipedia must summarise, accurately and with proper weight, the position or positions of the medical community. Certainly, the minority view that CFS is caused by a virus merits mention on Wikipedia. Just as certainly, we must also mention, using reliable sources, that the most recent virus claim has not been replicated and that the Institute making these claims is not exactly an established organisation. Ward20 and others have consistently stood in the way of the inclusion of any and all such reliable information at Whittemore Peterson Institute.
 * That Ward20 represents my valid comments in this regard as personal attacks is quite frankly bemusing. That Ward20 has not made similar accusations against users perceived to be on Ward20's "side" who have accused me outright and without any reasonable justification of "fabrication" is telling and confirms my long-held suspicion that Ward20's goal on Wikipedia is to promote a minority viewpoint, running roughshod over perceived "opponents" when necessary, and not to improve the project. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Alastairward
I'm concerned about what I perceive as uncivil behavior from Alastairward aimed at me in a dispute over application of WP:V at Butters' Bottom Bitch. There's been an ongoing dispute over the inclusion of a cultural reference that is going nowhere and is in my view of me trying to offer compromises and with Alastair constantly reverting me. The core of the argument is disagreement of WP:V, but I feel that it's by now gotten personal with the edge aimed at me. My and another user's position is that this is a case where WP:V can't be applied strictly since there are mitigating circumstances. Alastair on the other hand believes that there is no room for compromises, with partial support from two other users.

The problem is that I feel that Alastair is forcing his own position on the article and disregarding the need for mutually respectful, multilateral discussion. I feel that Alastair is also doing this with needlessly belligerent and openly provocative methods:


 * Alastair has made an open implication that I have been engaging in point-making and despite my attempt to ignore it, it was repeated only about 12 hours later. When I tried to point out that it was unnecessary to imply bad faith, I got nothing but a cryptic answer that seemed to imply that I had made the accusation.
 * Despite knowing that I'm an experienced user Alastair has left messages intended for newbies (mixed with accusations of incivility) on my talkpage. When I removed what I felt was a pointlessly provocative gesture, it was followed by a rather accusatory misrepresentation of recent events.
 * Later came comments like "If the veterans can't take onboard wikipedia policies, they shouldn't complain when they are reminded of them."
 * User:Gigs commented the templating at Alastair's talkpage, calling it "poor form", but from Alastair's reply I get the impression that the only option with Alastair is to keep reverting if things go against his opinions.
 * I'm also concerned that Alastair is gaming the system when he openly admits that he'd rather keep reverting than continue discussion as long as it doesn't technically break any rules.
 * One of my recent attempt to introduce a compromise which would not violate WP:V have been promptly reverted with demands constantly placed on me to move discussion forward.
 * This follows a pattern of swift and unilateral reverts that have been typical of my interaction with Alastair since I first edited the article. I've tried to bring up my concerns that Alastair is pushing his own interpretation of policy as objective truth. I've also complained about what I feel is a lack of interest in genuine consensus building with dissenting voices. Discussions can be found on Alastair's talkpage and mine, but I sense no mutual respect or will to acknowledge conflicting opinions.
 * What really makes me think that Alastair is not aware that his particular interpretation of Wikipedia policies isn't set in stone is a reply to my explanation on why I moved a citation from the middle of a sentence to the end of it: "No. Citations go where they're needed, if you have to cite mid sentence, do so." There's always room for debate on the placing of citations, but taking such a adamant stance on How Things Are Done isn't justifiable in a collaborative environment.

I'd just like to stress that it seems to me like Alastair is doing a good job in general, and that it's important to be vigilant when it comes to unreferenced speculation, particularly in pop culture articles. However, I think that his good-natured and usually positive zeal for verifiability has an unfortunate tendency to manifest itself in a touch of fanaticism when it comes to gray areas. I get the impression that upon first raising my concerns I was immediately placed in the same category as all previous "scrubbings" of trivia, speculation and perceived nonsense. In the dispute between us, it seems also to be combined with a very swift dispencing of niceties and needlessly condescending behavior towards an experienced colleague.

Peter Isotalo 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try and open up all those diffs in tabs, but it feels like this is just going to be a contest of bumper sticker arguments if I try to address each one.
 * This one. Having tried to add unverified information to the article, you then called into question the use of a comment from reliable third party source, by way of comparison with your own edits. It came across as "if he can do it why can't I".
