![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Hey there,
On the Dr. No page a couple of weeks ago I added in the 2012 gross for Dr. No and I used the exact same website and Math and Wikipedia format that was used on the Dr. No page, and the FWTL page. But an editor didn't like my edit, and deleted it, while the other 2012 gross. I complained on the Talk page about this and how it seemed that there was some editors who were contradicting and it seemed like they didn't want my edit (and I'll say again, my edit contained the exact same Math as the other different in years money did). I reverted my edit back and told them about this and how the other edit (which was practically exactly the same except it was about the 2012 budget while mine was the 2012 gross) was kept in. Some editor said that it classed as OR as I worked out the calculations myself, but actually it didn't and then another editor said that it didn't as anyone can just click on the link to the website where we found the calculation and then just work out the math themselves as its easy to do.
Yesterday I was on the Dr. No page and saw that the 2012 budget was still in, which I deleted. But it got reverted. I then put my old edit back it, but that was taken out. I put it back in explaining why and how the other edit was there. Then a editor deletes my edit, while leaving the 2012 budget in and claims that I am vandalising the page by putting it back in and says he will report me if I do it again. It seems like he hasn't even read the talk page and says that I haven't either, which I have and there is no reason given to why the 2012 budget should be kept in but not the gross. I am fed up with these contradictions and it is starting to feel like a personal attack, and that is why I am on here reporting this.
But basically, I am fed up with these editors deleting my edit about the 2012 Dr. No gross, but keeping in another edit (the 2012 Dr. No budget), and when I delete the 2012 budget, they put it back in. I am hugely fed up and offended by this as it couldn't be more obvious of a personal attack as they basically don't like my edit. I think I have even had problems with one of them before, and that would result more in a personal attack.
I have explained everything to them, but they are not listening. Could you please help sort this out? Charlr6 ( talk) 22:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
<! In the show Supernatural the character Adam Milligan was introduced in season 4 and died in the same episode. However, in season five he was brought back from the dead. In the finale of season five he was sucked into a portal to hell. It was never stated he died again. He was alive and sucked into a portal, alive, into hell. An editor keeps adding that he is deceased to his description of Adam on the Dean Winchester page, can someone help me.>
I'm requesting assistance. I never said you were uncivil. But you won't stop adding your opinion, and I can't convince you so I'm asking for help.
I'm trying to request help. If it's the wrong place I'll find the right one. However, you won't listen so yes I am reqeusting help.
An editor who appears determined to fight simply to be contentions, even after I've gone along with his reasoning, is following me around "policing" me. I am a longtime editor with a
history of collegial behavior with colleagues.
He has also attacked me with highly personal name-calling ("puerile") and over-the-top assertions about my mental health ("paranoid accusation"; both here). If you go to his talk page, you'll see I've been absolutely nothing but polite.
On March 7, I moved Slant Magazine to SlantMagazine.com with the summary "Like Salon.com, an online-only magazine with no print component." Another editor did an RM which DeLarge summarily closed it in his own favor (SlantMagazine.com) after less than a day.
After I politely requested here that he reopen it, he did so. You'll see I showed flexibility and conceded his point that, though this is a website and not a print magazine, that the title should not be SlantMagazine.com.
So far, so good. Wikipedia works through consensus and discussion. But then DeLarge decided to scour my edit history and follow me to other pages involving website names. I still behaved in good faith: After he started an RM at Radar Online here, to remove ".com" from the title, I myself went to two other pages I had moved and, as DeLarge had done, posted RMs ( here and here). And although these are comic-book sites unrelated to general-interest magazine-type sites, he made it his mission to follow me to those two pages as well.
I still didn't say anything. He wanted to follow me around, fine. I act in good faith, and when I saw the consensus was quickly clear not to have ".com," I voluntarily withdrew my move of those two pages. ( Here and here.) I even bit my tongue over being followed, and posted a very good-sport comment on DeLarge's talk page. He and other editors showed me the consensus is for no ".com."
Here is where it gets awful. DeLarge then continued to follow me — at this point, I considered it hounding — to Salon.com and TMZ.com, where, following the consensus, I had changed to "Salon (website)" and "TMZ (website)", since they needed disambiguation.
Now, reasonable people can disagree; that's not the issue. The issue is that DeLarge simply will not let go of this. He was decided to become my personal police officer following me around in order to approve of any article-name moves I make. At the Salon and TMZ articles, where I removed ".com" just as he had, he has started RMs to put them back! *
And again, that's a side issue. The real issue is his appointing himself policeman of title edits. I understand, absolutely, when editors who have watch-paged a site may disagree with an edit I make, and who might request an RM. (No one else did so at Salon and TMZ, incidentally.) But to specifically follow me around, personally, to approve or disapprove of my edits — and then to viciously verbally attack me after I very politely — as you can see when I brought this up to him here — well, is he allowed to verbally attack other editors that way? Is he allowed to follow me around and approve or disapprove my title edits for the rest of my time on Wikipedia?
I don't believe either of those things are right, and I ask for help. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 16:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
* He says there's "no good reason" to make the change — which is only his opinion yet he treats it as irrefutable fact. He himself contested to remove ".com" at at those other pages, arguing that the name of the site is the name of the site, and should be treated as official and sacrosanct. "Website" and ".com" are synonymous — they mean exactly the same thing. So it's proper to use the version that doesn't change the name of the site. WP:TITLECHANGES allows changes if there is a good reason, and respecting the name of the site is a very good reason. [Tenebrae moved sentences to footnote to make easier to follow as per below.]
I'm inclined to agree with Bbb23 here.
First, on the topic of civility, I should disclose that I have a somewhat less liberal interpretation of WP:CIV than many others that I notice on Wikipedia; I feel that the community is often too lenient on offenders, and does little or nothing to discourage genuine violation of that policy. That said, I also believe that at times some members of the community go a bit too far in applying WP:CIV to the point where our language is essentially straightjacketed to the point of having to speak entirely in lifeless, milquetoast Orwellian euphemisms. Specifically, while I do believe that engaging in name-calling is not permitted, we should have enough freedom in language to characterize ideas we feel are objectionable. While I can understand calling an editor "puerile" or "paranoid" may be borderline (or even over the line, depending on the term being used), I do not think we should be censored from referring to ideas, positions or arguments as such. Some may feel that this is hair-splitting, but I do not. While characterization a person with such terms is a form fo ad hominem argument, characterizing ideas or arguments is not, and that's the main difference. I realize such subtleties may provide room for some bad-faith policy violators to split hairs in their attempts to game the system, but the distinction is there none the less. The entire crux of disputes, after all, is the manner in which we disagree with each others' arguments or positions, which is why we need breathing room to discuss why we disagree. I'm not saying that such disputes cannot be conducted with words like "puerile" or "paranoid", but at the same time, censoring such language makes it harder for people to articulate their problems with certain ideas, and would merely relegate us to using obscure euphemisms. In other words, instead of saying that an argument is paranoid, someone could just say, "This argument seems to be based on a delusion, and the editor's projection of a personal conflict, in which he ascribes hostility to me." This is, after all, the definition of paranoia, and if anyone objects to the word "delusion", then that can be replaced with "false or misleading idea", and so forth. Disputes would simply become longer and bogged down by doublespeak. It is best, for this reason, to falsify arguments by explaining why the argument is wrong or unsound. Why is the argument not paranoid or misleading? Or, in other words, explain why it is perfectly sound?
As for hounding, again, if the purpose for reviewing an editor's edit history is improper, than one should be able to show the impropriety by virtue of their dispute. I myself have been known to go through the edit history of editors who appeared to make bad faith edits, and on at least one or two occasions, was accused of stalking or some similar activity, but that accusation didn't hold water, because any action I took as a result of my findings was always in accordance with the site's policies and guidelines. Ask DeLarge why he started RMs to restore the ".com" suffix to the Salon and TMZ article titles. Did he specify his reasons in the RM? If so, were those reasons transparently false or inconsistent with his past editing? If so, this should've been apparent if one were to point it out. Personally, when I write out citations to stories on Comic Book Resources, Comics Bulletin and Radar Online, and many other publications, I tend not to use the suffix, because the logos of those publications seen on their website seems to indicate that the suffix is just that: a suffix, and not a part of their name proper. This is also true of Salon.com and TMZ.com, but those articles cannot simply be "Salon" and "TMZ", because of the need for disambiguation with other articles. While using parentheticals is common for disambiguation, I've noticed that article titles will sometimes use other means of disambiguation that when aspects of the topic's name provides opportunities for doing so. For example, both David Alan Mack and David W. Mack are credited simply as "David Mack" in their works, yet their articles use their middle names or middle initials for disambiguation, instead of using "(painter)" or "(artist)" for the latter. Is it possible that this is why DeLarge insisted on using the suffix instead of the parentheticals for those two articles? Did he give indication for his reasons for this in the RMs? Nightscream ( talk) 18:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd just like to thank the community briefly for their common sense.
I could dispute several of the specific complaints or the way they've been misrepresented here, but that'd just drag the whole thing along unnecessarily. However, on the matter of the last point, that I "simply said [his] disambiguation was 'no good reason' without engaging in any good-faith discussion with me", this is completely untrue. I have lost count of the number of times I have quoted part of the MoS guideline WP:TITLECHANGES, which says "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." It's on my talk page more than once, bolded for emphasis, and on several article talk pages where moves have been requested. I really don't know how quoting the MoS itself can be construed as "ill faith", or not engaging in discussion (in fact I've done pretty much nothing but discuss this for the last week — my recent edit history is proof of that).
Tenebrae, the community did not "[show you] the consensus is for no '.com.'" We showed that in the case of Comics Bulletin, Comic Book Resources, and Radar Online, that no disambiguation of any kind was necessary. That's all. There was no objection by anyone, at any time, to using the TLD suffix where disambiguation was necessary as it is at Salon.com and TMZ.com. There was never any suggestion by any editor that .com should be replaced with (website), or vice versa. Both disambiguation terms are equally acceptable, which is why both are widely used at the articles within Category:websites and its sub-categories. Favouring one term over another violates WP:TITLECHANGES as far as I'm concerned, and runs roughshod over the legitimate choices previous editors have made. I've been saying this to you for more than a week now, and I don't know a simpler way to express it. -- DeLarge ( talk) 09:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Personal insults in my discussion page (portuguese translates to "Go fuck yourself") and in SL Benfica history (portuguese translates to: "Son of a bitch, who are you?")
