The AFD [ decision] was to Merge the article, not delete it. Please look at the discussion on the talk page for the author the information was to be merged to. Dream Focus ( talk) 00:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a civility issue ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 01:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

They seem to be quite hostile toward other editors though. And when I asked before on the Merge article to see if policy was violated, she followed me there, and made [ [24]] personal attacks against me. At the Merge article's talk page, an editor told me to take the issue here. Dream Focus ( talk) 01:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I see you are still WP:FORUMSHOPing. [25] [26] -- Farix ( Talk) 01:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith. Where exactly have I brought this up before? You refused to honor a merger, someone discussing this on my talk page, so I went and asked about Merger policy on the merger policy talk page. I was told to come here instead. That isn't forum shopping. Dream Focus ( talk) 01:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The wikilawyering policy page was before this. Check the time. It was a totally different issue. Just like when I first heard sales figures don't equal nobility, I went to the talk page about that policy and discussed it there. These are not related issues. Dream Focus ( talk) 01:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The merger was done. Stop forum shopping already. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 01:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It was not a merger, as voted on by consensus. It was a delete. Every time someone tries to merge any of the information, you delete it, and become confrontational, as the talk page shows. Stop making person attacks, and focus on the issue. A delete is not a merge. Dream Focus ( talk) 02:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please direct your attentions to this post by her. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Mizuki_Kawashita&diff=next&oldid=269186780 The get over it, comment, seems rather hostile. Both editors were against merging anything. I see now, they have decided to allow a brief bit of information to be merged at least. But the issue of their incivility still remains. I want other opinions. Do these two editors seem overly hostile to others? I'm glad they finally caved in and allowed some information to be merged, originally refusing that in the discussion, but their general attitude, and aggressive nature I believe is not fitting of wikiquette. Dream Focus ( talk) 02:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll echo Wilkins, not a civility issue. The comic is not notable and doesn't need mentioned anywhere. Grsz ¹¹ _Review 02:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(ECx2) And I'm sure anyone looking at this will also look at your contribs to see your forum shopping, semi-stalking behavior, and the warnings by admins on your talk page telling you to stop harassing me and others. And, FYI, no one caved in. That stuff will be removed eventually, it is just a compromise while the discussion continues. Note that multiple people are supporting the original version. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 02:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC) No one has made any personal attacks against you, despite your numerous ones against everyone else. Telling you to stop forum shopping is not a personal attack, its a reminder. All valid info WAS merged before the AfD ever finished. The AfD just confirmed it. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 02:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Now even when she accepts the information merged there for the moment, she says it is only temporary, and will be removed eventually. Interesting. So you aren't going to follow the consensus and let it be merged, only tolerate a bit for now, and delete it later on when no one is around to notice. And stop acussing me of forum shopping, stalking, and other nonsense. How can I be stalking you, when I posted at those places first, you following me there and posting afterward? You aren't making any sense. Dream Focus ( talk) 02:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus was followed. You and the article creator just don't like how it was followed (and you only got involved following behind me). Anyone can read your talk page and see that I'm simply repeating what admins have told you. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 02:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I was already involved during the AFD discussion, and then had someone post on my talk page about it, and then got involved again. It has nothing to do with you. Consensus was not followed. Stop distorting things, and making ridiculous accusations. Dream Focus ( talk) 02:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The only incivilities here are several personal attacks by User:Kintetsubuffalo on both myself and Collectonian and your declarations that we are being dishonorable. -- Farix ( Talk) 03:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Collectionian and TheFarix. This does indeed look like some forum shopping by Dream Focus. Dream Focus is also making false accussations of personal attacks. Dream Focus, I hope that you re-read WP:NPA to get an understanding on what a personal attack is. Just because someone disagrees with you does not in any way mean that they are making personal attacks against you even if they being a little incivil, period. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As someone who just recently had an encounter with one of the editors mentioned in this heading, I have to say I sensed extreme "ownership" issues on the editor's part, and a tactic of goading other editors with overly aggressive actions and rhetoric. If another editor opposes in a similar manner, this is promptly reported as an "attack" at a discussion board. I found the whole experience disruptive, and I can only imagine how off-putting such behavior would be to a new editor, or one, such as myself, who innocently wandered into this editor's "territory". Dekkappai ( talk) 05:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your non-neutral response. You coming down here to attempt to inflame things is no better than DreamFocus jumping in your report above and trying to do the same (which got him a warning, FYI). Re-read the top of this page regarding what the purpose of this page is. It is not for you to continue piling on personal attacks just because you feel it is somehow justified because the two of you feel some need to back one another up. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 05:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this issue needs the intervention of an administrator. Dream Focus was forum shopping and making false accussations of personal attacks. If the issue gets taken to WP:AN or WP:ANI, can somebody notify me?. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• What is clear, beyond anything else, is that this is not the venue for this discussion; please try a noticeboard as suggested above. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 13:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How should I respond to this personal attack? His tactics involve ... general dishonesty, blatant lying, and general Wikilawyering , etc... He should be flat out banned from the wiki. Thunderbird2 ( talk) 17:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading through things. They do seem rather hostile. Going to quote one bit:

• Strong oppose. You cannot change Wikipedia policy by ignoring it. I don't have time now, but I will respond in more detail after about 10 days. Thunderbird2 ( talk) 16:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ten whole days to edit in peace and not be incessantly badgered over a dead issue? Thank you so  much! When you come back, please lodge all future complaints at this e-mail address. Greg L ( talk) 03:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems rather uncivilized. Dream Focus ( talk) 17:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder to notify the user you are complaining about that you filed this report. I already left a message on their talk page but in the future, please leave a note when you file a report. Thanks. The  Seeker 4  Talk 17:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Your response should be to stop forumshopping, as well as to stop your general dishonesty, quote mining, blatant lying, representation bias, and to drop the issue. Relevant links can be found in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Thunderbird2 for those who wants them. You've become a single-purpose account who spent his last YEAR crying like a baby because you didn't get your way. THAT is why you should be banned. This is a personal attack to the extent that saying User:Sarenne was disruptive. Headbomb { ^ταλκ _{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There are better ways to deal with disruptive editors, responding by throwing around accusations and hyperbole is far from ideal regardless of the behaviour of the target. Let the admins deal with the editor and try not to get dragged down with them. --neon white talk 20:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with neon white; it is desirable you try to keep your cool and stay as civil as as possible, even when dealing with problem editors. If their editing is continuing to be a problem, then it should be taken to an admin noticeboard so that the community can decide if sanctions should be imposed yet. If you get dragged in and your own behaviour starts spiralling out of control as a result of another editor's, then the net loss is for the project. In this case, it is not a personal attack, but it is not the sort of commentary that one hopes to see either. Keep your cool. ;) Ncmvocalist ( talk) 04:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• To Dream Focus: Thank you for mentioning Greg_L's behaviour. I have raised that here before and was advised by Jaysweet to await mediation. When mediation was offered, Greg_L turned it down.
• To the others: To make an accusation of dishonesty and lying without a shred of evidence is a personal attack ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence").

Thunderbird2 ( talk) 16:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• To whome it may concern: What Headbomb and Greg have written cannot be considered a personal attack because what Headbomb and Greg have written are pure plain facts about Thunderbird2's poor behaviour. All the evidence of Thunderbird2's poor behaviour can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Thunderbird2. That page contains all the evidence of Thunderbird2 repeatedly being dishonest, lying, forum shopping, using bad faith edits, and violating policies and guidelines. So since all the evidence is at that page then obviously Thunderbird2 is again misrepresenting the situation (deliberately lying, again) when he wrote "without a shred of evidence". Also Thunderbird2 again misrepresents the situation regarding mediation because mediation was rejected since it became obvious that Thunderbird2 previously forum shopped the same issue and was wasting the valuable time of the mediator, this is demonstrated in the RfC/U. Since it is now obvious Thunderbird2 has not modified his behaviour, as has been demonstrated by this latest attempt to forum shop here, then as reflected by the consensus shown in the RfC/U please ban Thunderbird2 to stop the user from continuously disrupting Wikipedia in the future. Fnag aton 23:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • How should I respond to this personal attack by Fnagaton? Thunderbird2 ( talk) 15:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It is not a "personal attack" to completely refute your false claims with the evidence and conclusions of the RfC/U regarding your bad behaviour. The fact that you have again misrepresented the situation by incorrectly trying to claim it is a personal attack goes to further demonstrate that you deliberately misrepresent (lie about) the situation and goes to further demonstrate the dishonesty of your claims. I demand at once that you retract your misrepresentation and that you comply with the demands in the RfC/U. To wit: You remove all of the personal attacks, wiki-stalking and harassment on your talk pages, you then stop misrepresenting other editors and the other points in the consensus presented in the RfC/U that stands against your behaviour. So, the question put directly to you is when are you going to correct your behaviour? Fnag aton 02:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What I'm seeing from, in no particular order, Headbomb, Thunderbird2, Greg L, and Fnagaton are accusations not adequately supported by diffs. The referenced RFC/u is to me inconclusive. The idea that another user's conduct justifies violation of WP:CIVIL is incorrect. To be blunt, I am seeing evidence of a long-standing, mudslinging edit war. After six days, there is little evidence any third party editor wants to get involved. It is my suggestion the affected parties return to the appropriate talk page and begin WP:CIVIL, good faith discussions of the content issue. Gerardw ( talk) 23:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you specifically state which diffs you think are missing I will include them. The RfC/U contains a lot of diffs of the supporting evidence of Thunderbird2's poor uncivil behaviour. For example, Thunderbird2 uses his talk page to misrepresent other editors and despite the RfC/U specifically mentioning this Thunderbird2 has not removed the uncivil harassment content. The failure to remove the harassment content demonstrates Thunderbird2 is not interested in having a civil discussion. The RfC/U is conclusive in finding that Thunderbird2 has been violating WP:DEADHORSE for example, note the RfC/U has no editor refuting the claims or evidence mentioned in the RfC/U, not even one person spoke up in defence of Thunderbird2's actions. Fnag aton 03:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Same. Headbomb { ^ταλκ _{κοντριβς} –  WP Physics} 18:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