 * This group of diffs, where I have asked him to discuss before putting his edits back into the article. Yes, I have asked him to discuss before putting information back into the article. I don't see how doing it in the opposite manner would help, I'm sort of lost with that one.
 * "I'm also concerned that Alastair is gaming the system when he openly admits that he'd rather keep reverting than continue discussion as long as it doesn't technically break any rules." I honestly don't see anything in this diff that supports what you said. I said that my opinion wasn't a lone one and that the policies and guidelines of wikipedia agreed with me.
 * This accusation (where he uses templates too no less) was in reference to this reversion. I spotted that the cite for a particular comment had suddenly moved position from mid sentence to the end. This wasn't just a simple "hit undo" reversion but an active bit of editing by Peter. It made it seem all of a sudden that a cite supported his entered information, when it did nothing of the sort. I found that suspect and I think fairly so.
 * Besides all of which, if Peter was interested in moving forward the discussion, he could have done better than to accuse both I and other editors of playing dumb (here and here.)
 * I have trimmed and pruned and cited a lot in the South Park articles, for well over a year and a half now I reckon. When the featured article drive passed through those articles, the information I had removed as uncited, speculation and what have you did not return, unless cited.
 * And no, I'm not a newbie and if anyone cared, they would see that my editing on wikipedia has considerably improved over the time I've spent here. I used to add trivia, uncited info and the like and bloody annoying it was too when I was reverted. All that's changed, and I welcome any investigation of such. Alastairward (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems the perceived incivility comes solely from the content dispute itself, which is getting too heated, rather than an underlying behavioral issue with Alistairward. I don't believe either of you are trying to be uncivil or disruptive. Does that sound about right Peter? I think the best way to resolve the incivility issue would be to find a way to resolve the content dispute that is getting heated. That being said, in my opinion, an important way to resolve a dispute is compromise, and if this isn't working, seek a third opinion. Since this obviously isn't working, try taking it to the original research noticeboard for some more opinions regarding the matter. Regards,   S warm  ( Talk ) 03:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the summary, Swarm. I agree that I've seen no deliberate attempts to insult, but I'm still concerned about the attempts to "trump" consensus discussion by rigid application of certain policy interpretations. I don't believe Alastair has actually acknowledged the mitigating issues brought up or that he has tried to discuss them in earnest. I'll take this to the OR noticeboard and see if it can get us to move forward. In the mean time, I'm introducing another attempt at compromise in the article which I hope will be allowed to stand at least until after the next round of discussion.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * With regards that edit, compromise implies discussion, which we just haven't had. Peter has never explained exactly the importance of this "fact" to the article. Or what is wrong with an informative, fully cited article that he keeps reverting. Alastairward (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no experience of the article you are referring to, but I will add to this alert by saying that I have edited Wikipedia since 2004, and Alastairward is perhaps one of the most controversial editors I have come across. His edits tend to be of a zealous style, with fanaticism of a magnitude such that I have seldom seen before, applying extremely hard-line interpretations of WP guidelines as dogmatic rules they were never intended to, following what their letter rather than their intent, or rather, his understanding of the letter of the law. He seems to apply these principles and edit articles in a tendentious fashion. Hi seems to show no understanding of the common sense principle, and his edits tend to leave articles in a worse state. He does frequent, controversial and substantial edits, usually purging large sections of valid and sometimes even sourced, information without any prior discussion. He is also prone to edit warring. He tend to use WP guidelines to wikilawyer and game the system. He apparently does not understand or respect consensus or cooperation with other editors, and when engaging in debates generally assumes a simple, stubborn and terse denial of all arguments being presented without indicating in any way to have read or understood what he's responded to. Often he even uses stock replies. He is condescending and superior in his replies, and dismissive of any opinions other than his own. He also displays some nefarious patterns in his controversies and editing: for instance when in a debate about small aspects he will go and change related articles to support his "case", thereafter editing (purge from) the original article. If this were the place for it, I would even go as far as to recommend denying Alastairward the rights to edit any article directly and only to be allowed to post suggestions on talk pages. Miqademus (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Miqademus, if you seriously beleive this, why not raise your own Wikiquette case against me? Can you provide diffs to prove the above? Alastairward (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: In response to my comment, above, user Alastaiward has counter-reported me. Miqademus (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To chime in here, while I have nothing personal against this editor (actually appreciated his input on the Cossack article), AW does appear to have a habit of creating conflicts where none really exist with an apparant attempt to "goad" other editors into a show of their own incivility. The entire exchange at Talk:Cossacks is a prime example of this.  