Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive89

User:Ivyleaguer

Someone needs to have a word with User:Ivyleaguer as their rudeness and general hostility needs to be checked ASAP. I'm on a Wiki-break at the moment (preventing me from logging in), but I popped in to find this lovely ditty on my talk page. Basically this started when IvyLeaguer accused me of spamming their talk page because I placed a templated warning on the user's talk page for adding content that was not supported by the source given on the Tevin Campbell article. I was prepared to let that go as the user doesn't appear to edit much and might not understand that talk pages are for editors to communicate with each other, but they re-added the content back to the article a second time with two very poor sources (a blog and Foxytunes which I believe is a music site). Naturally, that didn't go down well and they left yet another message talking about some kind of nonsense that I didn't bother reading as I tend to zone out when people who don't know me accuse me of bias and homophobia for removing unsourced content from a BLP. My final message to the user was rather blunt, but I don't think the responses I've been getting from this sporadic user are warranted in any way (especially since they finally got around to adding a seemingly reliable source and there's no edit war going on). Since the editor doesn't seem to grace us with their presence on a daily basis, I highly doubt their involvement in this thread will happen, but I believe their behavior needs to be dealt with regardless. 70.242.12.110 (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've issued a standard warning about personal attacks. Let's see if he joins this discussion. Netalarm^talk 17:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As I stated previously, I doubt they will participate as they edit sporadically and don't appear to be familiar with Wikipedia process. 70.241.20.100 (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson

Stale

 – No response or help given. Raised on AN/I instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmandersons first "interaction" with me was him making a massive revert of things both me an others did, after discussion on the talk page, calling it "Vandalism", [1], implying that all those behind the consensus including me was vandals. He continues to call me a vandal [2], [3], [4], [5], while generally refusing to engage in constructive debate. Lastly he calls me a liar, [6] and a POV-pusher, [7], because I want his sources to support his edits, and don't want WP:OR or WP:SYN in the article.

When he doesn't engage in direct attacks, he is rude and claims that I have "pet definitions" or particular political views and that I edit based on POV, and not on wikipedia policies. [8]

I have tried to be patient, but my patience with his attacks and rudeness and general refusal to engage in serious debate (it's possible, but only after repeating my criticism several times, he will ignore it the first few times), and this situation is not just not acceptable any more.

He also ignores/brushes off any warnings with "keep off my talk page". So I can't warn him the normal way any more, hence this WQA. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Planting template after template on Pma's talkpage is far from "the normal way", OpenFuture. Please see my post here. Bishonen | talk 20:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC).

"Template after template"? Pmanderson has broken Wikipedia policies, and I have warned him. Is that not how you are supposed to do it? Did I misunderstand something? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Bishonen has on my talk page made some suggestions, mainly I should have brought Pmandersons personal attacks up much quicker instead of warning him. One warning should be enough apparently. I will heed his recommendations in the future. But it doens't change the fact that Pmanderson has repeatedly insulted me, and refuses to stop with the insults, making it very hard to conduct a constructive debate. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The complaint of a foiled revert-warrior, who, having blanked most of List of wars between democracies, and spent several days revert-warring against sourced restorations (16:43 18 June, 17:21, 17:43, 21 June 04:13, 09:14, 10:18, 23 June 16:23, 24 June 07:42, 27 June 05:42, 28 June 04:23, etc., etc.) is now attempting any means to gain sympathy for his actions.

He has now found or made up a definition of democracy of his very own, and insists that a paper by the founder of democratic peace theory is not talking about democracies when it discusses "elective governments" with secret ballots and civil liberties. Reliable sources disagree with the point of view he is pushing (cited on the talk page), and he now comes here to wail over this content dispute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As we see, the claims that I have bad faith, and calling me revert-warrior etc continues. I have reverted some of his changes, yes, but always with explanations and accompanying discussion on talk page. There was been no revert-warring from my side. Many reverts has been because his sources do *not* support his edits, and he has afterwards come up with other sources (which are not available online, so I have not had time to find them and check them yet). As soon as I have not been able to verify the sources, I have let the edit stay. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And another one: [9] (and as a followup [10]). He is not likely to stop. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not targeting me this time at least, but still awfully rude: [11]. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And [12]. He really isn't going to stop. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Again: [13] I'm giving up on getting any sort of response here. What is next? How do I raise this issue, I'm tired of getting insulted every day, it's a hinder to constructive debate. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I recommend you bring it to wp:ani to be honest, bugger all can be done here mark nutley (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, will do. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:BigK_HeX

Resolved

 – Mark as resolved per the discussion

This is a contentious page and the debate tends to get heated. User:BigK_HeX has made a feel an unwarranted wp:pa on another editor [14] accusing an editor of being condescending and annoying. I asked him to redact the remarks [15] and he has pointedly refused [16]. I have never actually posted one of these before and am unsure of the correct procedure so am unsure what else to supply mark nutley (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the correct procedure. BigK HeX (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

At this time, my only reply is about the claim that my comment is "unwarranted." Pretty obviously, I'm not the only editor on that talk page who tire of the snipes of the type that prompted my response. BigK HeX (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I wish editors were held to account for these sorts of comments, "personal attack" on Wikipedia is generally taken to refer to more serious name calling, religious or ethnic slurs, etc. Under current interpretation, there would be no call for this editor to redact these comments. Yworo (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankly the discussion at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes is just getting absurd, with a very clear wedge dividing the arguments into two groups in such a way that the issue is unlikely to be resolved until everyone just gets fed up of arguing about it. This is just the content dispute spilling over into over-sensitive complaints where conduct on both sides of the argument has been less than ideal. BigK's comment was an opinion, not a personal attack. It wasn't exactly constructive or relevant to the discussion, but what exactly do you expect us to do about a user expressing annoyance at the tone of another user's comments? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I would expect people to remind him of wp:civil but if this is the wrong board mark it as resolved. Were should i report people who are insinuating i am a sockpuppet btw? mark nutley (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... you're going to need to develop thicker skin if you plan to continue to collaborate, Mark. If someone is accusing you of being a sock of another user, just tell them to file a WP:SPI if they think they can justify it. Many of your own comments in the discussion at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes have been no more civil than BigK's comment about condescension, so I would ask you to take your own advice rather than complaining about minor comments by other users, especially when they're not even directed at you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but i do not like being called a sock, i was accused of that when i first got to WP for no reason at all and am a bit touchy about it, thicker skin coming up mark nutley (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's happened to me and it's not very pleasant, but in the end they can rant about you being a sock all they like, but if they don't file an SPI they're essentially admitting the accusation's unfounded. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX said OpenFuture was being condescending, which is annoying. At the worst, he said OpenFuture was being condescending. I think we can all agree that real condescension is annoying. It's not a personal attack, maybe a little bit uncivil, but pretty borderline at that if this is the most you can produce (and, who knows, maybe he was being condescending -- I have no idea what else OpenFuture has said). I would personally prefer to see everybody just take a deep breath and try not to comment on contributors. Move along, shake hands, try to play nice together. — e. ripley\^talk 18:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I recently filed a WQA against OpenFuture, the editor mark nutley says has been attacked.[17] Among the numerous comments of his I listed were

"And you are also repeating everything both here and on my talk page, which is unnecessary and annoying".

"Your constant attempts of inventing your own Wikipedia policies are getting a bit annoying, to be honest".

His response was, "The quotes are all self-explanatory, and in all cases completely correct.... I repeat: There is nothing for me to explain. It is obvious, even out of context, that most quotes above does not represent any abuse." Since OpenFuture does not consider this type of conversation to be a personal attack or something that should be brought up here, neither should mark nutley. TFD (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop dragging me into everything, please. And try to understand the difference between saying "Please stop doing X, it's annoying" and "You are an annoying person". --OpenFuture (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually mark nutley dragged you into this by bringing up a comment made about you. My point is that you would not feel the comments were a personal attack because they are the types of comments you have stated you consider to be acceptable. You should ask mark nutley to close this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, he did not drag me into it. My behavior is not the topic here, and even less are your opinions about that behavior relevant. Stop your vendetta, and stop dragging me into everything, and stop trying to make each debate you enter off topic.

Big Ks comment was uncivil, but making a WQA is completely unjustified, a warning on his talk page should have been enough. But it's up to Mark if he wants to close the WQA, not me. I have nothing to do with this besides being the target of BigK's mild uncivility. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Whisky drinker

Resolved

 – A clear accident, apology has been made by HJ on his talk page, and Xeno added a note to the page history to make it clear the warning was an error. --Taelus (Talk) 21:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Whisky drinker placed a a "Level 3 warning re. vandalism" on User talk:Fages, which is my own talk page. He was warning me to not edit my own talk page. He also reverted and then restored the "smiley" that I add to my own talk page. See Diff [18]. I want to have the edit summary warning removed from my edit history. I am not able to contact User:Whisky drinker because his talk page is protected and I am not able to leave messages there. Fages (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Whiskey Drinker I believe is an alternative account for User:HJ Mitchell. I've let him know this is here.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As a cursory examination of your talk page's history will show you, I reverted my own edit 9 seconds after making it. Also, if you'd visited either Whisky drinker's talk or userpages, you would have noticed the big, bold, red notice asking you to post to my talk page or note a bad revert on the relevant page. So far you've been to RFUP and WQA but not my talk page. What are you trying to achieve? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is the second day he's been here. Maybe a little more WP:AGF and a little less WP:BITE.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

An apology with an edit summary clarifying the warning was a mistake would have been more appropriate than a simple revert HJ, after all a new user is likely to be bewildered with a warning message regardless of whether it goes away or not, especially as the scary "warning" message in the edit summary looks rather permanant to them when they view their page history. Not a huge issue mind, but a little apology and a friendly follow-up message to help the user out could go a long way. (For other observers, do note that the reason this ended up at WQA was due to a fully protected talk page that HJ was not aware of, so confusion all around it seems.) --Taelus (Talk) 20:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Marked as resolved per description, a mistake which has been corrected, and an apology given. :) --Taelus (Talk) 21:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Autgeek and Tmorten

I have tried severals times to communicate with Autgeek and Tmorten in a civil manner. Laying out decent arguments against an article and they have called my messages Vandalism.

I used proper language and I was polite. This is bullying. wikipedia seems to be run by thugs. I am glad it is not an acceptable source anywhere in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.3.35 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I replied on your talk. —I-20the highway 19:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue with AutoGeek is resolved... for now. —I-20the highway 19:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

John Halloran (talk · contribs)

Stale

 – No recent updates to the thread, so it seems either the behaviour has stopped or there's nothing to do here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think of it more as a failure of this board. The behaviour was ongoing and has only stopped as the editor in question has stopped editing. In future I'll take problems to ANI or elsewhere as the board seems to have outlived its usefulness, especially in such an egregious and obvious case as this. Verbal chat 10:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I can't agree. Perhaps the comment was a bit hard, but compared to the constant attacks you get in many discussions this is quite civil. In this case, reminding User:John Halloran about WP:NPA should have been enough. The "attack" is mild, prompted by the other users incorrect behavior and there is no repetition. I'm not an admin, but had I been there would have been no action. That said, I do agree that this should not have gone stale, it should have been closed as no action a long time ago. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

  Open, considering we are involved in a dispute where you have been very uncivil I'm not surprised by your reasoning. However, calling someone a religious fanatic, trying to ban them from a page, saying they are a vandal, saying they have no knowledge, questioning their qualifications, etc etc are clearly uncivil - per policy. It should have been met with at least a high level warning and probably a block. Calling this "mild" is disingenuous at best. I did nothing to prompt his attacks, except follow guidelines and policy, and my edits have stood review - to characterise them as "incorrect" is itself, incorrect - and note I gave reasons. Verbal chat 10:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Complaint

This recent edit by an editor I have been in (civil, on my part) dispute with is going too far in my opinion: "Her 'top university' is probably a Christian school, and to a religious fanatic, the ends justify the means." Although ridiculous, I don't consider the "She" part a personal attack - I also haven't claimed special authority based on qualifications.

It shouldn't take long to review his edits, there haven't been many recently. We first "crossed swords" at the Astrology software article where I noticed it may be a copyvio of another page based on the other page's copyright date. Moonriddengirl dealt with this issue perfectly. John seems to have taken it as an attempt to get the article deleted. When the article was restored I attempted to clean it up, and was met with resistance by John - a major contributor who claims to have written the article along with others who are also, like him, the authors of astrological/horoscope software mentioned in the article. He then made six edits to the article undoing my copyediting with the edit summary "Undid revision xx by Verbal Undo vandalism by biased user" diff. I was polite and explained that this wasn't vandalism and pointed John to the relevant policies, and even apologised that there were so many. In return he stated I shouldn't edit the article ("user Verbal should be disqualified from editing this page","A person who knows nothing about the field should leave the decision of relevance up to those who do know.", etc), said wikipedia shouldn't be edited by High school students, says I should be too busy too edit wikipedia if I had a PhD (shows what he knows!), and then goes on to further question my credentials and compare me to Essjay.diff He also keeps bringing up typos which seems a bit silly and is due to using a French keyboard at the moment. In all my replies and dealings with John I've been polite and civil. His last two actions were the post I first mention, which I feel goes too far, and an off topic discussion about a love of rules rather than knowledge.