All my statements are supported with diffs. As far as the rfc is concerned, it is no more than an escalation of Fnagaton's campaign of harassment, which includes multiple accusations of dishonesty and lying and accusing me, as usual without evidence, of operating 6 different sock-puppets here and one more here, making 7 in total. The rfc is not even worth the paper it's not written on. Thunderbird2 ( talk) 18:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The diffs cited by Thunderbird2 misrepresent the situation as I will now demonstrate below this pattern of bad behaviour is documented in the RfC/U against Thunderbird2. Thunderbird2 is being uncivil by trying to question my motives for creating the RfC/U and again the facts disprove what Thunderbird2 claims. This is because when the RfC/U was created two other editors were involved with Thunderbird2's repeated forum shopping and violations of guidelines and policies, these editors also commented on the RfC/U and certified it. Two other uninvolved editors also certified the RfC/U. These facts disprove what Thunderbird2 claims because obviously these other editors would not certify an RfC/U that was just a "campaign of harassment". Thunderbird2 has recently been told by another uninvolved editor to stop beating this dead horse [27], but as demonstrated by these latest edits Thunderbird2 continues to forum shop here by posting two frivolous "alerts" here. It is now obvious that Thunderbird2 refuses to correct the bad behaviour documented in the RfC/U, this continued disruptive editing is yet more evidence demonstrating why Thunderbird2 should be banned. Fnag aton 02:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, it was I, not Fnagaton who initiated the discussion on getting some sort of external opinion on your deadhorse-beating and repulsively dishonest behaviour. We were considering options, Fnag proposed an RfC, I wanted a ban. Then I thought that a ban request without an RfC would probably be jumping the gun, so we went with an RfC. At this point however, we've pretty much exhausted all options when it comes to dealing with your pointless wikilawyering. You lost, move on. Headbomb { ^ταλκ _{κοντριβς} –  WP Physics} 03:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because you admit to its incitement does not excuse the harassment. The only loser here, in permitting a guideline to be published without consensus, is Wikipedia itself. Thunderbird2 ( talk) 15:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Can this be closed and archived already?-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 15:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, WQA has become their Planet Cheron. Gerardw ( talk) 03:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• To all: Again Thunderbird2 demonstrates the same bad behaviour as documented inthe RfC/U. For example, Thunderbird2 has again made false claims of harassment and again made false claims about there being no consensus. Both claims have already been refuted here and in the RfC/U yet Thunderbird2 continues to violate WP:STICK and [WP:POINT]] related to the consensus and violates WP:NPA by continuing to make false claims about other editors. Each time Thunderbird2 does this it is yet more evidence that the user is repeatedly making disruptive edits and more evidence that shows the user should be banned. Fnag aton 01:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The tag "stuck" means that the dispute could not be resolved; any further issues will either need to be addressed by an admin or in the next steps in dispute resolution. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 06:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

After reverting some vandalism from this IP user on various pages, I started receiving harassing messages on my talk page. I responded, on both my talk page and the user's talk page, for the harassment to end, or I would send this issue for moderation. Today, the user blanked the entire thread on my talk page (as can be seen in the page's history), replacing it with the line "Leave me alone!" I have reverted my talk page, leaving the user's comment as well as a notice of the vandalism, and have notified the user on both talk pages that I have decided to refer this matter for outside help. -- Ericdn ( talk) 20:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It will be tough to moderate with an IP editor ... it's quite probably dynamic, and would change. I'll still see what can be done. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 10:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! 6 warnings all from you, I can see why they want you to leave them alone :-) After the first couple, you might have been better served by involving someone else, either through anti-vandalism or other admin incidents. I have added a "welcome" template that is generally used for IP users who have vandalized a page. If someone doesn't know the rules, it's important to give them the rules. I don't think much else can be done in this case, as again, it's an IP editor. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 10:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You'd be better served reporting this IP address as a vandal to WP:AIV, preferably after you've warned the editor and he still persists in vandalism. There's not a lot can be done here for anon IP addresses that may be dynamic. -- HighKing ( talk) 13:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. Yes, I gave 6 warnings, but, on the other hand, I also had to undo 6 cases of vandalism from this IP address. In the past couple of days, there have been no further incidents. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to take a semi-Wikibreak due to health reasons, but I will certainly follow your advice if the problem reappears. Many thanks again! -- Ericdn ( talk) 07:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It would appear, based on the IP editor's comment about being "cyberbullied" that they have been whipped into submission. As a I suggested on your talkpage, I recommend staying away from their talkpage. Next time, take it easy on new editors...if nobody has shown them the rules (by using a Welcome template for example) then all the templating in the world will not help. 6 warnings was a bit excessive. Conversation with newbies can go a long way. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 10:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. If nothing else, I suppose this can be considered a lesson that needed to be learned, hopefully for both of us. I'll stop biting the newcomers and work on my patience, and I hope this editor will have a better understanding of what is and isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Once again, many thanks to everyone for their efforts to help with this dispute. I'm fully satisfied with the resolution. -- Ericdn ( talk) 11:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I came here a few days ago after being accused of lying by User:Headbomb (and the claim was repeated here also by User:Fnagaton). I was asked by gerardw to take the discussion back to the talk page, where I have now been accused of harassment by Fnagaton [66] and invited to sell leprosy by User:Greg_L [67]. What should I do now? Thunderbird2 ( talk) 17:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is actionable, although I agree that they are being impolite. Probably they are frustrated and offended by the squelching noises coming from your horse. Dropping the stick might bring this to an end. SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 18:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Watch out Scheffield, the Thunderbird will unleash WP:WQA/SheffieldSteel on you for your "personal attack"! Headbomb { ^ταλκ _{κοντριβς} –  WP Physics} 18:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thunderbird, I suggest you simply walk away from the whole dispute and begin working on improving other areas of Wikipedia. Walking away is the best option as trying to continue the debate is only going to increase tempers on both sides, and you apparently have no chance of gaining consensus for your position. That said, I have no opinion about the actual proposal, and this is not the place to discuss it anyway. The fact remains that the only thing you can do now is to disengage. If you continue trying to argue about it I don't see any other possible outcome than you eventually being blocked for disruption, as your continued arguments are not changing anyone's mind. Don't take this as an attack on you or your position, this is simply how I see this playing out if you don't simply walk away from the debate. Is it really that important after all? The  Seeker 4  Talk 18:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• T-bird is using Wikilawyering and misrepresentation to portray himself as a grieving victim of incivility. He, as well as anyone else, knows I was not seriously suggesting that he go into the business of selling a contagious bacterium to rogue nations. I was employing a facetious metaphor to tell him that no one is interested in his proposals, which, by the way, amount to nothing more or less than WP:tendentious and endless haranguing on an issue that was settled long ago. Now…

  T-bird: You are without a doubt a WP:Single-purpose account ( your contributions and your user page) dedicated to a lost cause and are purely WP:disruptive to Wikipedia. If you persist at this, I can certainly abandon employing glib, dismissive humor in my dealings with you, and will be more than pleased to deal with your disruption in the manner befitting here. Greg L ( talk) 19:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thunderbird2 is again using misrepresentation against other editors and forum shopping, both actions are in violation of the RfC/U findings about Thunderbird2's behaviour. To Thunderbird2, when are you going to remove the uncivil harassment and misrepresentation content on your talk pages which is documented in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Thunderbird2? To others, how long are constructive editors like Greg, Headbomb and myself going to have to be subjected to the continued misrepresentation, harassment and disruptive forum shopping behaviour of Thunderbird2? Fnag aton 03:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thunderbird2, listen to User:Theseeker4 because "you apparently have no chance of gaining consensus for your position" and you should "walk away" because "if you continue trying to argue about it I [The Seeker4] don't see any other possible outcome than you [Thunderbird2] eventually being blocked for disruption.". Please, Thunderbird2, listen to other editors when they tell you to stop. Fnag aton 03:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of alleged provocation, these posts [68] [69] by Greg_L contain abusive taunts. They cite diseases in an attempt to make "facetious metaphor" Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 13:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• They cite diseases in an attempt to make "facetious metaphor". Oh dear! And if Wikipedia talk pages were frequented by 2nd-graders, mentioning leprosy might not be appropriate. Too many editors try to hide behind the apron strings of “civility” and come whining to WQA or start an RfC as an insincere battle tactic when they are loosing and their ideas or behavior have been criticized or mocked. The result? Some editors here trip all over themselves in an effort to write posts that are inoffensive when admins are doing “Monday morning quarterbacking.” Your criticism, Cuddlyable3, is absurd and insincere.

  I’m thinking that you are still smarting over my adding this animation to the Mandelbrot set article and you deleted it. Splendid *contribution* there; I spent hours with three separate programs to make it and keep it ultra-compact for fast load times ,and your *contribution* is to hit the “undo” link. So, we editwarred over that, and you came here to WQA to whine about a post of mine, and got soundly rejected and the blame placed on you for creating the conflict in the first place. That seems to be what you do: create editing conflict with others while simultaneously hiding behind a veneer of wikiword civility. Looking at your contributions, you seem to make frequent use of WQA’s as an editwarring tactic as you were here only eight days ago. Perhaps you’ve honed this tactic and find it a useful. However, it reminds me of insurgents in Iraq who hide behind women and children in the streets while shooting at Coalition forces (oops, I did it again: I used a “war” metaphor).

  Finally, all this was back in November; get over it. I note your block log, where one admin wrote Continued Disruptive editing despite warnings and opposing consensus from editors and/or administrators. So, just pardon me all over the place for not endeavoring to be more like you in my editing behavior and interactions with others; it doesn’t impress. Greg L ( talk) 18:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Re. strikeout on 14 February 2009, see below

Greg L, your sarcasm and unique metaphors/similes towards others are truly provocative. Agreeably, they are rhetorical and not meant to be taken at all literally. However, how you say things is causing the problems here. Are you admitting above that you may have "criticized or mocked" someones "ideas or behavior"?? If yes, welcome to the land of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 20:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oh dear! Sarcasm too has been outlawed on Wikipedia? Bwilkins, it honestly seems to me that you have confused en.Wikipdia with Red China. Our talk pages are marketplaces for the exchange of ideas. Wikipedians pitch ideas on talk pages and debate them and see if there are any takers in an effort to arrive at a community consensus on editorial content and MOS and MOSNUM guidelines. I demand that you point out where it is against Wikipedia policy on civility to “criticize” bad ideas or other editors’ bad behavior. Patently absurd. And you hope to be an administrator one day?? I suggest you go and actually read policies you linked to above. But…

  On second though, you just might be right about this. Perhaps Wikipedia is a venue where even really, really bad behavior should not be criticized because everything is relative—even *truth*. So, although I don’t exactly completely wholeheartedly agree with your belief system wherein it is improper to criticize others’ tendentious and disruptive behavior here on Wikipedia (doing so might make them feel poopy about themselves), I give you an A+ for effort! Thanks. I’ll try to do much better next time.

  And, to (finally) answer your question directly, yes; I freely admit that I have criticized Thunderbird’s behavior here. (*sound of audience gasp*) Greg L ( talk) 22:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm is against community standards when used to attack others. Wikipedia is not a public US forum with free speech rights (it is privately owned by Wikipedia Foundation). It is possible to discuss content and other editors behavior while remaining civil. Gerardw ( talk) 23:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sarcasm is against community standards when used to attack others. I absolutely agree with that statement. No one should be subject to “ personal attacks”. And what does that policy actually say since there seem to be a few editors here who are oh-so anxious to link to stuff in an “ if I made it blue, it must be true” fashion?? The following paints a clear picture of the nature of conduct that is considered to be a “personal attack” on Wikipedia:

There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:
• Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.

So with regard to my post being “used to attack others”, there is no evidence that I did this because non exists. Any reasonable interpretation of what I wrote that passes anyone’s *grin test* here reveals that I was not “attacking” Thunderbird with the equivalent of “you are a one-eyed, baby-killing palestinian homosexual” or some such nonsense; everyone deserves the right to participate here on Wikipedia and not be subjected to such treatment. I didn’t even suggest T‑bird has bad breath. My message clearly was (and is) quite simple: “no one is in the least interested in your proposal.” That much is plainly obvious and I utterly reject disingenuous or misinformed attempts to paint it as anything other than that. Notwithstanding T‑bird’s protestations, he didn’t really think for a nanosecond that I was seriously suggesting that he go into the business of selling a contagious bacterium to rogue nations (which would be a career suggestion, not a personal attack, if interpreted literally).

If someone here wants to make it against Wikipedia policy to employ facetious and glib metaphors to tell another editor that no one likes his or her idea, first go revise WP:No personal attacks. I conform my behavior to the community consensus on what constitutes a personal attack; not your interpretation of it. Now…

T-bird’s professing being “attacked” is pure wikilawyering to circumvent the inconvenient truth that he is being tendentious and disruptive and wants to persist at it. Anyone who has had the misfortune of having had to deal with T-bird understands this. User:Theseeker4 hasn’t had to deal with T-bird and still managed to write an extremely insightful post that hit the nail right on the head.

Now, no one is really that thin-skinned here; they just pretend to be in order to create wikidrama or to impress others with how they can write absurdly politically correct ramblings in hopes that it somehow qualifies them to be an admin. It doesn’t. Either that, or they are spouting off here without fully understanding the basic facts. Either way, I’m quite done here. Goodbye.

P.S. I don’t care if you drink beer, Gerardw; I doubt anyone does, but I will defend your right to proudly proclaim that fact on the privately owned Wikipedia Foundation. Greg L ( talk) 01:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see what the problem is with Greg's comments. They are clearly meant to draw attention towards Thunderbird2's weak unsubstantiated point of view and not personally directed at Thunderbird2 himself, therefore they cannot be a personal attack. It would be a sad day for Wikipedia when it is against policy to use a sarcastic metaphor when drawing attention to a fallacious statement. Wikipedia is not there yet and I hope it never will be. It is disengenuous when someone screams "personal attack" each time their weak unsubstantiated point of view is highlighted by sacrasm. It is also against guidelines for that person to beat the same dead horse and continuously forum shop their weak unsubstantiated point of view all over the place. For example when someone uses a forum like WQA citing "incivility" when actually there isn't any invility and wastes everyones valuable time and effort. Fnag aton 02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Two more of Fnagaton's unfounded accusations of lying: [70] [71]. It seems he is unable or unwilling to follow WP:AGF. Thunderbird2 ( talk) 11:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The above post is another example of the user misrepresenting the situation because the diffs cited do not support the claims made by the user. In actual fact the diffs cited above are further evidence to demonstrate how the user is continuing to forum shop the same issue in multiple forums and continuing to misrepresent the situation, this bad behaviour is documented in the RfC/U Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Thunderbird2. WP:AGF does not mean an editor has to assume good faith when there is obvious and repeated overwhelming evidence of bad faith actions, this situation applies to Thunderbird2's repeated violations of guidelines and policies which are also documented in the RfC/U. The only remaining question is when is Thunderbird2 going to comply with the findings of the RfC/U? Fnag aton 02:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And my question is when can this be closed and archived?-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 15:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Not likely for a long time. Sarcasm used to undermine someone's input (and even to discourage it) is uncivil. All the rhetoric in trying to defend such actions are really allowing them to dig a big deep hole . I keep waiting for one big action that might help them fill it in and actually join the Wikipedia Community. Until then, I see a light at the bottom of that hole ... is that ... China? Nobody is blameless here, so a couple of people need to start accepting their role, and changing their ways ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 15:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Changing their ways would be Thunderbird2 agreeing to comply with the findings of the RfC/U and modifying his beahviour and removing the harassment content. Then people can move forward. Fnag aton 13:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Bwilkins I generally approve of your role on this noticeboard. To date you have not struck me as someone who accepts naively any claim of incivility. Please consider whether the complainant is not frivolously and vexatiously being disruptive by claiming to be personally injured by what is, in reality, nothing more than gruff straight talk.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 15:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

GMW ... I appreciate the comment. I agree the complainant is pushing the envelope, however, as acknowledged, one of the "offenders" has, indeed, acted sarcastically towards them in order to dissuade additional input or put them down. Admission, and contrition are two separate things. I sincerely believe that once the sarcasm stops, everyone can move on...that's all I'm looking for from my POV. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 18:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Acted sarcasticly towards the point of view, not the person.There is a world of difference. I think you need to read the RfC/U against Thunderbird2 with all the evidence and then you might see that Greg's comment about the single purpose position Thunderbird2 keeps on beating (for months and months, constantly) is actually really quite reserved. Fnag aton 13:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If you were to draw up a list of "speech acts" you don't want to see on Wikipedia, with 1 being negligible and 10 being the worst, where would you put death threats?¹ Where do you put racial slurs? Where do you put garden-variety insults ("moron", "asshole")? What level is the cut-off for when a user incurs sanctions? What's at level 1, and what's at level 10? Where does sarcasm rate on the scale? And where is sarcasm specifically prohibited by WP policies?

¹ user:EVula does get some creative ones, though, so even death threats can have redeeming features.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 12:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thunderbird2 is "frivolously and vexatiously being disruptive by claiming to be personally injured by what is, in reality, nothing more than gruff straight talk." - I completely agree with that quote. So what can be done about Thunderbird2? Fnag aton 13:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Once you accept responsibility for your role, and then cut it out, then I expect Thunderbird will stop being "vexatious". If he doesn't, then I expect to see an RFC/U that involves both of you together. It's the easy and adult way, isn't it. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 13:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"your role"? I accept all I did was: 1) Provide a stronger argument than Thunderbird2. 2) Refuse to accept Thunderbird2's lack of answers to direct questions. 3) Refuse to accept Thunderbird2's violation of guidelines and policies followed by Thunderbird2's harassment and misrepresentation when it involves other editors and myself. 4) Provided part of the evidence in the RfC/U which several other editors, involved and uninvolved, certified. Basically, I'm not going to say I'm sorry for being part of the group that helped change the guideline text for the better by developing consensus with other editors while Thunderbird2 repeatedly became disruptive to the process of consensus building. Are you trying to insinuate I'm somehow not being adult with your last remark? The fact is there is an RfC/U standing against Thunderbird2 and he needs to accept his role and modify his behaviour first of all. Fnag aton 13:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You're correct, Thunderbird has had an RFC/U to do with handling of arguments and consensus. Your role was to include admitted sarcastic comments to demean and dissuade further editing by Thunderbird. You fail to see that those comments were an issue, and attempt to both laugh them off, and you also attempt to justify them. If you fail to see that this is the what appears to be the final issue in the resolution of this WQA, then I'm not sure how much clearer this can be made. The two are separate - whether you believe someone to be an SPA or a "pain in the ass", does not give you the permission to act untowards in their direction. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 14:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That was not my role at all and I don't think your summary is even slightly accurate because you are trying to call into question my motives by incorrectly asserting what you think I meant. Since you do not know my mind then you are incorrect to keep on trying to claim you know my mind better, especially when I have already stated the accurate interpretation. i.e. Any comments posted are there to draw attention to a fallacious point of view, not to demean or attack anyone personally. Also your summary misrepresents the situation because nowhere did I "admit" that any comments were "demean and dissuade", if you have any link supporting that claim then please post it, otherwise retract your unsupported assertion. Indeed I see Greg's comments as meaning to try to get Thunderbird2 to stop beating the same dead horse and to stop Thunderbird2 from violating guidelines and policies. I do agree with Goodmorningworld that the comments are gruff straight talk. I note you have not answered the question put directly to you about your "adult" related comment. Why is that? Please answer the question made above. However, applying your own (incorrect) strict interpretation regarding sarcasm back onto your own words (to demonstrate how fallacious your point is): I take your lack of answer to mean that your comment is intended to insinuate something against me personally by making a sarcastic comment intended to demean me and inhibit further editing. This means, of course following your own strict interpretation, you don't appear to follow the same "high standards" you expect for others. Now then, I see two future actions for you. 1) You answer the question and correct what you really meant such that you state that what you meant to write was not in any way a personally targetted comment, with a retraction of the original comment. I would then accept that correction, of course since to continue to call into question someone's motives in that situation is counter-productive and churlish. The conclusion from that is therefore that questioning the motives of someone after you've been corrected with respect to those motives is wrong. Which of course means you retract your incorrect assumptions about what you think "my role" is above where you call into question my motives. 2) You then drop this meta-debate here about sarcasm (it isn't the correct forum) and move it to the relevant policy talk page instead. Then if you really want to apply very strict no-sarcasm to the relevant policies then you'll have to persuade others that your argument has merit, which currently your argument does not. Fnag aton 14:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought your "adult" question was rhetorical due to the obvious nature of the meaning. The comment as intended was "as we are all adults" - an inclusive word meant to show collegiality and brotherhoodliness. No attacks, no incivility, merely stating what I thought to be obvious. You may be a 15 year old girl, I don't know; however in that case I was wrong to assume, but it would not make any of us less equal than others on Wikipedia. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 15:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I accept your apology and take it to mean that you have now retracted your unsupported claims made above. Fnag aton 23:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I invite anyone with the time and patience to read this discussion and this one and ask themselves whether either can form the basis of a legitimate consensus. While you are reading, please also consider whether there is any evidence there (or anywhere else) for the alleged provocation of which I am accused. Thunderbird2 ( talk) 19:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thunderbird2 this is not the place to forum shop the same issue that you have been forum shopping for the past months. In the RfC/U there is the evidence and it was concluded that you have forum shopped the same issue and that the link you have posted has already been refuted by much stronger arguments presented in the full archive (note not the cherry picked diffs you made above) of the discussions Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive/Complete rewrite of Units of Measurements (June 2008). You have already been told by multiple editors to stop forum shopping otherwise it will lead to your block. As can be seen in the full archive link I've just posted and in the RfC/U you need to correct your bad behaviour with respect to the harassment, misrepresentation and forum shopping. When are you going to comply with the RfC/U? Fnag aton 23:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had enough of this one. It's obvious by Fnagaton's "holier than thou" attitude that they will never admit to having been part of this issue. Thunderbird's recent addition to the WQA did nothing but harm his "case". Based on your actions, the two of you are not meant for a community. There's not much more I can do than to recommend RFC/U's against the both of you for your actions, as at this point they're not blockable. Good luck to you both. If someone else wants to take up the mantle with this one, please go ahead, but to me, neither of these two actually want to become good community editors of Wikipedia. I'm out. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 00:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I note that you have again made an unsubstantiated personal attack by trying to question my motives. The comment about "holier than thou" is nothing but a personally directed attack intended to demean me and therefore tries to inhibit me making further edits. However I don't run away from people who try to misrepresent me, instead I challenge their statements and in so doing expose the weak unsubstantiated points of view to the bright light of day. The "they will never admit to having been part of this issue" misrepresents the issue because obviously I have acknowledged my part to the extent that is detailed in my "13:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)" comment above, obviously there is nothing for me to "admit" as you put it. It is now up to Thunderbird2 to now ackowledge the RfC/U and to comply with it. This is against the backdrop where in another comment [72] you wrote "Maybe I'm off base expecting people to treat others fairly", well I don't see much evidence of you treating me fairly with your attempts to misrepresent me and personally attack me. I on the other hand have treated Thunderbird2 fairly because I followed the guidelines and created the RfC/U giving everyone an equal oppertunity to comment. The conclusion of the RfC/U certified by several involved and uninvolved editors is that Thunderbird2 needs to correct his behaviour. I think you need to acknowledge your part in this and accept that your point of view about sarcasm (when it is used to expose a weak unsubstantiated point of view) is not supported by the current policies and guidelines. The fact that I agree with earlier comments made by Goodmorningworld (the one I quoted) and disagree with your point of view (regarding sarcasm) does not deserve an RfC/U and does not deserve the personal attacks from you directed to me. I think you've made some comments while angry and when you cool off you can consider retracting them. Fnag aton 00:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Bwilkins is correct, the seemingly never ending saga is not adult. WP:CIVIL says no taunting, and Wikipedia says Sarcasm is intended to taunt. So there. But Wiki-Lawyering is not the point. And an inconclusive RFC/U isn't a magic talisman to excuse one's own substandard behavior. You're not getting any support from third party editors, so WQA is probably not going to be helpful to you. Gerardw ( talk) 02:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Bwilkins is not correct because using a personal attack is not a valid argument. Therefore your claim is also incorrect, firstly about the use of "sarcasm" for the above mentioned reasons and also because you are incorrect about "not getting any support from third party editors" since there are the comments: From Theseeker4 (about Thunderbird2 beating a dead horse), Goodmorningworld's comment about Thundebird2 being "frivolously and vexatiously being disruptive" and the comments actually being "nothing more than gruff straight talk", then of course there are the uninvolved editors who certified the RfC/U. Thus the RfC/U is not inconclusive and there is plenty of support here and in the RfC/U. Not to mention the current sub talk page where once again the consensus is demonstrated that Thunderbird2 should drop the stick. Fnag aton 03:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've warned User:Greg L about civility and left a warning for User:Thunderbird2 about tendentious editing and forum shopping. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Something tells me I didn't get through to him. Gwen Gale ( talk) 16:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)\

A bit frustratin' ain't it? ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 16:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Suggestions.3F_.28if_you_have_a_few_moments.29. Gwen Gale ( talk) 17:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• I can see that Gwen was trying to be helpful. Now to her point: I’ve struck my original post here (scroll up), which T-bird found uncivil and offensive, and replaced it with something that properly speaks to his disruption. Greg L ( talk) 16:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Libellous claim

Greg_L has chosen to make claims above about me though I am uninvolved in his dispute. I commend editors here who see that as irrelevant. Greg_L's claim that I deleted his animation is untrue. (In fact I edited [73] 4 words of text he wrote. That edit has not been contested, not even by Greg_L.) A libellous falsehood goes beyond incivility and is not tolerable. Greg_L is aware that WP:Civility states “[incivility includes] Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors.” I take the direct action of STRIKING (though not deleting) Greg_L's falsehood above. I do this on my own responsibility and refer to the record[ [74]].

I see no reason to respond to Greg_L's inspection of a block log from 2007.

• Cuddlyable3, Yes, without even inspecting the record, I recall that you are correct ; all you did was strenuously object to the animation; you did not delete it. Please accept my sincere apologies. Seriously.

  Where we got crosswise was your being uncivil to me here on Talk:Mandelbrot set and me getting a little cross with you for it. That precipitated what I would call, a wikilawyering action on your part where you came to this very venue to file a WQA about my behavior. That resulted in this correction, where Bwilkins (“BMW”) wrote as follows:

Wow, you egg him on, then seem surprised that he [Greg L] got a little upset? He hasn't even been uncivil towards anyone in particular ... there's no violation of WP:NPA that I can see - in fact, your previous post to the diff you provided was rather provocative, and more along the lines of WP:NPA. He responded in a snarky manner to your snarkiness. Perhaps you need to take a few steps back and see cause/effect.

I was perfectly willing to forget all that. Actually, I had forgotten it. None of this would have even come up if you hadn’t weighed in here again to get in some sour-grapes digs against me. In rebuttal, I pointed out your cheap-stunt WQA wikylaywering stunt against me here in November and incorrectly recalled a detail of your behavior. I’m very sorry about that. But I really wish you would WP:Assume good faith and not presume that I intentionally lied when recalling events that happened in November. I don’t make it a habit of lying in real life. And I certainly don’t make it a habit to lie about another editor doing something they didn’t on Wikipedia, where there is a clear record to prove exactly what did and did not happen; that would be more than stupid of me.

Again, for the record, I will be first in line to proclaim that you did not delete the animation. I can not but notice that the last block on your block log has this comment by the admin: “Attempting to harass other users: Fresh off his block but no change in behavior”. Regrettably, I’m beginning to see a pattern with you. You seem to carry grudges. Note BMW’s post comment with regard to your filing a WQA. And here you are again proclaiming an endless list of grievances against me over how you have suffered at my hand. And it all started because I spent hours making a nice, compact animation to add to Mandelbrot set and you objected to that contribution [75]. Quite interesting. I really wish you would leave me alone now. Please??

I note that you have now twice struck the text in the above paragraph. [76] [77] Please note that this does tend to highlight a rather tendentious aspect of you. I’ve long held to the view that the proper response to bad speech is ‘better’ speech. Towards this end, you posted below that you did not object to my contribution of the animation. Very good. But then you felt at liberty to strike text in my post. Twice. Rather than engage in such childish antics as reverting you again (which would be no-doubt futile), I will allow what you did. Please, now, for God’s sake, leave me alone. Greg L ( talk) 23:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Imagine my surprise, when I see this ‘let’s let bygones be bygones & work together in peace’-post from you on my talk page, where you wrote (in total)

Please satisfy yourself by inspecting the record that I have never deleted any animation you have submitted. If that is understood, I wish no barrier to our civil collaboration in future.

…and then I come here and see this. You will rarely see a two-sided Greg L. Greg L ( talk) 00:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This latest dispute

Greg L continues to post at voluble length his taunts, gratuitous references to diseases, his pet phrases such as "excuse me all over the place", continual assumption that his opinions represent "we" not "I" and presumption that Wikipedia is the place for his efforts at "dismissive humor" and "facetious metaphor". [78]. Examples of Greg_L's abusive comments include: "it would also make it look like you were more of a grownup if you didn’t come here to whine about how other editors failed to leave an after-dinner mint on your pillow.." later exacerbated [79]with an ilustration as "it would also make it look like you were more of a grownup if you didn’t come here to whine." and "..reminds me of insurgents in Iraq who hide behind women and children in the streets while shooting..". This behaviour follows the WQA [80] (which follows a previous WQA [81]) that I raised about Greg_L's incivility, which one hoped had put an end to Greg_L's ad hominem name calling such as balled[sic] faced, Mayor of the M-set and censor. I do not see that warnings to Greg_L have achieved the necessary improvement in his behaviour. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 12:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal and comment in regards to Cuddlyable3's post at Feb 14, 12:24 UTC

I wouldn't be against a 24 hour block for an adamant refusal to see that he did anything wrong. If he isn't willing to abide by our policies, then that's fine, he can go edit somewhere else where his behavior won't poison the editing atmosphere, somewhere other than wikipedia. It's obvious from the continued comments from admins and other users that his 'metaphors' are uncivil. He has been told this multiple times, but he has shown that he either doesn't care, or he is too self-righteous to see the truth. Under wikipedia policy, his 'metaphors', constitute as uncivil comments, and from the above post, it is obvious he isn't going to stop any time soon. In order to prevent further such comments from happening, I would say, at least, a 24 hour block is order. Maybe that will help him see that this behavior is unacceptable.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 08:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Keeping in mind blocks are meant to be preventative and never punitive, it seems to me Greg L has now acknowledged and apologized in good faith for a string of misunderstandings. I guess many editors would likely agree these misunderstandings were stirred up by his lack of civility (which I thought all along Greg L didn't see as a lack): Now that he knows there have been civility worries and he has had to deal with the kerfluffles and wasted time which have stemmed from them, let's see what he takes from this, hopefully tamping down a bit on how he says what he has to say. Gwen Gale ( talk) 08:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I accept Greg_L's apology. His continuing comments to me seem to be a distraction from this specific WQA that I as an uninvolved part shall not comment on beyond this stipulation:

I have neither deleted nor objected to Greg_L's Mandelbrot animation. On the contrary [82], [83] and myself have expressed [84] our consensus that it is nice compact animation, a valuable addition to the article, Let's keep it (my words bolded); Greg_L was also reassured that Nobody has "objected to the very existence of the animation". Enough said. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 13:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Block: Fnagaton

Oppose Fnagaton reacted during a dispute with Thunderbird2 in a way that was unhelpful but not egregious. That is not actionable. He has taken WP policies, and I believe this WQA, to heart. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 12:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Block: Greg_L

One is reluctant to apply sanction to one of our hardest working contributors. It is fine when Greg_L apologises when confronted with a mistaken allegation. It is not fine that he made such an allegation without bothering to check the record that he inconveniently forgot. It is not fine to raise a content dispute, whether or not it exists as he believed, as an irrelevant distraction here. This WQA and previous WQAs all concern Greg_L's behaviour. Greg_L's stance in the references is unremittingly combative. The project in which all of us are active is to create a new encyclopedia, not to exercise smear tactics by means of vituperative sarcasm. It is not okay to denigrate other editors as whining babies or disease spreaders. It was not okay to link me to terrorist shooting. The list of Greg_L's vitriolic metaphors could go on but the community cannot let that happen. It must stop now. The principle WP:POINT is serious and relevant here. It does not assess whether a POV is correct or not. It puts focus on when disruption is caused that threatens the collaborative environment that we need to protect. That disruption can be measured by the burden of one editor provoking a string (3) of WQAs that must stop here. Editor's views have been expressed at length. A block has been envisaged. I agree with Gwen Gale who is mindful of the reason blocks are imposed. A 24 hour block is lenient and is no significant punishment. It serves as a signal that Greg_L's behaviour has transgressed our collective standards and that there is consensus that it must stop, if necessary by escalating blocks later.

Support 24-hour signal block Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 12:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This WQA is now closed; if you desire blocks or other binding disciplinary measures, then please try an administrator noticeboard - none will be issued here as clearly stipulated near the top of this WQA page. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 14:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've asked and then warned Victor several times to stop editing my comments at Talk:Charles_Whitman. It doesn't seem to be doing any good - in the more recent instances ( [109], [110], [111], [112], [113]), he's getting more aggressive and outright deleting them. In his defense, he disclaimed knowledge of the second recent instance: "Can you explain Aimaeiji, how your edit here [ [114]] got posted by my account? Jwy posted the link to my talk page, I know nothing about it, or how my account posted your content.-- Victor9876 ( talk) 21:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)" were his actual words.

Open the first link to the contributions by the anon I joked with. One (1) edit. The one there now. None before, and none since. Arimareiji (hereafter referred to as Ari), came in unkowingly and unannounced as a Third Party Opinion, as a request by Jwy, who never formally told the community. In fact, look at the header he used to open his discourse and you will find a strike through the term Third. Yeah, Im contentious at times with others, when they post something, or argue over a post I have made. That is vigorous debate in my terms, and I have conceded at times when a good point has been made. Ari, prefers his own interpretations and there is no amount of debate to get him to change his mind. He uses double and triple entendre's, metaphors and other forms of rhetoric to twist things his way, and then faults the other person for their reactions or refactoring. This is not good debate skills, but he uses them to his advantage. As to the present situation, there are only three parties involved, Jwy and myself who were debating a situation and Ari who has inflamed the situation. I asked a question of Jwy and Ari jumped in to answer. I told Ari I was not addressing him, and he publicly mocked me on the page. In the best form I could muster, I asked him to leave it alone. But no! Not Ari, he enjoys this type of discourse when he has contempt for someone. Frankly, I don't mind bantering with someone who wants to exchange snipings, but to elevate and keep re-iterating the same verses over and over becomes annoying. He ejoyed all the battles he created and now he wants everyone to believe that I was war editing. My, my, how ironic! He came in warning me I would be banned, aggressively, while stating he didn't want that, passively. Then he fulfills the prophecy with this little tool Wikipedia has created for hunters like Ari. I'm sure he feels powerful right now.-- Victor9876 ( talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

When I took a look at his talk page, it appears others have had the same problem. If someone could politely advise him that this is a Very Bad Idea, I would appreciate it. It seems highly unlikely that anything I say at this point will matter, if this is any indication. arimareiji ( talk) 17:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've been perusing the cited diffs, and on this one, I'm seeing exactly what arimareiji is talking about. Victor9876, I see that you've been editing here at Wiki less than a year, so I'm going to chalk this one up to inexperience. Your removal of content from Talk:Charles Whitman is following a dangerous road of incivility and WP:ATTACK. Specifically, calling someone an "idiot" in the edit descriptor while you're censoring the talk page is yes, a very bad idea. Refactoring other people's comments without their permission, name-calling, soapboxing...we don't do that here. I am STRONGLY warning you to stop the edit warring on the talk page, along with the incivility. If you fail to do so, this goes to WP:AN3 as recommendation for an immediate block, for WP:3RR and WP:EW. (Yes, 3RR also applies to talk pages as well.) I will also be posting this warning at User talk:Victor9876 for record. Edit Centric ( talk) 18:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If you noticed in the descriptor, I am one of the "idiots" I refer to.-- Victor9876 ( talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

After taking a deep breath and a drink of coffee, I'm bringing this back here to the WQA from my personal talk page, as this is where we are addressing this. Cross-post begin -

Hello, you have warned me form the perspective of one complainer. There is another side of the story, are you willing to listen?-- Victor9876 ( talk) 19:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Cross-post end.

No Victor9876, I warned you from my perspective, but only after reviewing all the pertinent diffs and edit histories of the talk page that you have been edit warring over. I warned you based upon my observations of your edit descriptor comments, revert and delete actions. Let's be perfectly clear on that point. I did not simply take arimareiji's word for it, I never do. I've made a commitment to the WQA process to always verify each WQA presented, from a neutral standpoint, before engaging. Edit Centric ( talk) 23:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed with you Centric, for a person in you position. Ari messaged me to let me know he had committed to this action, and of course, his usual displeasure with me, and I have never been in this position to formally answer a complaint. My expectations were that at the least an inquiry would be made and I would at least be guided to this board with civility, and perhaps some concern. But what I find is, you had to take a deep breath and a drink of coffee and cross-post my message here, after previously rendering your perspectives and observations. I never said you took Ari's side exclusively, even though a "warning" is a good indicator, that some form of decision has been made against one. After all, how can someone be neutral after hearing only one party, when the other party, as hard as the evidence may seem, has yet to present their position? I merely mention this as an observation, not a character analysis. I do not apolgize for the discourse that has gone on. I do regret that it happened. I am not blaming Ari exclusively, but he was the one who came in without an introduction and statement of invitation (I know WP anyone can edit, but Ari had an agenda). I could make the case that Jwy and Ari formed a cabal, as I did on the talk page. I don't believe it was a cabal now, just poor communication. Communication that has led to this. -- Victor9876 ( talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an informal board. Edit looked at the diffs and the actions taken by you and the person making the complaint and warned you based on what he saw. That is the same warning he would give you if he happened across the talk page in question and saw your edits without being directed there by this WQA. The only judgment being made by Edit Centric is about your editing the talk page comments of others, not about the underlying dispute. Please note that no one here (that I can see) is using this board to oppose your point of view. This is simply about your language (calling someone an idiot is uncivil even if you are referring to yourself at the same time) and your actions to remove and refactor other editors' comments. The talk page in question is the place for the dispute, this is an informal board which analyzes behavior, not content disputes, and attempts to offer perspective WITHOUT going into the root of the dispute, only to advise and warn other editors about their actions. I just wanted to clear up that this alert here is not about the dispute but about your language and editing others' comments, which is not allowed. The  Seeker 4  Talk 02:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize that you feel that way Victor9876, and I fully realize that I can't please everyone all the time here. I don't pretend to try to. Regardless of this, my baited breath and drink of Black Silk (why not, it's good coffee!), I still find that a fair amount of shenanigans have been going on at Talk:Charles_Whitman, and I don't need arimareiji to tell me that. (He only brought our attention to this.) I can plainly see from the edit history there that you've not only transgressed WP:3RR, you've run over it with a steam shovel. In addition and as I previously stated, you're refactoring and outright deletion of others' comments on the talk page is not cricket either. That's the reason for the warning.

There's nothing wrong with discourse. I'm all for it, and don't expect you to apologize for it. Statement of invitation? (This one raises an eyebrow, and has the odiferous emanations of WP:OWN) NO editor needs a statement of invitation to edit articles here at Wikipedia. As for the "agenda", unless you can quantify that remark, it has no weight. Everyone is welcome to edit articles here, as evinced by the ability of anonymous IP editors to come on and make contributions.

Not to be pedantic, but I know I don't own the article and even mentioned it above. The invitation wording was to show that Ari knew his reason for coming in and, if I may say, was uncivil for not at least making me aware of his purpose before accusing me of things. If this forum is about behavior, maybe Ari's and Jwy's diffs should be looked at as well. Again, to the agenda, he admits on the page he should have let it be known and struck the word Third in a leader on the page. I'm not saying he had bad intentions initially, but we're here now. And anons can be used to skew an issue.-- Victor9876 ( talk) 03:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In the end, it doesn't matter that you're disappointed with me. All that matters is that you take away from this that it is not copasetic to violate content, 3RR and civility policies and guidelines to suit your own ends, and hopefully this will not be an issue in the future. Edit Centric ( talk) 02:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No amount of excuses would have stopped a warning being given in this case so i recommend taking heed and reviewing your civility in future. --neon white talk 02:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(Was I TLDR there, neon? :-) ) Edit Centric ( talk) 03:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I do take umbrege with the excuses characterization. There is a difference between excuses and reasons, I defer to the latter! Victor9876 ( talk) 03:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) All moot point, consider yourself warned. Re-review of these diffs and edits yielded this, which is vandalisation of another user's talk page. You don't remove talk comments from another user's talk or user page, and insert your own. Added to the 3RR, civility and other content removal shenanigans, I'm this close (place index finger and thumb approximately 1 cm apart) to recommending a block, if the shenanigans continue. Edit Centric ( talk) 04:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

From the talk page, do you notice who used chutzpuh? Who's baiting? I did not copy and paste from anyone, that one still baffles me, Jwy admitted it was probably a cross edit conflict on WP's part. 3RR I admit, blanking to remove uncivil exchanges I admit. The warning not to antagonize me was from the exchange below! Moot point or not! Warning acknowledged.-- Victor9876 ( talk) 05:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to file a Request for Comment to bring in more fresh eyes, by policy you're always welcome to do so and I would wholeheartedly endorse it. As the old saying goes, "Many hands make light work." If I misunderstood and you're upset at the idea of more fresh eyes on the article, I'm afraid it's neither desirable nor possible to make any article an exclusive club. arimareiji (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing you, you're apparently afraid a lot. Let Jwy answer on his own.Victor9876 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Answer what? "Insult insult mock stop quoting policy la la la insult mock insult stop quoting rules insult chutzpah chutzpah demand demand, does this answer your concerns?" doesn't seem like much of a question. arimareiji (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've blockquoted the comments of mine that Victor pasted in from Talk:Charles Whitman, because without any formatting or even quotation marks they looked like new comment entries to this page. Which they're not. This is probably unintentional - but it could be construed as the converse of deleting an editor's comment, i.e. making it look like an editor commented "blah blah blah" on ABC page when it's really a quote from XYZ page. I'd recommend that Victor do the same for his own comment he pasted in as it has the same issue, but that's up to him. arimareiji ( talk) 06:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally, Victor - I'm well aware that my conduct at Talk:Charles Whitman has been less than exemplary (I have bitten back a few times), and I'm pretty sure Edit is too. I can't speak to the WP:WQA process specifically, but I know WP:3O involves at least scanning through the context of discussion to make sure that quotes aren't being pulled out of context. Often it involves taking a read through the entire discussion, including past ones, and a scan over the edit history of the article.

The reason Edit hasn't addressed this is not because he/she condones or encourages it. It's because as violations of Wikiquette go, editing/deleting others' comments takes precedence over criticism.

Whether it's intended that way or not, editing/deleting others' comments makes civilized discussion impossibly laborious (i.e. you have to scan through diffs every time to see who really said what). It also breaks the basis of WP discussion, which is that any editor can come in to a page and see what's been going on, and trust that the record of discussion hasn't been tampered with. And as he noted, it's also a form of edit-warring.

As a trivial side note, the correct shortening of my handle would be the surname "Arima." I'm certain you didn't mean anything amiss by shortening it to "Ari," though. arimareiji ( talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you once again Arima for a fine dissertation on the elements of WP Style and processes. Since I have you to thank for our being here, and in an effort to practice my new civility and etiquette, I believe one of the concerns you related was my "refactoring" of your edits. So as an example, would you explain the difference between my refactoring and your reply in the last sentence I pasted above...where you begin, "Answer what...", and there is a list of words in a non-sentence format? Your explanation will greatly save me the error of repeating the mistake in the future.

Thank you also for your suggestion to blockquote the pasted exchange from the Whitman talkpage, however, I trust people to understand that the exchange follows form, so I'll trust that the reader gets at least the cursory evidence that I supplied in the opening statement.

I've never been able to speak for others with any success, but I'm sure Edit will thank you for saving him/her the time and effort to explain why he/she did not address the issues you did for him/her. And your right, tampering with edits is wrong, even if intended to remove questionable discussions and hide momentary errors of judgment. But still, there is that quirky little tool called Revert, that seems to bring it back at the request of a curious finger. I have been warned and changed my ways.

And yes, again, you are right, edit-warring has its drawbacks, which is why I would like to present the following, also on the Whitman Talk page, when a very popular and wise editor stepped into the thread to warn the two of us, you may recall ----

What I see is someone who helped another person with an employment issue get it straightened out. That in turn sparked his interest in the Whitman case. What I see here is that he has then used what he learned from his interest in the Whitman case to add a lot of content to this particular page. And yes, I think that avoiding the pages where he had a modicum of involvement with the subject is trying to avoid COI. I also see that this childish back and forth continues to deteriorate and again, I'd recommend everyone take a step back, a deep breath and slow down. I thought that responding to WP:3O involved working on the content that was under dispute. All I'm currently seeing is a pissing contest. Are you actually here to help with a third opinion on content or to chastise an editor? Can you actually point to anything that was added to the article itself that has skewed the facts of the article in some way to benefit this editor or paint something in an inappropriate light? I was under the impression that the content dispute was about something else entirely. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:3O is about providing a third opinion between two editors who are resolved to disagree, not mediation and not to work on the article. I saw an editor who has a history of fighting with multiple editors, so I should have explicitly noted I was not speaking in the capacity of a "third opinion" - you can't be a third opinion when you're the fifth or sixth to see the same thing. Your familiarity with the page may have made it less obvious - sometimes it takes an outsider, or a new editor, to notice a pattern that builds over time. If you review the recent history, I believe you'll see the same pattern of advocacy rather than neutral editing. arimareiji (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

After the lesson to her on WP:3O, and having admitted that you "should have explicitly noted..."(this isn't refactoring is it?) that you were not speaking in the capacity of a "third party" and gave your reasons why, and gave her a fine lesson on how others can come in and see what a person who is familiar with the article, can't see. That was brilliant, you even invited her to review the recent history, believing she would see what you saw, a pattern of advocacy rather than neutral editing. I was very impressed, I didn't agree, but impressed, yes.

I'm a new man thanks to you Arami.-- Victor9876 ( talk) 09:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I believe this is an issue that deteriorated and wasn't completely one-sided. I don't believe you can find on User talk:Victor9876 a pattern of arguing over things, since most of the edits were from me, and I can state plainly that it was not incivil, no matter how someone might interpret it. No, I don't agree with refactoring talk pages, and I told Victor this. Having said that, I also have to say that it was my impression that arimareiji began his involvement on a note that seemed contentious to me, and yes, I did speak up and counsel that everyone take a step back, a deep breath and start over. But I don't see that it was completely one sided. At some point, Jwy said he would be away and would continue upon his return. Everything being discussed here happened in the interim, so it was never clear to me that arimareiji was speaking as an effort to actually assist in the debate that had been going on. It was certainly never addressed in any way that I could see, so I have to wonder how helpful it was when the first comments were not what I would consider helpful. I would suggest at this point that Victor stop messing with the previous posts and accept the admonition to stop doing so, arimareiji either address the concerns that were being debated and the issues at hand be considered re: the article or let it go, and the personal back and forth stop on the article talk page, because that is disrupting the editing process. Just my opinion. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 15:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie: With all due respect, your exchanges with Victor on your respective talk pages show that you're very far from being a neutral party.

Victor: 1) I hope your sarcasm was only superficial and that you are indeed sincere this time. I would be glad for it if Edit's words succeeded in making an impression where mine and others' in the past have failed. 2) At the beginning of your comment you seem to be asserting that I've edited or deleted your comments. Could you please point to an example? arimareiji ( talk) 16:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, arimareiji, but I can most certainly offer a comment based on what is being posted here while still having conversations with an editor. I have not defended him blindly, and if you'll look above, I most certainly did say he was wrong to refactor talk postings. And I do not hesitate to tell him when he is wrong or has stepped over a line. In any case, I don't see where you came into the talk page neutrally, since you began in a contentious manner. Eschewing my comments as not neutral does make them invalid, and I believe that at every point in the discussion where I interjected between you and Victor, I made an effort to remain neutral. I would suggest that your comment to me is not in keeping with WP:AGF. This isn't an us against him venture. I have done nothing to warrant doubt about what I said on either page where this is being discussed. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 20:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Arima, I am happy to answer your question above per question #2). I have copied and pasted, the exchange below --

I wasn't addressing you, you're apparently afraid a lot. Let Jwy answer on his own.Victor9876 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Answer what? "Insult insult mock stop quoting policy la la la insult mock insult stop quoting rules insult chutzpah chutzpah demand demand, does this answer your concerns?" doesn't seem like much of a question. arimareiji (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The exchange above follows a question directed by Jwy to me. You jumped in and suggested several things that I could do. I replied as above that you were not the one involved and you retorted with...Answer what? "Insult...mock...chutzpah., etc., does that answer your concerns?". Since the last part, "does that answer your concerns?" was a direct quote from me in the ex-change, and you replied in an uncivil way, refactoring my comment to Jwy, I felt that you personally attacked me and denigrated me on the Talk page. I don't know how many rules were broken there, but personal attack, refactoring and incivility are the ones that I think are there. Tell me if I'm wrong?-- Victor9876 ( talk) 21:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wildhartlivie :You're certainly welcome to make whatever comments you like. I only object to what seems an attempt to portray yourself as a neutral uninvolved party in light of these edits: [115], [116] (I am genuinely happy for the two of you); [117] (incidentally, no - I'm not Jewish); [118] ("secret" messages give a bad impression); [119], [120] (thank you for giving the warning some mild reinforcement, but this was canvassing).
• Victor: Making one's own comment (which restates another editor's comment) is not the same as editing their comment. arimareiji ( talk) 21:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You are totally misconstruing what it is that was posted, and are also misconstruing a harmless back and forth that you then spun with your "I am genuinely happy for the two of you". I am perfectly able to give an opinion about this issue, and it is entirely bad faith of you to go digging through harmless banter in an attempt to discredit what I do believe was a neutral response to your entering a talk page issue under the guise of an outside or third opinion only to continue to bash anyone who speaks even slightly in opposition to your opinion. I haven't portrayed myself in anyway whatsoever, except to assert, quite firmly, that I can give a neutral opinion. You also have attributed posts that I personally did not make to me in order to what? Discredit my comments? Which one? The one where I said Victor was wrong to refactor your comments, or was it where I have said quite clearly that you began your posts in a contentious manner? For the record, I did not offer an opinion on your heritage at any time, nor did I respond to the comment that was left regarding it. There was no "secret" message, it was posted in the open and then I removed it, as the poster requested, after I read it. Also for the record, I was canvassing nothing and it is entirely improper to make it appear that way. Further, Victor asking me to give an opinion does not meet the standards for canvassing, as outlined in WP:CANVAS, which explicitly says Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive. Please point out in that exchange where anyone wrote the message in a way that conveyed an expectation that I would say something in preference to either of you. Further, since this is an informal process with no voting or consensus being requested, it wouldn't be technically considered canvassing if it were worded to skew my opinion. I would suggest that this only serves to reinforce the observation I made that your intentions do not reflect good faith and I find your post above objectionable on that basis and would suggest that you should perhaps focus your concerns here on the facts and not on what you think you are reading. What is it that you think is accomplished by attacking my ability to look at something and say that in my opinion, not only was Victor wrong, but there issues in the way you began your involvement? This is a board concerning ettiquette, and I'm fairly certain you're close to crossing that line yourself. Please contain your posts here to the issue at hand and desist in misconstruing and misattributing comments. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Shall I post the comments on Rachel Corrie between you and another editor suggesting getting another editor banned Ari - or shall we stop this one-up-manship. I know you're not Jewish and Middle Eastern. Whether you're Jewish, Arabic or whatever, here you're just an editor and nothing more. If you want to phish, know your bait. Victor9876 ( talk) 03:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Wholly God, people! This was supposed to end with the warning for Victor9876, but now there's three-way finger-pointing, insinuating and "he said, she said" going on. Enough already!. If that's not plain enough for everyone, I'm holding my hands up, making the "time out" sign. I'm here and now figuratively grabbing everyone's earlobes, and leading y'all to your individual corners. If each of you spent as much energy researching sources and adding to articles as you've spent on this WQA, Wiki would be much better for the effort!
Put the mouse down, and back away from the keyboard. Take a deep breath, count backwards from 1 grand, saying "bubble" between each number. Whatever it takes. At any rate, start fresh, with good-faith, agenda-less edits. Don't let your personal foibles and others' peccadilloes interfere with the quality of the contribution(s). Maintain civility, and try working as a team. Like it or not, that other user is part of the team, so focus on ways that you can work together, and convey them in positives, not accompanied by recriminations. Recriminations at this point are counter-productive.
Summing this all up, this is where it ends friends. This is where the Michelin meets the mile. Either find a way to get beyond this, or move on to other articles. Edit Centric ( talk) 16:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. For the record, though, I'd like to note that these have been my only actual comments on this topic since the warning, with the rest being unmarked quotations that were cut/pasted in by other editors: [121], [122], [123].

