This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

• Ohnoitsjamie ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A user called User:Ohnoitsjamie is rude, won't give reasons why he's rude, clams up and won't talk and basically is a bit of a nuisance. I'm fed up with him now. 138.253.48.190 ( talk) 18:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Where is this happening? Do you have an article or diffs? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

IP got reverted by Ohnoitsjamie. A discussion on Jamie's talk page was civil but didn't come to the resolution that IP wanted. I dont see the purpose of this report nor what the IP hopes to get out of it. Ohnoitsjamie's comments were well within WP:CIVIL and the edits were indeed not encyclopedic or really that appropriate. Calling them test edits is a nice way of saying that the IP essentially vandalized the article even if it wasn't their intention to. There isnt anything WP:WQA can do here, especially if Jamie doesnt seem interested in participating.--v/r - T P 21:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. The discussion on the talk page was well within CIVIL which was why I was confused. Without the diffs, I think this is closed. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Assuming good faith and taking into account that Wikipedia is very attractive to people whose brains work in slightly non-standard ways, it seems entirely possible that the 138.* is simply unable to get certain subtle clues in this radio programme (such as the presenter claiming to be "Professor of Ignorance" at Buckingham University), and made this contribution in good faith. I think in cases in which failure to understand humour and irony could explain an editor's behaviour, it is important to communicate very clearly and explicitly, without relying on any overtones, and explaining certain things that one would normally take for granted. (Example: I once had a very good result when I sent an email to an editor who took an obvious self-depreciating April Fools' joke at face value and got outraged. I explained the joke as well as I could, and the editor calmed down immediately.) However, not everybody is able to explain things that most people only understand intuitively, so it's hard to find fault with editors who don't do that. Hans Adler 11:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Hans. As a Catholic, I've forgiven User:Ohnoitsjamie his trespasses (whether he made any or not) and the matter can be closed (see below). With respect to your remarks about the "Professor of Ignorance"; as far as I know, the "Burial at Sea" jokes by Admiral Lord West (First Sea Lord) were represented in a verbatim manner, and a cast iron reference was made to them to guarantee their authenticity. I put the material in because it is backed by one of the very few solid citations in this article. The fact that they are amusing, silly or whatever is wholly immaterial to me – they come from an impeccable source who has witnessed (and even ordered) death on a grand scale at sea. Many a true word is spoken in jest, as we say. Like I said, I have no more interest in these musings because I've proceeded in another direction anyway. Good luck to you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.190 ( talk) 13:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I don't think the IP is exaggerating without cause, it's not just them. As much as I've seen, Jamie often can't be bothered to properly explain his moves, probably because he thinks they're obvious, but new and new-ish users will just remain clueless and get the impression that he's rude. —  Jean Calleo ^{( talk)} 01:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This user has been politely asked/warned regarding his or her behavior, and had these same edits reverted by other editors aside from Jamie, and yet they continue to act in a belligerent fashion. When I reverted an edit where the OP cited Wikipedia as a source on the article for Deceangli I got these replies. [1] [2]. While Jamie rarely handles vandals and new-ish editors with "kid gloves", he's hardly out of line here. And considering that this editor continues to badger him, even today posting on his talk page likening his warning for re-adding the material in question to being "savaged by a poodle" [3], Jamie's restraint should surely be noted.-- Yankees76 ^Talk 19:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about this case. —  Jean Calleo ^{( talk)} 20:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Jean; thanks for your (semi)-support. I've made a final conciliatory statement below, to summarise the position. It think you'll find that it tallies fully with your own observations. Great minds think alike! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.190 ( talk) 13:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Why wasn't Jamie notified about this thread? I'll do it so that he knows that it is here but I don't think there is legitimate complaint against him.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

He's aware. The IP who created this attempted to use it as some sort of leverage tool in attempt to get his edit restored and informed him about it a few days ago. [4]. This is another reason why I respectfully disagree when others say that the IP is not exaggerating. -- Yankees76 ^Talk 22:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi; reading between the lines on this, I get the impression that some of you hold “people skills” in high regard, while some of you don't. I'm now satisfied that you've discussed this properly, and I'm very happy to draw a line under it; I think we all know that Jamie's bluntness could backfire sometimes. It's just something to watch out for. Carry on the good work, all 138.253.48.190 ( talk) 13:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Work in progress; comments welcome

• WilliamJE ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User WilliamJE has a long history of repeated personal attacks toward me and other members of Project Golf. Several of us have tried to reason with him politely, to no avail. The hostility escalated today with name-calling in edit summaries (see [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Beth_Daniel&action=history "Reverted moronic revert by imbecile editor who didn't bother to see a playoff box was put in the article replacing the notes. Somebody should get this person a seeing eye dog") and on my talk page where he calls me "a complete idiot." The user is repeatedly unwilling to work collaboratively as in the case with his edits to Juli Inkster in which he removed 30+ citations, stating that because other articles didn't have citations to this level, neither should this article, and in his wholesale deletions to Lexi Thompson. In both cases, he only resorted to name-calling and refused any overture to work together to reach a compromise solution.

• English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WilliamJE
• English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crunch
• English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tewapack
• English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow?

Any assistance you can provide with this disruptive editor would be most appreciated. -- Crunch ( talk) 01:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Crunch fails to note that he vandalized pages on multiple occasions recently either putting up wrong information or removing legitimate information.

like here [5]

and here [6]

and here [7]

and here [8] who wrote 'revert non-sensical removal of citationsrevert non-sensical removal of citations' . Nonsensical means foolish and I don't like being called a fool for working over an hour on putting in a playoff box for the golfer like there is in articles on Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, etc. etc. What he did was either stupid or vandalism and he's did it repeatedly over the last week on perfectly legitimate work. Inline citations aren't done in win boxes. Look at Woods and Mickelson, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, and a couple of hundred other golfers, both alive and dead. He knows that too.

He also insists on vandalizing my talk page, here [9] and here instead of replying back to my reply[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crunch#Beth_Daniel.2C_Helen_Alfredsson.2C_Juli_Inkster at his talk page.- William 01:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

William, nothing Crunch has done qualifies as vandalism, please read this before you use that word again. —  Jean Calleo ^{( talk)} 01:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

WHat he did to the Daniel article isn't vandalism? He took out perfectly legitimate information. The Matthew entries he also failed to note either what the article says or a edit done hours earlier that had corrected the same wrong information he was putting up again. He conveniently forgets article history when it pleases him. William 01:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No, its not. Please stop the personal attacks, and take Jean Calleo's advice regarding use of the word "vandalism." Crunch's actions, correct or not, do not change the expectations of behavior for other editors. Gerardw ( talk) 02:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

William's recent edit summaries are completely unacceptable, there is no excuse to (repeatedly) call other editors idiotic or moronic or an imbecile. And nobody involved here is a vandal.

I'm not familiar with articles on golf or sports, and on brief review of the edits I can't tell that anyone has done something very obviously wrong. Whatever is happening here, it should be discussed properly, and to save time and energy, without insults and other invalid arguments.

Note: there's a thread regarding William's edits at ANI/edit warring. —  Jean Calleo ^{( talk)} 03:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: WilliamJE is now deleting my comments on his Talk page, claiming they are vandalism, despite the views above to the contrary. I have put them back. I believe his removal violates WP:TPO. -- Crunch ( talk) 23:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It does not, please see WP:OWNTALK. Gerardw ( talk) 23:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. That's good to know. The accusations by WilliamJE that my additions to his talk page were vandalism will still stand as will the determination by Wikipedia admin above that it is not. In addition, his continued lack of civility and edit-warring has not ceased. -- Crunch ( talk) 17:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler and have worked together on the Talk:India in past few weeks agreeing and disagreeing on issues. He is a great contributor, but he has outburst or something and I am called disruptive again and again, then is an apology, a formality?. I heard it to my extent of patience and so I am reporting it. I have issues about the following policies WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and may be WP:OWNERSHIP:

Repeated accusations of being disruptive/disingenuous:

• [10] I'm afraid you are being a little disingenuous Redtigerxyz"; [11] his apology
• [12] [13] "... At that point if you edit war, I will take you to ANI or whatever else it takes, and let them have a look at the archives. This is the end of this discussion. Let me warn you very politely Redtigerxyz and Nikkul, please don't be passively disruptive. The average person, even one with a surfeit of good faith, is not so stupid to not figure out what is transpiring here."
• [14] "redtigerzyz please remove yoiur garbage" [sic]: "Redtigerxyz, is it that hard to pay a attention when you select your pictures?... Seriously, do you want this kind of garbage to go on the India page? ... I am working hard on nominating good images; you are being cavalier and sloppy to the point of being disruptive. Please remove your garbage."
• [15] My request to be civil and AGF [16] his apology
• [17] ":I guess, I am suggesting that you seem to be sometimes pushing grandiose, vanilla or unrealistic images of India and, by persistently so doing, are being disruptive. One doesn't have to be verbally rude to be disruptive ... "

Others:

• sorry no dice Accusation against photo uploader that the photo is bogus and scanned
• [18] Removal of comments of another user and mine. "Undo Saravask: Making and saving edits en mass, rather than in their individual sections, and in the process, continually tweaking previous posts, some weeks old, without showing scratched content, is confusing if not disingenuous"

-- Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the behaviour disruptive or disingenuous? Editors should not comment on other editors on talk pages, however, when editors are not cooperating, it may be appropriate. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This report may be somewhat academic as Fowler&fowler made it clear in the last 24 hours that they were going to have to take 3 - 4 weeks off from wiki due to some real life issues. As far as I am aware, that period has now started. He did inform quite a few people of this (including on my talk page), and it is also mentioned on his own talk page. I suppose that someone can be shot while they are down but I'm unsure whether it is in the spirit of things. - Sitush ( talk) 18:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI given to the user: [19]. User's edit after that [20]. I hope Fowler&fowler can prepare his side. -- Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fowler&Fowler is away till 22 December. His last reply to me [21]. We can wait till he comes back. -- Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• bloodofox ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Occupy Wall Street (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Bloodofox has insisted on repeatedly making personal attacks over a content dispute at Occupy Wall Street, to the near-exclusion of actually even mentioning a relevant policy in connection with the dispute. I would like him to stop because it's making me angry and is not contributing to constructive development of the article.