If this continues this editor may need to take a break. Opinions, advice, etc welcome. Thanks, Verbal chat 19:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You already said on your discussion page that you were going to take a break in order to give birth to a child. John Halloran (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. I did say elsewhere I was going to be a dad soon. I specifically haven't complained about the "She", that's not a problem (unless you do it again now you know). Would you care to address the actual concerns, such as the clear implication that I am a religious fanatic? I've asked you on the talk page to remove that comment. Thanks, Verbal chat 20:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I belive that the user may need mentoring. He seems to have some knowledge of the field, yet seems to be unable to crasp that that dose not give him the right to ignore rules about RS or OR.Slatersteven (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree: a mentor would probably be a good option here to help the user contribute constructively. As for the "religious fanatic" comment, a polite warning to assume good faith and remember to maintain civility when participating in discussions wouldn't go amiss. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Still waiting for input. If my description was too long I will refactor. Basically, "religious fanatic" is going too far. Verbal chat 08:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Does no one have an opinion on this at all? Verbal chat 11:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • Did you leave the user a polite message to remember to maintain civility before posting this here? I looked on their talk page but didn't see such a comment. This should always be the first action you take; don't forget that WP:WQA is here to render advice and opinions on civility issues and/or to refer the matters to other noticeboards. You should try to deal with the matter yourself before advice becomes necessary, and in this case a polite comment about maintaining civility or request to retract the statement that you are a "religious" fanatic would have sufficed unless the user refused to address your concerns civilly. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Yes I did, and I was polite to them on the article talk page and asked them to calm down. Would you actually like to read and respond to the problematic behaviour, or do you think it is fine? Verbal chat 12:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

All I can suggest is that you should have discussed the problem with the user and/or issued a level 1 npa warning and let that be that. WP:WQA is here to help resolve issues of incivility and exists only to render advice and/or refer the issue to a relevant noticeboard. Incivility is inevitably going to happen during the consensus-building process, and while I agree that calling someone a "religious fanatic" is a personal attack, IMO it's a pretty minor one and could have been dealt with via polite discussion and/or npa template until it became a more serious problem. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well this board is certainly useful. Thanks for nothing. The only advice is slap a template on them. Yes sir, that would have deescalated the problem. Sorry Giftiger, as I know your advice is well meant, but it is wrong and would have made the situation worse in this case. There is no point in my talking to them, as they have already said I should be banned and that I am a religious fanatic that should be ignored and talking to them makes it worse. Verbal chat 21:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you find that talking with the user isn't going to help, then I'd say just avoid them. While calling someone a "religious fanatic" isn't very pleasant, it's not really worthy of much more than a warning about civility. Just avoid them where possible, and if they make any particularly malicious remarks they could be taken to WP:AN/I at a later date. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Off topic

Ummm, Verbal... if this is an "accusation of bad faith" - what exactly is this? I wouldn't "request opinions" on open threads if you're not prepared for responses that might not be to your liking. Doc9871 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Doc9871, what's the relevance to this thread? Verbal, please don't collapse other people's comments since you have pretty clear motives for wanting to removing Doc's comments. It's not exactly relevant to the thread, but collapsing it should be at the discretion of an uninvolved party. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • My clear motive is that it is off topic and rude. Verbal chat 18:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Verbal is on a personal vendetta here. Experienced users (or at least users trying to throw their weight around policing articles) going after inexperienced users over petty breaches of wikiquette is a rather pathetic spectacle in this editor's opinion. --dab (𒁳) 10:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not true. Being called a "religious fanatic" (despite never mentioning religion!) when I have been polite and helpful is clearly a problem. You put this comment in the right section at least. Verbal chat 13:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The claim that I have been uncivil is incorrect. If you think I have, please start a WQA providing diffs of this supposed incivility. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see Mass killings/communist regimes where I point it out and ask you not to do so in future. This thread is closed. See WP:DR if you want to take it further. Verbal chat 12:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this noticeboard is a method of WP:DR. Everyone has the right to answer to claims made about them. Discussion is encouraged, not "closed" by archiving. Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/Volunteer instructions for a list of appropriate templates to use in closing reports. Pages are archived automatically. Swarm^Talk 07:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Eva Grossjean

Resolved

 – Eva Grossjean indef blocked at ANI, with community ban discussion started there per additional thread on the user at SPI. Jusdafax 21:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Eva Grossjean (talk · contribs) Continued incivility past final warning. See Revision history of Catalonia for most of the belittling edit summaries, although some anti-IP biases (and the worst of the insults) are on the user's talk page. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that doing the {{user|Username template thingy}} in the thread title messes with some people's browsers, so I fixed it for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian.thomson (talk • contribs)

I think the "final warning" was a bit premature, but this new editor does need to be stopped from being abusive towards other editors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaving a handwritten note basically explaining that civility, not English, is a standard of "fitness" around here. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks perfect, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to report that Eva Grossjean has returned to act inappropriately in the discussion page of Catalonia, as can be seen in the link ([19]), maintaining an attitude arrogant and condescending and insulting me several times. Arkarull (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've placed a uw-npa after placing an attempt to uw-delete and uw-cite (trying to go easy, I could have done the uw-delete and the uw-cite separately). It's looking like an SPA, and while I don't necessarily think that an editor being narrowly focused on a single subject is a bad thing, if she continues to ignore basic guidelines like WP:CIVIL and WP:CITE (but especially WP:CIVIL), I'll take this over to ANI. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thaks Ian for your time. Even though Eva did not retract of her offenses and persists in insulting. But I will not go more into her game, perhaps the "mental laziness" that causes me to be Spanish prevents me of defend my honor. Who knows. In any case I do not know what a person as she can contribute to Wikipedia. --Arkarull (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Eva Grossjean is continuing with her incivility and bigotry (see her Talk page), and will not stop her personal attacks on the Spanish people and on anyone she thinks is not in perfect command of English (while, ironically, making a number of errors herself). She has even reverted Jimbo and accused him of vandalism, here, and she is edit-warring on Catalonia. I really don't think she's going to listen or to stop, and is certainly not going to bring a civil and NPOV approach to Wikipedia. I think some action is needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is a good example of a situation that needs to be moved over to the WP:ANI page. Unless I'm mistaken there really isn't much we can can do here, as the situation appears to be beyond the functions of this modest 'first-stage' forum. Jusdafax 13:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  OK, makes sense - I'll start an ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lost Fugitive

Lost Fugitive (talk · contribs) seems to be in direct violation of WP:NPA. Take a look at the last few edits he's made to my talk page since June:

• Telling me not to "destroy" a GA nomination
• Calling me "monkey boy", not once but twice

This hatred of me seems to stem from the fact that I passed Eddie Rabbitt, on which he worked extensively, as a GA and then listed it at GAR because I had (valid) second thoughts on the article's quality. I also chainsawed Love & Gravity, on which he added a great deal of OR (most of which he later reverted, but I since re-removed).

Also, he created an article on a non-notable Dan Seals album which was listed at AFD and later restored as a redirect. The extensive discussion over lack of notability apparently went over his head, as he as asked that the redirect be removed so he can rebuild the article, despite having its lack of notability plainly spelled out.

This user is a very problematic one and a constant thorn in my side due to his confrontational, insulting nature. I've repeatedly asked why he continues to insult me, and he just shrugs it off. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that they're holding some type of a grudge over your actions over Eddie Rabbitt, and they're simply trying to provoke you. The confrontational personal attacks on your talk page clearly show a blatant disregard for NPA.

This, apparently, isn't an isolated incident, however.[20] Their past responses don't exactly leave me hopeful that they will be willing to discuss and resolve this, however this behavior can't be allowed to continue forever. Swarm^Talk 06:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly retributive and an unambiguous violation of NPA and CIVIL. I would suggest that, if the user does not make a good faith effort to engage here, you take this to AN/I and seek a block. Eusebeus (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hasty Deletions:

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – WQA isn't the venue for complaints about admin actions. Swarm^Talk 07:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this person deletes too speedily: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NawlinWiki

Nantucketnoon (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sigh. See here. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with NawlinWiki's deletions, but I see a lot wrong with Nantucketnoon's abusive approach to discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

When I participated more in speedy'ing inappropriate new pages, I remember often seeing NawlinWiki's name following me around, cleaning up the pages I tagged. From the remark about waiting for one of the band's members to help with the article, I'm guessing the article didn't have any sources demonstrating notability. If so, there was nothing wrong with the deletion, Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. If you do have sources, go on ahead, recreate the article, and use the sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, looking at Nantucketnoon's talk page, the entire contents of the page where "A seminal band out of Boston." And he's making personal attacks on NawlinWiki ([21] [22]). Looks like WP:BOOMERANG to me, I'm almost tempted to change the thread title.

Nantucketnoon, it's not NawlinWiki's fault you didn't create an article that met the guidelines. You need to quit throwing a hissy fit, and either get over it like an adult or read up on the music guidelines and come up with an article that meets those standards. "Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. Please point me to these "lesser bands" so I can tag those for deletion. If you keep throwing a tantrum, and I'm going to change the title of this thread. NawlinWiki is not "asserting his will", you are not assuming good faith in calling him authoritarian for following guidelines that keep Wikipedia from turning into a directory for garage bands noone is going to care about. If all you had to say was "A seminal band out of Boston," and didn't have sources to demonstrate notability, that's kinda an indication that there aren't enough people out there that care for the band to deserve an article, regardless of how old the band is. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Nantucketnoon's response was less than helpful.[23] Edward321 (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this what Wikipedia is coming to? Approaching me first & not being condescending would accomplish more, & then, having one's friends starting to follow me & harass me. Nantucketnoon (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to harass you; Ian.thomson has already made it clear on your talk page what you are doing, and I suggest you take some time, relax a bit, and try not to take everything personally and seriously as you have been doing. Sometimes taking a step back and putting things into perspective may help things out.

Being combative does not help anything, and you have users out there who are trying to help you. In order for others to help you, you need to help them by communicating in a calm, rational manner. Just doing that can go a long way. –MuZemike 02:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz

I am loathe to bring a matter here; I almost never do. However, Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs) is an editor who's found his way to the block of articles I normally edit and there has been some quite intense friction. He's fairly consistently edit warred and subsequently made on talk pages numerous personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, hasn't heeded my requests to cease such behaviour, and seems like he'll be active on the pages I'm at for some time. Hence, I'd like some assistance - either another voice or other voices he might listen to, some guidance, and/or general advice - in getting the atmosphere more collegial, for everyone.

A sample of what I'm talking about follows:

• Questioning my grasp of English:
  • "English comprehension as well?"[24]
  • "Don't place tags until you learn the Queen's English"[25]
  • "English much?"[26]
• Accusations of bad faith:
  • "you have shown bad faith in this date format thing in the past"[27]
  • "You came off looking badly in both cases... I'm saying that you don't operate in good faith. I have no need to control date formats: that seems to be your domain considering your history.... Seeing as how little you respect consensus, I doubt that discussing this will matter."[28]
  • "You edited in bad faith..."[29]
  • "In total, your argument... is a lie based upon your lack of good faith editing and your blatant disregard for the rules you are clinging to."[30] With the added edit summary, "red herring season."
  • "Reverted 2 edits by Miesianiacal identified as vandalism to last revision by Walter Görlitz" [31] (A false accusation)
  • "Reverted 2 edits by Miesianiacal identified as vandalism to last revision by Walter Görlitz"[32] (A false accusation)
  • "I would prefer User talk:Miesianiacal to simply admit to making the changes and revert them..."[33] (I hadn't made all the changes)
  • "The distinguishing "that country's" was edit-wared by User:Miesianiacal"[34](I reverted once)
  • "Feel free to continue to obfuscate."[35]
  • "I'll wait for Miesianiacal to tell me that he's ignoring consensus before I escalate."[36]
  • "How about you stop showing WP:Ownership?"[37] (After I'd agreed to a third opinion I'd sought)
  • "That was gracious losing. You thought you were right and made an appeal hoping to be vindicated. When it turns out that you were wrong you actually argued with those called to help you. YOu finally gave in when you realized you could not persuade them that your previous wording wasn't ideal."[38] (About my seeking of dispute resolution and subsequent (and immediate) acceptance of the compromise)
• A bit of both:
  • "User talk:Miesianiacal is mistaken at best or at worst lying or incapable of reading."[39]
• Policing my talk page comments:
  • "Removing prejudice and incorrect commentary"[40]
  • "Inserting your opinion on a talk page to bias the discussion with false information is not a benefit. Don't do it again. I decided not to warn you and merely reverted your attempt to influence editors with your typical misrepresentation. I will be forced to warn you the same way you warned me."[41]
• General rudeness:
  • "I think 'that country's confederation' is the stupid wording..."[42]
  • "Nice hyperbole."[43]
  • "I wasn't being rude, you are being arrogant though"[44]
  • "Sorry if it offends you to try to make sense."[45]
  • "Miesianiacal has a Messiah complex"[46]
  • "You really are insipid."[47]

Some of the more offensive comments left at my talk page I deleted, but for context and more detail, the following discussions generally illustrate the interactions between Walter Görlitz and myself:

• Talk:Victoria Day#For the record
• Talk:Victoria Day#Long date format
• Talk:Prime Minister of Canada#Talk:Prime Minister of Canada#Seeking consensus to remove .3Csmall.3E tags around .3Cref.3E
• Talk:David Lloyd Johnston#Date format
• Talk:Michaëlle Jean/Archive 2#Confederation of...?
• User talk:Miesianiacal#Victoria Day x2
• User talk:Miesianiacal#Counting and WP:3RR
• User talk:Miesianiacal#GG date formats

It may also be pertinent to check the history of his talk page; he's had some civility warnings in the past (eg. [48]), but he deleted them.