A dispute arose regarding the inserting of Star Trek information into this article.  A talk page discussion was started and both sides, myself and the other editor behaved with respect while viewpoints were presented.  The other editor in fact did a self revert while I gathered my side of the evidence .  In the end, it did in fact appear as I was in the wrong, so I removed the material in question .  Well, and this is the strange part, AW began posting messages to my talk page that there was an "edit war" going on and that I had "removed the contributions of other users several times" .  After copying these comments to the talk page of the actual article, AW appeared again, stating that I was "removing his comments"  (when I had simply copied them to the talk page).  What made this very bizarre was that at no time was there ever an edit war.  AW appeared to simply be trying to say there was one for the purpose of posting warnings and, dare I say, perhaps attempting to get some kind of uncivil response out of me.  Even in the VERY END, when the material was removed, all users were in complete agreement that Star Trek info was out and that all concerned were happy, AW posted again on the Cossacks talk page, in a last ditch effort to keep the conversation going with a statement that there were still further disputes going on .  So, I mean no disrespect to this user (I even invited him to take a look at my webpage since he said he was a Star Trek fan ) but the behavior on the Coassack article is indeed an indication of what is being discussed in this thread. -OberRanks (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Miqademus, I agree with Alastair in his request for diffs. It would make it a lot easier for an outsider to judge the nature your complaint.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Peter, I'd love to give you the diffs. The problem is, I honestly get sick to the stomach by thinking about this entire situation, and not in the metaphorical sense. :( And A is such an superlatively industrious editor that picking diffs from his various edits and talk pages, articles' as well as his own, would be principally trivial but take days, and those would be days of pain. Let's see if I can get myself to do this later, but meanwhile I think it becomes obvious by even just superficially looking over those resources that I and other commentators are not pulling fabrications out of thin air, or carrying personal grudges. Miqademus (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add a few diffs after OberRanks' and Miqademus' brought their views on this to my attention. I too have experienced what looks like a rather inexplicable tendency from Alastair to drop needlessly accusatory and provocative comments followed up by a tendency to view litigation and formal complaints as a perfectly normal way of interacting with fellow editors. When I complained in the Butters' Bottom Bitch-dispute about what I perceived as unnecessarily personal comments, I was rebuffed and openly encouraged to file a formal report rather than to get some type of recognition of the complaint. Here's the sequence of replies:
 * Alastair denies any agreement with my complaints and encourages me to rather report it to an admin
 * I try to reply that litigation and formal complaints against one another is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work
 * After a few more rounds of discussion and reverting each other over at Butters' Bottom Bitch, Alastair merely repeats the exact same kind of mildly inflammator comment and encourages me to make a report if I wish "authority [to take action]" against him
 * My response is to raise my concern that Alastair is effectively asking for the dispute to be escalated and I again insist on mutually respectful discussion
 * Alastair's comment after this is merely "I see you have now decided to stop edit warring and are not adding unverified material to that article, I hope it will stay that way."
 * I reply with a complaint about how I see this more as a condescending "pat on the head followed by subtle threat"
 * Alastair's reply is to repeat the exact same type of comment a third timein a slightly different guise
 * I reply that I don't quite agree and that I wish for "more sensible discussion and less rigid argumentation" and I add a somewhat tired comment that if Alastair is so keen on reporting, he should do so himself
 * The reply is a (at least to me) completely baffling outcry of indignation

This behavior is almost identical to that summarized by OberRanks above. Alastair seems to a have a tendency to openly solicit verbal dispute by quickly and openly pointing out error in others. In my case this was accompanied by attempts to openly encourage escalation of such disputes rather than trying to smooth them over with even the barest minimum of acknowledgment of how such responses can be frustrating. My impression is that the last reply here shows a deep-seated lack of interest in harmonious interaction with other editors as long as the letter of the law of content policies are followed.

Peter Isotalo 11:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Peter, this is virtually identical to what is going on at the real-time tactics talk page.