(These were attempts to rectify abovesaid ambiguous formatting, though I mostly gave up: [124], [125], [126]. Hopefully this doesn't also become a pattern.)

If it provides any relief, I have requested an RfC and created this section on the Talk page to try to renew the process of article editing. arimareiji ( talk) 17:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of this page's purpose - or at least one of its purposes - is to reduce the amount of future incivility. I will therefore focus forward. Incivility is contagious. One person in a discussion sees something as incivility and responds in kind. Indulge an analogy: Incivility is like an extreme, unwanted hot pepper in the recipe that keeps the food from being edible. One cook puts in something to "spice things up a little," the next cook ups the ante to something more spicy and it eventually we get that giant uncivil jalepeno that no one can eat. It doesn't matter much at the moment who went "over the line" first. Somehow the vicious cycle got started and the cooks as a whole ended up over the line. What one cook thought a simple tasty pepper, another thought a jalepeno bomb. The best choice, when there is contention, is to keep to bland food until there is something everyone can eat. Only then maybe it can be spiced up with more entertaining/humorous/exciting language and interaction. And if you detect incivility, it is sometimes useful to ignore it and try to focus on the content - don't contribute to the vicious cycle. Throw out the sauce and concentrate on the meat. A neutral reminder that incivility is unwanted might be useful, but responding in kind is not. If incivil behavior continues, then others may have to review behavior, not us. But I hope we don't need that.

If anyone is interested in knowing where I think their rhetoric went from bland to at least a little spicy, let me know and I will discuss it on your talk page as I would like this page to be positive, forward looking - and such discussions should not impede the content discussion. I welcome such observations on my behavior (also on my talk page). My hope is that the parties involved promise to reduce the "spicier" comments and try not to react in kind when they think they detect such behavior. If the argument gets stuck, suggest (as has happened occasionally - and I see has now more formally happened on the talk page) for outside comment instead of resorting to frustrated "spicy" response. If everyone points themselves in the positive direction, I don't really care about who was uncivil or simply humor or simply "spice." I don't think its useful to fight about the past. Everyone should be able to recognize "bland" and keep with it. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

For a forward-looking comment, that seemed to have a fair amount of metaphorical review material. ^_^ Seriously, I agree for the most part - but am still troubled by the currently-continuing behavior of repeatedly quoting someone's past comments into a jalapeno bomb (without enquotation or formatting to show they were actually made elsewhere) to magnify apparent participation. It could be construed as a workaround. arimareiji ( talk) 19:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If it matters, he's already back to the level he started at - inserting material into the middle of others' edits, this time splitting the bulk of my comment away from my signature under the cover of adding his own comment. arimareiji ( talk) 16:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OMG ... could you please WP:AGF just a little? It merely looks like he put the discussion heading (which, by the way, should be === instead of ==) a single line above where he should have. It truly appears he was breaking the discussion portion away from the idea itself. He even replied to your suggestion. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 17:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That was exactly my intentions Bwilkens. I read the refactoring section which states that subheaders are allowed. I felt it would be best to have an edit break, where contributors could respond to the requested input, without going above the discussion line and mistakingly change the topic of discussion, which would or could have started another edit war. Can Arima be requested to be held to the same standards he holds every one else to? Victor9876 ( talk) 18:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

BMW:

1. I wrote the initial comment, and attributed some of my opinions, which is why I signed it. He functionally removed that signature except from the last sentence. One is certainly allowed to split subheaders if it's done in good faith, but could you point me to where it's encouraged to split other editors' comments to your liking?
2. This is a long-established pattern of his and he's completely aware of what he's doing. He even jokes once "You're welcome, no problem!" in response to my asking him to stop refactoring my edits. And in the same edit, he proceeds to do the exact same thing. [127]
3. It's rare that he even pretends to civility while refactoring others' comments; he much more commonly calls other editors "idiots," "morons," tells them "your opinion doesn't count... lol!", etc. See the talk page history.
4. He has been repeatedly warned for this. See his talk page.
5. You needn't take my word for it, ask Edit Centric who reviewed the history when he responded. arimareiji ( talk) 18:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

BMW, Arima shows a link to what he calls refactoring. If answering an editor directly by addressing each issue by inserting within the text is refactoring, I stand ignorant, and now understand how it works. I will take this lesson, if that is what refactoring is and no longer apply it. In fact, I was just about to do the same to Arima's allegations above, until I opened his #61 link and directly saw the issue. It was my lack of understanding of style, rather than substance. If there is a style reference that I can be pointed to, I will review the reference and apply the proper responses in the future. I fail to see the harm in answering each allegation in order, but apparently it is a violation that I need some coaching on. I explained in the edit summary my reasons for dividing the discussion on the talk page, Arima, reverted it as refactoring. Also, I tried your === instead of == suggestion without any success. Perhaps you can advise and direct me to the appropriate manual of style for further references. Thank you in advance. Victor9876 ( talk) 19:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok then: this is your FINAL warning. You never insert your own text in the middle of someone else's text. You only add BELOW a signature. You will note that I am actually inserting this comment between two comments - it is well below yours, above the reply, it is indented differently, and it is signed by ME separately. Text entries/edits must remain easy to follow as to WHO posted it. Inserting text in the middle messes that up. In other words, you may never change someone else's comments on a talk page in any manner, by either changing the original text, deleting original text, or inserting your own comments in the middle. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 19:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BMW! I appreciate the distinctions and understand now very well! This has been valuable. Victor9876 ( talk) 19:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Then what were you responding to when you said "You're welcome, no problem?" And how did you miss the fact I disentangled your edit into my comment right before you repeated the action? arimareiji ( talk) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Arima - give it up now, your replies are becoming disruptive, and you're not helping SOLVE an issue. If you don't believe in AGF then Wikipedia isn't for you. There are many reasons that might make someone post in the middle of your comments: a reading disability, lack of knowledge about how edits work, a lack of policy knowledge, etc. AGF. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 19:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look at the pertinent edits before and after it before you respond. He entangles. I ask him to stop, and disentangle. He entangles again, replying "You're welcome, no problem!" I disentangle again, and tell him that his attempt at humor isn't funny. He stops doing it. But somehow, he only realized it today? Please AGF about how long I AGF'ed on this topic - AGF is not meant to cover repeatedly doing the same thing and pretending every time that you didn't know better. arimareiji ( talk) 19:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, please read back to my original response to you, not to Victor's response to it. arimareiji ( talk) 19:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

With that, you can rest assured I will leave this alone unless he continues, at which time I will take it to a more appropriate channel. WQA is only for voluntary compliance, and I put you in a bad spot by trying to get you to force anyone to listen. My apologies. arimareiji ( talk) 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, you would not have liked the original reply to your response to me: good thing there was an edit conflict. And trust me, I recommend that you do not accuse me of not reading "pertinent edits". I will advise that you take something from this WQA as well: properly explaining issues (most people don't understand the word "refactor", for example) with an editor directly, and not running back for help everytime you perceive a minor issue will help your future cases on WQA, ANI, and anywhere else. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 19:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)