The core of the dispute and this user's main problem with me seems to stem from our disagreement over a critical piece about OWS in the WSJ, starting with this edit, which I made because neither of the cited sources actually makes the analytical claim that was in the article text. (At first I thought it was only the WSJ piece that failed to make the claim, but then I realized that neither source did; rather, it seems to have been a WP editor's synthesis of underlying material in those sources).

Blood has responded with numerous personal attacks, barely bothering to state a justification for reversion other than essentially claiming I have ill intent and shouldn't be trusted. His initial response was to simply label the source as a Fox analyst (thus rendering that source inherently suspect, I suppose), before simply removing the content altogether with the insistence that it be included only if balanced in some way with some other sources he doesn't identify reflecting views he doesn't describe.

After I subsequently reverted and added a textual identification of the source as also having worked for Bill Clinton, and several more reverts went back and forth, things really got ugly and Blood began making personal attacks over this and other edits—first in edit summaries...

• "Try to feign a little neutrality, 'Factchecker'"

• "Pulled more of 'Factchecker's' attempted hit job. Those damned Commies and their drums, right, 'Factchecker'? A fact: Drums are loud. Wow!"

• "Again pulled hit piece favored by ideological poster currently under dispute on the talk page. Your anti-OWS views are obvious enough, but even you should have enough sense to attempt to put stuff like this in 'criticism'."

...then later in a Talk page section apparently created to discuss my purportedly bad faith.

My response: ask him to AGF and not be a WP:DICK, but this was before I saw the paragraph-long attack on Talk, to which I responded by simply calling him a "huge asshole" out of frustration at being attacked in this way.

Yeah, not the best response, I know. But it should be clear from the continuing exchange that only one of us was dedicated to attacking the other as a means of arguing the dispute (attacks against me and another user in the same edit). When I complain about the attacks, he simply notes that I called him an "asshole", then says he's not surprised I mistakenly think he's attacking me, given "what I've tried to pull".

When I point out he's not even bothering to discuss the content or relevant policies, but instead simply insulting me, he refers me back to this paragraph, which, again, seems to contain nothing but character assassination. When I point this out, he argues that I'm "constantly harping" about personal attacks, then proceeds to launch into another tirade about my purportedly malicious intent. He even edited the post to add another accusation of bad faith, saying "I guess the cheap shot was too tempting".

• My last attempt to shut down the attacks and get the discussion back on topic.

• His response? Even more attacks (I didn't even notice until now that he seems to be vaguely implying that I am a paid astroturfer here), along with a simply incorrect accusation that I stealthily removed the "Fox News" label (which presumably shows the true, untrustworthy nature of the source) while including the "Democratic/former Clinton pollster" label (which he repeatedly accuses me of adding for malicious, misleading, or other naughty reasons).

I would like it very much if this editor would cease using name-calling and accusations of bad faith as a substitute for legitimate discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry about the rollback, the damn ads threw my touch screen off.) Ian.thomson ( talk) 17:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me first respond by stating that the base name calling here comes solely from the "factchecker" here— being called "a dick" and "an asshole", anyone? Being called grade-school names has so far rendered his complaints about "personal attacks" to be pretty incoherent to me. That said, I will now illustrate why I think "factchecker" is essentially attempting the same ideological dance that he's attempted to do perform with the Occupy Wall Street article.

But first, my summary of "factcheckers" "anger": as I see it, essentially "factchecker" is annoyed by nothing more than being called out for his heavily ideological editing. Notably nowhere above does "fact checker" mention that I have repeatedly pointed out that Schoen's anti-Occupy opinion piece in the "demographics" section is classic WP:UNDUE. Now, why would he decide to do that?

For example my (current) final reply (posted last night) to "factchecker" reads as follows:

I think we hit maximum "huffing and puffing" when you stooped to crude name calling, "factchecker". I'm afraid I won't be able to outdo that.

But anyway, while you obviously have an axe to grind with these protestors (and now me, golly), Schoen's hit piece remains WP:UNDUE in the demographics section, as your cherry-picked Fox News employee's anti-Occupy rant represents only his opinion (his comments about the protestors being "dangerously out of touch" should be a good indicator).

And I note that this time you've cheekily not only attempted to extend the piece but, at the same time, removed the fact that Douglas Schoen's main gig is, indeed, Fox News "political analyst". Of course, we just couldn't have that, instead you've tried to pull a fast one by describing him as a plain old Democrat due to his registration status. And, boy, what a big, blue democrat he is known to be! You're quite the card, "factchecker".

But hey, perhaps you should consider some kind of anti-OWS blog instead? Tactics like the ones you're trying here will go over just fine there. And there might even be some Koch money in it for you if you're crafty enough, you plucky devil! ( diffs)

This was from last night. Another user came around and asked that we keep it civil, to which I agreed. "Factchecker" never responded to my post or their own, but simply decided to bring it here. Frankly, in "factchecker"'s case, I refer users to: Wikipedia:The duck test.

Now, above "factchecker" finally admits above that he has problems with describing Douglas Schoen as a "Fox News political analyst" after, indeed, stripping it from his last attempt at reintroducing Douglas Schoen's opinion piece into the "demographics" section. The only problem is that this is Schoen's profession; Schoen is, indeed, a "Fox News political analyst" for a living, whether "fact checker" likes it or not. If David Schoen was a fireman for a living, he'd be described as "fireman David Schoen" in our articles, for example. Schoen's interpretation of the findings are also controversial; see criticism [22] and [23], for example.

Another user on the talk page has commented that Schoen's anti-OWS piece belongs, if anywhere, in the "criticism" section, and not in the demographics section, which includes nothing but demographic information and not opinion pieces. I agree. "Factcheckers" actions, so far, however, have been to simply restore it once a day.

Personally I've written many articles in the past, bringing somewhere around 50 articles to GA status, and have otherwise been here for somewhere around half a decade now. I've seen many users attempt to do things similarly to "factchecker", but I don't think anyone has ever lost their cool enough to refer to me as "an asshole" or "a dick". But take a look at the actual chronology of diffs and the talk page on the Occupy Wall Street article and I think what "factchecker" has tried to do here is pretty clear. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Where to begin? It's tempting to simply say that this unhinged rant demonstrates exactly what I'm complaining about, but Blood has made further accusations above, so I feel the need to respond.

Yes, you've repeatedly claimed that including this piece would be "classic WP:UNDUE", but instead of bothering to explain why, you've devoted the discussion almost exclusively to talking about my allegedly malicious motivations. Note that above, I said you've engaged in attacks "to the near-exclusion of actually even mentioning a relevant policy in connection with the dispute", and this is exactly what I mean: briefly mentioning a policy, but then launching into personal attacks rather than actually discussing the policy and its application to the article content under dispute. You've also claimed this piece represents a WP:FRINGE view, without so much as a hint as to how a piece in the WSJ by an established public opinion analyst could possibly reflect a fringe view. Again, you seem to have been too busy insulting me to discuss this.

You even ascribe ill intent to my opening this WQA in the first place. But right here on this page, you continue making comments that merely question my motives rather than attempting a constructive dialogue:

Now, above "factchecker" finally admits above that he has problems with describing David Schoen as a "Fox News political analyst" after, indeed, stripping it from his last attempt at reintroducing Schoen's opinion piece into the "demographics" section.

Nowhere did I say I have a problem with identifying him in this way. But if you insist on having the text specifically note that he is a Fox analyst, I don't see why it's a problem to also mention that he worked as a pollster for the Clinton administration (and by the way, he is also described as a "veteran Democratic political strategist".) Your response, as best I can piece together from the off-topic rants, seems to be that he's not enough of a Democrat for that to be mentioned? I can't make sense of it. And, if you'll take a step back from the accusations for just a moment, you'll see that I included neither of these identifiers in my most recent restoration of the text—not because of some malicious desire to prevent WP readers from knowing The Truth that he works for Fox, but because I simply copied the text from an earlier edit that didn't include that language because it wasn't possible to revert.

I don't recall other users suggesting the text go into a different section, but perhaps that's because of the insulting textwall from Blood. I certainly don't suppose he's saying that he'd stop these rants if I would only agree to put it in the "criticism" section instead of the "demographics" section. I'd also note that the "criticism" section already contains only a small fraction of criticism on the page, which is very haphazardly organized, and I'd further point out that I simply placed the pollster's analysis directly adjacent to the discussion of the actual poll itself -- right there in the "Demographics" section. And this is where it has been for weeks; I didn't add this material in the first place.

Not sure what else to say except that it seems even your comments here show that you are editing and arguing based on claims about my alleged bad faith and hidden agenda, rather than on policy considerations, and you can't even seem to have a civil discussion about this article content because you're so angry at me and my evil ways. I'm not sure how you can say all of this and yet claim to be surprised when I respond with a bit of profanity and cut off the discussion. Why should I simply sit there and be castigated when every attempt to get the discussion back on track has been met with more insults? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This "asshole" and "dick" (according to Factchecker, but, of course, he does offer excuses for it) has little interest in going back and forth with "factchecker". I find it highly unproductive; Factchecker admits pretty clearly that he hasn't bothered to read most of the thread surrounding his re-additions, including the comments of others, and that says it all. That said, I stand by my previous comment(s) and invite other editors to explore the diffs and talk page thread themselves. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose you could provide a diff of whatever it is you say I've admitted to ignoring? And, could you please clarify whether you feel any of this would justify your continued insults? (Also, you might want to mention again that I called you a dick and an asshole, just in case it escaped somebody's attention the previous 10 or 15 times you repeated it.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A diff isn't needed, factchecker, for one may simply have a peek at your comments above; you state "I don't recall other users suggesting the text go into a different section, but perhaps that's because [. . .]".

And I'll gladly mention the delicious humor of you coming to the "wikiquette assistance" after those choice names as long as you promise to make another excuse for doing so. :) :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the only thread you can possibly be talking about, I see a single comment from a single user suggesting it might go into the Criticism section. Everything else in that thread is just more of you accusing me of bad faith. I have to say it seems pretty dishonest and misleading of you to say "he hasn't bothered to read most of the thread surrounding his re-additions, including the comments of others" based on me missing a single comment comment buried in a haystack of insulting text laid down by you. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

So now you've decided to read the thread. Well, that's a step! Or maybe it was just inconvenient to mention here, considering your responses are all over it? Whatever the case, I might also note that this is the only other user to weigh in there on what to do so far. And since you're commenting on it, I think I format my text pretty well, but that's subjective enough. :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I had already read the thread. Thanks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Will you at least agree to drop the personal attacks while this WQA is open? It's great that you decided to start discussing the actual merits of the content dispute after I complained about your attacks, but when you continue to make mocking comments and accuse me of attempting "spin", it's no less distracting than it was when you weren't bothering to discuss policy. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help de-escalate this, by striking your this unhinged rant in this report, and striking the asshole comment on the talk page? William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but IMO I've turned the other cheek a dozen times now and have shouldered the burden of resolving this properly all myself (and, not for nothing, it's a lot of work), while the other guy has just incessantly repeated the two rude things I said in response to his unnecessary attacks, and he has still continued to pile on even more. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a "strike-through" will do what an apology for name calling wouldn't, but I think Factchecker has displayed his ideological approach pretty clearly, and at no point have I called him any names. Further, at no point has he stated that I was incorrect about my observations; he remains an ideological editor with a fondness for lawyering, which seems to have brought him here rather than on the talk page for the disputed article, even in the face of one user calling for a civility agreement. I agreed to this, but he didn't respond. When can one call a duck a duck? :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Response has nothing to do with it. Each editor is responsible for their own behavior. Gerardw ( talk) 23:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, I'm at a loss now. He says he hasn't "called me any names", but I just pointed out numerous instances of him accusing me of dishonest smear tactics, being a paid shill, attempting "hit jobs", trying to "pull a fast one", taking "cheap shots", etc., etc; and he's now basically saying that this is all true because I haven't denied it (when did I stop beating my wife, exactly?). And now I'm supposed to have given him more chances to play nice before seeking dispute resolution—because another editor called for civility and he casually mentioned, "sure, I can be civil" after having unleashed several paragraphs of invective without batting an eye? If it's acceptable for him to just attribute some deceptive or dishonest ulterior motive to every single thing I do, then shouldn't I just shut up and let him do and say whatever he wants? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No one is saying you shouldn't use dispute resolution, just that focusing on the Wikiquette in WP:Gray Area isn't the most effective. Try to ignore the Ad hominem attacks and focus on content. Perhaps WP:DRN could be of use. Gerardw ( talk) 23:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Bloodofox, I'm curious as to what relevance Factchecker's "consistent love for the outdent tag" has on the content of Occupy Wall Street. Is there a certain number of indents you would like to see before he utilizes the outdent tag? Gerardw ( talk) 23:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, can we get at least five indents before it gets wrapped around? It can be abused just like bolding and caps. :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• bloodofox ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Occupy Wall Street (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Bloodofox has insisted on repeatedly making personal attacks over a content dispute at Occupy Wall Street, to the near-exclusion of actually even mentioning a relevant policy in connection with the dispute. I would like him to stop because it's making me angry and is not contributing to constructive development of the article.

The core of the dispute and this user's main problem with me seems to stem from our disagreement over a critical piece about OWS in the WSJ, starting with this edit, which I made because neither of the cited sources actually makes the analytical claim that was in the article text. (At first I thought it was only the WSJ piece that failed to make the claim, but then I realized that neither source did; rather, it seems to have been a WP editor's synthesis of underlying material in those sources).

Blood has responded with numerous personal attacks, barely bothering to state a justification for reversion other than essentially claiming I have ill intent and shouldn't be trusted. His initial response was to simply label the source as a Fox analyst (thus rendering that source inherently suspect, I suppose), before simply removing the content altogether with the insistence that it be included only if balanced in some way with some other sources he doesn't identify reflecting views he doesn't describe.

After I subsequently reverted and added a textual identification of the source as also having worked for Bill Clinton, and several more reverts went back and forth, things really got ugly and Blood began making personal attacks over this and other edits—first in edit summaries...

• "Try to feign a little neutrality, 'Factchecker'"

• "Pulled more of 'Factchecker's' attempted hit job. Those damned Commies and their drums, right, 'Factchecker'? A fact: Drums are loud. Wow!"

• "Again pulled hit piece favored by ideological poster currently under dispute on the talk page. Your anti-OWS views are obvious enough, but even you should have enough sense to attempt to put stuff like this in 'criticism'."

...then later in a Talk page section apparently created to discuss my purportedly bad faith.

My response: ask him to AGF and not be a WP:DICK, but this was before I saw the paragraph-long attack on Talk, to which I responded by simply calling him a "huge asshole" out of frustration at being attacked in this way.

Yeah, not the best response, I know. But it should be clear from the continuing exchange that only one of us was dedicated to attacking the other as a means of arguing the dispute (attacks against me and another user in the same edit). When I complain about the attacks, he simply notes that I called him an "asshole", then says he's not surprised I mistakenly think he's attacking me, given "what I've tried to pull".

When I point out he's not even bothering to discuss the content or relevant policies, but instead simply insulting me, he refers me back to this paragraph, which, again, seems to contain nothing but character assassination. When I point this out, he argues that I'm "constantly harping" about personal attacks, then proceeds to launch into another tirade about my purportedly malicious intent. He even edited the post to add another accusation of bad faith, saying "I guess the cheap shot was too tempting".

• My last attempt to shut down the attacks and get the discussion back on topic.

• His response? Even more attacks (I didn't even notice until now that he seems to be vaguely implying that I am a paid astroturfer here), along with a simply incorrect accusation that I stealthily removed the "Fox News" label (which presumably shows the true, untrustworthy nature of the source) while including the "Democratic/former Clinton pollster" label (which he repeatedly accuses me of adding for malicious, misleading, or other naughty reasons).

I would like it very much if this editor would cease using name-calling and accusations of bad faith as a substitute for legitimate discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry about the rollback, the damn ads threw my touch screen off.) Ian.thomson ( talk) 17:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me first respond by stating that the base name calling here comes solely from the "factchecker" here— being called "a dick" and "an asshole", anyone? Being called grade-school names has so far rendered his complaints about "personal attacks" to be pretty incoherent to me. That said, I will now illustrate why I think "factchecker" is essentially attempting the same ideological dance that he's attempted to do perform with the Occupy Wall Street article.

But first, my summary of "factcheckers" "anger": as I see it, essentially "factchecker" is annoyed by nothing more than being called out for his heavily ideological editing. Notably nowhere above does "fact checker" mention that I have repeatedly pointed out that Schoen's anti-Occupy opinion piece in the "demographics" section is classic WP:UNDUE. Now, why would he decide to do that?

For example my (current) final reply (posted last night) to "factchecker" reads as follows:

I think we hit maximum "huffing and puffing" when you stooped to crude name calling, "factchecker". I'm afraid I won't be able to outdo that.

But anyway, while you obviously have an axe to grind with these protestors (and now me, golly), Schoen's hit piece remains WP:UNDUE in the demographics section, as your cherry-picked Fox News employee's anti-Occupy rant represents only his opinion (his comments about the protestors being "dangerously out of touch" should be a good indicator).

And I note that this time you've cheekily not only attempted to extend the piece but, at the same time, removed the fact that Douglas Schoen's main gig is, indeed, Fox News "political analyst". Of course, we just couldn't have that, instead you've tried to pull a fast one by describing him as a plain old Democrat due to his registration status. And, boy, what a big, blue democrat he is known to be! You're quite the card, "factchecker".

But hey, perhaps you should consider some kind of anti-OWS blog instead? Tactics like the ones you're trying here will go over just fine there. And there might even be some Koch money in it for you if you're crafty enough, you plucky devil! ( diffs)

This was from last night. Another user came around and asked that we keep it civil, to which I agreed. "Factchecker" never responded to my post or their own, but simply decided to bring it here. Frankly, in "factchecker"'s case, I refer users to: Wikipedia:The duck test.

Now, above "factchecker" finally admits above that he has problems with describing Douglas Schoen as a "Fox News political analyst" after, indeed, stripping it from his last attempt at reintroducing Douglas Schoen's opinion piece into the "demographics" section. The only problem is that this is Schoen's profession; Schoen is, indeed, a "Fox News political analyst" for a living, whether "fact checker" likes it or not. If David Schoen was a fireman for a living, he'd be described as "fireman David Schoen" in our articles, for example. Schoen's interpretation of the findings are also controversial; see criticism [24] and [25], for example.

Another user on the talk page has commented that Schoen's anti-OWS piece belongs, if anywhere, in the "criticism" section, and not in the demographics section, which includes nothing but demographic information and not opinion pieces. I agree. "Factcheckers" actions, so far, however, have been to simply restore it once a day.

Personally I've written many articles in the past, bringing somewhere around 50 articles to GA status, and have otherwise been here for somewhere around half a decade now. I've seen many users attempt to do things similarly to "factchecker", but I don't think anyone has ever lost their cool enough to refer to me as "an asshole" or "a dick". But take a look at the actual chronology of diffs and the talk page on the Occupy Wall Street article and I think what "factchecker" has tried to do here is pretty clear. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Where to begin? It's tempting to simply say that this unhinged rant demonstrates exactly what I'm complaining about, but Blood has made further accusations above, so I feel the need to respond.

Yes, you've repeatedly claimed that including this piece would be "classic WP:UNDUE", but instead of bothering to explain why, you've devoted the discussion almost exclusively to talking about my allegedly malicious motivations. Note that above, I said you've engaged in attacks "to the near-exclusion of actually even mentioning a relevant policy in connection with the dispute", and this is exactly what I mean: briefly mentioning a policy, but then launching into personal attacks rather than actually discussing the policy and its application to the article content under dispute. You've also claimed this piece represents a WP:FRINGE view, without so much as a hint as to how a piece in the WSJ by an established public opinion analyst could possibly reflect a fringe view. Again, you seem to have been too busy insulting me to discuss this.

You even ascribe ill intent to my opening this WQA in the first place. But right here on this page, you continue making comments that merely question my motives rather than attempting a constructive dialogue:

Now, above "factchecker" finally admits above that he has problems with describing David Schoen as a "Fox News political analyst" after, indeed, stripping it from his last attempt at reintroducing Schoen's opinion piece into the "demographics" section.

Nowhere did I say I have a problem with identifying him in this way. But if you insist on having the text specifically note that he is a Fox analyst, I don't see why it's a problem to also mention that he worked as a pollster for the Clinton administration (and by the way, he is also described as a "veteran Democratic political strategist".) Your response, as best I can piece together from the off-topic rants, seems to be that he's not enough of a Democrat for that to be mentioned? I can't make sense of it. And, if you'll take a step back from the accusations for just a moment, you'll see that I included neither of these identifiers in my most recent restoration of the text—not because of some malicious desire to prevent WP readers from knowing The Truth that he works for Fox, but because I simply copied the text from an earlier edit that didn't include that language because it wasn't possible to revert.

I don't recall other users suggesting the text go into a different section, but perhaps that's because of the insulting textwall from Blood. I certainly don't suppose he's saying that he'd stop these rants if I would only agree to put it in the "criticism" section instead of the "demographics" section. I'd also note that the "criticism" section already contains only a small fraction of criticism on the page, which is very haphazardly organized, and I'd further point out that I simply placed the pollster's analysis directly adjacent to the discussion of the actual poll itself -- right there in the "Demographics" section. And this is where it has been for weeks; I didn't add this material in the first place.

Not sure what else to say except that it seems even your comments here show that you are editing and arguing based on claims about my alleged bad faith and hidden agenda, rather than on policy considerations, and you can't even seem to have a civil discussion about this article content because you're so angry at me and my evil ways. I'm not sure how you can say all of this and yet claim to be surprised when I respond with a bit of profanity and cut off the discussion. Why should I simply sit there and be castigated when every attempt to get the discussion back on track has been met with more insults? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This "asshole" and "dick" (according to Factchecker, but, of course, he does offer excuses for it) has little interest in going back and forth with "factchecker". I find it highly unproductive; Factchecker admits pretty clearly that he hasn't bothered to read most of the thread surrounding his re-additions, including the comments of others, and that says it all. That said, I stand by my previous comment(s) and invite other editors to explore the diffs and talk page thread themselves. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose you could provide a diff of whatever it is you say I've admitted to ignoring? And, could you please clarify whether you feel any of this would justify your continued insults? (Also, you might want to mention again that I called you a dick and an asshole, just in case it escaped somebody's attention the previous 10 or 15 times you repeated it.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A diff isn't needed, factchecker, for one may simply have a peek at your comments above; you state "I don't recall other users suggesting the text go into a different section, but perhaps that's because [. . .]".

And I'll gladly mention the delicious humor of you coming to the "wikiquette assistance" after those choice names as long as you promise to make another excuse for doing so. :) :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the only thread you can possibly be talking about, I see a single comment from a single user suggesting it might go into the Criticism section. Everything else in that thread is just more of you accusing me of bad faith. I have to say it seems pretty dishonest and misleading of you to say "he hasn't bothered to read most of the thread surrounding his re-additions, including the comments of others" based on me missing a single comment comment buried in a haystack of insulting text laid down by you. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

So now you've decided to read the thread. Well, that's a step! Or maybe it was just inconvenient to mention here, considering your responses are all over it? Whatever the case, I might also note that this is the only other user to weigh in there on what to do so far. And since you're commenting on it, I think I format my text pretty well, but that's subjective enough. :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I had already read the thread. Thanks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Will you at least agree to drop the personal attacks while this WQA is open? It's great that you decided to start discussing the actual merits of the content dispute after I complained about your attacks, but when you continue to make mocking comments and accuse me of attempting "spin", it's no less distracting than it was when you weren't bothering to discuss policy. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help de-escalate this, by striking your this unhinged rant in this report, and striking the asshole comment on the talk page? William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but IMO I've turned the other cheek a dozen times now and have shouldered the burden of resolving this properly all myself (and, not for nothing, it's a lot of work), while the other guy has just incessantly repeated the two rude things I said in response to his unnecessary attacks, and he has still continued to pile on even more. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a "strike-through" will do what an apology for name calling wouldn't, but I think Factchecker has displayed his ideological approach pretty clearly, and at no point have I called him any names. Further, at no point has he stated that I was incorrect about my observations; he remains an ideological editor with a fondness for lawyering, which seems to have brought him here rather than on the talk page for the disputed article, even in the face of one user calling for a civility agreement. I agreed to this, but he didn't respond. When can one call a duck a duck? :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Response has nothing to do with it. Each editor is responsible for their own behavior. Gerardw ( talk) 23:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, I'm at a loss now. He says he hasn't "called me any names", but I just pointed out numerous instances of him accusing me of dishonest smear tactics, being a paid shill, attempting "hit jobs", trying to "pull a fast one", taking "cheap shots", etc., etc; and he's now basically saying that this is all true because I haven't denied it (when did I stop beating my wife, exactly?). And now I'm supposed to have given him more chances to play nice before seeking dispute resolution—because another editor called for civility and he casually mentioned, "sure, I can be civil" after having unleashed several paragraphs of invective without batting an eye? If it's acceptable for him to just attribute some deceptive or dishonest ulterior motive to every single thing I do, then shouldn't I just shut up and let him do and say whatever he wants? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No one is saying you shouldn't use dispute resolution, just that focusing on the Wikiquette in WP:Gray Area isn't the most effective. Try to ignore the Ad hominem attacks and focus on content. Perhaps WP:DRN could be of use. Gerardw ( talk) 23:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Bloodofox, I'm curious as to what relevance Factchecker's "consistent love for the outdent tag" has on the content of Occupy Wall Street. Is there a certain number of indents you would like to see before he utilizes the outdent tag? Gerardw ( talk) 23:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, can we get at least five indents before it gets wrapped around? It can be abused just like bolding and caps. :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Referred to AN/I, please continue discussion there. Gerardw ( talk) 19:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – no action required Gerardw ( talk) 20:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – answered on users' talk page Gerardw ( talk) 15:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Brewcrewer ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:YehudaTelAviv64&action=history

Brewcrewer is attacking me on my talk page, even after posting a warning ( User_talk:Brewcrewer#Personal_Attack) on his talk page. In his original attack, he accused me of being an editor who I have never heard of -- User:Supreme Deliciousness. Please, stop him from attacking me on my talk page. YehudaTelAviv64 ( talk) 16:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't see this because of the melee below.

Yes, this edit and this edit are not at all civil. One should not allude to or accuse another editor of being a sockpuppet. It's a personal attack. "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." YehudaTelAviv64 did the right thing in placing a NPA warning on Brewcrewer's talk page. Similarly his religious/ethnic attack is not acceptable. However, YehudaTelAviv64, you didn't notify Brewcrewer of this discussion. I can see, though, that he is aware of the page and had ample opportunity to respond. I would like to see his response here. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Brewcrewer is attacking me again -- see [43]. YehudaTelAviv64 ( talk) 02:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Work in progress; comments welcome

Regarding reopening, it is really beyond WQA's remit to do what you're asking for. If actual admin intervention is required, then WP:ANI is thataway. Tarc ( talk) 15:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. All I'm asking for is that an admin ask the user to stop making personal attacks and explicit assumptions of bad faith, which the user continues to make, both in edit summaries and on the talk page. If a request for such seemingly minor intervention is beyond the scope of WQA, what is within the scope of WQA? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

While I've some evidence admins occasionally stalk this page, it's mostly mostly non-admin editors who help out here. The first diff you present is a very mild personal attack, as these things go, and the second diff not a personal attack at all. I went to Bloodofox's talk page to ask him to rejoin the discussion but I see that before you initiated the WQA you called him a dick? Twice? That's certainly more offensive than 'ideological user.' I'd advise you to tone it down and focus on the content dispute resolution. Gerardw ( talk) 22:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Relentlessly accusing another editor of dishonest motives as a substitute for simply arguing about content and policy is not even in the same neighborhood as merely calling somebody a couple of names in two brief comments, spanning about 10 minutes, complaining about those persistent personal attacks (which continue even now). It's a little hard to focus on a content dispute when the other participant insists on making pointless accusations about my character, motives, etc. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:Gray Area. While not unsympathetic to the situation, in my experience, few editors are willing to audit the history of two somewhat uncivil editors to ascertain which is being more uncivil than the other. My advice is to first ensure your own behavior is scrupulously correct and civil and to ignore the pointless accusations. Gerardw ( talk) 13:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh, now I wonder exactly why I wasn't notified of this being reopened? :bloodofox: ( talk) 00:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It was never "reopened" because it was never "closed"; just archived by a bot. And I didn't say anything new, just asked for comment on what had already been said. Not like this could have somehow taken you by surprise, so plz. don't pretend I was trying to ambush you or something by making new complaints that you had no opportunity to respond to. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You "reopened" it and didn't notify me. And I was supposed to find that how? That speaks volumes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't reopen it. No one ever closed it. I didn't add anything new. I didn't ask anything new of you. I asked for comment on what already had been said. The fact you're now trying to paint me as dishonest for seeking comment on an arbitration that I notified you about, after already having persistently accused me of dishonest motives, speaks "volumes". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You absolutely did "reopen" it, and days went by before I found out about it. Nice. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Days"? Try again -- more like 1 day, 10 hours. Stop trying to trump up trivial nothingness into something you could conceivably have a legitimate right to complain about. It's appalling that you would nitpick on silly details like this (and quibbling about how often I use the "outdent" tag, and reposting a comment from your Talk page on article talk) after making dozens of uncivil and snide character attacks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Weaseling around your lack of notification will get you nowhere. Equating crude name calling (which you blame me for) to referring to you as ideological also isn't helping your case. My "quibble" about your usage of the outdent tag, again, referred to your using it every few posts. Your spite post on my talk page was also very dubious. It's all here for the world to see, there's not much more I need to say about it. :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I tolerated numerous insulting and rude comments from you, going beyond merely saying I'm ideological, before having a moment of anger and calling you a profane name and referring you to a Meta article that is redirected from WP:DICK. Since that brief outburst, I have said nothing about your character yet you continue to speak to me as one would speak to a dishonest and vile con artist. And yes, you quibble about trivial junk in an effort to make it look like you have anything legitimate to complain about other than the brief outburst in which I called you a profane name. Ask yourself: whether or not I "blame" you for making me angry enough to use profanity, do you really think it is in keeping with core WP policy—on how we're supposed to be polite to one another and ignore our differences—to constantly berate and act uncivilly towards someone you're having a content dispute with? Do you recognize that this treatment is going to do nothing productive, but merely make the other person upset and angry? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've never called you any names. I've referred to you as ideological and accused you of heavy POV; that's hardly a personal attack in my book, but I have agreed to refer only to your actions. Your anger is your own issue to deal with, and there's no excuse for calling others names, no matter how angry you get. Nobody pressed those keys for you. I have the right to call you out in a Wikipedia-acceptable manner; i.e. I did not appreciate that you called me base names, that you did not let me know about this reopening, and I did not appreciate you spite-spamming on my talk page. Further, you should have taken the olive branch on the talk page when it was extended by another user (which I immediately agreed to) rather than coming straight here. In addition, you've repeatedly violated the revert rule you've placed on your talk page. All of this says something about where you're editing from and you need to really consider adjusting your approach for when you come across an editor who won't simply roll over. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to name a couple instances, it should be obvious to you that it's not "Wikipedia acceptable" to tell another user to "try to feign a little neutrality" or say "I guess the cheap shot was just too tempting for you", or accuse another of an "attempted hit job", or suggest I am a paid astroturfer, etc. Yeah, you made personal attacks; even now at the OWS talk page you can't even say 10 words on the subject without talking about my alleged political leanings, which you have no clue about, and which are irrelevant to the discussion. And what the hell is "spite spamming"? It seems you don't even realize how uncivil you're being and how far all of this is from being an acceptable and normal discussion of a content dispute. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop referring to Factchecker as ideological -- comment on the content not that contributor Gerardw ( talk) 20:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I can agree to that for civility purposes, albeit I believe otherwise, and I think other users should be aware of his strong pro-Fox, anti-"far left" stance, and I don't see that as a personal attack, but rather a neutral observation.

So what happens when a user refers to another use as a "dick" and an "asshole"? :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Usually an editors own actions make any biases apparent to the community so labeling the user isn't necessary; in any event, simply referring to the edits is a far better option in the long run. e.g. "Remove POV edit"

As for the personal attack, see [44]]. Gerardw ( talk) 20:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – referred to Wikipedia talk:Canvassing

• MathewTownsend ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:MathewTownsend (  | [[Talk:User talk:MathewTownsend|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor has become increasingly hostile and uncivil during Talk Page discussions and in edit summaries, resulting in unwarranted personal attacks against me. Diff links:

• Diff 1
• Diff 2
• Diff 3
• Diff 4

This seems to have started when I spoke out against the editor's use of forum shopping and Wiki-lawyering when not getting the answers he was looking for at two forums. On his talk page, I asked him to step back for a bit and allow things to progress naturally at the noticeboard RfC's he's filed today rather than trying to force them to progress. His responses are in the diff links above. The latest personal attack from him that was the last straw for me: "I don't think I want to be a bullying editor who assumes bad faith like you are and reverts as a way of life."

The incivility from this editor has gone beyond anything appropriate and/or necessary, in my opinion. In the future, I want to be able to edit cooperatively and collegially with this editor, but the hard feelings and atmosphere he's creating and perpetuating as demonstrated by the above diffs are making that more and more an unlikely scenario. Lhb1239 ( talk) 02:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything more? The four diffs show pretty ordinary back-and-forth on a user talk page. When I did a quick skim of User talk:MathewTownsend I was surprised to see MathewTownsend say he is new as he seems to be discussing the BLP issue in an appropriate manner. If there is an article accusing living person X of having caused the death of Y (yet X has never been charged), it is highly inappropriate (laughable actually) to respond with " There is no deadline in Wikipedia". I do not think it is a WQA issue for an editor to talk about "your article" after reading "If you change the article right now, I will be forced to take this whole thing to another level". It may well be that some inappropriate behavior is going on somewhere, but WP:CIVIL is not a guarantee that editors will not face frank opinions when raising an issue at a user talk page. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(1) Yes, your comments do sound "grumpy" (as you stated in your edit summary) and aren't exactly helpful. But I can overlook that. :-)

(2) There's more, but thanks to your astute observation, you already found the "more" I was hoping someone would notice. He does seem to be not so new, actually......

(3) There's nothing in the article in question ( Natalie Wood) that suggests/implies/names anyone as being culpable in her death. This is - essentially - a fabrication by the named editor above and another editor who are reading way more into the article than actually exists.

(4) Charges of ownership by this editor have no basis in fact. I'm not the only editor who feels MathewTownsend is being hyperbolic and too quick to react in regard to the article in question.

(5) WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are standards to be adhered to at all times.

(6) I came here in an attempt to get the air cleared and give the above named editor a chance to rethink his own "grumpiness" because I want to be able to work with him now and in the future in an atmosphere of collegiality and cooperativeness. The direction he's going is making that less and less a possibility.

Lhb1239 ( talk) 02:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Response from MathewTownsend

• I agree with Johnuniq's comments above.
• Lhb1239 has filed simultaneous charges against me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring [45] and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard [46]
• Who are the other editors who feel that I'm being hyperbolic and too quick to react, as Lhb1239 states above? On the noticeboards I have received nothing but support, except from Lhb1239.
• If he feels my comments violate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, why does he edit war and revert my attempts to redact and withdraw my comments? [47] [48]
• Lhb1239 has bombarded my talk page 29 times with threats and warnings within the last day or so. I am very rattled by this and don't know what to think or how to handle this antagonism. Thanks, MathewTownsend ( talk) 02:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting, Mathew. In so doing, you're only making more of a case for your personal attacks and incivility. Lhb1239 ( talk) 02:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Lhb1239 should drop the WP:STICK, stay away from MathewTownsend's talk page, stop reverting MathewTownsend's talk page comment, especially trivial reversions like [49], and listen to the advice given by AussieLegend on the 3RR report. Gerardw ( talk) 20:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Lhb1239 ( talk) 04:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Attacker

• Guy Macon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Battlefields

• Floppy disk hardware emulator (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• San Severo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lega Nord (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Blackvisionit ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:137.204.148.73 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:130.136.4.212 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

User:Guy Macon doing a lot of misbehaviours, angry editing [50]

• "Plan of attack..." [51] - explicit edit warring
• "Drop a hammer on him..." [52] - explicit edit warring
• "Pizza connection fancies..." [53] - the Italian conspiracy
• "I'm going to allow..." [54] [55] - enforcement-like editing
• Witch hunting through Wikipedia [56] [57] [58]
• Reverting-only interaction [59] [60] [61], rejecting even grammar fixes.
• Involving admin User:Qwyrxian in active reverting-only interaction [62].

Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

• Brief neutral advices about misbehaviours, direct dispute avoidance.
• Floppy_disk_hardware_emulator - Failed dispute resolution

How do you think we can help?

Get attacking user understand that "which hunting" and "worst faith assumption" are "wikipedia time wasting". 137.204.148.73 ( talk) 08:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you stating that you are not Blackvisionit ( talk · contribs)? Qwyrxian ( talk) 10:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

List of recent administrative actions regarding IP Address 137.204.148.73

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blackvisionit

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive173#User:137.204.148.73 reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: No action right now.)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Floppy disk hardware emulator (Closed)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Active "hunt & attack" by editor

-- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The complaints posted above by 137.204.148.73 (which, by an amazing coincidence, faithfully mirror the writing style of Blackvisionit) are simply a result of my attempts to protect the encyclopedia from an editor with a severe conflict of interest and ongoing behavior problems. When he was given some quite reasonable COI restrictions by an administrator, his response was to engage in blatant sockpuppetry. The biggest behavior problem is a total refusal to work collaboratively, a refusal to discuss controversial edits despite being asked again and again to do so (instead choosing to re-revert without discussion), and a refusal to seek consensus. The sad part is that he obviously believes that the rules don't apply to him, that he doesn't need to explain his edits, and that the real problem is anyone else who questions his ownership of the pages he edits.

As always, I welcome a close examination of my own behavior, and I will take any criticism or suggestions to heart. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You're definitely being uncool. As previously suggested to you [63], the only place you should make an SPI accusation is the SPI page. And it does appear you're following 137 around tracking their edits. Let's AGF and be more welcoming to a new user. Gerardw ( talk) 20:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe my monitoring of 137.204.148.73 is within policy. I have read WP:HOUND very carefully, and it says "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." To that end, I have limited myself to only fixing those edits of 137.204.148.73's that are clear violations of Wikipedia policy, such as being unsourced and controversial, and I have consistently invited 137.204.148.73 to discuss these edits on the article's talk pages. I do the same whenever I see a clear violation of policy such as adding spam links or changing British English to US English on a page against policy - I look for other pages where the editor may have done the same thing. It certainly is not my aim to "create irritation, annoyance or distress" to 137.204.148.73. Given his pattern of behavior, there are several things I could do that I know would either totally piss him off or bait him into more misbehavior. I have carefully avoided doing any of those things, because my goal is to get him to stop being disruptive, not to become more disruptive. I bear 137.204.148.73 no ill will, and sincerely hope he will decide to start following Wikipedia's rules on consensus and discussion of controversial edits.

As for the claim that "the only place you should make an SPI accusation is the SPI page" I have carefully reviewed Wikipedia's policies (primarily WP:SOCK, but there is also a wealth of information in the archives at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations) and I don't see where it is forbidden to point out that two accounts pass the duck test. While it is an essay rather than policy, Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry says "The more signs that are present, the more likely sock puppetry is occurring, though no accusations shall be made unless, beyond a reasonable doubt, one is really certain." Well, I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt. I would also note that, as suggested, I opened a SPI. Alas, I got no answer. If there is a policy or guideline that specifically says that one cannot mention suspicions of sockpuppetry other than on the SPI page, please supply a link to the policy. It certainly is possible that I missed a policy, but I have looked. Sometimes an obvious sock is obvious.-- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You asked for criticism or suggestions. I said you actions were uncool; I did not saying they specifically violated any policy. WP:AGF and WP:Civility suggest limiting SPI accusations to SPI. That said, I do think the admin community is not being very timely on the SPI. Gerardw ( talk) 02:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a fair criticism (the part about me -- I have no opinion regarding the criticism of the SPI admins). -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll concur that it's appropriate to keep discussions in the right place. I also think it would be extremely helpful if another admin took action on the SPI, as I believe that Guy Macon's following of these edits is completely appropriate if, in fact, another admin agrees that they are the same person. I have now doubt, but I'm not sure if I've crossed the line over into WP:INVOLVED territory, so I need a second pair of eyes. If Guy Macon is correct, than we have an editor intentionally editing under an IP to avoid scrutiny. Blackvisionit proved very conclusively that xe cannot edit pages on this topic neutrally, and I told xyr quite clearly I would block xyr for attempting anything other than the most trivial edits on this topic. If the IP is the same person as Blackvisionit, they've violated that several times over, and thus need to be blocked in order to prevent disruption to the page. And, furthermore, if this is Blackvisionit, this WQA is an attempt to distract other user's from the problems xe has as an editor, to get criticism leveled at the person who is legitimately trying to protect these articles from POV inclusions. Qwyrxian ( talk) 04:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I would add that, even if 137.204.148.73 and Blackvisionit have no connection at all, there is a consensus among the other editors that the undiscussed edits by 137.204.148.73 to Floppy disk hardware emulator, like the previous edits by Blackvisionit, bias the article towards one particular type of emulator. 137.204.148.73 refuses to discuss his reasons for making these changes (or anything else: his claims above in answer to "Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?" are fabrications). If only he would discuss why he wants to make changes when another editor challenges them, the possibility exists that a consensus could be reached that satisfies both parties. His refusal to discuss breaks Wikipedia's cooperative editing model, and leaves the other editors no path that could possibly lead to agreement.

The same problem with 137.204.148.73's edits can clearly be seen in the edit history for San Severo. He removed what appears to be relevant and properly sourced material, and when asked to explain, engaged in edit warring while refusing to discuss his edits. I don't know anything about San Severo, while we know from geolocation that 137.204.148.73 either lives there or in a nearby town. His insight could be very valuable. Could it be that he correctly identified something that should have been removed? It's possible, but we will never know because he refuses to discuss his edits. All I can do is what I would do any time I see what appears to be relevant and properly sourced material removed without explanation on any article; revert with an edit comment encouraging discussion and place a warning -- also encouraging discussion -- on his talk page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see new content at [ /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Blackvisionit#28_November_2011 ].

• Goodwinsands ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I and another editor have expressed concerns to User:Goodwinsands about his editing history and possible multiple accounts since he started editing in January 2011. He now has renamed all those sections of his talk page to mock our concerns. He collapsed the entries under one title: Under the green bars: documentation of a tag-team harassment campaign. He renamed our section titles, per below. I think someone needs to explain Wikipedia policy on personal attacks and misuse of talk pages to Goodwinsand and encourage him to either revert to original comments or archive the whole mess.

• POV Warrior #1 tries: false accusation of sock puppetry (Was at this diff “Your editing history?”) Details of why I was suspicious are in a later WP:SPI link below.
• POV Warrior #2 tries: don't call a Holocaust denier a Holocaust denier (Was at this diff “BLPN Israel Shamir”) Regarding Goodwinsands adding a category to an article when that subject was currently under discussion at BLPN.
• POV Warrior #1 tries again: bogus redefinition of 'revert' in attempt to pin a false 1RR. (Was at this diff "Gilad Atzmon: Edit warring notice".) Per this discussion (at this diff) Goodwinsands inaccurately stated and perhaps still holds that "No, a revert means undoing the actions of another editor within the last 24 hours."
• POV Warrior #2 tries again: false allegations of sock puppetry (Was at this diff "Multiple accounts.") User:Off2riorob asked him about the possibility of multiple accounts.
• POV warriors #1 and #2 tag team in false accusation of sock puppetry, no not sock puppetry, erm, er, er, give us a sec and we'll come up with it... (Evidently Goodwinsands split up the "Multiple accounts" section.) Seeing I was not the only with suspicions, I decided to investigate further and at this diff discussed which editors on one sock puppet plagued article Goodwinsands possibly might be a sock or multiple account of. I was told by an administrator at this diff that if I had suspicions I should take it to Sockpuppet Investigation.
• POV Warrior #1 tries: another false accusation of sock puppetry Per administrator's comment I did so, whole discussion here. I guess it didn't present enough details and an admin closed it calling it a "fishing expedition."

Needlesstosay, this kind of mocking behavior discourages people from trying to deal with real concerns. Anyway, since he has barred me from his talk page I can't announce this notice. Thanks for any help. CarolMooreDC 05:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a very easy solution to this problem, though I strongly suspect you will not want to go along: Stop bothering him on his talk page. Make whatever comments you want about him on other talk pages (like this) where he can't change the section header. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:Civility says "It applies to all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages..." This is the civility noticeboard. I'm just asking for someone to clue him in so the next person who has a legitimate concern isn't driven away by the mass attacks on those who have had past concerns. CarolMooreDC 05:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're worried about the next person, perhaps you should just wait for the next person to have the same problem.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So, just to be clear here, because I have kept the evidence of your campaign of harassment against me on my talk page, and because I have labeled it for what it is, you continue your campaign of harassment here by complaining that I have dared to complain about your campaign of harassment?

One more for the list, then, isn't it. Goodwinsands ( talk) 06:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please ignore Brewcrewer as his advice is neither helpful nor appropriate. One does not tolerate uncivil behaviour until it bites another user. We talk to the editor and inform them of their behaviour in order to avoid future confrontations. Brewcrewer also appears to be involved with the accused having left a welcome message on the user's talk page. Not sure what the association is.

With that said, have you notified Goodwinsands of this discussion? The behaviour described, and some other behaviour not mentioned, is not at all civil, but I would like to hear the editor's side of the story. I went to the talk page and did not see a notice there.

Also, the behaviour of the other two editors is not civil. One does not allude to or hint that another editor is a sockpuppet. With that said, incivility does not call for further incivility.

As a result of the edit conflict, I see that Goodwinsands knows what is happening here and continues to attack rather than comment on his own behaviour. This is for discussion not attacks. There was no campaign of harassment so there's nothing to complain about to. They were trying to engage you in conversation, which you don't seem to like to do. Perhaps a cool-off period would be a good first step--walk away from the article you're having contention over and come back in a week or two. If you're still planning on editing the same articles, discussion would be a good second step. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz is correct. I looked at this report earlier but decided not to post because the refactored headings at User talk:Goodwinsands were not knock-out examples of incivility, and I thought my comments would be misinterpreted. However, the "One more for the list, then, isn't it" comment above shows that involvement is required. A good way to understand why Wikipedia's procedures is as they are is to contemplate what the inevitable outcome of not having those procedures would be. For example, if a civil and relevant comment at a noticeboard can be dismissed as "one more for the list", what is to stop those on the other side from responding in kind, with a downward spiral into what is seen at all unmoderated Internet forums. Please just stick to discussing issues related to improvement of article content. If unwelcome comments appear on a user's talk page, that user is entitled to simply revert them (and if wanted, a pointy but polite edit summary such as "misguided" can be used for the revert). But it is not helpful for community collaboration for editors to refactor the headings of posted comments and to add commentary about those who posted them. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The talk page headings are personal attacks and it would be best if Goodwinsands changes them. 11:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardw ( talk • contribs)

Just to clarify, as I wrote above: Anyway, since he has barred me from his talk page I can't announce this notice." I should have asked someone else to. But frankly he monitors all my edits so I knew he'd find out. CarolMooreDC 16:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No editor can bar anyone else from commenting on that editor's talk page. Only an admin can lock a talk page and they have to have very serious reasons from doing so. The "barring" in an of itself is not civil. The best one can do is request that an editor not hound you on your talk page and open a case for hounding. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

As Goodwinsands' reply here indicates they are aware of the discussion, it's a moot point. I concur with both the interpretation that a "ban" is not supported by policy and the wisdom of respecting a request not to post a notice. I periodically post the WQA-notice myself if a poster has missed the instruction to, or, as in this case, made a conscious decision to avoid escalating the conflict. Gerardw ( talk) 18:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on no provision for "banning." I certainly comply when it's a matter of just discussing things on their talk page. But when it is a matter of alerts that need to be made, I'm glad to see we still have that right. (I also just remembered that "Retired" User:Spaceclerk also banned the same two editors as Goodwinsands because of our suspicions and an SPI. Will have to write that factoid down somewhere.) CarolMooreDC 21:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment As the issue of a user "banning" another user from their talk page seems to be a perennial issue, I've created WP:NOBAN to link the existing policy statement. (It's easy to miss as it's on WP:User pages instead of WP:TPG. Gerardw ( talk) 11:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll refer to it should the need for some official notice to User:Goodwinsands arise again. CarolMooreDC 14:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – discuss on article talk or open WP:RFC Gerardw ( talk) 13:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Gerardw ( talk) 22:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ckunitsky ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Phospholipid-derived fatty acids (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think I may have started things out on the wrong foot with this new editor. I was trying to be civil by using standard warning templates on the editor's talk page (I know I'm not very good with social situations), but they have failed to respond to any of them and have gone on with what I, at least, view as problematic behavior on the referenced article (not having a lead section and removing any that I put in; removing a template asking for a more-maintainable citation format than 42 manually-done references; not using edit summaries; not responding to talk page messages either on their own talk page or on the article's talk page). I fear this editor doesn't want anyone else's input on this article, but am hoping it's just that they don't want to listen to me in particular. If that isn't the case, it'll probably require a block for them to pay attention, but I don't want it to come to that - for one thing, I want to avoid biting a newbie (I fear I may already have done so inadvertently); for another, they've done valuable work on the article in question. Help, please? Allens ( talk) 14:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If the user keeps messing up the formatting of articles even after many warnings, it's bordering vandal/disruptive behaviour and may need a short block. Alternatively you may want to go down the WP:RFPP route. If they continue again, you could try WP:AIV seeing as you've filled their talk page with warnings already.-- Otterathome ( talk) 17:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have the article on my watch list and will take it to WP:AIV if it continues. I left a nice personal message on his talk page -- some folks don't respond well to standard warnings. Let's hope he straightens out and becomes a productive contributor. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see my talk page for a discussion I had with him. It really does look like he wants to do the right thing, so let's all make sure to pitch in and help him. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agreed! We've been talking a bit on my talk page and also that of Gerardw ( talk · contribs). Allens ( talk) 23:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Reporting user seems to have problems taking direction. Reported user was civil in all interactions and has been attempting to mentor the reporter. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Mann jess ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User talk:Stephfo
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Stephfo ( talk) 01:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC) I'd like to report an encounter I just had with user Mann jess (at my talk page) who is constantly trying to attach a wrong behaviour to me while he/she is able to accept even a false claim if others performs deletions of my edits. First, I'd like to acknowledge that I run out of control, but please note that it is very difficult to me to accept a critique especially from him/her due to the history of our relations. Since he/she seems to got strongly upset, I'd like to ask for advice how to calm things down. Please, help. Thanks in advance.-- Stephfo ( talk) 01:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

From their last edit, it appears Jess would be willing to leave you alone and may intend to do so. Not sure what else can be done to calm things down. Usually doing nothing -- i.e. just waiting for time to pass -- is helpful. Gerardw ( talk) 02:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait... what? My last message to you said that I was retiring from your page and opting to not help you any longer. Given your accusations, I think I phrased myself fairly civilly to boot. How does that qualify as "trying to attach a wrong behaviour to [you]"? The implication is that I've been harassing you, which I think is without merit. I believe I've been fairly generous with my time over the last few months, offering advice and help, and I could say the same of at least a dozen other editors too. However, it doesn't appear any of us, for all our trying, has helped you at all, and you seem to be on the same path back to ANI you've been down more than once before. I mean seriously, it's been months! In all that time, how many editors have you worked collaboratively with? My time is valuable, and I simply don't have enough to spare, obstinately trying against all hope to steer you another way. This is particularly true when, for all that help, all I get are accusations of wrongdoing.

I don't know why you took this here. There is clearly no civility issue, except the AGF breach which started this discussion, and no one needs calming down. If you want me to come back and help out again, then show me some improvement first. Work productively over these next 6 months with other editors, without getting into disputes with every one. Make some headway. Until then, you have plenty of other editors offering solid advice, and a mentor who's available to answer all your questions. That should be enough. I want you to contribute productively, Stephfo... but you need to show me you can.   — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, you seriously must stop running round accusing everyone of bad faith all the time. A number of editors have tried to help you, and you have steadfastly treated all of them as attacking you. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 13:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No incivility on the part of Jess that I can see. However the amount of conflict that Stephfo finds seems to warrant some oversight from a patient editor and potentially some warnings if Stephfo doesn't start behaving better. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

He's been warned many times, blocked several times and recently topic banned. He has a mentor, but does not seem to consult him when he has a problem like this before acting rashly. The main problem is that Stephfo still isn't clear on what WP is and on how he should behave here because he has never read the pertinent policies. I just gave him yet another reminder, but there are major competence and temperament issues here. He's highly defensive and takes any criticism or disagreement as an attack against him, and responds "in kind", so to speak. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 15:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've found it strange that the case is closed before I even got chance to react on arguments presented. I did not suggest that Jess have done anything especially wrong but I reserve the right to claim that they are not fair in his/her judgements towards me what is causing lots of tensions and I perceive for the best solution the one proposed as "From their last edit, it appears Jess would be willing to leave you alone". I posted here only to try to do my best to calm down the situation. I appreciate their effort for mentoring me but for me it would be perhaps better if I could use for that purpose someone else w/o the record we have in our mutual relations with Jess. For example, if someone declares something like this: "I most strongly disagree with this proposal. It would essentially enable enforcing administrators to decide content disputes, because they would have to determine which of several contested versions of an article is of higher quality. This necessarily requires a judgement about the merits of the contested content. Consequently, this proposal runs counter to what is practically a constitutional principle of Wikipedia, i.e., that administrators do not adjudicate content disagreements. Apart from that, of course, this sort of catch-all exception could be used to contest almost all applications of 3RR, and would therefore enable many more edit wars and substantially weaken what may be our most important safeguard against disagreements getting out of hand" such person seems to me to have qualities of mentoring that I would find worth of following. I also feel sorry that Jess regard the time they spent with me for waste of time, but also do dare suggest that to prevent such disappointment in the future, the best for them would be to find someone else to spend time on, and I will try to keep with those advisers that I feel more compatible with when it comes to fair unbiased assessments of acts. I hope my effort to calm things down and looking for solutions consisting in involvement of 3rd party would not be perceived negatively. Thanks for your help and understanding. -- Stephfo ( talk) 17:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop. This is over. I spent considerable time helping you, and you've consistently thrown that in my face with accusations. I'm done. I've now repeatedly told you that, as have Gerard and others. I don't know what continuing to harp on this is intended to accomplish. I don't know if you're trolling, or if for some reason you have an inability to let things go, but either way, the section is archived. It's time to move on.   — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I personally always felt that this is what wikiquette assistance is here for and find no fault in Stepho asking for assistance. That said, in a admittedly brief scan of Jess's comments on Stepho's talk page, I don't see anything he did wrong. While it's unfortunate the the mentor / mentee personalities did not mesh, calling Jess's behavior unfair isn't justified. As noted previously, it appears both parties were ready to move on and I don't think there's any else the community can do to help. Gerardw ( talk) 23:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've unarchived the section to avoid WP:LASTWORD syndrome. No one is required to continue to discuss, but neither is anyone prohibited. Gerardw ( talk) 18:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Update, OP indef blocked for continued disruption. Gerardw ( talk) 02:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Stevewake1962 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of channels on TVCatchup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Diffs

• [71] - Discouraging editors using the edit summary
• [72] - Possible COI
• [73] - Discouraging editors
• [74] - Accusation of ownership/thinly veiled insult
• [75] - Accusation of ownership
• [76] - Insult
• [77] - Belittling comments
• [78] - Accusation of ownership/discouraging editors

Following a content dispute on List of channels on TVCatchup, Stevewake1962 was warned about their inappropriate use of the edit summary by Evalowyn, the user then appears to have lost their cool and has been unwilling to discuss the content issue beyond saying I'm wrong and owning the page. I left them alone for a few days to hopefully cool down, however they have renewed their comments. Another user named S.wake has exhibited similar behaviour in the past at Talk:TVCatchup#Desperately in need of citations. The user's intentions appear to be basically good but their behaviour shows a complete lack of respect for others, only offering the justification that "It's the internet guys, get real...!!!" [79] - Jasmeet_181 ( talk) 18:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it appears the new editor totally does not get Wikipedia. That said, you've been on their talk page too much (see WP:BITE). I'll leave them a note on the talk page. Gerardw ( talk) 21:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Jarandhel ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Otherkin ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
• Theistic Satanism ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Considered simply asking for a third opinion, but it's a bit complex. Jarandhel and I are having a bit of bicker over different things and may or may not have descended to uncomely behavior.

In chronological order:

69.143.182.189/ User:Jarandhel removes clinical lycanthropy from the See also section of otherkin, saying that having it there promotes a POV. I undo it. I later discover that mild edit warring has been going on over this link literally for years and there's several discussions about it in the talk page archives. It's somewhat possible that Jarandhel was editing logged out on purpose ( WP:SOCK). I didn't raise the issue and I'm not going to do it now, since it'd seem like I'm deliberately picking on every perceived flaw of the editor.