Besides that, ongoing vandalism. Linuxftw ( talk) 22:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I regret that I'm not too familiar with this process, so I apologize in advance if I'm going about this the wrong way. User 122.60.93.162 (user page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:122.60.93.162 contributions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.60.93.162) has been writing personal insults/non-relevant things in talk pages. Apparently this user has a history of writing these types of things ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:122.60.93.162). A few recent specific examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Libertarianism&diff=483747958&oldid=483729600 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Libertarianism&diff=483603544&oldid=483572000 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Libertarianism&diff=483438573&oldid=483390632 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Libertarianism&diff=483222101&oldid=483217519 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Libertarianism&diff=482978343&oldid=482974863
I think it's time to ban this IP. Byelf2007 ( talk) 25 March 2012
Following a minor disagreement about a section of the article, AnkhMorpork began to use personal attacks against Vice regent (see here or here). I tried to warn AnkhMorporkh about his violation of WP:NPA but he didn't stop as the history of the talk page of 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings shows. I then wrote a message on the talk page of AnkhMorpork but he simply deleted it ( here). As I have noticed several agressive edits by this contributor, I wondered if someone could help me here. thank you. Eleventh1 ( talk) 13:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Machine Elf 1735, with whom I have had no prior contact, responded to my newly filed RfD with an accusation of forum shopping and circumventing discussion. [1] I was startled and tried to refute the arguments calmly, first on the RfD itself and then on an article talk page where he/she had also raised complaints. He/she continued to assume that I was acting in bad faith and escalated the dispute so that it is now at the level of personal attacks, openly accusing me of "subterfuge", stating that it is "perfectly obvious" I have lied, selectively nominated redirects and acted in otherwise manipulative ways. [2]
Machine Elf appears to have jumped to conclusions on several occasions, not only about my supposedly consensus-dodging intentions but also attempting to read between the lines of Nø's words to find opposition to me that I don't think was there. [3] [4] (Second diff includes adding an 'euphemism' tag around some of Nø's words.) Nø has declined to comment publically on the RfD or Machine Elf's comments, but our conversation before the RfD was cooperative and very useful, and I had no need to circumvent or dodge it. Machine Elf's tone throughout has been confrontational and hostile, and when another editor mentioned this while addressing me, has ironically responded by suggesting that they comment on content. [5]
Answers to questions:
Thank you for your time. ~ Kimelea (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. (See also: Incivility.)
— WP:No personal attacks, Policy shortcut: WP:AVOIDYOU
Is it a WP:CIVIL act to describe other editors as "unqualified", then to illustrate the point by posting a picture of a baboon to an article talk page? [10] Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: the user previously made personal attacks against me on the account of my religion (
Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive117#User:AnkhMorpork.2C_personal_attacks_against_User:Vice_regent)
I'm wondering if the following remarks made by AnkhMorpork are impolite and uncivil. After identifying me as the sole problematic edit, the user says the following, though not directly with my name:
While insults of "obtuse" and "dim-witted" may be directly generally towards the wikipedia community, the comment "such perversity and acute pigheadness" seems to be directly a reference to my edits. I can't help but feel a bit disappointed by such remarks. I had though that after the previous incident, the user would carefully choose his words when describing other users. VR talk 16:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I contributed an article Anglewing butterflies, which was recently deleted. Why? Also my suggested changes made to Nymphalis were deleted. Why Joe Belicek
Please stop this editor from harassing me. I saw some pages had been redirected to a master article, and thought I'd try my hand at helping with the effort User:Carptrash seems to have started to restore the redirects to have contents. As a result, in addition to false accusations at my talk page, User:Carptrash has denigrated me for identifying that the master article for more than 1000 monuments will have about 5 times more display lines if the photographs are included in each row of the master article's table. (There are already 2 Wikipedia galleries for the images.) I think he is trying to discourage me from continuing my attempts at editing, and appreciate your assistance in this matter. 64.134.153.184 ( talk) 18:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I am a new contributor to Wikipedia, please forgive me if I place the issue of my concern in the wrong place. I feel I need advice on how to deal with overtly aggressive, not constructive and libelous edits on the article I posted. I welcome any constructive criticism about my article and the ways to improve it, however what the new page controller posted does not help me to improve the article. Moreover, the controller seems to be unaware that he (or she) is being obviously rude and libelous. The controller first posted "biased" tag on my article stating that it was not scientific enough. I replied to the controller's post. Then one hour later (or somewhere around that time), the controller posted "deletion request" note on my article followed by the comment I cite for you below:
"I originally tagged this article with a 'bias tag'. However, upon further review, I've come to the conclusion that this article should be deleted (or, at least, drastically edited.) I find references to "visual reading" in the context of reading, but this is a general phrase that does not appear to have anything to do with the technique Hyo Sang Shin supposedly developed. The only thing I can find related to Shin + "visual reading" are links to the book he's selling. All of the research/references appear to be about general concepts of speed reading, not anything Shin developed. Finally, the claim that students are reading 1,000 wpm w/ good reading comprehension is almost certainly utter pseudoscience garbage. (Either that, or this guy deserves a noble prize, because this claim requires near super-human abilities.) JoelWhy (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)"
As I said, the controller's "further review" took less than an hour. He (or she) has little knowledge about the method the article describes. He (or she) calls a work "pseudoscience garbage" without even reading the book about the method or consulting any other serious literature on speed reading.
I kindly request your advice on this issue. The controller's comments on my article are clearly not constructive criticism. Moreover, they are abusive and libelous. Please help me in addressing this issue and removing his (or her) libelous and unsubstantiated comments.
Kind regards, Azbukva
"Escalate" the issue to whomever you like. The scientific evidence has found that speed reading classes cannot improve a person's reading abilities to 1,000+ WPM without massive sacrifices in comprehension. With the exception of a tiny number of people who have had "abnormal" brains, giving them a fairly amazing ability to read at tremendous speeds (e.g. Kim Peek), studies have demonstrated that the human brain appears to be incapable of reading at 1,000+ wpm without tremendous sacrifices to reading comprehension. This page is reselling repackaged pseudoscience and it should be deleted for that reason alone. But, to make it easier for the other editors, the most straightforward reason for deleting this page is that this concept is found in a singe book which lacks notability.
On another user's talk page, there was a discussion about uncivil behavior. I made some comments, and the user made a couple accusations regarding me which I felt were unfounded. This user has then deleted my attempt to answer the accusation (telling me all future comments by me will be deleted). Then I tried to delete all my comments so that my views wouldn't be misrepresented. This was also reverted.
What is left now is the beginning of the conversation with the editor's accusations ending the discussion.
I know that wide discretion is given to people on their talk pages, but is there anything I can do to keep from another editor from selectively displaying comments I made? I would rather all my comments be shown, or none of them. LedRush ( talk) 14:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
You open a topic without identifying who the user is or giving any diffs as to the comments. Do you expect others to search your contributions to figure out what you are complaining about? I started that process, and my assumption is you are upset about User:Fae and his not welcoming your comments on his Talk page, but I don't intend to go any further than that without more elaboration from you as to the problem. As you yourself acknowledge, generally every user has a right to control their own Talk page. (What does "Buehler" mean?)-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Schicagos ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I've been having some trouble with a new editor today, including blatant personal attacks against me and another editor ( here and here), and the addition of material sourced to his own personal wikipedia user page ( here). I've warned him repeatedly for unsourced additions, personal attacks and edit warring, but his behavior doesn't seem to be improving. I think his personal attacks rise to the level of a temp block, but if someone wants to jump in and talk to him first, that might be helpful too. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
21 Jump Street film. Rusted AutoParts and others (may be the same person) is all of a sudden changing “is a loose sequel” to “based on”. Both are true but they are saying that it is not a sequel of sorts, is just not true. If they would like to put based on it should not remove “is a loose sequel to” or “is a sequel to” to do so. It is an important fact about the movie that should not be removed. Keep in mind that the fact that the film acts as a sequel to the tv show may even mean there would be no need to put based on. It would be self explanatory.(I am not saying don't put it in) I would be all for it, if it did not remove important information. Rusted AutoParts Used the F word on me then issued me a warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenfrogreid ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 9 April 2012
This seems to be a content dispute rather than a matter for WQA. I note there is no discussion at the article's Talk page regarding this matter. May I ask why not? Doniago ( talk) 16:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
[2] The story was they were revising the undercover program that was used in the 80s. During the TV show. This is a continuation to the tv show. The film is acts as a loose sequel to the tv show. How may we solve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.204.194 ( talk) 20:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Within the context of a content dispute at the aforementioned template, there appears to have been numerous breaches of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL by a number of editors, both at the template talk page and at the various other places to where the dispute has spread. The first violation came with the first eruption of the dispute in December 2010 and continued through that phase. Since the dispute was revived in February 2012, other editors became involved and more breaches occurred.
A quick browse through the discussion both at Template talk:Music of Canada#Royal anthem and Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 March 2012/Template:Music of Canada and the associated talk page edit histories (lookng at edit summaries) easily shows how long the breaches have been occurring, their frequency, and who is most consistently doing so. Some specific examples include:
These are unnecessarily contributing to the ongoing inflation of what should be an otherwise routine content dispute. Some coaching for the offending editors (including myself, if need be) a watchful pair of eyes (or more) would be appreciated, so as to reduce friction now and in future. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
No project members other than myself, who is involved in the dispute, have bothered to enter the discussion. Since official mediation has been requested, shall we close the discussion? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I considered the quote from the Common Rail talk page to be a personal attack, so I notified the editor in his talk page (as recommended by WP:NPA). His impolite response continued the personal attack, so I request that this be investigated please. 1292simon ( talk) 23:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The user TheDarkLordSeth has made claims of operating with an aggressive bias, misrepresentation, accusations of lying, and operating in bad faith. It all began with an error I noticed on the article space in which the same person is listed as both a 'he' and a 'she' in two separate interviews. During the discussion I let slip a well-marked personal observation on the similarity of the statements as reported by various outlets to the witnesses identity. When I admit I am wrong I elaborate why I was wrong with evidence as to which identified witness caller it was and redisplay the critical thinking in what looked like WP:OR. I also state that the credibility of the witness testimony was questioned by AC360 immediately following the interview and critical responses from the show itself, newspapers and police statements which counter the witnesses statements on the interview as being contrary to known information. While I did not mention it myself, I trying to adhere to
WP:BLPPRIMARY because the selected witness paraphrased was not neutral and omitted the controversy surrounding those claims. Since he continues to attack me and another editor named Avanu whenever something reflects better on Zimmerman. The full and lengthy discussion can found here.
[20] Fills this discussion.
[21] And another third major section which broke into further discussion about me here:
[22]
I've previously discussed the matter on his talk page and attempted to explain my feelings about his personal attacks and clarify my argument made by using the source which presents information about the contradictions and issues raised during the interview with that guest. I post diffs showing I am not biased. [23] His response. [24] Where I mention my feelings on the personal attacks. [25] His dismissal of the validity of my arguement and assertion that he doesn't care about my feelings. [26] Trying to explain why it matters and why I feel that way. [27] His dismissal again. [28] Final attempt to explain the self contradiction is important. [29] Then he deletes it here. [30] Two days of no progress on the talk page, I attempt again to clarify. [31] He claims I am making it up despite it being in the source. [32] Final attempt to point it out from me. [33]
I do not care to argue with this editor endlessly or endure attacks on every post. All I want to do is restore the peace which existed before this. I've twice tried to resolve this on his talk page, but my attempts have failed. The discussion in the talk page has failed and is not the best place for it either. Because of this continuation that is why I am requesting assistance here. Additional note: TheDarkLordSeth made a post on MBisanz's talk page about WP:FORUM, MBisanz disagreed. May I notify this on MBisanz's talk page as he is an admin who responded to TheDarkLordSeth about my post? I do not want to be accused of WP:Canvassing, but he was a party to the interaction
TheDarkSethLord has numerous warnings from admins and other users about civility on his talk page and archive 1. Could someone please offer some advice on how to proceed? I have been avoiding discussion with this user in the mean time. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 17:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
[54] clear personal attack
[55] clear personal attack
[56] removal of obvious adjective with absurd claim that "radical" is "OR" when referring to the "Radical right"
[57] He is quick to assert other editors have "insulted" him!