I understand that I am not free of blame for some bad attitude myself, here; in compiling this report, I've come to notice my tendency to be a little too sensitive and beget snippiness with more snippiness. I will try harder to control that. However, it's still my impression that the scales of misbehaviour are tipped towards WG's side (no bias, of course! ;) ). Other input - on WG, myself, or both together - would be appreciated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to argue against this record nor have I read it. User: Miesianiacal's ability to record every offence made against him is well recognized. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you two need a divorce. -- œ^™ 09:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. And this forum may be the wrong place for that. Jusdafax 11:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the desired result is: it's not really specified. A possible interaction ban? This is a detailed report, and needs further clarification... Doc9871 (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

From my reading of the instructions at the head of this page, I was under the impression that this forum didn't offer much in the way of action; it was more just a place to analyse situations and explore some options. I don't necessarily want to see WG pushed off; he can be productive and sometimes civil. I guess I'd first just like a confirmation that his behaviour has indeed been contrary to Wikipedia's civility guidelines and, if so, have him hear more voices reminding him to keep it respectful and see what results from that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I will comment. The "civility warning" was more of a comment made by an editor who took my comment to a third editor, on that third editor's talk page, in the wrong light. The third editor on whose talk page I posted a comment had restored a section to an article with a comment that made it obvious that he missed a discussion on the talk page about removing some content. He was also in an edit war earlier in the day and I was trying to inquire if he was having a bad day. After receiving the "warning" I immediately went back to the third editor and apologized. He then came back and said that he took not offence. And contrary to M's accusation that I deleted "them" (a single warning treated as a plural?) is incorrect as the full discussion is on my talk page and has been there since the issue ended five days ago. I may have received earlier notices or comments and they're in my archives, although I may have removed them after responding. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

So how do you foresee ending this matter? -- œ^™ 01:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we are at an impasse here. The original poster may wish to take the substantial work in notating these extensive complaints to WP:ANI. In an ideal world the parties would agree to disagree and carry on building an encyclopedia, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen. Suggest closure as stale and unresolved without some movement in the next day or so. Jusdafax 13:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I "second" closing it as "stale". As stale as three-day old bread - I asked the good reporter to respond[49]: to no avail. This thread is dead, baby... Doc9871 (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree and tagging as such. Discussion can be reopened or restarted at any time, if needed. Swarm^Talk 07:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I merely wasn't sure what to do; WG wasn't being terribly incivil for a bit there and it seemed as though going to ANI was just a touch too drastic for the circumstances. However, it appears that he's back to the bullying and tendentiousness accusations of bad faith and again, albeit more subtle.[50] --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsure why this was reopened. Please, again, what are the actual desired results of the filing of this report? A block of Walter Görlitz for incivility? Topic ban? Not a huge fan of rollback being used for this edit in particular - but I don't think the priv should be removed either. I'm not trying to make light of this, and I have respect for both of you. How do you suggest that this matter be resolved? Several editors agree this should be closed as "stale": as the filer, it would be best to elaborate before it is closed again. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, all you say is fair enough. So, to be clear, what I desired in bringing this matter here was:

a) a confirmation from the community that the above is indeed illustrative of an individual's uncivil behaviour, and

b) to have other editors strongly suggest to WG that he cease with said uncivil and aggravating behaviour.

If things didn't change after that, then I'd consider taking it to ANI. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well said, and I hope WG takes note and learns from this. I for one deplore his style, which you have meticulously documented. Agree that if WG can't learn the value and importance of civility in editing, it becomes a matter of concern for the wider community via ANI. I think we all want this to end on a positive note, however. Jusdafax 20:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it seems he's still at it: after saying he wanted to wait for consensus at an RfC before making a change to an article related to that discussion, he started reverting that very article, using another anon IP's reverts as an excuse before trying to pin the blame on me. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

a) Behavious duly noted and on record. b) From reading this thread I think he's getting the point well enough, no need for further admonishment. Unless, if the situation escalates further from this point, I'd endorse a User/RfC, as that would probably be the resulting suggestion if this went to ANI. Can we mark this resolved for now or have there been any other developments? -- œ^™ 20:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think what's been said here is indicative of any change in WG's behaviour; besides what I mentioned earlier today, we still have him mocking my words and comments like "if only I could convince you to stop being so self-righteous in your actions." In fact, from his near complete lack of participation, I don't believe he's at all interested in this thread. Perhaps on those grounds alone it's reached the end of its useful life. An RfC/User is such a messy affair, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(o/d) I've observed both WG and Mes in action previously and have been less than impressed by both their styles of discourse. Sampling about 1/3 - 1/2 the provided links, I can find several examples of WG crossing the line ("you really are insipid" and the retaliatory warning, for two) and I can also see Mes repeating patterns I recall from the past (dogged "discussion" and co-personalization of disputes). So it's not a clean picture, but what I'm seeing here is WG being a tad more in the wrong than Mes.

If I was currently more active (as an admin or editor), I would warn/counsel WG about over-personalizing disputes (again I think) and admonish him that if you are going to place a warning (or "don't make me post this warning") on a user talk page, you better be prepared to escalate it if necessary - or engage in discussion to resolve your interpersonal problem, evidence of which I cannot find. I'd also mention changing another user's project-space talk page post, which you bloody well should note on that talk page if you are going to do it at all.

I couldn't act in an admin capacity with Mes on this, since I've worked on sufficiently close content issues with them, but if I could, I would be warning about dredging up every single thing from the past when you interact with another editor. Sometimes people fundamentally disagree, sometimes they just don't get along. Curb your tendency to enter the "battleground" and do keep in mind that you occasionally may actually be wrong. Myself, I consider being frequently wrong as one of the areas where I have the most experience. :)

I'd recommend closing this as suggested above. Behaviour noted, next step is a user RFC if desired. Going to AN/I is unlikely to yield anything more than my cautions above, given the extended timeframe of the supplied links. If it did go to AN/I, an interaction ban could happen - but then both parties will have to deal with that messiness of who edits what. Both editors would be better off to stop worrying about each other's characterization of themselves and just focus on finding a good compromise on the content disputes. Franamax (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Franamax - very well said! Jusdafax 00:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that last sentence is the key towards a favorable outcome. -- œ^™ 04:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can't really disagree with anything Franamax says above.

If this has reached a conclusion, should WG be made aware of the final comments? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Jeni

Resolved

 – Misunderstanding that has been explained and resolved. Netalarm^talk 14:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to refer to other editors as "wikipedia scum", even if no individuals are identified?

See this comment by the admin User:Jeni. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

To state that there are some scummy editors on Wikipedia isn't a personal attack, it's an observation (otherwise, we wouldn't have this board, WP:AIV, and ANI would be pretty dead). I'm not getting involved in the conflict between you and Boleyn, but there's nothing in there that actually refers to you, so we can't assume it was refering to you without potentially opening doors you may not want opened (if you or other editors wish to open them, that's not my business). But, on this issue, I will say that there's nothing inappropriate. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not that it matters here, but Jeni is not an admin. --Rschen7754 02:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, I didn't assume that it was referring to me, and didn't make that this request on the basis of any such assumption. And sorry, I thought Jeni was an admin. Thanks for the correction on that point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"You rebel scum." Doc9871 (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A generalized statement that some editors are wikipedia scum is a personal attack (for example, "don't let the wikipedia scum get you down"). This is not the same as referring to someone specific (even if they're not named). In other words, if it's a generalization, it's not. If it's obviously directed at specific editors, it is. Swarm^Talk 18:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark resolved as a misunderstanding that has been resolved. No issue here. Netalarm^talk 14:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Erachima

I don't think that closing the discussion about Descriptive & segmented article titles[51] is justified, nor in any way good ettiquette in view of the fact that the discussions are currently in progress. The edit summary suggests that this reason as being "collapse-archiving discussion, as it's eating the whole page".

I think the issue here is that Erachima has over stepped the mark. I do not want to enter into an edit war, but I would like someone assistance to restore the discussions to one of civility, at the very least. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Speaking as the other party in this dispute, this is the incorrect venue. Our disagreement is not a matter of impolite communication. It is a matter of my judgment with regard to consensus, and more specifically, my judgment that a discussion had reached a clear conclusion but continued chasing its own tail due to one editor who believes attrition is an appropriate means of winning an argument on Wikipedia. It properly belongs on WP:ANI, and I will report my actions there myself if necessary. --erachima talk 16:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how consensus can be said to have been reached by collapsing the discussions. Several editors, including yourself, have been making contributions only day. How does preventing editors from participating in the discussions facilitate consensus? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it is indeed necessary. WP:ANI#Wikipedia talk:Article titles debate closure. --erachima talk 17:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a Wikiquette issue

I disagree that this is an ANI issue, and I believe it will be dismissed there shortly as being hand holding. Discussions between editors are conducted throughout Wikipedia as a matter of routine, and require no administrator intervention. Collapsing the discussion is effectively a way of slamming the door on a discussion in progress. I would like this matter reopened. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, erachima collapsed-archived (later changed to an archive box) a discussion while the discussion was active. Gavin saw this as an uncivil and disruptive action. Is that about correct? This certainly is not an ANI situation. Unless you would like to request yourself be blocked, erachima, reporting yourself at ANI isn't going to solve any problems that can't be solved here, and serves to do nothing more than facilitate drama. According to WP:CLOSE, the customary guidelines for closing discussions are grounded in Wikipedia:etiquette, thus improper closures are indeed Wikiquette-related. This is the Wikiquette noticeboard, so I conclude that this is indeed the proper venue for this situation, despite the discussion on ANI (ANI doesn't "override" WQA or anything like that). More so, Gavin, the creator of this WQA simply does not want the discussion to be closed, so I've reopened it.

As for the issue itself, closing discussions like this is usually a bad practice. If someone wants to discuss, you can't prevent them, but you don't have to respond back. Usually, discussions can be closed if they're inactive for a relatively long period of time. Otherwise, they can be closed by consensus. This is usually done when a discussion has stopped being productive and can no longer accomplish anything. This can be done by starting a new section titled Motion to close with the reasoning explained below. If a rough consensus is in favor of closing, you can close it. It's that simple. Otherwise, you shouldn't close a discussion without consensus of doing so.

Anyway, this is the place to discuss, ANI is the place for issues that require action, which isn't necessary. If you're willing to talk to Gavin and deal with the issue, this is the place. It's clear Gavin isn't interested in carrying this to ANI. Swarm^Talk 00:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, short of a consensus or agreement to close, Gavin, you're free to open the discussion as you see fit. Swarm^Talk 01:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I intend to reopen the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Descriptive & segmented article titles shortly, but I will pause and give Erachima time to respond. I am open to suggestion as to how the discussion can be modified if he feels that the thread is too long: perhaps it can be cut into several parts which Mizbot can subsequently archive. However, if he feels that the proposal has "failed", then I believe needs to bring his thoughts to the discussion, and they will be welcome. I will mention this to him on his talk page. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't re-open the thread. The proposal is dead already, reanimating the corpse will be futile. You need to recognise when your arguments have failed to convince people. Fences&Windows 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that, please give reasons on the talk page. The archiving of the thread is unnecessary in the first place, so I am not going to defend reopening it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Hmm... Interesting bit of legal fiction that's been used to expand the use of this venue, but I guess I can see the justification, as WP:ANI is a crowded place at the best of times. Non-internet-related responsibilities have been keeping me rather busy today, but my opinion was mostly summed up in this ANI post. To summarize:

1. I have, and had, no intention of suppressing discussion of the underlying issue of how to best title articles in accordance with WP:NPOV.
2. The specific proposal has, in fact, been rejected, and its archival was long-overdue.
3. Wikipedia's decision-making process is based around the establishment of consensus. It is unhelpful to the establishment of consensus for single individuals to repeat the same arguments ad nauseum (c.f. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass), and when taken to the extreme it is a form of obstructive, tendentious editing. It is not behavior that can be tolerated, because it endangers the entire framework upon which Wikipedia is built.
4. User:Gavin.collins has a long-standing tendency of attempting to force his rejected opinions into policy by outlasting his opponents and taking their silence as surrender, even if the silence follows several hundred kilobytes of numerous editors explaining to him exactly why his opinions are against community principles, as occurred in this debate.
   
   In conclusion, I whole-heartedly endorse User:Swarm's statement above that "closing discussions like this is usually a bad practice", but this was an unusual situation, I believed it warranted an unusual action even if it would be controversial, and it appears that the majority agrees my decision was correct. I thank you all for your time, especially anyone who actually read the sixty pages of discussion that the rejected proposal spawned, and hope that the matter can now be considered settled. Have a good evening, everyone. --erachima talk 22:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Suggestion Clearly there a strong opinions on both sides of this disagreement, and I don't want to end this discussion without something positive coming out of it. Could I sugggest that I open a thread at WP:Village pump/Policy about the issue revealed in the discussion "Example: Jan Smuts in the Boer War" about segmented article titles and their interaction with WP:UNDUE? If this is not an issue that other editors are interested in, then perhaps that would indicate that the discussions had come to an end? Personally I feel it is a hot topic that will be of interest to other editors. We can discuss the wording that will lead this thread, if that will make you feel more comfortable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 02:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Personally I feel it is a hot topic that will be of interest to other editors." Well, we'll see the truth of that soon enough. It'd help if you actually defined what "segmented titles" means, and if you differentiated between the article titles policy and inclusion criteria, which are separate matters. Fences&Windows 11:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for you advice, which makes sense. For your information, I have opened a thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Alternative_article_names. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see that there is a lot of intense opposition to the proposal, which probably explains why the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Descriptive & segmented article titles was collapsed and archived. This is a somewhat different from rejection, which is a matter of opinion, not fact, and I don't believe it is appropriate to close a discussion simply because it is intense, or resulted in annoyance to a particular editor, and sets a bad precedent. I have therefore removed the rejected/archive tag[52] and leave the discussion open for other editors (other than me) to add their comments if they wish. As a courtesy to the other parties to this discussion, I promise not to add any further comments to the discussion "Descriptive & segmented article titles", nor to reopen a new thread on the same issue. This matter is now resolved from my perspective and I hope other editors can also move on in a constructive manner. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no point in reopening it when you created the VPP discussion; you should not split discussion like that - that's edging on forum shopping. It is likely better to close the AT one, but link the VPP one for more details and discussion since you want the wider audience there. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As a good faith gesture, I won't be commenting any further at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Alternative article names either, if that is your concern. I hope this brings closure for you as well. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:PETA

There has been a lot of incivility at Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. This takes place against a background of very strong disagreements over POV/content, but here I am specifically raising issues of WP:NPA. (The talk page gets archived rapidly, so much recent talk has already been archived.)