 * Alastair denies any arguments against why he shouldn't make radical edits that are protested by other editors. As the dispute deepens, he invites litigation. When it is explained to him that litigation is not a good way for Wikipedia to work, he sees that as a complete vindication and that others are backing down and retracting their previous positions in favour of his: "That you balk when you ask how to report me and I tell you how, suggests that you don't really think there is anything wrong other than that I don't edit as you please." Another point supporting his modus of escalating conflicts is that when I attempt civility to turn the situation away from the path toward flamewar, he sees that too as an admission of "defeat" and enforcement of his own position.
 * The "let it stay that way" comment seems to be quite typical of his attitude toward other editors:
 * On his talk page a frustrated editor commented that eight months of work was "gone in a flash", to which A answers "Startling, wasn't it? It seems we've all undone the damage though."
 * Even more disturbing is that he seems to revel in being controversial and abrasive. On his user page he even gloats about it, saying "I'm such a well rounded and liked fellow you see". I have never seen an user page that receives so much vandalism as his. Strangely enough, A seems to have no real understanding of that other users are aggravated by him, for instance again on the RTT talk page he says "the only person who seems to be upset is you". Miqademus (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * By way of reply to OberRanks, I remember a bit more clearly than they the chronology of our interaction. They were trying to add trivia to the Cossacks article. When it was removed, they came to the Star Trek project page to canvas for support (see here). One other editor had disagreed (which Oberanks described as "ownership") and so did I. Galassi removed the trivia (diff), OberRanks added it again (diff) so I removed it as trivia myself (diff). OberRanks persisted and readded it with a rather lacking "cite" (diff). It was after OberRanks then added it that I left a warning about editing warring on their talk page (diff). That was the chronology, the warning was left after they had readded the trivia several times.
 * In reply to Peter Isotalo, there are many diffs, but the summation is this. They wanted to add unverified material to an article (diff), they disliked that both I and the editor of a third opinion and others after didn't agree with him (long diff, he took the issue to Wikiquette alerts (diff) and the Original Research noticeboard (diff) and in the end, backed down in agreement with just about everyone else (diff).
 * Miqademus, in response to pretty much everything you've said to me, the heart of the issue surrounding our disagreement is pretty simple. Unverified material is removed from Wikipedia, unless a cite can be found. That's pretty much that.
 * I notice that in all of this, everyone seems to admit there is no wikiquette issue, can I take it that this is just a place to air general grievances regarding me? That I've removed some material you've added to Wikipedia and you feel bad about it? Alastairward (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that Alastairward comes across as pushy and disrespectful of other people's views. I can't really say much more, as I don't really have a history of editing with him on of articles. SharkD   Talk  19:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * SharkD, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I feel the others here simply bear personal grudges against me. Peter for example, had his chance to report me for something, but couldn't get anything to stick. He backed down from his previously held position, where he was sure I was in the wrong. I can't help but feel it was when he found just above everyone else who commented on the discussion we'd been having agreed with me.
 * I can throw back at Miqademus every accusation of unfriendlyness, with the added proviso that I make reference to the guidelines and policies that make Wikipedia work. Alastairward (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * AW's statement up above actually confirms what I said. You will see he stated "OberRanks added it again (diff)" yet the diff which he himself provides as evidence is in fact the self revert of the OTHER EDITOR who put the material back into the Cossack article while I gathered evidence for the viewpoint.  When I couldn't find any, it was removed once and for all (without any protest from me).  Point being...never was there an edit war, hence my point. -OberRanks (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Should also add that, at this point with 4 editors giving input, the best bet would be for an impartial administrator to give opinions and suggest resolution. It would not be fair to AW to keep hammering at these things without offering some way to fix the underlying problem, that of lacking in Wikiquette. -OberRanks (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it as much that he lacks Wikiquette, it rather seems more to be the case that he is genuinely incapable of understanding how normal people interact and how wikipedia editing works, especially cooperation, consensus and conflict resolution (typically he uses the "third opinion" option as a weapon, wherein he can continue exactly the same thing but now claim that he has done his best and others are "refusing to resolve the conflict"). Miqademus (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, having reviewed Butters' Bottom Bitch, I'm not seeing sufficient evidence of incivility that I think Alastairward should be sanctioned. He's been willing to follow dispute resolution -- bringing in a third opinion, inviting Peter to move to report him to the appropriate notice board et. al. While editor's are encouraged to settle differences between themselves, after a couple back and forths if agreement isn't reached it's time to get other opinions. If a third opinion supports an editor's position, why wouldn't he keep doing the same thing? Describing that as a "weapon" seems off. Gerardw (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look at the BBB dispute, but I feel that Alastair's abrasive behavior has been the main problem here, not strict interpretations of WP:V per se. I felt I tried to be clear with Alastair about what I perceived as condescending behavior and repeated and unprovoked implications of bad faith. Replying to those kind of complaints with "so sue me"-type comments strikes me as an unwillingness to achieve even neutral relations with other editors.