[58] snark on other articles
[59] further snark about yet another editor accusing him of "projection"
[60] accusing an editor of deliberately misrepresenting policy
[61] You appear to have difficulty understanding what Courser is saying, but I have explained it pretty clearly
[62] The result of your edit is to inject bias, and place the Tea Party in a more favorable light than it is normally seen. That is POV-pushing. (the edit was to actually quote the source!)
[63] Collect, do you understand the difference between someone saying "most scholars believe x, but I believe y" and saying "y is true"? Our role is to accurately represent opinions on the basis of which they are held in mainstream sources, not to shill for the Tea Party
[64] again about another editor And you seem to characterize all writers with whom you disagree as Marxist. This is circular reasoning [65] Instead of coming to this article with a pre-conceived view ("Tea Party good, liberal pointy-headed professors bad") Collect should commit to reflecting sources accurately
[66] Instead of pushing your views, you should try to ensure that articles represent published views weighted to the degree of their acceptance. You have made your views clear, but we are not here to argue our personal views but to explain how subjects are viewed in mainstream sources. I really wonder at your tenacity to continue to argue points long after clear evidence has been presented to you
[67] That is original research, the sort of argument one expects in articles from 9/11 truthers and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists
And that is not even going back a full month of the attacks and snark about multiple editors.
He also asserts that he knows a lot such as [68] the cited source is wrong
The Four Deuces has been repeatedly warned about personal attacks - including at [69] his own talk page by another editor entirely just today. Some of the other attackess as well as Paul Siebert have also now been notified. Collect ( talk) 12:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
This is an ongoing problem - I have abided by DNFTT enough at this point: Collect, it is unfortunate that you are unable to distinguish between mainstream and fringe theories and I was trying to be helpful. TFD (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC) , I am pointing out the inherent anti-Semitism in the point of view you are pushing. TFD (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC), and on and on and on. Collect ( talk) 12:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
In the next example, I removed "radically" from the lead of an article with the notation "Remove OR". [76] Collect had added the term description which does not appear in sources, hence is original research. Certainly not a personal attack. TFD ( talk) 13:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Another example of personal attacks is at The discussion about sockpuppetry can be found here. You admitted sockpuppetry but no action was taken because you had registered an account. TFD (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC) The problem is that the SPI case specifically resulted in an IP registering is not sockpuppetry. meaning TFD knowingly accused a registered editor of sockpuppetry who had been cleared of that charge - which, last I checked, is a "personal attack" Cheers. Can anyone doubt that such an accusation after the editor was cleared is an impermissible personal attack?
Collect (
talk)
13:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I see no actionable complaint here. The provided diffs show strong but not destructive behavior.
Binksternet (
talk)
14:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Since my name has been mentioned here, I would like to make some explanations. Yes, I advised (not "warned") TFD to modify his post, however, this my step was dictated by the desire to protect this good faith user from possible Collect's attack, which, as anticipated, would follow. This thread serves as an indication that that my prediction was totally correct. Collect is really a problem editor, who repeatedly misinterpret reliable sources and the viewpoints of other users (including myself). Therefore, I totally endorse the main thesis of TFD posts addressed to Collect, although I strongly disagree with their form. TFD should have to be more polite.
In connection to that, I hope that, since the problem is not with TFD, but with Collect, our community will advise Collect to seriously think about his editorial pattern.--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
14:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Collect is canvassing for this discussion: User:R-41, [81] Paul Siebert, [82] Lionelt, [83] and ERIDU-DREAMING [84] Collect is in violation of the behavioral guideline which says, "Inappropriate notification is generally considered to be disruptive.... Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions.... Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking." TFD ( talk) 17:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Here by the way is a selection of comments that Collect made recently at Talk:Radical right before I complained about his general behavior rather than addressing specific edits.
I have tried to work cooperatively with Collect, but he has a confrontational approach and objects to including opinions in articles with which he disagrees. TFD ( talk) 22:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
"Two bald men fighting over a comb". One of them would do well to read and reflect on WP:boomerang and also the Behavior that is unacceptable/Do not misrepresent other people section of WP:TPNO. Writegeist ( talk) 08:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Darkstar1st (
talk •
contribs) 12:14, 15 April 2012
Look out, TFD, they've decided that you're the next target! Yeah, this should be closed as unuseful.
Hipocrite (
talk)
13:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is recent example of Collect misstating facts when he discusses article text on a discussion page. The text follows favorable opinions expressed by Arthur C. Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute. I present the article text and the discussion thread set up by Collect.
TFD ( talk) 21:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is another recent example of Collect's non-collegial writing:
TFD ( talk) 23:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of TFD's editing, and I think he is highly prone to inserting his POV in articles. But, personal attacks? I just don't buy it. Most of the points indicated above are hardly worthy of being called "attacks" or "bullying". Perhaps a bit snarky, but hardly worthy of him being subject to any type of discipline. JoelWhy ( talk) 16:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Involved editors:
I would like to report Koertefa. His discussion is full of despise against editors with different oppinions. This is his last ad hominem personal attack: "This is getting weird. Please, do not waste our time if you do not know what you are talking about." [103]
Very annoying is his wikistalking, he always react shortly after my edits and change my content without propper discussion: [104], [105], [106], [107], [108],...
He is often involved in edit wars, espetialy in national disputes which belongs under WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions rule: [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115]
Btw I was for similar behaviour topic-baned by Fut.Perf.. -- Samofi ( talk) 06:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
"Please, come back after you have read some history books and have a strong argument backed up by sources. Otherwise, I do not see the point of this discussion." this also looks like personal attack. -- Samofi ( talk) 07:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Before moving forward in an attempt to resolve the problem, I believe Koertefa should respond here. I have not reviewed the matter in full, but I see you did notify Koertefa. Giving that Samofi is under a topic-ban, this could be complicated. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 18:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
These two recent exchanges with SamBlob ( talk · contribs) are unacceptable. Describing other editors as "Dogging" and their contributions as "a nasty mess" is not acceptable behaviour per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.
I placed a warning here User_talk:Eddaido#Attacks_on_other_editors_in_edit_summaries after the Bentley stuff, but I see that he's back to it again today on the Lady Docker page.
I've past history with this editor myself, with similar attacks and edit warring, but nothing was resolved Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive179#User:Eddaido_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_declined.29 It seems a typical behaviour for this editor that they will see an issue or warning like this, but their response to it will be a non-sequitur like "Fascinating and weighty stuff", rather than any attempt to engage.
Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The user ElliotJoyce has, from today begun systematically going through my edits (over many months, even years) targeting them for removal. This is a clear campaign of intimidation and harassment. Often my edits are on politically and historically sensitive pages, about slavery, wars, rebellions etc. ElliotJoyce has accused me of being 'anti-European' when, for example, I have changed racially-charged, colonial terminology such as 'tribal' to the more neutral and accurate 'local'. I have warned this user to stop dogging me.
Ackees (
talk)
14:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Involved editors:
Involved Pages:
The thing is User:Griswaldo has been accusing me (Brendon) of being a "Veteran Duck" and also of creating a "single-purpose account" (
diff) first on my talk-page, and later in his talk-page. He wants me to disappear (
diff) from Wikipedia based on that sheer presumption that I'm simply "too knowledgeable" to be a newcomer. I told him that I don't like his approach because it was primarily predicated upon
bad-faith assumptions and to leave me alone (
diff). Yet he has dogmatically clung onto his belief. I refrained from using any impolite word against him knowingly. Yet, he was totally against my behavior for which I've submitted clarifications multiple times along with "if apologies". FYI, I gained my knowledge about WP:POLICIES by visiting Wikipedia for various reasons. Is that my fault here? Could I do more to gain his trust?
[All one has to do is just read the talk pages mentioned above, to understand what is going on]
Maybe It's my reaction/retorts that upset him. I really don't know.
He claims that I was assailing people with personal comments in other discussions about non-related topic, but in his list (he has a list of my "personal comments" on his talk page) I couldn't find many personal attacks.
He also claims that I'm "quacking like a veteran duck" (I didn't like the tone even a bit and moreover the essay that he was referring to was WP:DUCK and it contains personal opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies. That's why I am not so pleased with Griswaldo's comments).
Perhaps my fault was that I asked Belorn on his user-talk page to tell me how to report somebody for harassing me, albeit I didn't take anybody's name. It was just a precautionary measure. Because I am really not a "veteran".
[I hang around Wikipedia whenever I'm free. That's why I know some things about Policies (not much!)]
(I don't know if I tried hard enough though).
I believe vindictiveness doesn't help anyone and thus I want to gain his trust that I'm not here on Wikipedia with any bad intent.
Regards,
Brendon is
here
04:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Brendon, why is it that you've chosen not to use the large amounts of eye-catching formatting that you have been using everywhere else (to the great annoyance of other editors) here? Is it because you know it's annoying and you don't want to annoy people here when you're asking for help? Griswaldo ( talk) 10:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
See, here I need not catch anybody's eyes because my personal problems are unimportant as compared to the demands to ignore paramount Pillars of Wikipedia. What happens to me after this discussion is really immaterial (as it only serves personal interests) but what happens after that RfC is far more important (because it will probably impact on the Wikipedia community collectively). Brendon is here 10:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
And even if it were true, it won't justify a completely needless bad-faith accusation on my talk-page even after my expression of disapproval for the approach used (this is what we're discussing here).
One crime doesn't justify another. Brendon is here 11:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
"Approaching someone who is socking about their socking is not a crime."- but doing that without conclusive evidence is Petitio Principii logical fallacy. An obnoxious one, I must say. Brendon is here 11:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Let's cut to the chase. Brendon is not a newbie who started editing less than a month ago. What gives it away?
The only area Brendon edits is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images and that page is littered with more examples like the ones above, but it's also littered with Brendon's uncivil and battleground behavior. Here are some examples:
In the last example I asked Brendon to be civil to the other editor, and instead of apologizing or striking his comment he simply made excuses. More recently, and just prior to my wising up on what was going on with him he accused me of "trying to" mislead people at the RfC. When I told him that's not WP:AGF, he again did not apologize and made more evasions while referring to my "excessively captious attitude, false-reasoning and chicaneries." Because of the aggressive manner in which he was engaging me and others I actually found myself replying in kind, and deleting my own comment when I realized, quite frankly, that I was most likely being trolled.