I am particularly concerned about a long-ongoing pattern of comments by User:SlimVirgin, directed at editors with whom she disagrees. With a few exceptions, these are not "personal attacks" in the usual dictionary sense of gross insults based on personal characteristics, but rather, I'm thinking of the nutshell at NPA, the concept of commenting on content rather than commenting on the editor. Recently, such comments have been directed at others [53], and very repeatedly at me: [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], and [60]. These examples (which are a small collection of the most recent, with others, sometimes much nastier than any of these, going back to when I first became an editor) are not terribly incivil on the face of it. They might even appear to be statements of fact about me, although they very much are not, very much misrepresenting what I had done in my edits. But the problem, as I see it, is that they personalize me, and discuss me in lieu of discussing content. They might be appropriate comments at my user talk, or at dispute resolution pages such as this one, but they are in article talk space. They have the effect of implying that my views are unique to me and not shared by any other editors in the talk (untrue), and of implying that I am some sort of crank or troll whose opinions are suspect, and therefore, when SlimVirgin disagrees with my opinions, her position must necessarily be correct, because mine could not possibly be.

I have tried to explain this at SlimVirgin's user talk: [61], [62], and [63], with mixed results: [64] and [65].

I must also point out that there is tension in both directions. SlimVirgin herself is the target of incivility, such as this recent comment by User:TheHerbalGerbil: [66]. However, in recent months, that last diff is a one-time occurrence, in contrast to what I see as a long-term pattern, and I myself have avoided making any comments about SlimVirgin's motivations.

In my opinion, a good outcome would be for editors in that talk to focus on content and not on one another. I realize that there is only so much that this notice page can do, but my hope is that some uninvolved editors might be able to help move involved editors in that direction, or to help in other ways that I have not thought of. Thanks in advance. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin notified: [67].

TheHerbalGerbil notified: [68]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the first four diffs you provided and cannot see a wikiquette issue. The article talk page is a little tense, but that is to be expected given that PETA is a highly controversial topic. You are perfectly correct that discussions should be about edits and not editors, but there comes a time in protracted disputes where it may be necessary to raise questions about procedures and I can't see any undue language from SlimVirgin (I'm not commenting on the accuracy of her remarks). Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said originally, this isn't really about grossly undue language, so you shouldn't expect to see that. And you might want to consider looking at all the diffs I provided rather than stopping part way through. The issue as I perceive it is very much one of a pattern, rather than an isolated occurrence of something blatant, and one needs to look at, at least, everything I documented here to begin to see that pattern. (I don't know, maybe I should have provided even more diffs, but it gets to be a tough call with respect to tl;dr.)

There is a real asymmetry in that SlimVirigin repeatedly makes comments about me and other editors in ways that I do not make comments about her, and it goes beyond "raising questions about procedures" to raising questions about whether editors should be editing at all if they disagree with her. It becomes very difficult to edit constructively when, at every step, one has to defend oneself against suggestions that one is some sort of crank, and when such suggestions are provided instead of arguments based on page content. I wonder, based on what you said, whether this is something that can only be made clear after assessing the factual accuracy of her comments, and perhaps that is asking for something that WQA cannot provide. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Based on the diffs provided, there is simply no substance to the claim that SlimVirgin has engaged in uncivil behaviour. This is not a WQA issue and I urge the editor to show better faith in his engagements on the talk page. Eusebeus (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's frustrating to me that you would see it that way. To me, it seems obvious that "Tryptofish, stop reverting my edits for the hell of it... You seem quite happy to introduce inconsistencies in formatting and long-windedness, rather than let my edits simply stand." is incivil, unless one believes the statement that I revert edits for the hell of it, and the statement that I happily introduce inconsistencies in formatting and long-windedness, are statements of fact. I do not see how that would lead anyone to conclude that it was I who showed bad faith in these engagements, unless one believes the accusations. I don't know, maybe for uninvolved editors it sounds plausible on the face of it that these things could be true, without actually seeing what happened in context. Maybe WQA is just not set up in a way that makes it possible to see what is going on here. By way of the history of these interactions, perhaps it would help if I point to what happened when I first began as an editor: [69], [70]. This has been a pattern over time, starting before it was even possible for me to have been here long enough to have reverted or to have introduced bad formatting etc. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said when I first posted here, what I hope for is for editors to comment on content rather than on one another at that talk page. Surely, I am not wrong about that, am I? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Jimintheatl

Resolved

 – Final warning for NPA and Civil issued. Toddst1 (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This wouldn't be a big deal if there was not a history of User:Jimintheatl being uncivil but there is and I simply don't think editors should have to put up with it. He has been asked not to be rude[71] after calling me "Captain Finger-Wag.[72] He has again done it.[73] He has been edit warring at Beck University and, IMO, he should have been blocked considering his record.(Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jimintheatl reported by User:Cptnono (Result: protected)} Protection of the page was good enough since something might be possible after some discussion. However, him purposely poking others' buttons is not helping anything and needs to stop. Any chance an admin can remind him of this so that if it does continue and an ANI regarding his behavior will not be too knee-jerk if it does? I am sure I could pull all sorts of innapropriate comments from his history but realy I just want him to simply stop which isn; that much to ask.Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Toddst1

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Frivolous complaint. Eusebeus (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This user has come into a dispute at McKownville, New York and accused me of edit warring which I have not come close to doing as a real investigation of the history will show that it is not edit warring as other editors are doing more than I am and two of my edits were to remove a left over parentheses from others editing the article and that type of clean-up is not related to the dispute. I asked on the editor's talk page to please stay off my talk page and he came back. Per WP:Harrassment being asking to stay off another's talk page is a right of any wikipedian. I dont want any drama and am trying to work hard on User:Camelbinky/sandboxII and other productive work and dont want this drama. Todd is trying to instigate further embarressment and dramatize this dispute which is already being handled at WP:AN/I and at the content dispute noticeboard. His intervention was for no reason other than to humiliate me, this is egregiously wrong behavior.Camelbinky (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am closing this frivolous and baseless complaint. You are obviously engaged in edit warring and you need to stop or you will be blocked. You should thank Toddst1 for taking the time to point out your poor behaviour in editing this article and accept his advice. Eusebeus (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to reopen this as I do not feel it was taken serious and I am not engaged in edit warring, please take the time to actually look at the history and not just whether or not my name shows up in the history list but to actually see WHAT I did in the particular edit. I did not edit war, the proper procedure was taken; someone made an edit, I reverted with my explanation in the edit summary, discussion ensued at the Village pump, what I thought was a compromise was offered by someone else at the village pump, I implemented the compromise. There was no edit warring and therefore accusing me of such was meaningless and only occurred after the editor I took to AN/I complained to Todd that I should be "punished" too because Todd warned him about his incivility.Camelbinky (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The only reason this user wants to reopened this is because he got his wrists slapped here. Bjmullan (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Pmanderson

Resolved

 – Taken to ANI as suggested. Mark Nutley

This user persists in making personal attack on me, [74] Accuses me of making false claims and ignorance. [75] Infers i require remedial education [76] Deliberately misrepresenting comments i have made. These attacks have been ongoing for a while and i`d like something done mark nutley (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark Nutley is attempting to impose a fringe view on a subject about which he knows little. His objection is fundamentally to having his own words, which include the claims that Greeks had no democracys [his spelling, since repeated] and that the United States had no elections before 1789 quoted back at him. My "misrepresentation" has consisted of so quoting him.

Content dispute stuff, really has no place here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He also has a tendency to remove sourced edits, because he (with no source) disagrees with them: 21:17 14 July, 21:19, 21:21, 21:36 At this point the page was protected. He then put it up for deletion, and continued to revert. 09:28 17 July 12;27 12:29 12:30 21:11

His remedy is simple. If he strikes the nonsense he puts forth, I will cease to quote it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

None of mark nutleys behavior excuse your persistent personal attacks on him (nor anyone else). Your description of what has happened is in any case incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The other persistent blanker, now more restrained - so I won't post his list of non-constructive edits, unless these inventions continue. All my claims are in the links, except the AfD, which anyone can verify. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Still not true, and even if it was, still not an excuse for the personal attacks. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And now says [77] i am a semi-literate ignoramus but at least i may be the nicest one. mark nutley (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Pmanderson has a long history of incivility and personal attacks. Something really needs to be done about it. Note that there was an ANI against him here 14 days ago and here 8 days ago. All of it was over just this sort of thing. Neither resulted in action against him. I suggest you contact User:OpenFuture and User:Marknutley to see what the community is going to do with PMA. I’m pretty sure OpenFuture will collaborate to demonstrate that there is a chronic pattern here. Greg L (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  P.S. Or, just file an ANI yourself and cite the previous incidences to demonstrate a pattern. Greg L (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I posted a comment and missed the 'resolved' notice. I have removed my comment from this closed discussion and will re-post to the appropriate place. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Repku (talk · contribs)

I am concerned by this user's usual style of edit summary. I first noticed the user when s/he edited a page on my watchlist, and I was a bit taken aback when I clicked on their contributions and saw that it was not an isolated issue. I have shared my concern with the editor, but being inexperienced in this sort of situation, I am seeking further advice. Thank you. —Bill Price^{(notyourbroom)} 17:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: I have had no content disputes, "edit wars", or other prior contact with this editor. I am just a bit jarred by the amount of vituperation I came across in examining their edit history. —Bill Price^{(notyourbroom)} 17:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. There is really no need for edit summaries like that, and they are clearly a pattern. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are terrible, man i thought we were bad on the CC articles :), is there not a rule against edit summarys like that? mark nutley (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is WP:CIVIL. I wonder if this would be appropriate for WP:ANI? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say definitely an ANI issue, after all not a lot can be done here :) mark nutley (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added a note here. —Bill Price^{(notyourbroom)} 18:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Malik Shabazz

Stuck

 – discussion has degenerated into a convoluted content dispute by other means. There is no clear consensus on the editor's general actions, although certain remarks bend WP:CIVIL. Hopefully parties can sort this mess out on the talk page. Eusebeus (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Here [78] [79] this user is threatening an edit war to hold up GA status for Roger Waters in retaliation for good-faith editing I have done at The Autobiography of Malcolm X involving an RfC editor consensus in which user was being tedious, here [80]. This violates Wikipedia's disruption policy. --GabeMc (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Gabe is mistaken. I was not being tendentious (nor tedious, although I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder). I was wishing him luck, as I know how exciting it can be to get an article through the GA process. As far as edit-warring goes, he has had problems in the past with banned editor Mk5384, who has threatened to return as a sock. Assuming Mk5384 follows through on his threats to sock, I sincerely hope they don't disrupt Gabe's GA nomination. That's all. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Gabe is mistaken. I was wishing him luck, as I know how exciting it can be to get an article through the GA process."

If you didn't threaten an edit war to hold up GAN for Roger Waters as retaliation for my good-faith editing at the Autobiography, then please explain this comment, [81] at 16:24 (UTC), and then this edit, [82], less than four minutes later. Your second edit ever to Roger Waters? --GabeMc (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Here [83] user Malik Shabazz uses a "revert" instead of an "archive" to delete unwanted content from his users page. --GabeMc (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I can use any means I choose to remove messages from my Talk page. See WP:BLANKING. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifing that. You are correct. --GabeMc (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

An admin once told me that the same rules applied to user:talk as any page, he was clearly wrong, and as I never happened across the policy myself, I also had it wrong. --GabeMc (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

[84] This is, at the very least, a civility issue. --GabeMc (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, boo-fucking-hoo. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or is egregious personal attacks."

"A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." --GabeMc (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• "profanity directed at another contributor"

"Go to hell, Gabe." [85]

"Kiss my ass" [86]

"Oh, boo-fucking-hoo." (see above)

That's three instances of verbal abuse or profanity in one day. Completely unprovoked I might add. --GabeMc (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

From WP:LEADCITE

• "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited."
• "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus."
• "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."