 * I'd also like to stress that Alastair never made any attempts to directly comment my main line of argumentation until I took the issue to WP:OR/N. Only then did he suddenly make an open declaration on his views of the factual matter that turned out to be oddly obtuse. Stubbornly disagreement about fact inclusion due to potential policy conflict is in part understandable, but when combined with sudden denial of the entire basis of the main line of dissenting argument at such an opportune moment, it seems more like open provocation. Whether it's intentional or not, in my view Alastair is frequently hovering near the outer limits of civil interaction in disputes of this sort and crosses that line at opportune moments. He appears to be perfectly aware that his behavior leads to friction, but has declared open disinterest in amending his behavior in any way.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gerardw, thank you for looking this over. The comment about Alastairward using third opinion "as a weapon" is because he is isn't using it to forestall or manage conflicts, but as moves in a game, in effect gaming the system. Of course it is difficult to accept agitated editors' words for it in settings like this, but I was absolutely serious: Alastairward is using procedures and guidelines to stir up and inflate conflicts (intentionally or not, I don't know) and push his own radical interpretations of policy while appearing to be playing by the book. Miqademus (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Peter, for a start, this is the Wikiquette alerts page, it has nothing to do with individual articles, such as BBB. Secondly, your diffs do not provide any of the evidence that you suggest at all. Don't you think that you might let this one rest?
 * Consensus on that one article was against you, we don't appear to have interacted before and from your contribs I don't think we will again in the near future. Might you not just get on with editing again? Alastairward (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OberRanks, you quoted me as having said "removed the contributions of other users several times", I did not. And yes, you did edit war, just because you didn't do it enough times to be reported doesn't mean you weren't warring. You added trivia, it was removed by one user, readded and then removed by me, then I warned you. After that you removed it yourself. Nothing suggests the scenario you raise. Remember that the edit history of both the article and your talk page is available. Alastairward (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did review the edit history, the exact quote was: "you were quite keen to add material that at least two other editors had removed, without discussion." This is incorrect for two reasons: 1) There was an active talk page discussion where the other user and I were working it out 2)The other user actually re-added it (not I) while I gathered evidence .  So, if you define edit warring as discussing matters on a talk page and self reverting when agreement has been reached, what can I say.  WP defines edit warring as constantly reinserting disputed material over and over again without any attempt at consensus.  That is clearly NOT what was happening on the Cossack article, which is why I brought it up here.  This is now a "stuck" discussion, so perhaps its best to move on. -OberRanks (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alastair, I was very, very clear that I complained about your general behavior with the BBB-dispute as a backdrop. Trying to make it look as though it's a repetition of the inclusion argument is clearly misleading. And keep in mind that disagreeing with you in article space and on talkpages just because you assert yourself more forcefully by citing policy does not constitue a breech of incivility. That's why your attempt to file a separate WQA complaint about Miqademus was referred elsewhere.
 * Peter Isotalo 14:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been nearly a week and I'm only seeing two third party opinions (myself and Swarm). I suggest either dropping it (preferred) or filing RFC/U. Gerardw (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be fair to mention this . A goading post if I ever saw one.  Am I wrong?  What do others think? -OberRanks (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is worth mentioning as well.