Because of what I describe above I went to Brendon's talk page to ask him about the evidence of his Wikipedia experience and about his motives. He has evaded those questions and instead is now insinuating that I'm harassing him. Ever since it was clear that he didn't want me on his talk page the conversation has continued on mine. I want to make it clear also that I did not ask Brendon to dissappear. What I said was conditional: "If you're a community banned user then disappear completely.If you are a topic banned editor then please stop editing the topics you are banned from with a second account. If you have another legitimate account then please stick to using that one. Cheers." Now the fact that he claims I asked him to disappear logically means one of two things. 1) He's misrepresenting what I said or 2) he's actually a community banned editor. Either way it's not good. I also want to add that the reason I approached him in the first place is because this is a serious problem. Community banned and topic banned editors are constantly showing up at various community venues to distort the process. Some of them are just vandals but others have an agenda beyond simply trolling. It needs to stop. And in case anyone believes Brendon for a second ask yourself why on earth a newbie editor would show up and engage single minded in a community process only. It just doesn't happen. When it happens you can bet your bottom dollar that it's a sock puppet. Griswaldo ( talk) 10:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to waste my energy here by writing all the replies again. So, I am copy-pasting my previous explanatory reply below. Please bear with me.
Although I think excessive focus on how (i.e. style and niceties of my rhetoric) rather than What (i.e. content) I express is a tad too much, which in my opinion, is also unneeded at this point and exists with a high degree of negative presumptions, I thank you for giving a chance to clarify my stance as well as those seemingly aggressive assertions (which were anyway quoted out of context).
“Muslim-sympathizers” — What's wrong with that phrase? And didn't I annex a "no offense please" tag behind that also (which you forgot to quote)? I'm assuming that you didn't leave it out intentionally. But still, if it hurt anybody I offer them my most sincere condolences.
“Islamic mumbo-jumbo” - Yes, this might seem a bit aggressive. But again, You didn't write the whole line and to give others a sense of the context I'm going to quote the line, I wrote, "Frankly speaking, if it were not for Islamic mumbo-jumbo, there wouldn't have been any discussion regarding sober depictions of dead people." So I assume you might understand my disgust behind that line too. And also, the stringent practices of Islam don't make any sense logically, that's what I was indicating by "mumbo-jumbo". But is it a crime to express genuine views frankly? I dare say, no. Moving on!
“Over-sensitive lunatics” - This phrase in and out of itself refers to only those who are over-sensitive lunatics. If a person is not one of those “over-sensitive lunatics” it should not hurt him. I referred specially to those who are over-sensitive and also lunatic (I didn't say that pointing towards any other group or person). But you again presumed I did.
“Islamic hyper-sensitivity” - I don't want to sound like a statesman, but every religion has hyper-sensitive people. Islam is no different (has adherents who are more sensitive than what's normally accepted). You must have heard of the Danish cartoon controversy aka Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and that Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered on the streets of Amsterdam just because he made a film which "hurt the sensitivities" of some Muslims. These provide frightened non-Muslims like us with a certain amount of leeway for using phrases like “Islamic hyper-sensitivity”, or even “Over-sensitive lunatics” while pointing towards those who generally fit the description.
If it were a RfC about censorship of the Image of Jesus, I would have probably used phrases like “Christian hyper-sensitivity” (because the demand itself is extremely detrimental to the reliability of an encyclopaedia) but sadly It's not about Image of Jesus but Muhammad.
“Its penchant for gratuitous communal violence” - Wow! You almost made it sound as if I was referring to Islam. I wonder why do you forget to mention the whole line. I wrote, "Wikipedia must not
mollycoddlepander to the ever-increasing, unreasonable and incessant demands of any religion (no matter how much is its penchant for gratuitous communal violence). Thank you! :)" I wasn't referring to Islam. Hence, what's so important about these phrases that I used in my comments?And, Why did you neglect the line where I clearly wrote, "most Muslims are moderate and, with good reason, don't expect everybody else to cater to their views"? [Click here
"Offending those who come to Wikipedia is not the best path" - Is "censoring information just for the sake of not offending people" the best path for an "encyclopaedia"? I stick to my view. I tell you again, in an encyclopaedia, not sensitivity but verifiability, fidelity to the true nature of information while representation and the quality of information are what count.
If anything, anything at all, clashes with these policies (not to mention, which have been majorly responsible for the free-flow of information without killing the whole enterprise) then I think its better to reject that thing than to reject the policies altogether.
--
Brendon is
here
03:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I also see now [13:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)] that Griswaldo has claimed that I've never apologized for my bad-faith accusation that he was trying to "misguide people", so I present my exact reply and see if I've apologized or not.
"I'm not trying to misguide anyone" - Good, you shouldn't. But from your excessively captious attitude, false-reasoning and chicaneries, I found it hard to come to any other conclusion. However, I didn't mean that you're knowingly trying to misguide people. I meant you are muddying the water and thus people can be misguided because of you (stop picking on phraseology). It did not seem as serious an accusation to me (also, it had nothing to do with good or bad faith)!
Anyways, I'm sorry if it truly hurt you.
BTW, You should know that a harsh accusation of bad-faith is in itself a grave accusation.
I agree, I was brusque. But so were you, Griswaldo. I said "I'm sorry" multiple times. How many times have you apologized for you bad-faith accusations? I think you owe me an apology too. Let's end this right end. I am a peace-loving person and I don't want to continue this dispute. Don't accuse me of anything, say you're sorry and we are done. Again, I am sorry if my words truly hurt you. But I didn't mean to hurt you was just being forthright in my views. I really didn't know that you were going to shower me with all sorts of accusations ranging from me being a "liar" to being a " veteran duck". I mean, this is absurd. Brendon is here 13:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
"Brendon for a second ask yourself why on earth a newbie editor would show up and engage single minded in a community process only"
- I am interested in Islamic affairs and especially Muhammad article and by chance, I visited that
Muhammad page, that was after one week of RfC's initiation (I didn't start commenting until a week 9 days after commencement of the said RfC) and if I'm not mistaken, a message was also displayed when I was setting up my preferences or settings or something I honestly don't remember.
Brendon is
here
12:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
"Your reticence to making up a story until now was well founded because the larger the lie gets the harder it is to keep track of or to make sense of." - you should really tone yourself down a notch. There is no need to get personal. If you had complained only about my incivility I would have never come here. But calling me a " sockpuppet" and a "liar", it's going way over the top. Brendon is here 12:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
"He edited the original instead of adding a new comment, hours later, to bring up that point."- What? Extending my comment is a crime now? I told you, I didn't notice your snarky comments at first.
"Not enough time? That doesn't seem right."
- Again you invoke your derogatory personal opinions as if they meant something to me.
Tell me honestly what is it that I did to upset you so much? Are you here to avenge something? I don't believe that it's only my incivility (because I wasn't excessively rude to anyone except for that one comment to veritycheck, as far I can remember). What is it? Brendon is here 21:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I think, Griswaldo is repeatedly committing
fallacies all at the same time.
Griswaldo is not quoting me in proper context and is neglecting to post my replies in their entirety. So my request is, please do visit the talk pages (and if needed all other relevant pages which are being cited by Griswaldo) before coming to any conclusion. Brendon is here 11:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
"You'll see many more examples of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL violations."- again you presume what they will find. Brendon is here 10:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
If you have reason to believe of socking I would go and make a case for WP:SPI and let a checkuser or another clerk handle the matter from then on. The accusations made are serious and offensive, whether or not they are true. Wikiquette Assistance doesn't cover sockpuppetry and given the unusual nature of a community RfC that is plastered on everywhere it doesn't automatically equate to a sock puppet. Circumstancial evidence is no reason to go back and forth here, especially since the RfC deals with an ArbCom Case, it is an area in which sanctions can be imposed easily. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 14:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
This is a place to resolve disputes, is it not? And that is what I am trying to do. So, I believe, for my part I chose the right place.
However, this is not a right place for anyone who wants to continue dispute as opposed to resolving it, which is what perhaps Griswaldo here is trying to do.
Brendon is
here
09:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
While true. I've had this exact problem before and it is frustrating. Even if you defend yourself it doesn't deescalate the situation. Also this is a matter for WP:SPI. Any issue concerning sockpuppetry or sanctions should be handled by that group and they have the ability to resolve such a situation. If he is, he'll be dealt with accordingly. If not, then you should apologize and try to understand that this issue is very important to him as well as yourself. Even if you do not agree with him, certain responses have caused some personal suffering and we should try to resolve it. If you do not want to go to WP:SPI about it then try not to respond or let it concern you. Let the problem fade away and try not to let it concern you unless you are asked otherwise. You've made your point and this is not a formal process which action will be taken against you. The goal of WQA is to curtail such issues before they become actionable. The topic is a point of conflict for many editors, just please refrain from continuing it here. If you want I will go through the process and we can discuss the matter here. First one then the other. If both of you agree then we can settle this calmly here. Do both of you want to give this a try? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 18:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
It's like also a breach of another Wikipedia policy namely civility. Hence, I don't like your or Griswaldo's approach. This kind of approach may in turn prove to be highly detrimental to Wikipedia. Please change your way of doubting the authenticity of everyone who disagrees with you. It doesn't help. Learn to respond to friendliness of a stranger. At least don't bite the hand of friendship. That's my request. Apart from that, you're free to believe whatever you want. Just refrain from violating any Wikipedia Policy. Brendon is here 12:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know much about this, but I think it is reasonable to suppose that at least a moderate number of people wander into many Wikipedia namespace pages and lurk around; I know that there are quite a few arbitration cases that I have read in full (the case, the evidence, the workship, and the proposed decisions), even though I have never been involved in arbitration. Also, Wikipedia policy is easy to pick up since it is frequently cited everywhere; with enough lurking, it is quite easy to pick up on what kinds of policies are practiced. Also, I agree with ChrisGualtieri that if sockpuppetry is suspected, then SPI is the proper place to take such accusations. It should be noted that since Balloonman was also an opponent to Brendon111 in certain discussions, it is only natural that hard feelings come about.-- New questions? 13:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Was pondering if I was going to write anything here since ChrisGualtieri clearly and elegant described the situation above and what steps should be done next, but still I keep seeing arguments and accusations being thrown around. Every time Griswaldo and now Balloonman reiterate their accusations about Brendon, things are made worse. We are not getting closer to resolve the conflict, and rather going farther from the goal. If Brendon is innocent, the result of all those accusations will be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. If he is guilty, throwing accusations around here will only prolonging the conflict and cause more distraction from the global goal of building an encyclopedia. Throwing around accusations on all those talk and user pages will also only lead to Brendon trying to defend himself. So stop, Simply stop. You have voiced your concern and been given instructions what to do next (WP:SPI or leave it to fade away). Nothing can be gained by Wikihounding him. Belorn ( talk) 22:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Hey there,
On the Dr. No page a couple of weeks ago I added in the 2012 gross for Dr. No and I used the exact same website and Math and Wikipedia format that was used on the Dr. No page, and the FWTL page. But an editor didn't like my edit, and deleted it, while the other 2012 gross. I complained on the Talk page about this and how it seemed that there was some editors who were contradicting and it seemed like they didn't want my edit (and I'll say again, my edit contained the exact same Math as the other different in years money did). I reverted my edit back and told them about this and how the other edit (which was practically exactly the same except it was about the 2012 budget while mine was the 2012 gross) was kept in. Some editor said that it classed as OR as I worked out the calculations myself, but actually it didn't and then another editor said that it didn't as anyone can just click on the link to the website where we found the calculation and then just work out the math themselves as its easy to do.
Yesterday I was on the Dr. No page and saw that the 2012 budget was still in, which I deleted. But it got reverted. I then put my old edit back it, but that was taken out. I put it back in explaining why and how the other edit was there. Then a editor deletes my edit, while leaving the 2012 budget in and claims that I am vandalising the page by putting it back in and says he will report me if I do it again. It seems like he hasn't even read the talk page and says that I haven't either, which I have and there is no reason given to why the 2012 budget should be kept in but not the gross. I am fed up with these contradictions and it is starting to feel like a personal attack, and that is why I am on here reporting this.
But basically, I am fed up with these editors deleting my edit about the 2012 Dr. No gross, but keeping in another edit (the 2012 Dr. No budget), and when I delete the 2012 budget, they put it back in. I am hugely fed up and offended by this as it couldn't be more obvious of a personal attack as they basically don't like my edit. I think I have even had problems with one of them before, and that would result more in a personal attack.
I have explained everything to them, but they are not listening. Could you please help sort this out? Charlr6 ( talk) 22:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
<! In the show Supernatural the character Adam Milligan was introduced in season 4 and died in the same episode. However, in season five he was brought back from the dead. In the finale of season five he was sucked into a portal to hell. It was never stated he died again. He was alive and sucked into a portal, alive, into hell. An editor keeps adding that he is deceased to his description of Adam on the Dean Winchester page, can someone help me.>
I'm requesting assistance. I never said you were uncivil. But you won't stop adding your opinion, and I can't convince you so I'm asking for help.
I'm trying to request help. If it's the wrong place I'll find the right one. However, you won't listen so yes I am reqeusting help.
An editor who appears determined to fight simply to be contentions, even after I've gone along with his reasoning, is following me around "policing" me. I am a longtime editor with a
history of collegial behavior with colleagues.
He has also attacked me with highly personal name-calling ("puerile") and over-the-top assertions about my mental health ("paranoid accusation"; both here). If you go to his talk page, you'll see I've been absolutely nothing but polite.
On March 7, I moved Slant Magazine to SlantMagazine.com with the summary "Like Salon.com, an online-only magazine with no print component." Another editor did an RM which DeLarge summarily closed it in his own favor (SlantMagazine.com) after less than a day.
After I politely requested here that he reopen it, he did so. You'll see I showed flexibility and conceded his point that, though this is a website and not a print magazine, that the title should not be SlantMagazine.com.
So far, so good. Wikipedia works through consensus and discussion. But then DeLarge decided to scour my edit history and follow me to other pages involving website names. I still behaved in good faith: After he started an RM at Radar Online here, to remove ".com" from the title, I myself went to two other pages I had moved and, as DeLarge had done, posted RMs ( here and here). And although these are comic-book sites unrelated to general-interest magazine-type sites, he made it his mission to follow me to those two pages as well.
I still didn't say anything. He wanted to follow me around, fine. I act in good faith, and when I saw the consensus was quickly clear not to have ".com," I voluntarily withdrew my move of those two pages. ( Here and here.) I even bit my tongue over being followed, and posted a very good-sport comment on DeLarge's talk page. He and other editors showed me the consensus is for no ".com."
Here is where it gets awful. DeLarge then continued to follow me — at this point, I considered it hounding — to Salon.com and TMZ.com, where, following the consensus, I had changed to "Salon (website)" and "TMZ (website)", since they needed disambiguation.
Now, reasonable people can disagree; that's not the issue. The issue is that DeLarge simply will not let go of this. He was decided to become my personal police officer following me around in order to approve of any article-name moves I make. At the Salon and TMZ articles, where I removed ".com" just as he had, he has started RMs to put them back! *
And again, that's a side issue. The real issue is his appointing himself policeman of title edits. I understand, absolutely, when editors who have watch-paged a site may disagree with an edit I make, and who might request an RM. (No one else did so at Salon and TMZ, incidentally.) But to specifically follow me around, personally, to approve or disapprove of my edits — and then to viciously verbally attack me after I very politely — as you can see when I brought this up to him here — well, is he allowed to verbally attack other editors that way? Is he allowed to follow me around and approve or disapprove my title edits for the rest of my time on Wikipedia?
I don't believe either of those things are right, and I ask for help. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 16:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
* He says there's "no good reason" to make the change — which is only his opinion yet he treats it as irrefutable fact. He himself contested to remove ".com" at at those other pages, arguing that the name of the site is the name of the site, and should be treated as official and sacrosanct. "Website" and ".com" are synonymous — they mean exactly the same thing. So it's proper to use the version that doesn't change the name of the site. WP:TITLECHANGES allows changes if there is a good reason, and respecting the name of the site is a very good reason. [Tenebrae moved sentences to footnote to make easier to follow as per below.]
I'm inclined to agree with Bbb23 here.
First, on the topic of civility, I should disclose that I have a somewhat less liberal interpretation of WP:CIV than many others that I notice on Wikipedia; I feel that the community is often too lenient on offenders, and does little or nothing to discourage genuine violation of that policy. That said, I also believe that at times some members of the community go a bit too far in applying WP:CIV to the point where our language is essentially straightjacketed to the point of having to speak entirely in lifeless, milquetoast Orwellian euphemisms. Specifically, while I do believe that engaging in name-calling is not permitted, we should have enough freedom in language to characterize ideas we feel are objectionable. While I can understand calling an editor "puerile" or "paranoid" may be borderline (or even over the line, depending on the term being used), I do not think we should be censored from referring to ideas, positions or arguments as such. Some may feel that this is hair-splitting, but I do not. While characterization a person with such terms is a form fo ad hominem argument, characterizing ideas or arguments is not, and that's the main difference. I realize such subtleties may provide room for some bad-faith policy violators to split hairs in their attempts to game the system, but the distinction is there none the less. The entire crux of disputes, after all, is the manner in which we disagree with each others' arguments or positions, which is why we need breathing room to discuss why we disagree. I'm not saying that such disputes cannot be conducted with words like "puerile" or "paranoid", but at the same time, censoring such language makes it harder for people to articulate their problems with certain ideas, and would merely relegate us to using obscure euphemisms. In other words, instead of saying that an argument is paranoid, someone could just say, "This argument seems to be based on a delusion, and the editor's projection of a personal conflict, in which he ascribes hostility to me." This is, after all, the definition of paranoia, and if anyone objects to the word "delusion", then that can be replaced with "false or misleading idea", and so forth. Disputes would simply become longer and bogged down by doublespeak. It is best, for this reason, to falsify arguments by explaining why the argument is wrong or unsound. Why is the argument not paranoid or misleading? Or, in other words, explain why it is perfectly sound?
As for hounding, again, if the purpose for reviewing an editor's edit history is improper, than one should be able to show the impropriety by virtue of their dispute. I myself have been known to go through the edit history of editors who appeared to make bad faith edits, and on at least one or two occasions, was accused of stalking or some similar activity, but that accusation didn't hold water, because any action I took as a result of my findings was always in accordance with the site's policies and guidelines. Ask DeLarge why he started RMs to restore the ".com" suffix to the Salon and TMZ article titles. Did he specify his reasons in the RM? If so, were those reasons transparently false or inconsistent with his past editing? If so, this should've been apparent if one were to point it out. Personally, when I write out citations to stories on Comic Book Resources, Comics Bulletin and Radar Online, and many other publications, I tend not to use the suffix, because the logos of those publications seen on their website seems to indicate that the suffix is just that: a suffix, and not a part of their name proper. This is also true of Salon.com and TMZ.com, but those articles cannot simply be "Salon" and "TMZ", because of the need for disambiguation with other articles. While using parentheticals is common for disambiguation, I've noticed that article titles will sometimes use other means of disambiguation that when aspects of the topic's name provides opportunities for doing so. For example, both David Alan Mack and David W. Mack are credited simply as "David Mack" in their works, yet their articles use their middle names or middle initials for disambiguation, instead of using "(painter)" or "(artist)" for the latter. Is it possible that this is why DeLarge insisted on using the suffix instead of the parentheticals for those two articles? Did he give indication for his reasons for this in the RMs? Nightscream ( talk) 18:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd just like to thank the community briefly for their common sense.
I could dispute several of the specific complaints or the way they've been misrepresented here, but that'd just drag the whole thing along unnecessarily. However, on the matter of the last point, that I "simply said [his] disambiguation was 'no good reason' without engaging in any good-faith discussion with me", this is completely untrue. I have lost count of the number of times I have quoted part of the MoS guideline WP:TITLECHANGES, which says "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." It's on my talk page more than once, bolded for emphasis, and on several article talk pages where moves have been requested. I really don't know how quoting the MoS itself can be construed as "ill faith", or not engaging in discussion (in fact I've done pretty much nothing but discuss this for the last week — my recent edit history is proof of that).
Tenebrae, the community did not "[show you] the consensus is for no '.com.'" We showed that in the case of Comics Bulletin, Comic Book Resources, and Radar Online, that no disambiguation of any kind was necessary. That's all. There was no objection by anyone, at any time, to using the TLD suffix where disambiguation was necessary as it is at Salon.com and TMZ.com. There was never any suggestion by any editor that .com should be replaced with (website), or vice versa. Both disambiguation terms are equally acceptable, which is why both are widely used at the articles within Category:websites and its sub-categories. Favouring one term over another violates WP:TITLECHANGES as far as I'm concerned, and runs roughshod over the legitimate choices previous editors have made. I've been saying this to you for more than a week now, and I don't know a simpler way to express it. -- DeLarge ( talk) 09:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Personal insults in my discussion page (portuguese translates to "Go fuck yourself") and in SL Benfica history (portuguese translates to: "Son of a bitch, who are you?")
Besides that, ongoing vandalism. Linuxftw ( talk) 22:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I regret that I'm not too familiar with this process, so I apologize in advance if I'm going about this the wrong way. User 122.60.93.162 (user page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:122.60.93.162 contributions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.60.93.162) has been writing personal insults/non-relevant things in talk pages. Apparently this user has a history of writing these types of things ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:122.60.93.162). A few recent specific examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Libertarianism&diff=483747958&oldid=483729600 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Libertarianism&diff=483603544&oldid=483572000 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Libertarianism&diff=483438573&oldid=483390632 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Libertarianism&diff=483222101&oldid=483217519 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Libertarianism&diff=482978343&oldid=482974863
I think it's time to ban this IP. Byelf2007 ( talk) 25 March 2012
Following a minor disagreement about a section of the article, AnkhMorpork began to use personal attacks against Vice regent (see here or here). I tried to warn AnkhMorporkh about his violation of WP:NPA but he didn't stop as the history of the talk page of 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings shows. I then wrote a message on the talk page of AnkhMorpork but he simply deleted it ( here). As I have noticed several agressive edits by this contributor, I wondered if someone could help me here. thank you. Eleventh1 ( talk) 13:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Machine Elf 1735, with whom I have had no prior contact, responded to my newly filed RfD with an accusation of forum shopping and circumventing discussion. [1] I was startled and tried to refute the arguments calmly, first on the RfD itself and then on an article talk page where he/she had also raised complaints. He/she continued to assume that I was acting in bad faith and escalated the dispute so that it is now at the level of personal attacks, openly accusing me of "subterfuge", stating that it is "perfectly obvious" I have lied, selectively nominated redirects and acted in otherwise manipulative ways. [2]
Machine Elf appears to have jumped to conclusions on several occasions, not only about my supposedly consensus-dodging intentions but also attempting to read between the lines of Nø's words to find opposition to me that I don't think was there. [3] [4] (Second diff includes adding an 'euphemism' tag around some of Nø's words.) Nø has declined to comment publically on the RfD or Machine Elf's comments, but our conversation before the RfD was cooperative and very useful, and I had no need to circumvent or dodge it. Machine Elf's tone throughout has been confrontational and hostile, and when another editor mentioned this while addressing me, has ironically responded by suggesting that they comment on content. [5]
Answers to questions:
Thank you for your time. ~ Kimelea (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. (See also: Incivility.)
— WP:No personal attacks, Policy shortcut: WP:AVOIDYOU
Is it a WP:CIVIL act to describe other editors as "unqualified", then to illustrate the point by posting a picture of a baboon to an article talk page? [10] Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: the user previously made personal attacks against me on the account of my religion (
Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive117#User:AnkhMorpork.2C_personal_attacks_against_User:Vice_regent)
I'm wondering if the following remarks made by AnkhMorpork are impolite and uncivil. After identifying me as the sole problematic edit, the user says the following, though not directly with my name:
While insults of "obtuse" and "dim-witted" may be directly generally towards the wikipedia community, the comment "such perversity and acute pigheadness" seems to be directly a reference to my edits. I can't help but feel a bit disappointed by such remarks. I had though that after the previous incident, the user would carefully choose his words when describing other users. VR talk 16:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I contributed an article Anglewing butterflies, which was recently deleted. Why? Also my suggested changes made to Nymphalis were deleted. Why Joe Belicek
Please stop this editor from harassing me. I saw some pages had been redirected to a master article, and thought I'd try my hand at helping with the effort User:Carptrash seems to have started to restore the redirects to have contents. As a result, in addition to false accusations at my talk page, User:Carptrash has denigrated me for identifying that the master article for more than 1000 monuments will have about 5 times more display lines if the photographs are included in each row of the master article's table. (There are already 2 Wikipedia galleries for the images.) I think he is trying to discourage me from continuing my attempts at editing, and appreciate your assistance in this matter. 64.134.153.184 ( talk) 18:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I am a new contributor to Wikipedia, please forgive me if I place the issue of my concern in the wrong place. I feel I need advice on how to deal with overtly aggressive, not constructive and libelous edits on the article I posted. I welcome any constructive criticism about my article and the ways to improve it, however what the new page controller posted does not help me to improve the article. Moreover, the controller seems to be unaware that he (or she) is being obviously rude and libelous. The controller first posted "biased" tag on my article stating that it was not scientific enough. I replied to the controller's post. Then one hour later (or somewhere around that time), the controller posted "deletion request" note on my article followed by the comment I cite for you below:
"I originally tagged this article with a 'bias tag'. However, upon further review, I've come to the conclusion that this article should be deleted (or, at least, drastically edited.) I find references to "visual reading" in the context of reading, but this is a general phrase that does not appear to have anything to do with the technique Hyo Sang Shin supposedly developed. The only thing I can find related to Shin + "visual reading" are links to the book he's selling. All of the research/references appear to be about general concepts of speed reading, not anything Shin developed. Finally, the claim that students are reading 1,000 wpm w/ good reading comprehension is almost certainly utter pseudoscience garbage. (Either that, or this guy deserves a noble prize, because this claim requires near super-human abilities.) JoelWhy (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)"
As I said, the controller's "further review" took less than an hour. He (or she) has little knowledge about the method the article describes. He (or she) calls a work "pseudoscience garbage" without even reading the book about the method or consulting any other serious literature on speed reading.
I kindly request your advice on this issue. The controller's comments on my article are clearly not constructive criticism. Moreover, they are abusive and libelous. Please help me in addressing this issue and removing his (or her) libelous and unsubstantiated comments.
Kind regards, Azbukva
"Escalate" the issue to whomever you like. The scientific evidence has found that speed reading classes cannot improve a person's reading abilities to 1,000+ WPM without massive sacrifices in comprehension. With the exception of a tiny number of people who have had "abnormal" brains, giving them a fairly amazing ability to read at tremendous speeds (e.g. Kim Peek), studies have demonstrated that the human brain appears to be incapable of reading at 1,000+ wpm without tremendous sacrifices to reading comprehension. This page is reselling repackaged pseudoscience and it should be deleted for that reason alone. But, to make it easier for the other editors, the most straightforward reason for deleting this page is that this concept is found in a singe book which lacks notability.
On another user's talk page, there was a discussion about uncivil behavior. I made some comments, and the user made a couple accusations regarding me which I felt were unfounded. This user has then deleted my attempt to answer the accusation (telling me all future comments by me will be deleted). Then I tried to delete all my comments so that my views wouldn't be misrepresented. This was also reverted.
What is left now is the beginning of the conversation with the editor's accusations ending the discussion.
I know that wide discretion is given to people on their talk pages, but is there anything I can do to keep from another editor from selectively displaying comments I made? I would rather all my comments be shown, or none of them. LedRush ( talk) 14:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
You open a topic without identifying who the user is or giving any diffs as to the comments. Do you expect others to search your contributions to figure out what you are complaining about? I started that process, and my assumption is you are upset about User:Fae and his not welcoming your comments on his Talk page, but I don't intend to go any further than that without more elaboration from you as to the problem. As you yourself acknowledge, generally every user has a right to control their own Talk page. (What does "Buehler" mean?)-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Schicagos ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I've been having some trouble with a new editor today, including blatant personal attacks against me and another editor ( here and here), and the addition of material sourced to his own personal wikipedia user page ( here). I've warned him repeatedly for unsourced additions, personal attacks and edit warring, but his behavior doesn't seem to be improving. I think his personal attacks rise to the level of a temp block, but if someone wants to jump in and talk to him first, that might be helpful too. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
21 Jump Street film. Rusted AutoParts and others (may be the same person) is all of a sudden changing “is a loose sequel” to “based on”. Both are true but they are saying that it is not a sequel of sorts, is just not true. If they would like to put based on it should not remove “is a loose sequel to” or “is a sequel to” to do so. It is an important fact about the movie that should not be removed. Keep in mind that the fact that the film acts as a sequel to the tv show may even mean there would be no need to put based on. It would be self explanatory.(I am not saying don't put it in) I would be all for it, if it did not remove important information. Rusted AutoParts Used the F word on me then issued me a warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenfrogreid ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 9 April 2012
This seems to be a content dispute rather than a matter for WQA. I note there is no discussion at the article's Talk page regarding this matter. May I ask why not? Doniago ( talk) 16:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
[2] The story was they were revising the undercover program that was used in the 80s. During the TV show. This is a continuation to the tv show. The film is acts as a loose sequel to the tv show. How may we solve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.204.194 ( talk) 20:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Within the context of a content dispute at the aforementioned template, there appears to have been numerous breaches of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL by a number of editors, both at the template talk page and at the various other places to where the dispute has spread. The first violation came with the first eruption of the dispute in December 2010 and continued through that phase. Since the dispute was revived in February 2012, other editors became involved and more breaches occurred.
A quick browse through the discussion both at Template talk:Music of Canada#Royal anthem and Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 March 2012/Template:Music of Canada and the associated talk page edit histories (lookng at edit summaries) easily shows how long the breaches have been occurring, their frequency, and who is most consistently doing so. Some specific examples include:
These are unnecessarily contributing to the ongoing inflation of what should be an otherwise routine content dispute. Some coaching for the offending editors (including myself, if need be) a watchful pair of eyes (or more) would be appreciated, so as to reduce friction now and in future. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
No project members other than myself, who is involved in the dispute, have bothered to enter the discussion. Since official mediation has been requested, shall we close the discussion? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I considered the quote from the Common Rail talk page to be a personal attack, so I notified the editor in his talk page (as recommended by WP:NPA). His impolite response continued the personal attack, so I request that this be investigated please. 1292simon ( talk) 23:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The user TheDarkLordSeth has made claims of operating with an aggressive bias, misrepresentation, accusations of lying, and operating in bad faith. It all began with an error I noticed on the article space in which the same person is listed as both a 'he' and a 'she' in two separate interviews. During the discussion I let slip a well-marked personal observation on the similarity of the statements as reported by various outlets to the witnesses identity. When I admit I am wrong I elaborate why I was wrong with evidence as to which identified witness caller it was and redisplay the critical thinking in what looked like WP:OR. I also state that the credibility of the witness testimony was questioned by AC360 immediately following the interview and critical responses from the show itself, newspapers and police statements which counter the witnesses statements on the interview as being contrary to known information. While I did not mention it myself, I trying to adhere to
WP:BLPPRIMARY because the selected witness paraphrased was not neutral and omitted the controversy surrounding those claims. Since he continues to attack me and another editor named Avanu whenever something reflects better on Zimmerman. The full and lengthy discussion can found here.
[20] Fills this discussion.
[21] And another third major section which broke into further discussion about me here:
[22]
I've previously discussed the matter on his talk page and attempted to explain my feelings about his personal attacks and clarify my argument made by using the source which presents information about the contradictions and issues raised during the interview with that guest. I post diffs showing I am not biased. [23] His response. [24] Where I mention my feelings on the personal attacks. [25] His dismissal of the validity of my arguement and assertion that he doesn't care about my feelings. [26] Trying to explain why it matters and why I feel that way. [27] His dismissal again. [28] Final attempt to explain the self contradiction is important. [29] Then he deletes it here. [30] Two days of no progress on the talk page, I attempt again to clarify. [31] He claims I am making it up despite it being in the source. [32] Final attempt to point it out from me. [33]
I do not care to argue with this editor endlessly or endure attacks on every post. All I want to do is restore the peace which existed before this. I've twice tried to resolve this on his talk page, but my attempts have failed. The discussion in the talk page has failed and is not the best place for it either. Because of this continuation that is why I am requesting assistance here. Additional note: TheDarkLordSeth made a post on MBisanz's talk page about WP:FORUM, MBisanz disagreed. May I notify this on MBisanz's talk page as he is an admin who responded to TheDarkLordSeth about my post? I do not want to be accused of WP:Canvassing, but he was a party to the interaction
TheDarkSethLord has numerous warnings from admins and other users about civility on his talk page and archive 1. Could someone please offer some advice on how to proceed? I have been avoiding discussion with this user in the mean time. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 17:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
[54] clear personal attack
[55] clear personal attack
[56] removal of obvious adjective with absurd claim that "radical" is "OR" when referring to the "Radical right"
[57] He is quick to assert other editors have "insulted" him!