Explain how this policy allows you to revert me to remove every citation from a contentious statement in the lede. [87] [88] Should we add edit warring to the complaint? --GabeMc (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments like Go to hell, Gabe. and Kiss my ass are certainly uncivil behavior and definitely something I wouldn't expect from an admin. warrior4321 00:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• That is certainly conduct unbecoming an admin, Malik would you please retract them and offer an apology? and as a gesture of good faith an offer to remain away from the article that Gabe is trying to get to GA status? mark nutley (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

[89] At least 5 users within the past 30 days have considered Malik's actions unbecoming an admin. --GabeMc (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the origin of this hubbub is a dispute where it would be helpful to have third-party input that all parties would respect. It also seems to me that Malik (who I respect greatly) should try to calm down. The first reply in this thread is certainly disingenuous, and that isn't good to see from anybody. Looie496 (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The first reply in this thread is certainly disingenuous"

Agreed, and a threat to disrupt a GAN as retaliation for good-faith editing on another article is clearly behavior unbecoming an admin. --GabeMc (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

English is not my first language, so I went to dictionary to learn what " boo fucking hoo " means. Apparently it is nothing uncivil. So I propose to mark this thread and resolved and archive it. How's that?--Mbz1 (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not resovled, and closing after only 3 hours is not in keeping with Wiki policies. --GabeMc (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay I removed the template.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, sarcastic and profane mocking is indeed considered uncivil, and for an admin to behave this way puts all of Wikipedia in a bad light. --GabeMc (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Gabe, I'm sorry if I offended you with my comments. As an offer of good faith, I promise to show you more than you've shown me (i.e., zero). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

More verbiage unbecoming an admin, IMHO. --GabeMc (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• "I promise to show you more than you've shown me" -You were hostile to me from day one, without provocation other than the fact that many sources disagreed with your demotion of Haley from co-author to ghostwriter. --GabeMc (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Gabe is mistaken. I was wishing him luck, as I know how exciting it can be to get an article through the GA process."

If you didn't threaten an edit war to hold up GAN as retaliation for good-faith editing, then please explain this [90] comment at 16:24 (UTC), and then this edit [91], less than four minutes later. Your second edit ever to Roger Waters? --GabeMc (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Gabe, you ought to reconsider your interaction style. This method of bombarding people with verbiage is extremely annoying. You managed to annoy Malik (a pretty calm person) into losing his cool. Continuing to badger him is not going to win you many supporters here. Please tone it down a bit. Looie496 (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Looie, I'll take your advice and tone it down, I don't wanna badger anyone. As far as "managed to annoy Malik", read the discussion page in question, [92], from June 23rd, 2010. He is still reverting me today after more than 30 days of consensus, 150+ sources, and his complete refusal to back anything up. I have remained civil, he has not. If he wasn't badgering me, i.e. reverting sourced statements for 30 days straight then swearing at me without provocation, I would never have opened this dispute. --GabeMc (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Gabe, if someone's reverting you, then you do not have consensus. Consensus is a voluntary agreement; repeated reverts are the opposite of agreement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Gabe is right: There was a Talk page consensus that was implemented on July 3. His edits yesterday were contrary to that consensus, but I didn't revert them in substance. My only change was to remove his heavy-handed, unnecessary, POINTy over-sourcing of the lede. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• @ WhatamIdoing: If 4-6 people agree with "A", and one agrees with "B", there is consensus. Malik had been the only person arguing "B" since June, yet has reapeatedly reverted "A". --GabeMc (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Gabe, as usual you're being untruthful. I haven't reverted any substantive edits since the Talk page consensus was put into the article on July 3. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• "since the Talk page consensus was put into the article on July 3".

No one came to any consensus with you on July 3rd that I am aware of. Mk5384 was arguing for authorship on July 2nd, [93], [94] and I was still arguing for authorship on July 4,[95], so I am not sure what you think happened on July 3rd, but I was not involved in any consensus. On June 30th, I suggested we leave the RfC tag open a full 30 days to "let it run it's course in order to gain the best consensus we can." I ignored the page since July 4th while the RfC was open and made no edits to the page for 19 days. Then I returned at the end of the RfC on July 23rd and implemented the editor consensus. — GabeMc (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

More lies, Gabe. Mk5384 suggested a compromise at Talk:The Autobiography of Malcolm X on June 30 and you made a similar suggestion on my Talk page a few hours later (after I had agreed to Mk5384's suggestion on the article's Talk page). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of lying. "The act of throwing around such accusations is a lack of assumption of good faith." I am not lying, we may disagree, but I am not lying, and making accusations like that is considered a Characteristic of Problem Editors, from WP:TEND:

• "You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts". This is prima facie evidence of your failure to assume good faith. Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion."

First off, the suggestion Mk5384 made to you here [96] was not implemented by you in full, nor did I ever endorse it. Second, the suggestion I made to you here, [97]included referring to Haley as a collaborator, something you ignored when you wrote the lede. So again, I am not lying, and you are making false accusations to make me look bad. — GabeMc (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Gabe, as usual you're being untruthful. I haven't reverted any substantive edits since the Talk page consensus was put into the article on July 3." I never said you did, you are staring to make unsubstantiated claims, and wage a smear campaign IMHO. Before you question my honor and accuse me of lying please show me where I said you had "rerverted substantive edits since July 3", I didn't, I said since June, [98]. And you are accusing me of being untruthful. I think you are making things up to try to make me look bad, well, one of us looks bad here that's for sure. — GabeMc (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As usual, Gabe is full of ... something. He came to The Autobiography of Malcolm X with the intention of "having the back" of an editor who had been blocked for edit warring there. My "edit warring" has been to remove four unnecessary sources from the lede (see WP:CITELEAD), which Gabe allegedly added to support changing the word "wrote" to "co-authored". In fact, he added them merely to make a point, since the same sentence (with a footnote) appears later in the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• "In fact, he added them merely to make a point, since the same sentence (with a footnote) appears later in the article."

The footnote to which you refer is an Essence magazine interview with Alex Haley, which is not as reliable as any of my scholarly secondary sources. --GabeMc (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Malik, honestly, here [99] I was only trying to show Mk how to provide reliable sources for statments versus edit warring without providing any sources like he had been doing. I was trying encourage him to build a group of neutral or friendly editors so that he was not 100% alienated from the Wiki community. I was only trying to help him become productive, that's all, not to gang up on you. I just happened to know that the sources disagreed with your choice to minimize Haley's contribution, so the Autobiography page was just a good example of how to research and provide sources when your claim is deleted repeatedly. I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, I didn't mean to, it was all done in good faith, and for the record, Malcolm X was one of my very first heros, still is. As far as WP:POINT, you are incorrect, and if you think 4 cites is overdoing it, I would happily reduce it to one or two. Maybe you should have deleted one or two and not every cite. I don't read WP:LEADCITE the same way you do, as per above. To me, the policy perfectly justifies good citations for a contentious statement in the lead. --GabeMc (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Being untruthful again, Gabe? The plain language of what you wrote was clear enough that Mk5384 rejected your proposal to tag-team. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think what I wrote here, [100] speaks for itself. If you read the whole of it, and get a feel for what I was saying in a bigger picture and not focus on that one sentence. I wished I hadn't used that phrase after I typed it, as I knew it would likely confuse Mk, and it did, he missed the whole point, as have you. I can tell you it was not about you, it was about him, it was not personal, it had to do with a good point that could be illustrated by showing him to source and gain concensus to sway opionions versus edit warring. I was trying to convince him to make some friends, a good idea for a disruptive editor I think. I can't make you believe me, but a make a careful read of everything I said there [101]. I think you should read this edit I made to the same page one hour earlier, [102]. --GabeMc (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as having reached consensus, not one single editor has supported your view since the RfC tag went up nearly 30 days ago. And here is an excert from the biography of Ilyasah Shabazz, Malcolm X' daughter; "The Autobiography of Malcolm X", written by my father, with Alex Haley." [103] --GabeMc (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to start spamming this page with your bullshit, Gabe? Please spare us. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to enter into an actual dialog, or are you gonna try to bully me into not writing anymore? Through this post, I had made one more edit to this page then you had today. --GabeMc (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: BarbaricSocialistZealots

Resolved

 – User blocked as a sockpuppet Mark Nutley

On Talk:Libertarianism: dumb people with serious conflict of interest issues be allowed to edit on pages they shouldn't edit; a "try-hard" Rothbard without the writing and publishing success of a Rothbard; Merely because she failed to get a profile; particularly given the poor quality of her expression; merely a second-rate Rothbard with less publishing success; How can she possibly be allowed to edit in this space???; It reminds me of a dirty teenager's bedroom; doesn't know the meaning of the words elegant writing N6n (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I hat`d that PA and cautioned the editor mark nutley (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note this is probably a sock of the prolific sockmaster Karmaisking (see this diff, matching Kik's style and article preference, the style of his name plus his first edit). He's been branching into the AA article of late, but the libertarianism article has been a long-time favorite target. Ravensfire (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is the sock? And how much of the above complaint is a quote? Verbal chat 15:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The sock is BarbaricSocialistZealots (working on the SPI request now). Most of the comments in the initial post are quotes from BSZ's post, but they are fragments of the full post, which mn collapsed and you tweaked the collapsing. Ravensfire (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

All of the initial post is fragments of what BarbaricSocialistZealots wrote. The thread is now closed with the message "Uncivil comments like this have no place on Wikipedia, up your game please". Thanks. N6n (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Issues of POV on the Kenny G article

As clearly evident from this, the article lacks an entire section. Repeatedly removed without sufficient support, this section should represent a fairly large view of Kenny's music, which is backed up by a vast share of reliable sources, including the infamous interview with Pat Metheny (who would "smash his new guitar over Kenny's head"). As indicated at the end of that discussion section, the article is clearly being patrolled by Kenny G fans; this is anything but neutral. I initially wanted to add that section, but after stumbling upon the discussion I realized it would drag me into a meaningless edit war. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This page really isn't the best place to look for help for that kind of issue. Please try WP:NPOVN. I hope that will be more helpful for your concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Noted, reposted. Thank you very much. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Mir Harven

Mir Harven (talk · contribs) started a post on the Croatian language talk page with "I don't know what kind of therapy would suit you (if any), but your hysteric idiocies are all too easy refutable. You simply do not deserve to be taken seriously (except as a psychiatric case)."[104]

I reverted the edit, and asked him to stop the personal attacks. He responded with "The user referred to is a psychiatric case, so posting a snapshot diagnosis is not contrary to the rules of polite conversation",[105] and then restored his edits. (Which I have again deleted.)

Since I'm involved, I don't feel I should take disciplinary action, but this is a bit ridiculous. He has been warned several times on previous occasions to stop personal attacks, including one I see that resulted in a block (here).

— kwami (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hand written note, for what it's worth. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I wasn't objecting to anything he said to me (I don't much care); he was insulting another editor, one we should see more of. — kwami (talk) 10:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Confused

I don't know what to do when confronted with a situation like the one displayed in these diffs. I had posted a personal web page quoting an official document, which answered a question from another editor. But I'd already noted there weren't article-worthy sources, and conceded the other editor's point.

Off2riorob didn't note I'd conceded the point, and said my "citations" I was using to support my "POV" weren't worthy of a talk page [106]

I responded that they were not RS, as I'd said [107]

And he again got after me for posting them in the first place [108]

I checked his edit history to see if he were just a noob, and since he's a regular I explained [109]

But he got even more officious and nasty [110]

I asked him to be civil [111]

And he said he would be civil if I did as he said [112]

I dropped the issue and let him have the last word. I realize I was wrong in what I had originally done on the article we were discussing (I revert a lot of noob stuff, and a redlink user had removed a section I originally thought was well sourced). But I'm wondering if this kind meanness just tolerated on Wikipedia or is there some recourse? I don't think it's healthy for any community to just let this kind of negativity happen, and I'm wondering what I should do about it in the future.