Jarandhel (logged in) starts a topic on the talk page about possible new external links to add. After that, logged out, leaves messages to myself and another editor regarding the lycanthropy link. Of note, the IP tries to appeal to me by comparing Otherkin to Theistic Satanism ( my userpage implies that I have interest in the article and IP must assume I'm as personally invested in TS as they are in Otherkin).

I go have a look over the existent external links on the Otherkin article and remove two of them with the edit summary "these do not qualify as "neutral" ( WP:ELYES); +we don't advertise specific otherkin communities/sites)". I go and do other things meanwhile, end up on Jarandhel's userpage which looked like this at the time, and I leave them a message regarding the superfluous links on their userpage, some of them commercial and promotional. It was probably not justified of me to add "If I don't hear back from you, I'm going to remove them myself." But it was not because of this specific user, if I did say that then I would've said that to anyone. I do sometimes take the liberty to edit others' userpages.

After that I discover they have (had) made this edit, removing two external links from the Theistic Satanism article with the exact same edit summary I used. I leave them this laconic message. A discussion ensues.

• Commentary on my own behavior is obviously welcome, though I'd like someone impartial to confirm that
  • editing about the same topic logged out and in is not okay
  • it was okay of me to to leave a message about the links on their userpage, regardless that I was "the first and only person who has complained about them in the six years" (their words), and to leave a personal message instead of a template
  • parroting my edit on a different article was not okay and was exactly what WP:POINT warns against

(And if anyone here can be bothered to look into it, input about the external links and see also links in the otherkin article is still welcome and needed (on the article's talk page). No one but otherkin and their critics seem to care about the article so someone neutral about the topic should take a look.) —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 09:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing both logged in and logged out is okay if done inadvertently, but not if done intentionally to deceive. The first step should be to simply ask the user if there's a reasonable possibility it was done accidentally; if it appears intentional a WP:SPI request should be filed.

It was fine to leave the message on their user page. There's no correct answer as to use a template or not -- we have both WP:TR and WP:DTR so regardless of which choice you make there's a possibility the editor will complain about it. Best just to ignore that. (Or, sometimes if they go WP:DTR! I just post the WP:TR shortcut and am done with it.)

I'd classify the parroting thing as WP:Gray Area and just ignore it. Gerardw ( talk) 12:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

1. It would seem you are going to bring up the issue now, since you specifically did bring it up here.

If you must know, I made the edit removing the clinical lycanthropy link (as well as one other edit to the Otherkin article, removing a see-also link to "Fantasy Prone Personality") logged out because a) I hadn't edited since 2008 and it took me a bit to remember my login information (I'd originally been visiting just to read a portion of the article again, when I noticed the Fantasy Prone Personality link that had been added). b) I wasn't sure I really wanted to wade back into all the fighting here.

Quite frankly, the Otherkin article has always been uniquely singled out for abusive edits such as people making see-alsos to psychological disorders with no WP:Reliable sources of any psychological professionals claiming such a link. That's in addition to petty vandalism to the article such as the addition of things like boytaurs and werehouses to the list of kintypes, and people attempting to incrementally delete the article when they couldn't delete it outright via AfD. I didn't know if I wanted to deal with all that again. So at first I didn't bother logging in.

When I decided to add some other material to the article (seeking consensus on the talk page first), I did log in. I commented on your talk page logged out, however, so that you would know the message was coming from the person who'd made the edits and not a third party.

I suppose I could have just mentioned I was the same person too. Either way, a look at my edit history for both this IP and my username will show that I haven't edited logged out to "deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies". So WP:SOCK really doesn't apply. If you disagree, by all means file a WP:SPI request.

2. Leaving a message on my talk page about the content of my userpage was fine, and you'll note that I did edit my userpage accordingly. Threatening to edit my userpage yourself if I didn't reply to your message was, IMO, rather uncivil. While WP:DONTBITE applies to newcomers, I think WP:CIV and WP:EQ would suggest you shouldn't "bite" established editors either.

3. WP:NOTPOINTY. WP:POINT exists to prevent disruptive edits used solely to make a point, usually in order to discredit an existing policy. Since you yourself admitted on my talk page that my edit was not disruptive, and that you have no problem with the content of my edit to Theistic Satanism, and since I am not advocating for any Wikipedia policy or edit you have made to be changed other than the clinical lycanthropy see-also (which is very clearly not related to the external sources edit you made later), exactly what is it that you are complaining about here? -- Jarandhel ( talk) 16:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's usually best to just let WP:Gray Area issues pass. As I said above, there's no problem with the type of both ip and logged in editing you did but I would suggest that a note somewhere (user page, talk page, edit summary) to the effect "forgot to log on" would make life simpler. Gerardw ( talk) 22:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I maintain that the edit was. exactly. what. WP:POINT. warns. against. If no one else can see that then fine. But if the editor themself won't admit that it was improper behavior (to make that edit like two seconds after mine with a copypasted edit summary), then they'll likely try similar things again in the future, with the same excuses they've given here (as if it's not obvious they were personally peeved by my edit and tried (and failed) to peeve me in an equal way, assuming I was personally invested in TS). I'm not interested in co-operating with them. (I had some interest in watching over/trying to improve the otherkin article, having been involved in otherkin communities.)

If you've edited about the see-also links in that article earlier from your username and now from your IP (WP:SPI is irrelevant, the connection between the accounts is already clear), it could be deduced that you're trying to avoid accusations of edit warring or the like. I haven't read the discussions in the archives but if you were involved there and there was a consensus to keep the link, then you would indeed be using the IP in a sock-like manner to pretend you're a different person. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 05:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think your statement "I'm not interested in co-operating with them." really says it all about which of us is being uncvil.

As for your point regarding the see-also links: in September, I edited the Otherkin article to remove a see-also link to "Fantasy Prone Personality". ( diff) At that time, Clinical Lycanthropy was not a see-also on the article, and had not been since April 2008 ( diff). I made the mistake of making my edit summary, in September, "rm editorializing see-also; same problem as the previous see also clinical lycanthropy". The very next edit, one day later, was DreamGuy adding back the link to Clinical Lycanthropy that had been removed in 2008. ( diff). I removed it. ( diff) You undid my edit with the comment "s'very obviously connected and it doesn't matter that otherkin people would find it's inclusion here offensive or whatever". ( diff) I undid your edit, and commented on your talk page (accidentally posted to the redirect rather than the actual talk page). ( diff + comment). Equivamp undid my edit ( diff) at which point I commented on Equivamps talk page but did not undo the edit again. ( comment) Using either my IP or my account. I think it's fairly plain that I was not editing logged out to avoid accusations of edit-warring or the like since there hadn't been an edit-war over this since 2008 and since I was clearly trying to handle things on people's talk pages rather than edit-warring. See, I was (and am) interested in cooperating on this. -- Jarandhel ( talk) 19:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Jarandhel, will you agree not to essentially copy another editor's summary in the future? In my opinion, such an agreement from you would be more than adequate to bring this to closure. Gerardw ( talk) 02:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerardw, as the summary I used was accurate for the edit I performed, and as Jeraphine has specifically stated "I do not have a problem with the actual content of your edit.", I do not see why the language used by one editor would be magically off-limits for another editor to use.

Also, since the edit made was nondisruptive, it very clearly falls under the scope of WP:NOTPOINTY. Especially given the fact that, regardless of what Jeraphine has chosen to believe about my motivations for making that edit, I have NOT advocated for the links to Otherkin.net or the Otherkin FAQ to be added back to the article. I have not reverted her edit, I have not added a discussion to the talk page about it, I have not commented on her talkpage about it, etc. Jeraphine has chosen to believe that my edit reflects a particular opinion on the subject, nothing more.

Because of this, and especially given that Jeraphine has at this point explicitly stated "I'm not interested in co-operating with them", thus demonstrating that this request for assistance has been made in bad faith, I see no reason that I should be making concessions which limit my ability to use appropriate edit summaries for edits I perform. I believe the matter should be brought to closure on the basis that I have not acted in violation of Wikiquette or Wikipedia Policy, especially given the original editor's stated unwillingness to cooperate with me or to accept the advice that this is a WP:Gray Area. -- Jarandhel ( talk) 03:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Using your own words to make an edit summary should cost you essentially nothing. The reason you would make trivial concessions would be for the good of the encyclopedia, which is a collaborative effort. Accusing Jeraphine of bad faith for requesting assistance is not a positive move. Gerardw ( talk) 11:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You seriously expect anyone to believe that you didn't do that on purpose? And if you did indeed just newly discover the external links policy, why go straight to that and only to that article that you assumed to be of importance to me? It's beyond all doubt that you were trying to "get back" at me, and such behavior is considered disruptive. (The content of your edit may have been in line with policy this time but deliberately trying to upset other editors is still not permitted.) The fact that you're still denying this shows that you won't be easy to co-operate with. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 07:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The goal of Wikiquette assistance is to reach a resolution both parties are happy with. , not to referee squabbles. Wikipedia is not a zero-sum contest. My final advice is for Jeraphine to drop the stick and Jarandhel to make a reasonable concession. I regret I cannot be of more help; possibly another WQA volunteer can be more successful. Gerardw ( talk) 11:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't justified. I only want Jarandhel to confirm that they won't use inappropriate tactics again, that's not too much to expect if we're working on the same article. I don't know what kind of edits will be made to the article in the future and if we ever need to co-operate again, so, yes, I can drop the stick now, but then what? For now I'll just leave it and hope I don't have to interact with them again. (By me the case can be closed.) —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 11:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to mention it, or if another Wikiquette assistance thread should be started, or something else, but far from dropping the stick Jeraphine has continued to harp on this matter, even claiming on the Theistic Satanism talk page that my edit was malicious ( diff). In my opinion, this clearly does not show either WP:CIV or WP:AGF being exercised and to my mind underscores that Jeraphine is acting in bad faith towards me by trying to rouse negative sentiment against me among other editors. -- Jarandhel ( talk) 04:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)