[58] snark on other articles
[59] further snark about yet another editor accusing him of "projection"
[60] accusing an editor of deliberately misrepresenting policy
[61] You appear to have difficulty understanding what Courser is saying, but I have explained it pretty clearly
[62] The result of your edit is to inject bias, and place the Tea Party in a more favorable light than it is normally seen. That is POV-pushing. (the edit was to actually quote the source!)
[63] Collect, do you understand the difference between someone saying "most scholars believe x, but I believe y" and saying "y is true"? Our role is to accurately represent opinions on the basis of which they are held in mainstream sources, not to shill for the Tea Party
[64] again about another editor And you seem to characterize all writers with whom you disagree as Marxist. This is circular reasoning [65] Instead of coming to this article with a pre-conceived view ("Tea Party good, liberal pointy-headed professors bad") Collect should commit to reflecting sources accurately
[66] Instead of pushing your views, you should try to ensure that articles represent published views weighted to the degree of their acceptance. You have made your views clear, but we are not here to argue our personal views but to explain how subjects are viewed in mainstream sources. I really wonder at your tenacity to continue to argue points long after clear evidence has been presented to you
[67] That is original research, the sort of argument one expects in articles from 9/11 truthers and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists
And that is not even going back a full month of the attacks and snark about multiple editors.
He also asserts that he knows a lot such as [68] the cited source is wrong
The Four Deuces has been repeatedly warned about personal attacks - including at [69] his own talk page by another editor entirely just today. Some of the other attackess as well as Paul Siebert have also now been notified. Collect ( talk) 12:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
This is an ongoing problem - I have abided by DNFTT enough at this point: Collect, it is unfortunate that you are unable to distinguish between mainstream and fringe theories and I was trying to be helpful. TFD (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC) , I am pointing out the inherent anti-Semitism in the point of view you are pushing. TFD (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC), and on and on and on. Collect ( talk) 12:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
In the next example, I removed "radically" from the lead of an article with the notation "Remove OR". [76] Collect had added the term description which does not appear in sources, hence is original research. Certainly not a personal attack. TFD ( talk) 13:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Another example of personal attacks is at The discussion about sockpuppetry can be found here. You admitted sockpuppetry but no action was taken because you had registered an account. TFD (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC) The problem is that the SPI case specifically resulted in an IP registering is not sockpuppetry. meaning TFD knowingly accused a registered editor of sockpuppetry who had been cleared of that charge - which, last I checked, is a "personal attack" Cheers. Can anyone doubt that such an accusation after the editor was cleared is an impermissible personal attack?
Collect (
talk)
13:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I see no actionable complaint here. The provided diffs show strong but not destructive behavior.
Binksternet (
talk)
14:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Since my name has been mentioned here, I would like to make some explanations. Yes, I advised (not "warned") TFD to modify his post, however, this my step was dictated by the desire to protect this good faith user from possible Collect's attack, which, as anticipated, would follow. This thread serves as an indication that that my prediction was totally correct. Collect is really a problem editor, who repeatedly misinterpret reliable sources and the viewpoints of other users (including myself). Therefore, I totally endorse the main thesis of TFD posts addressed to Collect, although I strongly disagree with their form. TFD should have to be more polite.
In connection to that, I hope that, since the problem is not with TFD, but with Collect, our community will advise Collect to seriously think about his editorial pattern.--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
14:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Collect is canvassing for this discussion: User:R-41, [81] Paul Siebert, [82] Lionelt, [83] and ERIDU-DREAMING [84] Collect is in violation of the behavioral guideline which says, "Inappropriate notification is generally considered to be disruptive.... Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions.... Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking." TFD ( talk) 17:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Here by the way is a selection of comments that Collect made recently at Talk:Radical right before I complained about his general behavior rather than addressing specific edits.
I have tried to work cooperatively with Collect, but he has a confrontational approach and objects to including opinions in articles with which he disagrees. TFD ( talk) 22:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
"Two bald men fighting over a comb". One of them would do well to read and reflect on WP:boomerang and also the Behavior that is unacceptable/Do not misrepresent other people section of WP:TPNO. Writegeist ( talk) 08:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Darkstar1st (
talk •
contribs) 12:14, 15 April 2012
Look out, TFD, they've decided that you're the next target! Yeah, this should be closed as unuseful.
Hipocrite (
talk)
13:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is recent example of Collect misstating facts when he discusses article text on a discussion page. The text follows favorable opinions expressed by Arthur C. Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute. I present the article text and the discussion thread set up by Collect.
TFD ( talk) 21:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is another recent example of Collect's non-collegial writing:
TFD ( talk) 23:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of TFD's editing, and I think he is highly prone to inserting his POV in articles. But, personal attacks? I just don't buy it. Most of the points indicated above are hardly worthy of being called "attacks" or "bullying". Perhaps a bit snarky, but hardly worthy of him being subject to any type of discipline. JoelWhy ( talk) 16:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Involved editors:
I would like to report Koertefa. His discussion is full of despise against editors with different oppinions. This is his last ad hominem personal attack: "This is getting weird. Please, do not waste our time if you do not know what you are talking about." [103]
Very annoying is his wikistalking, he always react shortly after my edits and change my content without propper discussion: [104], [105], [106], [107], [108],...
He is often involved in edit wars, espetialy in national disputes which belongs under WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions rule: [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115]
Btw I was for similar behaviour topic-baned by Fut.Perf.. -- Samofi ( talk) 06:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
"Please, come back after you have read some history books and have a strong argument backed up by sources. Otherwise, I do not see the point of this discussion." this also looks like personal attack. -- Samofi ( talk) 07:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Before moving forward in an attempt to resolve the problem, I believe Koertefa should respond here. I have not reviewed the matter in full, but I see you did notify Koertefa. Giving that Samofi is under a topic-ban, this could be complicated. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 18:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
These two recent exchanges with SamBlob ( talk · contribs) are unacceptable. Describing other editors as "Dogging" and their contributions as "a nasty mess" is not acceptable behaviour per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.
I placed a warning here User_talk:Eddaido#Attacks_on_other_editors_in_edit_summaries after the Bentley stuff, but I see that he's back to it again today on the Lady Docker page.
I've past history with this editor myself, with similar attacks and edit warring, but nothing was resolved Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive179#User:Eddaido_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_declined.29 It seems a typical behaviour for this editor that they will see an issue or warning like this, but their response to it will be a non-sequitur like "Fascinating and weighty stuff", rather than any attempt to engage.
Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The user ElliotJoyce has, from today begun systematically going through my edits (over many months, even years) targeting them for removal. This is a clear campaign of intimidation and harassment. Often my edits are on politically and historically sensitive pages, about slavery, wars, rebellions etc. ElliotJoyce has accused me of being 'anti-European' when, for example, I have changed racially-charged, colonial terminology such as 'tribal' to the more neutral and accurate 'local'. I have warned this user to stop dogging me.
Ackees (
talk)
14:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Involved editors:
Involved Pages:
The thing is User:Griswaldo has been accusing me (Brendon) of being a "Veteran Duck" and also of creating a "single-purpose account" (
diff) first on my talk-page, and later in his talk-page. He wants me to disappear (
diff) from Wikipedia based on that sheer presumption that I'm simply "too knowledgeable" to be a newcomer. I told him that I don't like his approach because it was primarily predicated upon
bad-faith assumptions and to leave me alone (
diff). Yet he has dogmatically clung onto his belief. I refrained from using any impolite word against him knowingly. Yet, he was totally against my behavior for which I've submitted clarifications multiple times along with "if apologies". FYI, I gained my knowledge about WP:POLICIES by visiting Wikipedia for various reasons. Is that my fault here? Could I do more to gain his trust?
[All one has to do is just read the talk pages mentioned above, to understand what is going on]
Maybe It's my reaction/retorts that upset him. I really don't know.
He claims that I was assailing people with personal comments in other discussions about non-related topic, but in his list (he has a list of my "personal comments" on his talk page) I couldn't find many personal attacks.
He also claims that I'm "quacking like a veteran duck" (I didn't like the tone even a bit and moreover the essay that he was referring to was WP:DUCK and it contains personal opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies. That's why I am not so pleased with Griswaldo's comments).
Perhaps my fault was that I asked Belorn on his user-talk page to tell me how to report somebody for harassing me, albeit I didn't take anybody's name. It was just a precautionary measure. Because I am really not a "veteran".
[I hang around Wikipedia whenever I'm free. That's why I know some things about Policies (not much!)]
(I don't know if I tried hard enough though).
I believe vindictiveness doesn't help anyone and thus I want to gain his trust that I'm not here on Wikipedia with any bad intent.
Regards,
Brendon is
here
04:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Brendon, why is it that you've chosen not to use the large amounts of eye-catching formatting that you have been using everywhere else (to the great annoyance of other editors) here? Is it because you know it's annoying and you don't want to annoy people here when you're asking for help? Griswaldo ( talk) 10:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
See, here I need not catch anybody's eyes because my personal problems are unimportant as compared to the demands to ignore paramount Pillars of Wikipedia. What happens to me after this discussion is really immaterial (as it only serves personal interests) but what happens after that RfC is far more important (because it will probably impact on the Wikipedia community collectively). Brendon is here 10:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
And even if it were true, it won't justify a completely needless bad-faith accusation on my talk-page even after my expression of disapproval for the approach used (this is what we're discussing here).
One crime doesn't justify another. Brendon is here 11:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
"Approaching someone who is socking about their socking is not a crime."- but doing that without conclusive evidence is Petitio Principii logical fallacy. An obnoxious one, I must say. Brendon is here 11:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Let's cut to the chase. Brendon is not a newbie who started editing less than a month ago. What gives it away?
The only area Brendon edits is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images and that page is littered with more examples like the ones above, but it's also littered with Brendon's uncivil and battleground behavior. Here are some examples:
In the last example I asked Brendon to be civil to the other editor, and instead of apologizing or striking his comment he simply made excuses. More recently, and just prior to my wising up on what was going on with him he accused me of "trying to" mislead people at the RfC. When I told him that's not WP:AGF, he again did not apologize and made more evasions while referring to my "excessively captious attitude, false-reasoning and chicaneries." Because of the aggressive manner in which he was engaging me and others I actually found myself replying in kind, and deleting my own comment when I realized, quite frankly, that I was most likely being trolled.