I also posted here because no response on this page. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right in that he is being uncivil. I posted a reminder that he ought to be more civil -- hopefully that will do the trick. If he is as upstanding an editor as he seems to be, he should know not to be uncivil. The best strategy is usually not to engage. In this situation, if you feel content on the article needs to be changed, try to find reliable sources that can back up your facts. Otherwise, I'd more or less leave it be. If he escalates, he can be warned and, if need be, reported. GorillaWarfare ^talk 18:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I just thought it was wrong to ignore it. If we ignore, it just allows the behavior in the community. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I rather doubt that other editors would see this dispute and see it as legitimizing their own incivility, but I understand your point. I will, however, point out that ignoring behavior sometimes is a good strategy: see Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Not applicable here, but just for future reference. GorillaWarfare ^talk 19:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I ignore your claimed reminder as nonsense and I support my comments totally. Nothing I said was rude and all needed saying, simple adult communication, this is not a la do da, oh I am so sorry you appear to have violated policy and when it was pointed out you have repeated your mistake, I hope you don't awfully mind me pointing it out to you, mny apologies if you do ..type of place and civility guidelines don't support that or this valueless thread either. Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The content dispute is between you and Critical, but it is undeniable that you were and are continuing to be rude and uncivil. It would be wise to stop. GorillaWarfare ^talk 18:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, Off2riorob are you saying I violated policy by posting non-RS links on the noticeboard? GorillaWarfare, I'd already acknowledged I was wrong on the content dispute before this ever started. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm not involving myself in the content matter. GorillaWarfare ^talk 19:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You started with your revert of removed content wth the edit summary of, looks alright to me that again had to be removed after you inserted it and then you continued with your adding four citations to the BLPN that were not wikipedia reliable citations. I support all my comments as within policy and as in themselves completely civil. Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

BeCritical, without having examined the links in question, there is a valid point to consider. WP:BLP policy applies to all pages, and that means that unsourced (or unreliably sourced) negative allegations aren't allowed anywhere. Practicaly speaking, there is a little bit more leeway on that sort of noticeboard to determine consensus on borderline cases. However in the spirit of BLP it's a little more leway. not a free-for-all.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged, but I think that really you'd have to examine the links. What you say is true, it just doesn't apply here. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but it's seeming like what we have here is Off2riorob making, lets call it a legitimate yet debatable point perhaps a bit gruffly. would that be a reasonable charactarization?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no he seems to be concerned that the links were not RS enough to put in an article. They were merely blogs and such discussing official pronouncements about the case, as far as I read them. There was nothing brought up about defamation in the diffs posted above. I posted something in an article that should not have been posted... but it should not have been posted only because the article title implies guilt, which had not yet been established in court. The links I was giving were links to where people were quoting an autopsy report and other things about the case. But Off2riorob's point seems to have been that they were not RS, and thus should not have been mentioned. He says "Content supported by such citations is not even worthy of a wikipedia talkpage?" and again "I am not interested in your rubbish citations, please don't post such like on the BLPN again." In other words, he's concerned that they aren't article-quality citations, and says that non-article-quality citations should not be posted on a talk page. There was never a question of posting defamatory information. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You're missing my point moving in to content as opposed to behavior. So i'm not sure what you expect to recieve.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying the links I posted are defamatory? I'm not sure what you're saying, sorry. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm talking behaviour not content. I believe Off2riorob legitamately felt the links had no place on the talk page. I'm not saying he's right, but it's not a concept so far out there that I can't see where he's coming from. He expressed his strong opinion to you and i'll admit, his tone was a little harsher than I'd have used. So i'm not sure what you're looking for now. Punishment? Seems excesive even if his arguement were dead wrong (which i'm not saying either way).--Cube lurker (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. I don't think Off2riorob objected to the links because of BLP issues (and I don't thin there actually were any). But I consider the issue with Off2riorob closed. I just thought that behavior like that shouldn't be just ignored. It's bad for me to feel ill-used, and it's bad for Wikipedia to ignore such things. But simply making an issue of it and having the consensus of others is sufficient; and thanks for that (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I dispute any claimed value to your report, you would have done well to simply accept my good faith advice, your inability to accept it and your whining on about it at multiple locations is the actual issue, get over yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"jerk"

Stale

 – No further action requested from filer, who recommends closing. Doc9871 (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"Fine. Be a jerk, then." from User:GDallimore in Talk:Patentable_subject_matter#as_such_clause doesn't sound very polite to me. For me that's enough to stop for a while. --Swen (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC) See also Talk:Time_Cube#BRD_-_Claims_of_website_containing_racist_ideologies. --Swen (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just notified User:GDallimore of this report. While it's not strict policy, it says at the top of the page to do so. If by, "stop for a while": does this mean you are asking for a block? This report may need some work. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I stop my work here. I have enough to do in the german Wikipedia. I don't need to be called jerk without a significant reason. --Swen (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Swen i am hoping that this one incident does not makes you leave...I like yourself have Wikipedia accounts on many versions...One thing i have come to learn is that a tougher skin "rauher Haut" is needed in English Wikipedia as there are Tausende und Abertausende von Menschen, die hier viel. Moxy (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to stop working here simply because one editor called you a "jerk"... well, I'm not sure what to say. I don't think it should discourage you at all, really. Do you feel action should be taken against GDallimore for his comment? If not, I feel this thread should probably be closed (pending a possible response from the accused)... Doc9871 (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Action? Certainly no blocking, as he has done a good job most of the time, but I think it would be good to have a more authoritative person having an eye on him in heated disputes. I know that he has kicked off Dr. Karl-Friedrich Lenz and Reinier Bakels with his argumentations. He and I are both working in the field of software patenting, he as patent attorney for his clients in favour of patenting, I as a patent examiner in contrast with interpretation of the words of the law in their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning, which forbids to see software as an invention. As these contrasting views exist since decades between lawyers and computer professionals, heated discussions can't be avoided, but personal attacks like this one should be avoided. (Edcolins cooled down many discussions before.) As GDallimore and I will certainly meet again in some discussion on patentability, it would be better that some third makes him quit clear, that personal attacks are counterproductive. Which way, I don't know. To cool down the dabate, I think it is better, I stay for a while in the german WP. --Swen (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This editor was ready to leave and give up editing before I said "be a jerk, then", which was the reason I made the comment in the first place. The full story is this:

Not ready to leave but I asked for a third oppinion about my suggested inclusion (simply put that first sentence at the end of the EPS subsection.) --Swen (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

He wanted to add what looked to me like a POV-ey edit with little support and I said it would be bad without more sourcing. He found some more sources and I said it looked better, but perhaps in a different, more relevant article. He found more sources and I suggested it was definitely getting there, but maybe he should spend more time thinking about it based on all the sources he'd found, gathering them together and then make his edit rather than carrying on discussing it. He said he had trouble assuming good faith with me and that he was going to give up editing, so I said my piece.

This all seems very minor, nothing to get in a tizz about. If people want to get in a tizz, I will defend myself. GDallimore (Talk) 12:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Will you try not to call him that (or other things) in the future? He's not asking for anything more than a gentle reminder with this thread, it seems. You guys can work this out, right? Doc9871 (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If someone insults you in Germany with Depp, Wichser, Dämlack, Saftsack, Idiot, Trottel, Arsch or Penner (translations vom dict.cc for jerk), it is not unlikely that you get a punch in the mouth (see http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/jerk.htm). I didn't know that word before. Ok now I know. GDallimore doesn't even notice that he is acting uncivilised. Ok a reason more to have an eye on him, but no job for me. Discussion can be closed unresolved. --Swen (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it okay if this is closed as "resolved" instead of "unresolved" (per support of the filing party)? You should most certainly keep editing on WP, both of you. "Sticks and Stones", "Water off a duck's back", yaddah yaddah. This thread looks... kaput. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

redacted comment

Resolved

 – not interested

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In response to this comment [113] by user:unomi, I posted comment that was redacted. I'd like to learn if the community thinks it should have been redacted [114] Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Avoid making personalised remarks and they probably won't be redacted; stick to the matter at hand (which is the actual content in dispute). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not interested, sorry for posting.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cla68 and ChrisO

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Forum shopping is not helpful. This dispute is subject of an ongoing request for arbitration

---

Resolved

 – Not suitable for this board. The greater conflict is already subject of a pending arbitration case. Jehochman ^Talk 03:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In the course of this post on AN/I, Cla68 (talk · contribs) made a malicious, untrue and frankly libellous claim about myself: "ChrisO, in fact, requested that someone villify a person in their blog who had given the book a good review". I did no such thing. In this post on another editor's talk page, I mentioned a recent article in a science magazine, asked if he knew anything about the author (who I'd never heard of before) and suggested that the readers of his high-profile science blog might be interested in the article. As this clearly shows, I did not ask anyone to vilify anyone else anywhere. I have told Cla68 to retract [115], which he has not done. This is a very serious personal attack - a serious accusation of wrongdoing which harms my reputation. He has no evidence for it whatsoever. He has declined to retract or refactor, leaving me no choice but to bring it here. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO has been waging a campaign against the use of the book The Hockey Stick Illusion for some time now [116]. He objected (rightfully) to the use of a blog post by prestigious climatologis Judith Curry as a source in which she recommends the book. Soon after, WMC, who has also been active in fighting the use of that book as a source, posted a long screed against Curry on his personal blog [117]. ChrisO appears to be asking him to do the same thing to this other scientist who gave the book a positive review for a learned society. WMC appears to confirm that that is what is being asked. I tried to ask ChrisO what he meant by that question, and he refused to answer: [118] [119]. In my opinion, ChrisO should not be asking, on-wiki, for editors who share a similar POV to be taking off-wiki actions against people who have done things he disagrees with, especially because it affects something he is doing on-wiki. Cla68 (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I refused to answer because it had nothing to do with you, it was not posted on your talk page, you had no prior involvement in the discussion and you have a track record of making baseless claims. Now answer this: where is your evidence that I asked anyone to vilify another person? I remind you of what WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack? lists - "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." You have posted no evidence whatsoever to support a very serious personal attack. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I see as an uninvolved editor, it appears that Cla68 was dead on in his assessment of your actions. GregJackP Boomer! 03:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You're in no way uninvolved - you've disputed my edits in a number of articles, vilified me on other editors' talk pages and followed me here to cause more trouble. I'll point out to you that in his original attack on me he called his claim a "fact". Cla68's subsequent comments above make it clear that it's a mere supposition on his part - "ChrisO appears", "WMC appears", etc. Let's be very clear about this: it's completely unacceptable for an editor, on the basis of personal supposition, to state as fact a claim which is unfounded and rests entirely on an assumption of bad faith. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Norcalal Uncivil Behavior

Norcalal has been engaging in uncivil behavior on the following talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:San_Francisco_Bay_Area which is consistent with personal attacks. This individual first started accusing me of being biased toward San Jose when i made reasonable edits on the San Francisco Bay Area page. Since I am from the Bay Area I feel that I have relevant knowledge of the region to be able to update the Bay Area page with factual information. Norcalal is a non-native from the North Coast of California, although, he vehemently refutes anything I have to say on the Bay Area talk page or any edits that I make.

Non-native? Really? Who cares? How would you know where I live and what would it matter? But for your information, my family has been living in Northern CA for 6 generations dating back to the mid 1800's and I live in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area now. However, native status or opinion of a native does not matter one bit here in Wikipedia. What you "feel" also has no relevance in Wikipedia whatsoever. Period. Demanding major overhaul of the SF Bay Area article because of an obsession with artificial designations of the US Census has no relevance on this article. Repeating over and over and over that San Jose has greater employment than SF when the difference has been reported in at least one reliable source (based upon recent census information) as less than 5,000 persons is a nonstarter. As was suggested by an impartial editor, please make an article on the US Census designation and detail all particulars there. That new article can be prominently referenced in the San Francisco Bay Area article. Norcalal (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to communicate with this poster both by e-mail and on the Bay Area talk page without success. Your assistance would be appreciated. Ginelli (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• While Norcalal is acting in a way that is uncivil, this situation goes a bit past civility. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What does this remark mean, Jelly Soup? Please clarify. Norcalal (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Ginelli, I suggest you use specific user diffs, [120], so the burden on commenting editors is not to prove or disprove your claims. — GabeMc (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, GabeMc Ginelli (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ginelli (talk) has engaged in renaming the SF Bay article and has worked to revert edits by several editors related to the SF Bay Area Article. Ginelli has been warned not to engage in personal attacks by an impartial editor. Ginelli has been warned specifically by at least three two other editors not to continue to try to rename the SF Bay Area as the San Jose Bay Area. I will not engage in this ridiculousness finger pointing. Common use of terms in the San Francisco Bay Area is indisputable and this editor refuses to discuss these issues. Email from this user makes the same tired remarks that he is a native and that his views are more important that published sources or other editors (combined). IF this editor proposed renaming the SF Bay Area to the San Jose San Francisco Oakland Bay Area in talk then we would have had quite a different encounter. IF this editor placed such sweeping changes and making San Jose the preeminent city in the SF Bay Area as a matter for discussion people could have weighed in that would have been a different encounter. But that was not the case and other impartial editors have had to work hard and repeatedly revert this editors unacceptable changes to the article. Ginelli refuses to engage in a reasonable discussion and makes changes that are contrary to naming convention in articles among other issues. ALSO, this editor has attacked me in two specific situations that were actually removed by an impartial editor. Then he posts a complaint here for behavior he is engaged in. Really? Renaming the San Francisco Bay Area diminishes SF, which is a World Class City at least two levels above San Jose. The power of SF over the region is indisputable. However, whomsoever can support this editor's positions please do so in talk at the SF Bay Area article. Looking back over the history of this article to the spring of 2010, Wikipedia editors have allowed a systematic removal of clear dominance by SF to a point that the article was losing efficacy in regard to the truth. I am not going to take the time to show before and after evidence of these changes. I just continue my commitment to assist in keeping all articles of interest to me in the realm of reality. Do I decide what reality is? No. But I do know when I see its opposite. Norcalal (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Jelly Soup, Ginelli and Norcalal should all check out WP:DIFF for "tips" on how to provide appropriate diffs for evidence of editor misconduct in reports such as this. Jelly Soup's diffs are useless (as they are currently), Ginelli has been advised in GabeMC's above comment, and Norcalal's "I am not going to take the time to show before and after evidence of these changes."... No, please! Use diffs... Doc9871 (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please also see (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=376300688&oldid=376299906#User:Norcalal_reported_by_User:Ginelli_.28Result:_Advised_Ginelli.29). Ginelli has been "advised" by at least 4 different editors in this matter and still attempts to fundamentally alter the SF Bay Area Article despite attempts at assisting him to understand how to engage in working to build consensus. Again, looking at the article, there were systematic efforts on the part of at least two editors (including Ginelli) to incorrectly alter the article to diminish the preeminence of San Francisco going back to Spring 2010. In the provided link, at least one impartial editor recommended Ginelli apologize to all concerned. Instead, he AGAIN reverted the SF Bay Area article to include major changes that have not been allowed to stand by at least three editors. I take exception to the charges levied here by an editor who has received censure on multiple levels, including being uncivil. Norcalal (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ginelli (talk) has been warned now of a pending block (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ginelli#Block_warning) as he continues to edit war in the San Francisco Bay Area article against at least three other editors besides myself. When does this issue (here) get closed? I do not much appreciate being dragged in front of the community and would very much appreciate this matter to be closed. It has been suggested that I create difs here to show what I mean. I refuse to have to defend myself against an editor who has actually been the cause or actually commits the acts I am accused of. Enough said? Maybe not, but its the last I will endure this here. Norcalal (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

user:Sandynewton #2

My first alert concerning Sandynewton (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is archived here: [121] As I don't have clear evidence that two or more editors warned this user (I'm not sure if the advice of others in the previous WQA counts), I'm putting off putting up an RFC/U at this time, but I'm quite tired of editing in the environment this user has created and perhaps a clearer warning is appropriate.

Recent examples of incivility against two editors are [122] [123] [124] [125] The phrase "POV-pushing" figures prominently. Perhaps ironically, Sandynewton has practically rewritten the entire article in question in very little time, liberally reverting many edits that showed lack of consensus for their edits, and in each case shifting the POV of the article toward focussing on discrimination against women, and away from any moderating view. But before any of that content gets addressed, the civility must return. Blackworm (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the person who is guilty of incivility is Blackworm as he accuses me of "misinterpreting or re-interpreting" sources [126] or "furthering a POV" [127]. He has been trying to have peer-reviewed, published research removed because he found the the Academy of Management Journal "obscure" and the claims of the study "dubious and unprovable" [128].

He refuses to acknowledge that coverage of the gender wage gap almost exclusively says that after controlling for differences in human capital (i.e., education) between men and women, or life style "choices" (i.e., hours worked) the gender wage gap shrinks but is not eliminated. Sources that do not find this are already included in the article (see Warren Farrel, for instance). Research almost exclusively finds that there are certain bias in favor of men, that job choice is partially influenced by gender stereotypes etc. Yet when I include the results in the article, Blackworm starts demanding that the information be removed. I am relatively new here but as far as I understand editors are supposed to present a view which is supported by a majority of the sources (WP:WEIGHT). I can see that Blackworm wants to have these sources removed so that the view is more "moderate," yet if the majority of our sources give considerably more weight to one explanation, then we likewise must present it in the same manner.

Before I started editing the article, it was full with claims which asserted that the gender wage gap is nothing but myth (i.e., Warren Farrell) or could be explained by differences in human capital. This, however, is not what the vast majority of sources say. Yet, for some reason Blackworm did not complain about this extremely biased view which was presented in the article. Yet, when I add dozens of reliable sources to meet Wiki policy, he starts claiming that there is a "POV problem" and accusing me of "misinterpreting or re-interpreting the sources" and "furthering a POV."

I can only hope that you decide to warn Blackworm rather than me as I have done nothing to deserve his accusations and insults. I have spent copious amounts of time on editing this article and adding reliable sources and hence I find Blackworm's attacks to be very insulting and destructive. Sandynewton (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple of observations:

1. In the archives, Sandynewton came across looking better than Blackworm, who got into a dispute about whether Cailil was neutral.
2. According to WP:POVPUSH, calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil. However, as Sandynewton has pointed out, this hasn't been one-sided.
3. It seems like this is a content dispute, better handled at the Reliable Sources noticeboard or the Gender Studies WikiProject. I really don't see a Wikiquette issue here. Vyeh (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Vyeh. I checked each of the four diffs presented as evidence and while they indicated a certain tenseness on the the article talk, I would regard the language and style as perfectly civil and not a problem. Since I commented in the previous discussion, I feel I should say that a quick look at the article talk and the edit summaries makes me believe that Sandynewton has rapidly understood the appropriate way to work here. Some comments to Sandynewton: it is best to not name other users in edit summaries or in talk page section headers because that unduly highlights a personal clash and is unlikely to be helpful in resolving anything. A strictly neutral edit summary and section header are best; in the talk page text it is appropriate to politely refer to another user. I am only mentioning this "ideal" because the issue is here – I did not see any WQA issue. While on ideals, I do think that Sandynewton's comments above are unnecessarily long and pointy: give others time to comment (or not comment if they don't feel it necessary). While the article content and the disagreement are of course the basis for this report, they should not be discussed here other than in very general terms ("I believe I have followed all relevant procedures while editing, in particular in accord with WP:WEIGHT"). Wikipedia has plenty of articles where two sides want information presented differently, but there is no good way of reaching resolution. The only help is at WP:Dispute resolution. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You say you agree with Vyeh, but I must point out that you state that labeling the actions of two editors as "POV-pushing" is perfectly civil and not a problem, while Vyeh states that "According to WP:POVPUSH, calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil. However, as Sandynewton has pointed out, this hasn't been one-sided." Do two wrongs make a perfectly civil, not-a-problem right? (Actually, I never called Sandynewton a POV-pusher, as Vyeh has stated. I did say that I could not see the reason that a certain choice of edit would be made other that to have the article further a POV -- allowing for the possibility that a good reason exists. That is IMO a crucial difference you both fail to appreciate.) Thank you for your comments. Blackworm (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I received the following request on my talk page User_talk:Vyeh#Clarification: "You state here that in the archive link I gave, I came across as looking worse than the person I reported to WQA because I raised the issue of Cailil's prior history with me. I would like to confirm that you read my statements on that matter, and disagree with me that Cailil's prior and new actions warranted my mentioning the prior history. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)" I had only read the archives, but in response to the request, I did go further. As I see it, Cailil was actually counseling Sandynewton in a constructive way on an article talk page and mentioned that Cailil was responding to a WQA report. And Blackworm raised the issue of Cailil's neutrality at WQA. I don't see Cailil's neutrality as an issue because Cailil was not taking sides, except insofar as Cailil was suggesting that there was room for improvement in Sandynewton's comments. Since I was asked, I believe Blackworm was premature in raising Cailil's neutrality. As a matter of dispute resolution tactics, if an editor is actually helping your side, it is not a good idea to question that editor's credibility. Moving onto the present WQA issue, if I had to weigh culpability, Blackworm is right that saying that someone is a POV-pusher is worse than saying that one can see no other reason than furthering a POV for an edit. However, it seems to me that this is a matter of degree. I agree with Johnuniq's approach in making constructive suggestions to Sandynewton about being a more effective editor, while clearly stating that there is no WQA issue. Vyeh (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq and Vyeh, thank you. And I will try even harder to comply with Wiki policy. Sandynewton (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandynewton, you're welcome. Good luck editing. Vyeh (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Tedickey

This editor is a troll that tries to belittle every editor he come in contact with, he will attempt to incite large disputes and keep them going until his victim loses there will to continue fighting him. His Current job is here as he masterfully draws the dispute into a circular motion as we endlessly go on and on about the same thing when its apparent he is wrong. There you can see his rude behavior at its best as he makes snide remarks meant to instigate a larger dispute. He gets enraged when anyone points out his mistakes with a simple warning as seen here:[129] and [130]. Each time he deletes the comments off the page as if it never happened. Prolific trolling. --Phoon (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Prolific trolling"? This report seems heavy on the attacks and light on the facts [131][132]. What do suggest should be done about Tedickey, Phoon? Doc9871 (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes prolific trolling, I am not attacking Him I am simply stating the truth about his actions. I am not in a position to suggest what actions should be taken against him since this is not a place to impose disciplinary actions it is a place that can "Intervene as a neutral third party to talk to editors who are engaging in incivility and/or difficult communications, or who might be new or unaware of Wiki policies" --Phoon (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)@Phoon - I know neither of you until now: I'm neutral. "This editor is a troll..." certainly qualifies as a possible personal attack. How can this issue be best resolved in your opinion? Doc9871 (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, That is not up to me it is up to the general community consensus so my opinion of what should happen should not be inserted into this discussion, as for the personal attack I beg to differ, since his editing behavior follows that of an internet troll it is only natrual for me to classify him as such, although it may carry negative connotations at times it is not a personal attack. --Phoon (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

CNN is a credible, major and often used RELIABLE source irregardless of personal opinion and asking for specific sources, government or not was not necessary. One thing I also found disruptive is the comment made from Tedickey when he said that "none of your links answered my point..." -- trying to prove a point is considered nonconstructive and disruptive. Disagreements on opinions often escalate into heated debates. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have a block and ignore(sorta) button. --A3RO (mailbox) 06:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

@A3RO - Could you provide some WP:DIFFS, please? Doc9871 (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is proof that he does indeed delete editor comments off of his talk page(not saying thats against the rules but rude nonetheless}: Diff

This is perfectly legitimate, and you could do the same thing at your own talk page. Are there any diffs of him violating guidelines or policy than you can provide? Being "rude" is something we all do from time to time... Doc9871 (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand that however when someone constantly exhibits said rude behavior constantly (More than from "time to time") it becomes quite troll-ish in nature.--Phoon (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Doc9871, umm.... why? What in the world are you talking about? I stated my comment as a NPOV opinion. The comment was in the original history diffs Phoon provided. I wouldn't consider calling someone a troll a direct attack, although some do, because the word is thrown around a lot and based on "follow suit" editing. Anyhow, feel free to express solutions, not just specifically disciplinary wise. --A3RO (mailbox) 06:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay... solutions. 1) Don't call people trolls. 2)Provide diffs for evidence in order to support your case. 3)Propose an actual desired outcome for your report. It's not truly terrible advice. Jus' sayin'... Doc9871 (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, I consider "troll" a derogatory term, and a personal attack TEDickey (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I also feel personally attacked as you constantly insult my intelligence.--Phoon (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide some specific example of your complaint? TEDickey (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

While I'm reminded, here's some context TEDickey (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Subliminal insults are often hidden in well organized and proper grammar and fancy words; to get any evident examples we would have to be willing to get into your thoughts. --A3RO (mailbox) 06:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Subliminal insults?" OMG... Doc9871 (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, insults that are in-directive, the opposite of directive. O.O --A3RO (mailbox)

Kindly:

"please address my point"

"Not very good. I'll restore the maintenance tag while you look for an indisputable source"

"So far, none of your links answers my point. Probably you are unable"

"none of your edits are of any interest to me, and are non-responsive to this discussion"

All of these quotes show just how rude and controlling you can become and how you have this insatiable need to prove your point even when your dead wrong. As for the personal attacks against my intelligence are proven in how you patronize me as seen in the quotes.--Phoon (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Which of those relates to your intelligence? TEDickey (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The second one really hits me as you act as if I am unable to find an indisputable source, I have to agree with A3RO on the subliminal insults that are prevalent in your edits.(As seen in the second quote)--Phoon (talk) 07:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If it doesn't exist, you won't find it. So far, none of the sources that I've read appear to do this. That's why I tagged it. TEDickey (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

More context TEDickey (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason your introducing these diffs from years ago?--Phoon (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Other than your removing my maintenance tag, and pretending that an alternate source resolved the issue? No. TEDickey (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The other editors may not take the time to read your edit history, and be influenced by your remarks TEDickey (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This was followup harrassment, in context TEDickey (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How would that influence other editiors? Are you trying to change the subject of this WQA? If you want to go back in edit histories surely I could find more cases of you and your questionable behavior...--Phoon (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Especially when you bring him here as a "troll"... Doc9871 (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see any types of harassment here, I have never purposely attempted start a contact with you. I have no recollection of any of the prior interactions therefore I can not comment on them. --Phoon (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I can only assume that there is only one person who made the edits that I quoted. If you don't recall the incidents, you may want to reread your edits to refresh your memory. TEDickey (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Rereading them would not be relevant to this WQA, however I would recommend that you Reread your comments on Charles county as they are highly relevant to this WQA. It is quite noticeable that your are attempting to hijack this WQA and I will not stand for it. --Phoon (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Other editors may comment on this, but my understanding is that etiquette demands that I reply when someone is attacking me, in whatever venue TEDickey (talk) 07:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comments have been highly irrelevant as you attempt to stir up old business from YEARS ago, such editing behavior in some cases can be seen as trolling... --Phoon (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. It is your long-running dispute which is the basis for your starting this thread. TEDickey (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your use of troll, here's another example of your use of it. TEDickey (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this thread is your complaint about me. Your interaction with me is relevant. TEDickey (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any examples from A3RO TEDickey (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, "subliminal insults" seems to be self-contradictory (perhaps another term is meant, since none of the google hits on that appear relevant to this thread) TEDickey (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

A3RO put it best, your insults and attacks are masked in "well organized and proper grammar and fancy words".--Phoon (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The rest of his sentence states that he would have to read my mind to provide examples. TEDickey (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont need to read you mind because contrary to what you believe people can actually tell when your trolling them. Even if you try your best to hide it. --Phoon (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This has gotten nowhere therefore I feel an RFC/user conduct will produce more results.--Phoon (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The wikipeida gestapo

Resolved

 – No action needed --OpenFuture (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I refuse to let this gang of ravenous and power hungry administrators silence me with there threats of blocks looming over my head I write this WQA under great duress. It all started due to an incident (see above WQA) where I had my rollback rights removed, I wholeheartedly disagreed with it so I decided to go and ask to have the rights reinstated. Big mistake.