 * Peter Isotalo 14:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys, see above, two third party opinions have been offered, no incivility has been found. This should be dropped or taken to a RFC/U. Alastairward (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alastairward, plenty of incivility has been found, but too few editors have chipped in for an admin to take a definite stance. Which is understandable, since they can't be expected to dig through every submitted user's entire history. Again you persist with the provocative and "so sue me!" attitude. As a friendly advice for your continuing interactions with people: civility is not never crossing into outright incivility. It is fully possible, as you continuously show, to be outright hostile and bellicose without ever directly turn to incivilities. Thank you for edit stalking me, btw. Perhaps this must be taken further. Miqademus (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Sugar Bear, formerly known as User:Ibaranoff24
This user is consistently attacking me and getting rid of sourced content in articles. Statements like Denying this makes you come across as foolish, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rage_Against_the_Machine&diff=prev&oldid=337663320 you look like a child. You are clearly not happy with the fact that I edit any article and want to revert any change I make based on your petty quibble] and most recently and most likely the most offense so far want to dick me around. He has also used personal attacks against User:Blackmetalbaz noted with statements like: *The both of you look like fools for trying to back up claims, Stop pretending that this is an actual genre. Also he called User:WesleyDodds disruptive despite the fact that Wesley was just restoring sourced content which Ibaranoff was consistently removing on the heavy metal music page with these edits:. He seems to be disposing of sourced material that mainly ivolves the term "nu metal" and in the process pushing POV:. Even when there are both sources and a consensus in favor of certain music styles he removes them because of this personal beliefs. I can't take this harassment and vandalism anymore. RG (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like both of you are trying to edit cooperatively, but neither is willing to give way and consequently both are on the verge of losing your tempers. What you really need is a third opinion that you would both respect.  Is there any possibility of finding one? Looie496 (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated repeatedly, I'm not removing "nu metal" in which the sources substantiate its inclusion as a dominating genre of any album or band article I edit. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Yet again Ibaranoff removes sourced material. And with Roots me and User:LUCPOL already had a consensus in favor of the nu metal label, so he has now gone against Consensus. Also another example of him intentionally bashing me he claimed I should editing completely. This needs to stop is breaking Wikipedia policy and he is being very uncivil. He has a clear POV against the term nu metal, calling it a a useless catchphrase. It is clear Ibaranoff is pushing his own opinion and doesn't want artists he enjoys to be lumped with the style. He even wanted tried to put "this dog of an article to sleep" twice despite the fact that there is clear evidence it exists. RG (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to believe that one source dictates that you can add a genre based on your POV. Clearly you have an attitude towards me, and have certain opinions about certain artists that conflict with what is actually sourced. You are violating Wikiquette - as well as edit-warring. Cut loose. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC))
 * If you have a source it isn't POV(and I've have used multiple sources on Kid rock's page), removing sources that's POV and that's exactly what you have done. Might I add that I have still not received a simple apology from Ibaranoff for his hurtful remarks. Oh and to add on to that, now apparently my edits are a waste of time. RG (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The content dispute is irrelevant here, as are the sources. Ibaranoff, I'm inclined to say that your most recent comment on RG's talk crosses the line into incivility. You've been around the block enough to know that there are a multitude of ways to deal with an editor who has hearing problems. -- King Öomie  19:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * RG, I wasn't referring to your edits. I was referring to responding to me with this attitude and continuing to discuss me behind my back in the same attitude. If we were to refer to specific edits, let's refer specifically to some edits that clearly are a product of your own POV, since the claims of POV on my part are absolutely false. "Nu metal bands used rap. Sorry but deal with it" - this is not POV-pushing? Or "He wasn't really ever traditional metal, nu metal would be more appropiate because most of his '90s stuff was just that", where you are clearly stating an opinion, rather than referring to what is actually sourced? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC))


 * I started a MedCab case in regards to RG's edit-warring. I am very unhappy to have to continue dealing with this - I had thought that this case, as with all of RG's previous edit-warring endeavors, had been resolved. The consensus, editing guidelines, and sources are there. He simply refuses to listen to reason or pay attention to any of the points made by other editors. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Look right now at the history on Kid rock's page you will see that Ibaranoff reverted three times in one day, yet he removed the warning on his page and put the waring on my page despite the fact that I did nothing wrong. It is behavior like this that is not acceptable and I have still gotten no apology from his user. Also, I stated numerous sources on Rock's talk page as I have previously stated, so I have used no POV. This is incredibly offensive. Oh and let's not forget that I suck. So now we have uncivil actions, acting against WP:CON, and him completly denying that he did anything wrong. RG (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Users are allowed to remove warning from their talk page. They are allowed to put warnings on yours. If they're not applicable ignore or delete them. Gerardw (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't misrepresent my statements. I clearly said that your attitude sucks. That was not a personal attack. It was a clear statement of your behavior. Secondly, I did not revert that article three times. Clearly, there is a difference in the edits that constitutes against a clear revert, which is what you have done, several times. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Well you shouldn't be characterizing RG's attitude either. Remember, comment on content, not the contributor. Gerardw (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct, but users are not allowed to post warnings on other user's talk pages with another user's signature. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And let's not forget that I put no effort into writing anything on this site. So I don't work hard, I suck, I'm a total d**k, I'm a child, a fool, even when I have legit sources they are all POV, is there anything that isn't wrong with me? And again, I still haven't even gotten the simplest, little apology. RG (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said any of these things. I'm not apologizing for what you perceive as a statement on your behalf, rather than a direct statement which I've never provided. I never called you a dick or said that you suck. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC))
 * You have directly attacked me and I rightly deserve an apology. You have called me a fool, a child, a d**k, and that my attitude sucks, and you denying these claims when the edits show you have, just tells me that you refuse to be civil. RG (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I absolutely have not called you any of these things, and the edits clearly show that I have not. Anyone who would bother to read what I write would know this. I am being civil. Your repeated accusations and attacks against me are uncivil. Re-read my previous statements. Scrub. Rinse. Repeat. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Outside view by User:PeterbrownDancin: After spending some time reviewing the links and articles involved, I myself see no substantial breach of "Wikiquette."  I'm sure you can understand how editing in the oft-contentious topics regarding Kid Rock can really make tempers flare.  Let's face it, next to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Kid Rock is probably one of the most controversial topics in the world today.  So lets give both our valiant editors a warm reassuring pat on the back and thank them for having the fortitude to work in the trenches of a certainly intense field.  Kudos! PeterbrownDancin (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Another outside view by User:Diannaa: Ibaranoff, when you are critising someone's edits or behavior please be careful not to use loaded words like "ridiculous" and "sucks".  You hurt people's feelings. Rockgenre: I have been following this case since it first appeared on the Wiki.  You came on the scene in August 09 and have made hundreds, possibly thousands, of edits that changed the genre of albums, bands, and songs.  Most of these edits have gone unnoticed but occasionally you are changing an article where the genre decision has been reached by thoughtful discussion by a group of editors who have reached a compromise.  If you come in afterwards and chage the genre to something else, you make people angry.  At that point it doesn't even matter if you are right; you are overriding the edit reached by the consensus of folks who want to cooperate. Second point: I notice that nearly 30 % of your edits in the last two months have been "undos" of someone else's edits.  That kind of percentage is very high!  People don't like it when you act that way! There are better ways for you to contribute.  You have created some nice articles.  Maybe you should move away from the genre-changing project for a while and work on another aspect of the wiki.  Just a suggestion. --Diannaa (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Me asking for an apology, uncivil? No someone repeatly attacking someone and pushing his POV, that's uncivil. "You came on the scene in August 09 and have made hundreds, possibly thousands, of edits that changed the genre of albums, bands, and songs" I admit that a lot of my early edits were unsourced, but I wasn't intending to stay here very long, I was only going to make a few simple, little edits. I even hate the name Rockgenre. "Maybe you should move away from the genre" there really isn't much else I think that I can do here that would be helpful. RG (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been a series of helpful suggestions in regards to your behavior. Could you please try to work with other editors, not against them, as long as you are editing on Wikipedia? I don't care how long you intend to stay (and, for the record, you can change your username if you please). As long as you are editing here, the goal is to work with other editors, not to make changes based on your opinion or a dislike of other editors. There has been no attacks from any side, and you are the only editor pushing POV. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC))
 * "There has been no attacks from any side, and you are the only editor pushing POV" You have got to be kidding me. As I have stated before this user is consistently offensive and removing sourced material, I want an apology. And also let's not forget that Mr. "Sugar Bear" has edited talk page archives even though the top of each archive page specifically says not to edit them. RG (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The editing the archive accusation is disingenuous: Sugar Bear simply unarchived a discussion archived by a bot which RG subsequently contributed to. Gerardw (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear to me that if I have ever posted any attack, then certainly this counts as an attack as well. But it doesn't, and my previous comments in regard to you were not attacks. Secondly, as Gerard stated, fishing a conversation out of the archives and adding further comments to it is not the same as "editing the archives". Furthermore, there needs to be a consensus in the sources themselves, and of other editors. Your editing against consensus and clear sources is more "offensive" than anything I have ever done. If one source says that, say, Rage Against the Machine are "pioneers of nu metal", that doesn't mean that every critical assessment of RATM's music agrees with this statement, nor that you are allowed to put that sole source and statement in that article's lead. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