Because of what I describe above I went to Brendon's talk page to ask him about the evidence of his Wikipedia experience and about his motives. He has evaded those questions and instead is now insinuating that I'm harassing him. Ever since it was clear that he didn't want me on his talk page the conversation has continued on mine. I want to make it clear also that I did not ask Brendon to dissappear. What I said was conditional: "If you're a community banned user then disappear completely.If you are a topic banned editor then please stop editing the topics you are banned from with a second account. If you have another legitimate account then please stick to using that one. Cheers." Now the fact that he claims I asked him to disappear logically means one of two things. 1) He's misrepresenting what I said or 2) he's actually a community banned editor. Either way it's not good. I also want to add that the reason I approached him in the first place is because this is a serious problem. Community banned and topic banned editors are constantly showing up at various community venues to distort the process. Some of them are just vandals but others have an agenda beyond simply trolling. It needs to stop. And in case anyone believes Brendon for a second ask yourself why on earth a newbie editor would show up and engage single minded in a community process only. It just doesn't happen. When it happens you can bet your bottom dollar that it's a sock puppet. Griswaldo ( talk) 10:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to waste my energy here by writing all the replies again. So, I am copy-pasting my previous explanatory reply below. Please bear with me.
Although I think excessive focus on how (i.e. style and niceties of my rhetoric) rather than What (i.e. content) I express is a tad too much, which in my opinion, is also unneeded at this point and exists with a high degree of negative presumptions, I thank you for giving a chance to clarify my stance as well as those seemingly aggressive assertions (which were anyway quoted out of context).
“Muslim-sympathizers” — What's wrong with that phrase? And didn't I annex a "no offense please" tag behind that also (which you forgot to quote)? I'm assuming that you didn't leave it out intentionally. But still, if it hurt anybody I offer them my most sincere condolences.
“Islamic mumbo-jumbo” - Yes, this might seem a bit aggressive. But again, You didn't write the whole line and to give others a sense of the context I'm going to quote the line, I wrote, "Frankly speaking, if it were not for Islamic mumbo-jumbo, there wouldn't have been any discussion regarding sober depictions of dead people." So I assume you might understand my disgust behind that line too. And also, the stringent practices of Islam don't make any sense logically, that's what I was indicating by "mumbo-jumbo". But is it a crime to express genuine views frankly? I dare say, no. Moving on!
“Over-sensitive lunatics” - This phrase in and out of itself refers to only those who are over-sensitive lunatics. If a person is not one of those “over-sensitive lunatics” it should not hurt him. I referred specially to those who are over-sensitive and also lunatic (I didn't say that pointing towards any other group or person). But you again presumed I did.
“Islamic hyper-sensitivity” - I don't want to sound like a statesman, but every religion has hyper-sensitive people. Islam is no different (has adherents who are more sensitive than what's normally accepted). You must have heard of the Danish cartoon controversy aka Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and that Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered on the streets of Amsterdam just because he made a film which "hurt the sensitivities" of some Muslims. These provide frightened non-Muslims like us with a certain amount of leeway for using phrases like “Islamic hyper-sensitivity”, or even “Over-sensitive lunatics” while pointing towards those who generally fit the description.
If it were a RfC about censorship of the Image of Jesus, I would have probably used phrases like “Christian hyper-sensitivity” (because the demand itself is extremely detrimental to the reliability of an encyclopaedia) but sadly It's not about Image of Jesus but Muhammad.
“Its penchant for gratuitous communal violence” - Wow! You almost made it sound as if I was referring to Islam. I wonder why do you forget to mention the whole line. I wrote, "Wikipedia must not
mollycoddlepander to the ever-increasing, unreasonable and incessant demands of any religion (no matter how much is its penchant for gratuitous communal violence). Thank you! :)" I wasn't referring to Islam. Hence, what's so important about these phrases that I used in my comments?And, Why did you neglect the line where I clearly wrote, "most Muslims are moderate and, with good reason, don't expect everybody else to cater to their views"? [Click here
"Offending those who come to Wikipedia is not the best path" - Is "censoring information just for the sake of not offending people" the best path for an "encyclopaedia"? I stick to my view. I tell you again, in an encyclopaedia, not sensitivity but verifiability, fidelity to the true nature of information while representation and the quality of information are what count.
If anything, anything at all, clashes with these policies (not to mention, which have been majorly responsible for the free-flow of information without killing the whole enterprise) then I think its better to reject that thing than to reject the policies altogether.
--
Brendon is
here
03:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I also see now [13:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)] that Griswaldo has claimed that I've never apologized for my bad-faith accusation that he was trying to "misguide people", so I present my exact reply and see if I've apologized or not.
"I'm not trying to misguide anyone" - Good, you shouldn't. But from your excessively captious attitude, false-reasoning and chicaneries, I found it hard to come to any other conclusion. However, I didn't mean that you're knowingly trying to misguide people. I meant you are muddying the water and thus people can be misguided because of you (stop picking on phraseology). It did not seem as serious an accusation to me (also, it had nothing to do with good or bad faith)!
Anyways, I'm sorry if it truly hurt you.
BTW, You should know that a harsh accusation of bad-faith is in itself a grave accusation.
I agree, I was brusque. But so were you, Griswaldo. I said "I'm sorry" multiple times. How many times have you apologized for you bad-faith accusations? I think you owe me an apology too. Let's end this right end. I am a peace-loving person and I don't want to continue this dispute. Don't accuse me of anything, say you're sorry and we are done. Again, I am sorry if my words truly hurt you. But I didn't mean to hurt you was just being forthright in my views. I really didn't know that you were going to shower me with all sorts of accusations ranging from me being a "liar" to being a " veteran duck". I mean, this is absurd. Brendon is here 13:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
"Brendon for a second ask yourself why on earth a newbie editor would show up and engage single minded in a community process only"
- I am interested in Islamic affairs and especially Muhammad article and by chance, I visited that
Muhammad page, that was after one week of RfC's initiation (I didn't start commenting until a week 9 days after commencement of the said RfC) and if I'm not mistaken, a message was also displayed when I was setting up my preferences or settings or something I honestly don't remember.
Brendon is
here
12:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
"Your reticence to making up a story until now was well founded because the larger the lie gets the harder it is to keep track of or to make sense of." - you should really tone yourself down a notch. There is no need to get personal. If you had complained only about my incivility I would have never come here. But calling me a " sockpuppet" and a "liar", it's going way over the top. Brendon is here 12:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
"He edited the original instead of adding a new comment, hours later, to bring up that point."- What? Extending my comment is a crime now? I told you, I didn't notice your snarky comments at first.
"Not enough time? That doesn't seem right."
- Again you invoke your derogatory personal opinions as if they meant something to me.
Tell me honestly what is it that I did to upset you so much? Are you here to avenge something? I don't believe that it's only my incivility (because I wasn't excessively rude to anyone except for that one comment to veritycheck, as far I can remember). What is it? Brendon is here 21:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I think, Griswaldo is repeatedly committing
fallacies all at the same time.
Griswaldo is not quoting me in proper context and is neglecting to post my replies in their entirety. So my request is, please do visit the talk pages (and if needed all other relevant pages which are being cited by Griswaldo) before coming to any conclusion. Brendon is here 11:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
"You'll see many more examples of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL violations."- again you presume what they will find. Brendon is here 10:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
If you have reason to believe of socking I would go and make a case for WP:SPI and let a checkuser or another clerk handle the matter from then on. The accusations made are serious and offensive, whether or not they are true. Wikiquette Assistance doesn't cover sockpuppetry and given the unusual nature of a community RfC that is plastered on everywhere it doesn't automatically equate to a sock puppet. Circumstancial evidence is no reason to go back and forth here, especially since the RfC deals with an ArbCom Case, it is an area in which sanctions can be imposed easily. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 14:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
This is a place to resolve disputes, is it not? And that is what I am trying to do. So, I believe, for my part I chose the right place.
However, this is not a right place for anyone who wants to continue dispute as opposed to resolving it, which is what perhaps Griswaldo here is trying to do.
Brendon is
here
09:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
While true. I've had this exact problem before and it is frustrating. Even if you defend yourself it doesn't deescalate the situation. Also this is a matter for WP:SPI. Any issue concerning sockpuppetry or sanctions should be handled by that group and they have the ability to resolve such a situation. If he is, he'll be dealt with accordingly. If not, then you should apologize and try to understand that this issue is very important to him as well as yourself. Even if you do not agree with him, certain responses have caused some personal suffering and we should try to resolve it. If you do not want to go to WP:SPI about it then try not to respond or let it concern you. Let the problem fade away and try not to let it concern you unless you are asked otherwise. You've made your point and this is not a formal process which action will be taken against you. The goal of WQA is to curtail such issues before they become actionable. The topic is a point of conflict for many editors, just please refrain from continuing it here. If you want I will go through the process and we can discuss the matter here. First one then the other. If both of you agree then we can settle this calmly here. Do both of you want to give this a try? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 18:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
It's like also a breach of another Wikipedia policy namely civility. Hence, I don't like your or Griswaldo's approach. This kind of approach may in turn prove to be highly detrimental to Wikipedia. Please change your way of doubting the authenticity of everyone who disagrees with you. It doesn't help. Learn to respond to friendliness of a stranger. At least don't bite the hand of friendship. That's my request. Apart from that, you're free to believe whatever you want. Just refrain from violating any Wikipedia Policy. Brendon is here 12:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know much about this, but I think it is reasonable to suppose that at least a moderate number of people wander into many Wikipedia namespace pages and lurk around; I know that there are quite a few arbitration cases that I have read in full (the case, the evidence, the workship, and the proposed decisions), even though I have never been involved in arbitration. Also, Wikipedia policy is easy to pick up since it is frequently cited everywhere; with enough lurking, it is quite easy to pick up on what kinds of policies are practiced. Also, I agree with ChrisGualtieri that if sockpuppetry is suspected, then SPI is the proper place to take such accusations. It should be noted that since Balloonman was also an opponent to Brendon111 in certain discussions, it is only natural that hard feelings come about.-- New questions? 13:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Was pondering if I was going to write anything here since ChrisGualtieri clearly and elegant described the situation above and what steps should be done next, but still I keep seeing arguments and accusations being thrown around. Every time Griswaldo and now Balloonman reiterate their accusations about Brendon, things are made worse. We are not getting closer to resolve the conflict, and rather going farther from the goal. If Brendon is innocent, the result of all those accusations will be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. If he is guilty, throwing accusations around here will only prolonging the conflict and cause more distraction from the global goal of building an encyclopedia. Throwing around accusations on all those talk and user pages will also only lead to Brendon trying to defend himself. So stop, Simply stop. You have voiced your concern and been given instructions what to do next (WP:SPI or leave it to fade away). Nothing can be gained by Wikihounding him. Belorn ( talk) 22:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)