The administrator HJ Mitchell has defaulted on his administrator duties and has turned a blind eye towards the plight of regular users. He has become unreasonable and quite mean. He has failed to uphold the polices of Wikipedia here, during my case to regain my rollback rights. I presented my reasons and he denied my request which I would've understood if he hadn't made mistakes in his assessment of my case. I attempted to explain to him the errors he made at which point he became hostile towards me. I again calmly and rationally explained to him the errors he made in his assessment at which point he became even more enraged and started one of the most hostile and inappropriate tirades I have ever seen. In this angry and unorganized rant he personally attacked me with derogatory terms, he became bossy and arrogant and made me feel uncomfortable as if he were the leader of Wikipedia and I would need to appease him if I ever wish to have my rollback rights back, and finally he restricted me from using Wikipedia polices in my defense which rendered me to his mercy. Heartbroken and afraid I carefully wrote (as not to anger him anymore) that I found his comments unacceptable and that I would be reporting him. I am truly in fear of this administrator and his tyrannical ways. I hope some sort of solution comes from this otherwise I may be forced to leave this Wikipedia due to the emotional distress caused by him. Thank you.

This is what I posted on Admin. noticeboard Incidents, the experience was horrible. However this is not the subject of this WQA. This WQA is about the brood of angry administrators that seemed to have disliked me speaking out against one of there own.

1. Part 1 - I was viciously attacked by Admin. Protonk:

As I said, this is a blunt statement, but surely not to brusque for the rough and tumble likes of User:Daven200520, who proudly displays {{User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Politically Incorrect}} on his userpage! And even quoting the third statement ignores the first two which spelled out quite specifically what Phoon had dones and why Mitchell was unwilling to grant rollback. In fact the progression of the conversation speaks precisely to your last insinuation. It is clear that Mitchell has no problem responding to legitimate questions about his decisions. He gets touchy when the questioning exceeds the level of what he feels to be legitimate. And in this case he clearly said so and directed Phoon elsewhere, rather than responding rashly. The worst thing about the statement above is that it speaks to a sense of entitlement (just stabbing at the dark here since I can't peer into the heart of the speaker), suggesting that further requests will have to be made "nicely" etc. But that isn't connected with the lose suggestion that a statement about annoyance is equivalent to a personal attack. Protonk (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No. It is setting no precedent because we aren't a court of law. You misused rollback in an edit war. When you asked for it back, you were told no. When you pressed for a reason, you got one explaining exactly why rollback was removed. Rather than take this onboard you sent every possible signal that you didn't understand why you lost rollback in the first place. Then you pissed an admin off and he acted like a human being. There is no cosmic punishment for your having pissed Mitchell off. Odd are you will not have to ask him personally for rollback when you want it back. This is not a case of world historical importance nor is it a particularly galling case of admin conduct (to say nothing of misconduct). Protonk (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Feeling insulted by his personal attacks I moved to place a neutral non-confrontational template message on his page.

1. Part 2 - I am now accused of bad faith and blocked by this administrator group.

• Me being told not to warn the "regulars": Here
• Then I'm suddenly blocked by Another gang member: Here. He did not have a viable reason for the block and was so quick with it without any proper warnings. He has forever tarnished my reputation on Wikipedia and has ended my dreams of becoming an investigator for the Abuse response team.

1. Part 3 - This Wqa.

• Important Documents and Pages:
• My user talk
• User talk:Toddst1-Also you can see some of there scheming here.
• User talk:Protonk- Main abuser and leader of this renegade ring of administrators
• User_talk:John- co-conspirator

---

• Users involved(In the An/I):
• My user talk
• User talk:Toddst1
• User talk:Protonk
• User_talk:John
• User talk:Courcelles
• User talk:Department of Redundancy Department
• User talk:The Utahraptor
• User talk:Crossmr
• User talk:Noloop

____________________________

Thank you.--Phoon (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is forum shopping. Also, as per the instructions on this page, you need to let everyone you listed above know of this discussion, so they have a chance to defend themselves. --Rschen7754 07:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm completely uninvolved with this, and have now looked through your case and looked at the discussions. I can see no personal attacks against you, nor even any case of incivility against you. I have also to agree that the removal of the rollback rights was correctly done, as you misused them. Calling people "The Wikipedia Gestapo" is also not helping your case, as that *is* a personal attack. You do not have a case. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No cases of incivility? You truly didn't look through my case then. A personal attack by referring to their actions as like those of the Gestapo, again I beg to differ.

I'm sorry, I did look through it, and saw no cases. And if there was cases, why did you not add them here, either as diffs or by quoting them? The links and quotes you provided contains no personal attacks or incivility. You can beg to differ on the use of "wikipedia gestapo", but it's still a personal attack. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As a named party my only comment is to say this complaint is completely without merit. Protonk (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I take that back. "Main abuser and leader of this ring of administrators" I've been promoted! Protonk (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You were the main one personally attacking me. --Phoon (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And how did my personal request to have your block lifted fall into my evil plan to lead my ring of admins? Protonk (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not here to speculate.--Phoon (talk) 07:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

All evidence to the contrary. Protonk (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've been reading this for the last twenty minutes, although it was pretty clear from your section title that this was an epic fail. See Godwin's law, if you don't grok this. You need to, pun intended, rollback the rancor and acknowledge that you're just pissed that folks are seeing things reasonably, not your way. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Grrr Jack you beat me to the ref to Godwin's law. Well done. Jusdafax 07:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The irrelevance is staggering. --Phoon (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Now you're just saying WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Rschen7754 07:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Per enlightenment. --Phoon (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user:Blackworm

Blackworm has been threatening me to disrupt and/or delete my work at Wikipedia [133]. He accuses me of “letting emotions rather than rational argument drive [my] responses” and “disregarding his objections” [134] although I have addressed all of his objections in great detail. Furthermore, he accuses me of slander, harassment and incivility [135]. I believe that these accusations are unfounded. I think that my contributions [136] confirm that I have provided several reliable, verifiable sources for each point which I have inserted in the article and that I have given due weight to viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. I have the impression that statements like “as you seem to have realized that I was correct on the matter” [137] express a desire to win rather than improve the article. Moreover, statements like “this is a difficulty in communication we may we have be having owing to your inexperience in a forum with other educated, intelligent people,”[138] imply that my inexperience as a newcomer is to blame for this “difficulty in communication” while Blackworm is completely innocent.

I can continue to ignore what I believe to be attacks and unfounded accusations. But I cannot tolerate Blackworm’s taunts that I “can only expect my work to be wasted as it will likely be removed.”[139] just because he believes that peer-reviewed, published research and articles in major newspapers are "disputed material." If feel very apprehensive about editing as long as Blackworm creates a hostile environment where editors are attacked for adding reliable and verifiable viewpoints which help establish WP:WEIGHT and discourages people from editing by telling them that their work is wasted anyway because it will likely be removed. Perhaps this is the wrong place to express my complaints. If this is the case, I apologize. Thank you. Sandynewton (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Any material that is removed can easily be reverted by a third editor. (Be careful about doing it yourself. See WP:3RR and WP:ER.) Unfortunately, the Gender Studies WikiProject does not seem so active. I think it would be appropriate to post a notice asking for a third editor there. (You don't run afoul of WP:CANVASS by posting a notice about an article at the project that has claimed an interest in the article.) WP:CANVASS offers other appropriate ways to get editors involved. As you are aware, we've already met here. While the statement you brought up can look like a threat, Blackworm did not actually say that Blackworm would delete your work. I think Blackworm may be assuming that another editor would side with Blackworm. (I am not suggesting Blackworm's assumption is valid or invalid.) If you believe Blackworm's dispute with your edits is unfounded, then you should not be concerned about your work being "wasted." While having a situation with only two active editors on an article who have different POV can create a tense situation, it can also produce a better article. Please look at WP:OWN to see about your responsibilities as a primary editor (e.g. you need to consider Blackworm's comments). I believe the only real solution is finding additional editors who can opine on the content of the edits and the sources. Looking at Blackworm's talk page, I think he has had enough experience at WikiPedia to know WP policies well. While I could wish he took WP:BITE more to heart, I really don't think there is a WQA issue here, although I will defer to another editor. Vyeh (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer ordinary content RfCs and other accepted forms of dispute resolution.

There is no assumption that another editor will side with me; the material added does not have consensus, if no one else comments on it and a consensus is formed in favour of the material, then yes, much of it will have to be removed, per policy. It could hardly be called a "threat" as Sandynewton was already well aware that I oppose many of their edits.

I actually take WP:BITE quite to heart, but there is only a certain amount of incivility one can take (and be asked to keep taking) before firmer language needs to be used. I believe I've been extraordinarily patient in light of the huge number of edits by Sandynewton in a short period, and as evidenced by the discussion on that article's Talk page and in the first WQAs I filed regarding Sandynewton, in which I was told I did the right thing reporting these breaches here. Unfortunately, the breaches continue as evidenced on the Talk page. Blackworm (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a content dispute, with no real acts of uncivility on either side, although both sides seem sight tendencies to see uncivility where none exists. IMO this is not a Wikiquette issue, but a content dispute. A Wikipedia:Third_opinion or other input on the dispute would probably get rid of the deadlock. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"if no one else comments on it and a consensus is formed in favour of the material, then yes, much of it will have to be removed, per policy." I don't believe there is a policy favoring the status quo. I think WP:BURDEN goes to whether a source is reliable. And there is the reliable source noticeboard that is very active if there is a dispute on the reliability of a source. I assume you are not implying that you could simply remove the additional material if no one comments on it. And "huge number of edits" in a "short period" isn't a negative factor. I believe I saw a discussion here were there was opinion that it was wrong to put in a huge single edit because of the difficulty it created for other editors. I believe both you and Sandynewton are very responsible editors compared to most of the cases that arise on this noticeboard. It probably bears repeating WP:CIVIL introductory language: "editors should always endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment." Although it would be nice to find an editor who can focus on your content dispute, both of you are engaging in extensive conversations on the talk page and seeking third party opinion in this noticeboard rather than engaging in edit warring. Vyeh (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic, however, Re: "I don't believe there is a policy favoring the status quo." I was referring to WP:CONSENSUS, which states, "It begins with an editor boldly changing an article or other page. In response, the viewers of the page have three options: * accepting the change, * trying to improve the change, or * reverting the change." In light of the more than 100 edits made and the doubling of the size of the article, I don't believe that exercising a right to revert many changes that lack consensus is inappropriate. I certainly don't believe that adding more and more new edits while one's current edits are disputed and being repeatedly re-added to the article is appropriate. You haven't seen much edit-warring despite Sandynewton's instant reversions of almost every edit reverting their edits, because I haven't chosen to WP:BITE and revert everything I disagree with at once. I prefer to establish a meeting of minds concerning the application of Wikipedia policy, then we can presumably deal with repairing the article in a more speedy way. But if no meeting of minds and no consensus occurs, the challenged material added without consensus will eventually have to be removed until it does have consensus. That's simply how Wikipedia works. I invite Sandynewton or others to seek a wider community input and a more meaningful consensus. Blackworm (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally I'm not sure why you are suggesting this dispute hinges on reliable sources since I never objected under that guideline. Sandynewton has cited plenty of reliable sources. My objections are based on WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't RS imply verifiability and the lack of OR? To understand a bit more about the NPOV issue, I skimmed the talk page, the current version of the article and the article on June 2 (before Sandynewton started editing the article). First, let's recognize editors are people and have POV. It is the article that has to have a NPOV. For WikiPedia purposes, the scientific studies are opinions and both peer-reviewed studies in prestigious scientific journals and newpaper articles in major newspapers are reliable sources. Both get included. If you can find another reliable source that says the scientific study is more valid/reliable than the newspaper article, then you can say that source says the study is more reliable. Or you can say A and B in such and such journal concluded X and C in such and such newspaper concluded not X. The talk discussion should focus on the content, on whether the language in the article states without a value judgment accurately what is in the source. If there is language that violates NPOV, it would be probably helpful to quote the exact sentence in WP:NPOV that is violated. And follow the talk page guidelines, especially stay on topic, stay objective and deal with facts. Given the nature of the article, everyone should accept that there will be differing viewpoints in each section. There may be disputes about whether a source is reliable (there is another noticeboard for that). Once a source is reliable, then its viewpoint must be represented accurately and neutrally. Any discussion on the weight of the source also has to have a reliable source. I did note (with approval) that there was a lot of discussion about WP policy and I hope adherence to the talk page guidelines might create a more pleasant environment for everybody. I read the top of this page. It does seem there is some impoliteness and incivility; however, it is pretty mild and most of the discussion seems to be about content. I've given my perspective and advice while trying very hard not to make any judgments or find fault. I hope this has been helpful. Vyeh (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Vyeh and OpenFuture, thank you very much for your helpful advice. I seems rather odd to me that Blackworm demands a consensus to keep sourced material which I add, yet he does not seem to require a consensus when he adds material. I have used info from three types of sources: peer-reviewed scientific journals, major newspapers (NY Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe etc.), and published books. There are and have never been any WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV problems with the material I have added because these sources are verifiable, cannot be construed as original research and help establish WP:DUE. Before I started working on the article, other editors complained about the article's POV and many claims were sourced with "menstuff.org." However, this did not seem to concern Blackworm. When an editor expressed the opinion that the article was extremely biased [140], Blackworm dismissed this and argued instead that the word "gap" was biased, that the gender wage gap has nothing to do with discrimination, and is only seen as a problem because women are concerned while "gaps" which affect men (the "gender education gap" as Blackworm puts it) are ignored. And now Blackworm keeps attacking me and threatens to delete the material which I added although it is supported by dozens of reliable sources and helps give due weight to significant viewpoints. However, I will try to remain patient and civil in the future even if Blackworm objects to material on such grounds as his belief that the The Academy of Management Journal is "obscure" and claims which were published in peer-reviewed journals are "dubious and unprovable."[141]

As you have suggested, Vyeh, I am taking a break from the article. Thank you for your patience and advice. Sandynewton (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)