Gentlemen, this page is for discussions of interpersonal conduct. Don't rehash the content dispute here. -- King Öomie 19:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't an attack at all. He claimed there was a consensus when there was none, so I asked simply whether or not he considers his opinion greater than the opinion of anyone else. And still I have gotten no simple "I'm sorry, I was wrong for attacking you." RG (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because there never was an attack. And there clearly is a consensus - I posted the revisions in which users offered opinions on this issue on the article's talk page. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Sorry, have to clarify that the last post was made on a public computer, so there are edits by other people in the IP's history. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

Obviously, this has gone far beyond a simple content dispute. RG, in my opinion, seems to be editing against any decision I make (including edits I've made that have agreement from other editors), in an attempt to get me to attack him, so he can claim etiquette breach. Apologies for not providing what you needed. This is childish. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Sugar Bear, WQA is a voluntary process; you're not required to continue to respond. It appears the only third party editor editors who had a (resonable, in my opinion) suggestion for you was were Diannaa and PeterbrownDancin; if you want to simply consider that and move on in my opinion I think that would be fine. Gerardw (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Gerardw (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that my opinion is worthless? PeterbrownDancin (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. Thought there was another response but just missed it when typing my response. Gerardw (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the above information. I'm just adding the comment that in my only interaction with Sugar Bear, I found him or her unnecessarily aggressive. Please assume that your fellow editors are working in good faith towards the common goal of writing high quality articles. ike9898 (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Upon, reading some of the above, I would agree with Diana's point that giving weight to previously achieved consensus would be helpful. ike9898 (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that this is not exactly a new problem with Ibaranoff/Sugar Bear. See here. No comment beyond that. → ROUX   ₪  17:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As Ike9898 has stated Mr. "Sugar Bear" is generally on the attack with anyone who disagrees with what he says(I believe he owes that user an apology as well.) These attacks should not continue, they are very uncivil. All I am asking for is a simple apology. That isn't much.RG (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ibaranoff just doesn't want to make an attempt at being civil. When me and User:LUCPOL have a consensus on the genres for a Sepultura album he changes them because he has his opinion(going against WP:CCC and WP:RS.) When he feels Kid Rock hasn't done any metal he removes metal from the box despite multiple sources(going against WP:RS.) Basically he believes what ever he says is right and frankly its unbecoming. RG (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been civil. You are the one acting against consensus and sources, and you are the one who is clearly attacking other editors who don't agree with you, because you aren't getting your way and you've decided to throw a temper tantrum. The edits I made have nothing to do with POV. They have to do with the sources. And it's extremely aggravating and insulting for a disgruntled genre-warrior who can't get his way to make charges that I have any opinion of an artist whose music I don't even like. You know very well that the sources, guidelines, and consensus of other editors are against you in every article you've edit-warred in. I owe no apology because I never breached Wikiquette. Edits like this are a clear case of Wikiquette breach - where Rockgenre accuses others of vandalism because they edit against his POV. Game over. RG, you lose. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Again with these attacks. "Game over. RG, you lose". This isn't a competition dude, calm down. He's even telling me to go away for heaven's sake. "I have been civil" I'm sure that's why multiple editors including Ike9898 have noted you as rude, right? RG (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never had any contact or conflict with any of these editors who have claimed that I have been "rude". The only reason you have an attitude against me is because I revert your edits when you edit against consensus, sources, etc. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Dude did you even make an attempt to read the comment by Ike9898 above? "Sugar Bear, I found him or her unnecessarily aggressive", why don't you ask him about the comment then if you believe you have had no contact with him. "The only reason you have an attitude against me is because I revert your edits when you edit against consensus, sources, etc", bull. You are always offensive to me and push POV. RG (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. You are clearly pushing POV and editing against me, such as in instances where you revert to revisions containing citations which do not back up what the editor who added them claimed they back up, in an attempt to rile me. The evidence is clear as day. And calling my comments "bullshit" does not help your case. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC))