This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk · contribs · logs) has a pattern of incivility directed at editors with whom he disagrees at AfD. For instance, a couple of editors discussed it with him here, see bottom of page section "Comments from AfDs".

Now he is repeatedly accusing me of not assuming good faith, threatening people, and wikistalking him because I nominated some non-notable or otherwise inappropriate articles he created for deletion at AfD. See here and here.

I firmly asked him on his talk page not to libel me all over the encyclopedia but to file a formal complaint if he thought I had done these things, because these are very serious accusations in my opinion.

Then he seemingly made a point of deliberately continuing these inappropriate accusations such as here.

He seems to have invented a motive for me nominating inappropriate articles for deletion: [1].

Now it's degenerated into gamesmanship where an inappropriate disambiguation page was dressed up (see the history but note that it still does not meet our guideline for disambiguation pages even now that the debate was snowball closed) and then tries to make it appear that it was an inappropriate nomination for deletion, see here. This is disturbing because it has gone beyond name-calling into gamesmanship to keep inappropriate content. It's not just disambiguation pages, which are relatively unimportant, but biographies, and even photographs. I understand that content disputes is not within the scope here but I want to illustrate the very real consequences that this behavior has.

I feel like he's trying to prevent me from nominating inappropriate articles for deletion by accusing me of Wikistalking for doing so. I am asking for some outside opinions and perhaps assistance before going to the next step. The AfD discussions get heated at times on all sides but I believe this sort of behavior is violating WP:Civil and especially WP:NPA. Thank you. Drawn Some ( talk) 23:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is true that RAN can be a fractious presence at AfD, as evidenced clearly by the first links you provide, complete with his ridiculous and sham efforts to maintain his mean-spirited degradation as innocent and well-intended advice. (Yea right.) However, it does not appear to me that the further content you link to constitutes a personal attack or a wikiquette issue. Eusebeus ( talk) 03:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Before I comment on this, I just want to establish some more of the background. Of the last ten articles you nominated for AfD, Drawn Some, how many had been edited by RAN before you nominated them?— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 14:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea, don't keep track. 5 out of the last 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drawn Some ( talk • contribs)

If I said that this appears to me to be a pattern rather than a coincidence, how would you respond?— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 07:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My response is A. you're not neutral, S Marshall and B.I nominated one and someone pointed out the similar ones so I nominated them, no it's not a coincidence when there is a pattern of inappropriate behavior uncovered to just fix a little part of it and ignore the rest. Drawn Some ( talk) 02:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of you and RAN, and I've certainly interacted with both of you in the past. I believe I've supported your position against RAN, and RAN's position against you, in various different debates mostly at AfD. I don't think I've been involved in this particular dispute at all.

However, at the risk of allowing you to select your own jury: since you want me to withdraw, I will.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 08:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no trial. Drawn Some ( talk) 01:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• (Disclaimer: I've been involved in this dispute) Here's a background discussion between Drawn Some and Smashville after the Fairmount Cemetery AfD. My opinion is this:

• Some of RAN's comments were indeed inappropriate. I've advised him to make helpful comments about other editors on their talk pages instead of at AfD.
• Although all of Drawn Some's deletion nominations are mindful of policy and justifiable, they appear to be targeted towards RAN's contributions. Labeling RAN a "serial creator of inappropriate disambiguation pages" and planning to spend weeks auditing his work sounds an awful lot like wikihounding to me.

-- Explodicle ( T/ C) 19:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, he is a serial creator of inappropriate disambiguation articles as well as articles on non-notable subjects. He creates mostly good articles but he also creates articles that he knows don't satisfy our guidelines. He uploads photos and gives inappropriate reasons to circumvent the copyright and then deletes tags on the photographs. He moves pages that were supposed to be merged per AfD rather than merge them or leave them alone. When someone creates or handles content inappropriately it needs to be dealt with rather than swept under the table. If cleaning that up is considered wikihounding and his behavior is acceptable to the community and his accusations are considered acceptable, I am willing to accept that this is what the Wikipedia community wants. Drawn Some ( talk) 01:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please provide the diffs for these new accusations. -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 14:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time to deal with this right this second but here:

moved article to be merged:

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_ringmasters_of_the_Ringling_Bros._and_Barnum_%26_Bailey_Circus&diff=prev&oldid=300729426

He might have moved it twice but I don't have time to figure out exactly what is up with it now.

Uploaded photo with bad rationale, to illustrate ARCHAEOLOGIST at peak of career:

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=File:20090703_inq_o-sedwards03-a.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=300736497

Removed tag when identified by an editor

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=G._Roger_Edwards&diff=300828589&oldid=300827085

Maybe someone else has time to deal with it. Drawn Some ( talk) 02:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick response. It looks like that image got tagged for deletion because it had no license information, so he classified it as fair use and then removed the other editor's tag. I'm a little unclear about how the upload rationale is inappropriate, would you please elaborate? -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 15:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not proposing that we ignore this behavior; I've made comments to him about it as well. My concern is that the way in which this has been handled seems somewhat adversarial. -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 14:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to be clear that my comment quoted by Explodicle was AFTER I was repeatedly accused of wikistalking by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Drawn Some ( talk) 01:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter who started it. At AfD you should comment on content, not on contributors. -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 14:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I was already being accused of wikistalking among other things, I wanted to give the reasoning. Drawn Some ( talk) 02:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Parties have disengaged, and the incident seems to have passed.

For some reason, this IP believes the sentence "Tiana will be the first African-American princess in the Disney Princess franchise." to be racist, although it is well-cited with two articles as reference. They have attempted reverting the article to just say she is American, when the whole point of the sentence is that this is groundbreaking as far as Disney animation and African-American history in animated film.

In turn, the IP has accused me of racism both on the article talk page and in discussion on their own talk page. They have threatened to change the article despite being asked to get consensus on the talk pages, and the IP does not seem to care that they have gone against the three-revert rule, dismissing the rules to "protect against racism." I believe someone should inform this user the difference between racism and culture identification. Cactusjump ( talk) 21:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I have reported them to WP:AIV, WP:3RR, and attempted having the page temporarily protected until this person can be reasoned with, all to no avail. I don't know what else to do to get through to this user. Any help would be appreciated. Cactusjump ( talk) 21:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, first thing, the usual consequence of reporting a problem in five different places is that nothing happens -- it's known as "forum-shopping" and strongly discouraged. As a practical approach, I recommend that you simply ignore any further discussion by the IP, and revert any bogus edits to the article. It looks like other editors are ready to help out. If the editor reverts more than three times in 24 hours (which hasn't happened yet), report this to WP:3RR. If the IP continues to revert but doesn't blatantly violate 3RR, you can eventually turn to WP:ANI. Judging by the contribs, the IP is probably dynamic and can be changed by rebooting a modem, so a block might not be very useful per se. The main thing is, once you recognize this kind of misbehavior, don't let yourself get too excited, just yawn and revert. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 22:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you. Cactusjump ( talk) 22:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A week ago, I reported an editor for a 3RR violation; he had reverted five times, I had reverted twice. Concluding that I "too ha[d] been edit warring," user:Rjanag "warned" us both for edit warring and took no action with regard to the 3RR violation. [2] I had my doubts about that, but what is done is done.

Yesterday, having developed a consensus to merge an article ([ [3]]), I merged the articles and was reverted, twice, by user:Jezhotwells. I reverted once, beliving from Jez's edit summary that he had acted before reading the statement of consensus on the talk page. With user:Rjanag's warning in mind, I did not edit war, and raised the issue at ANI instead (the other editor had also declared his intent to take the issue there). [4]

Although I didn't ask for any sanctions against user:Jezhotwells (the reverts weren't the locus of the dispute), if two closely-timed reverts are edit warring when I did so, doesn't consistent application of the rules require user:Jezhotwells to be "warned" for edit warring also? I am not "reporting" anyone, specifically, but I am asking that action either be taken consistent with the action taken last week, or that the difference between the two situations be explained.

Speaking of warnings, user:Neutralhomer, who is not an admin, closed the discussion at ANI even though there were still outstanding issues. [5] WP:NAC, the closest we have to an applicable policy, allows for non-admin closures of discussions in some cases, but provides that "[n]on-admin closure is not appropriate [if] ... [t]he non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the deletion debate." If it is applicable to ANI as it is to AFD, user:Neutralhomer broke that rule. He closed the discussion after having not only "expressed an opinion in the [debate]," but having expressed opinions evincing personal hostility towards me, going so far as to tell user:Jezhotwells on Jez's talk page that he thinks I am "overusing and misusing ANI." [6]

When I disputed his action, he threatened to take me to ANI for questioning him ( [7]), and when I called his bluff ( [8]), insisted that I take him to ANI ( [9]).

Again: per WP:NAC, it is inappropriate for user:Neutralhomer to close a debate if he has "demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the [ ] debate," and he did. Even if he didn't, his playground bully attempt to shut down my criticism of his closing of the debate deserves attention. Should he, too, be "warned" or have some other sanction applied?- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 18:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAC clearly refers to WP:AFD. With respect to the Neutralhomer incident, it is fully appropriate for ANY editor to mark a thread closed when it does not specifically relate to the noticeboard that it's in, OR if it's already at a more appropriate place already - such as RFC - so as to not be considered forum-shopping. I would have to say that your escalation of things appears a little inappropriate, considering this. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 19:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(1) My escalation of it? He demanded, twice, that I raise the issue at ANI after threatening to do so himself.

(2) Neither of those conditions applies. It was specifically related to the noticeboard it was in, and it wasn't already "at" a more appropriate place. Both Jez and I felt that the other's conduct was an "incident" and should be raised there, and we both posted our concerns about each other there after back-and-forth on our talk pages and the talk page for the article.

(3) Although NAC applies in terms to AFD, are you saying that you don't feel that a non-admin closure by a user involved in the debate and clearly gunning for one of the other participants is riddled with COI problems? Really? - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 19:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a court of law. Slightly inconsistent application of "rules" across different conflicts by different participants is not going to be the end of the world; we are interested in improving articles one at a time and judging disputes on a case-by-case basis, not ensuring the sanctity of Wikipedia's "rules". The reason I didn't give Jez a warning when asked to is, to be honest, that I don't really care—I was asked to comment on the dispute and the best way to resolve the content issues, and that's what I did.

As for the NAC stuff, I have already left you a message at your talkpage about this. Everyone will be better served if we stop worrying about non-issues like this, and focus on the actual article. So you're mad that NeutralHomer closed a thread, ok, we get that—is arguing about it really going to advance the discussion, or serve any purpose other than continuing to muddy the waters and distract from the actual content issues? rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 19:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is going to serve an important purpose. If NH didn't do something wrong, we are essentially saying that a user can get into an argument, demonstrate plain bias against one participant, and the close the debate with impunity. If that is doing something wrong, he disrupted WP and should be warned to discourage his doing so again. Remember what happened when you felt I did something wrong last week? You warned me against edit warring, and when Jez reverted a second time, instead of edit warring, I came to ANI. Warnings work, for one thing, and for another, it is unconscionable that when two users engage in similar conduct, one is warned and the other is not. There is a fundamental issue of fairness lurking here: users must be able to trust that the rules will be enforced fairly, consistently, and evenhandedly.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 19:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And that matters, by the way, because as WP:NAM puts it, "[p]eople don't have to agree about a topic to collaborate on a great article. All it takes is mutual respect and a willingness to abide by referenced sources and site policy." But if people can't rely on site policy being enforced evenhandedly, they cannot reasonably be asked to rely on it, because those who are willing to flout the rules will always have an advantage over those who don't, and if there is no reliable mechanism to enforce policy, the result will be that cheats prosper, and non-cheaters will either become cheaters or throw up their hands and leave.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 19:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You miss the point. You were discussing the issue in the wrong forum. You had been told numerous times it was the wrong forum. You were pointed to the right forum. It was either close it, or you could be accused of disruption (which you already were - which is, of course, blockable). Pay attention in the future when people show you the right place to deal with a dispute - ANI is not dispute resolution (note: I'm a non-cheater, and I ain't leavin'). You talk about flouting the rules - yet you were the one not following them. Ok? ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 20:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – All of his edits are now in English, since being asked nicely

Resolved

 – Not really an attack, and not worth additional pursuit

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Now at WP:ANI

This dispute appears to have begun when I made a sloppy error during an argument with this user on the page Talk:Sarah Palin -- in the heat of the argument I mistakenly attributed words to him that were actually used by a different editor on the talk page. He believes that it was a purposeful lie even though I admitted the error and apologized for it and tried to drop the matter. He then made several mistakes himself, stating that I was doing things like deleting my own words and putting words in his mouth, though I showed that he was wrong on both counts (with the diff of him using the words he denied using). Rather than dropping the matter, he continues to repeatedly attack my intentions, saying that I am lying, disrupting the discussion, and threatening to take me to arbitration. There's not even a content dispute at all -- he's just filling the talk page with attacks on my behavior, and I have responded to them, but of course he perceives everything I say as lying and condescending. He says I am trying to chase him off the page, and that he threatens "I am going to camp on this article for a while and monitor it. If you think you are getting one comma into this article without obtaining consensus, it will be at the end of a dispute arbitration, and I feel this way because I beleve you have exhibited unreasonable POV bias that is harmful to Wikipedia and this article, not to mention your lack of civility..." and "I'm have decided to hang around for a while if only to deal with you." I don't know what to do; I admit I have been snarky and sarcastic, but I have tried not to impugn his intentions, and I don't see the point of continuing the argument but I also feel that attacks like that are not acceptable.

I'm not asking anyone to block him or anything like that I am just hoping that taking the discussion to another forum can cool him down and allow him to realize that I'm not out to lie and disrupt Wikipedia because of some supposed vendetta against Sarah Palin. I'm not going to provide a bunch of diffs (though I can) because I'm not interested in a back and forth of accusations; those who have the stomach to read this nonsense (and I emphasize that I don't consider my behavior exemplary in the discussion either but I feel he has crossed lines I haven't) should click here and read the discussion in context; if you search for the word "baseless" (2nd appearance on the page) you will see the user who actually used the word that I accidentally attributed to Jarhed (I inadvertently compounded the error by later attributing another word, "frivolous," to him as well), and my response to that user, and another discussion with another user who used the term "baseless," and then yet another with another -- the term was used by at least three different people who were in that discussion (Fcried, Simon Dodd, and Zaereth). So when Jared finally joined the discussion (search the page for the word "nattering" for his first contribution, and then search for "8100" for my first response), I mistakenly thought he was one of the users who had used the term and responded to his arguments there. The ugliness follows pretty quickly after that ... anyway, I'm not looking for us to be sent to our corners over this, I'm just hoping that by stepping into a different forum and asking him to stop the nonsense and defuse the tension; at the very least, another eyeball or two on this thing might help me see if I'm the one totally out of line. Thanks. csloat ( talk) 05:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've warned him to AGF. I'd recommend leaving him and his talkpage alone for awhile, rather than poke them into action. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 09:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's his response. I'm laying off his talk page, but his reaction to this is neither acceptable nor appropriate. Here is his last comment on the Palin talk page, after I filed the Wikiquette alert and proposed that AGF would solve our problems. He also posted this to another user who had warned us both to cool down and stop it. csloat ( talk) 18:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The "I'll drop it if he does first" was odd, but I believe it's been dealt with on his talk. We cannot force him to answer here, and at this point there is nothing "blockable" or actionable. Try to stay away from him, and I hope that works overall. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 20:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked.

There is a problem with this user. After an incident last week in which Badagnani repeatedly accused User:Good Olfactory of issuing 'death threats' (due to having used the words 'velvet rope' in an edit summary), he has now just removed another message from GoodOlfactory, which was an extremely mildly worded warning against refactoring comments made by others, calling it 'highly threatening'. This is after multiple explanations last week that there was no threat in GOF's previous messages, and including a warning from me to cease accusing GoodOlfactory--also reverted as a 'highly threatening message', followed by me asking what part of my warning was threatening, only to be reverted again with the same accusation of being threatening.

This needs to stop. Badagnani has been told that these things aren't threatening, and at this point it appears as though he is deliberately using the word in edit summaries to be inflammatory or sway judgement. →  ROUX  ₪ 07:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just file an AC request if nobody can block him YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that I've considered AC after the user's recent behaviour. I hesitate to do so, because the user has been highly critical of my editing, and I'm not looking to "pick a fight". I've also noted that there are some reports of recent edit warring. Any support from other users would be welcome in this case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that AC is Arbitration, I started to file one last weekend, but the lag was so bad that I couldn't search and gather the links, so I stopped after 20+ minutes of frustration.... (There were serious server problems, the details can be found in the log, on the technical discussion list, and the bugs that I and others filed.) There's much more than just this "threat" issue. I'll have some more time this weekend, and I'll try again. I'll drop a notice on your Talk.
-- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 12:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a long-standing problem; it came up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani, and I warned him way back about these inflammatory over-reactions that treat routine warnings as if they were threats to shoot his puppy. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 15:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question; what is the meaning of "velvet rope"? According to an urban dictionary, it means S&M...so I kind of agree that the Good Olfactory's edit warring with Badagnani to insert the subheader with the edit summary that can be interpreted as very rude is not good practice. (I tried to insert this passage about 3 hours ago, but due to the server's clashing, I add this now) Caspian blue 22:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It can also mean a rope made of velvet, often used to rope off lines for nightclubs and the like. One of Roux's warnings included a picture example. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 22:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean this image File:Shequida Velvet Rope by David Shankbone.jpg in which some drag queen chews the tip of the thick and pink rope with an odd smile? Well, the image reminds me still of S&M...showing the image was not helpful to mitigate the situation.-- Caspian blue 23:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 48h William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

For removing a templated warning as "highly threatening"? Seriously? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, for being the straw that broke the camel's back, particularly after being warned for doing the same thing within the past few days. →  ROUX  ₪ 00:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:STRAWTHATBROKETHECAMEL'SBACK is coming up as a redlink. Is there an applicable policy (or even guideline) page? This reminds me of ScienceApologist ultimately getting banned for spelling corrections. We can do better. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 01:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani has been warned multiple times for those sorts of attacks in edit summaries. Was warned just a few days ago, in fact. Are you familiar with the history here? It seems not; please become so. I know you have a grudge against WMC, but you really need to stop commenting on everything he does, as it's starting to look like axegrindy behaviour rather than a valid dispute. →  ROUX  ₪ 01:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani is most definitely not the only editor who objects to templated warnings. He feels that as a major contributor over a long period of time he's earned the privilege of being treated with some respect. Other terms that apply would be civility and collegiality. And I've had people freak out over spelling corrections. So who knows why people react to stuff the way they do. But as far as the history goes, I'm well aware of Badagnani's, William Connolley's and yours. So let's not go throwing stones around our glass houses. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 01:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Templated warnings are not the issue here. Removing notes and calling them 'threatening', after being told not to many times, is (part of) the problem here. I wonder why you're ignoring that. Actually I don't; I know exactly why you're ignoring it. But doing so shows that you're not actually looking at this situation with the clarity it requires. →  ROUX  ₪ 01:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani's removals have been criticized before, but CoM's points are valid. Badagnani does expect a certain kind of deference due to his many contributions. Such a position is somewhat at odds, but also somewhat aligned with, our culture here. His description of others' posts as "highly threatening" are not personal attacks, except by a very thin-skinned standard, which I don't generally apply. That doesn't mean his behavior isn't disruptive. It's just not as simple as that. There's a human being there, and acknowledging where he's coming from is not out-of-line.

Now, when someone doesn't address a certain point, it could be that they're "ignoring" it in some pointed way, or it could be that they're just making an independent point. Just last week I had a similar experience, where I commented on one aspect of a situation, and was then criticized for "ignoring" another aspect. I had "ignored" it because I thought it was sufficiently addressed by others, and I didn't have to say "me too". I guess I did have to say it, to avoid being attacked. Live and learn.

There's often more happening than meets the eye. Just so it's clear, Roux, I agree that B's behavior is disruptive and that he's been warned for it repeatedly. It was a good block, executed very poorly. Both the goodness of the block and the poorness of its execution are valid topics to address. If there's anything important I've failed to address, it's because I was busy saying this. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 01:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors are most certainly allowed to remove messages from their talk pages. He objects to template type warnings, and you object to his removing them as highly threatening. I just don't think either one is worth blocking over, especially when many sarcastic or borderline uncivil actions (more important than words in my book) and statements (such as the blocking admins) go unchallenged. If he needs to be blocked for something let it be legitimate. If he feels a templated warning is uncivil or threatening that's his business. I've poitned out how you and others can communicate with him more respectfully. If you choose not to that's as much on you as it is on him when he removes your messages as highly threatening. Neither one of you seems to want to listen and change. Frankly, I couldn't care less what message someone uses as their edit summary if they choose to remove my messages. It's their page and their business, so I try to show deference. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly didn't use any templated warnings. And it's not just that; removal of "here's an explanation in case you have misunderstood what was said" and calling it a threat is ridiculous and unacceptable. It would appear that Badagnani does this in order to appear victimised. I can think of no other plausible explanation for it. →  ROUX  ₪ 07:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That you can only understand another editor's actions as them wanting to "appear victimised" is a failure of AGF on your part. The most plausible explaantion is that he feels threatened by posts criticizing him on his talk page. Try to be less narrowminded and more tolerant. It's important to understand that not everyone sees the world the way you do. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 16:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

But the situation isn't symmetrical. If someone has a peculiar reaction to normal editing procedure, the ball is entirely in their court. It's annoying, inflammatory and uncivil to describe routine warnings as if they were coming from Begbie (who is what most people would consider "hyperaggressive" and "highly threatening"). It's not the job of others to stop giving warnings, particularly as Badagnani has shown other problematic edit patterns that make such warnings necessary Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 17:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's all true from where you're standing. From B's position, those warnings aren't normal editing procedure, they're highly threatening messages. Also from there, his replies aren't peculiar, but entirely reasonable. None of this means we have to put up with it, but I think it's fair to indicate some understanding of where the editor is actually coming from. That kind of understanding lays the groundwork for improved future collaboration. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 17:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley's block summary

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – See closing comment; discussion already here. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 17:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

User Alexh19740110 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made repeated PAs on the page Talk:Heaven and Earth (book).

Examples:

diff 1

Me removing one of his PAs

Me removing another

He is also persistently trying to insert non-expert comments from WP:SPS onto the page and generally editing tendentiously.

Warnings posted to his Talk page are deleted. Can someone intercede please? ► RATEL ◄ 09:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

First -- users are allowed to remove warnings to their user talk pages. That is not relevant. The other issue is more important -- does he make PAs -- the examples citted are, if PAs, PAs of the most innocuous level. Comments on the other hand like ". I'm starting to wonder if you are having trouble finding scientists who support this guy. " and " Sheez!" are scarcely of a level for you to be doing the complaining here. "Tillman, you are obviously here with a big agenda and POV. Sooner rather than later we will need a RFC on these edits" "I'm following the rules, you don't have a clue, apparently. Re-read my response above yours, carefully" "You don't like it. Tough" "Alex, please think through what you are saying on this page before posting, because your arguments are becoming repetitive and display WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT" and the like are all on the same page. And of the last 50 edits on the article -- 30 are by Ratel. Collect ( talk) 12:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the removal of a warning template from your own talkpage is tacit acceptance of the warning. None of the diff's appeared to be anywhere close to being contrary to WP:NPA in the least. Posts like "You don't like it, tough" sounds like some WP:OWNership issues, and "you don't have a clue" are indeed contrary to WP:NPA. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 13:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

One more case of the complainer being the one to be noted <g>. Collect ( talk) 14:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• The stalking by you continues, Collect. Even Gwen Gale has noted your pursuit of me, so take care. To Bwilkins, the other editor has called me "spiteful", claimed I am defaming the subject with no basis, claimed I threaten people because I posted a NPA warning to his talk page, sneers at perfectly valid edits (such as using [ sic]), mentions me pejoratively rather than the edits or how to improve the page in every comment he makes .... yet this is "fine"? So that's the last time I'll come here for help ... totally bloody useless. You people are farking up wikipedia. I hope you are proud. ► RATEL ◄ 16:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I follow [[WP::WQA]] on a regular basis if you would note. Accusing folks of stalking when they have pages on their watchlist is a bit of a PA in itself, so I would ask you to redact the charge here, as it has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Attacking folks inside a WQA is a bit dangerous. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 19:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

At no point did I say anything was "fine". Remember, responding to someone else's incivility does not excuse incivility, it only explains it. I would retract your comments above if you wish me to continue my investigation. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 16:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, can you please provide a diff of where you have advised the other user of this WQA filing. Thanks. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 16:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Page ownership, borderline spam, and escalation on both sides. Welcomed IP, removed attack from Talk:Feline acne, will monitor. tedder ( talk) 03:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The user: 76.201.177.155 The relevant diffs:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Feline_acne&diff=302062158&oldid=301193528
• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Feline_acne&diff=298406389&oldid=295177505
• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Feline_acne&diff=302545664&oldid=301196559

This person has run in a few times, and raving, deleted my external links. When it happened the first time, I reinstated links and explained back on the talk page. He reverted anyway. I reinstated links again with a message in the history line. He reverted and posted a threatening message in talk page. I reverted.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V.B. ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. V.B., keep in mind those links don't appear to meet Wikipedia's guidelines on external links; one certainly doesn't, the other one, at first glance, is questionable. Secondly, it isn't "your page". I'll monitor the page, so please stop reverting for now, okay? tedder ( talk) 03:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sources. Please don't re-add them. Instead, leave them off, or discuss them on Talk:Feline acne if they should be re-included. (I don't see any reason for them to be added, but that isn't a discussion for this page)

Also, be very careful not to escalate the situation, as you may have done here. Keep the discussion civil and on-topic, even if another editor fails to do so. tedder ( talk) 03:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. I've looked at the links: the first is overtly commercial and looks a bit woo; the second just an isolated personal web page with no discernable authority for its content (plus, looking at the author's name, WP:COI may well apply). Neither is up to WP:ELNO. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 16:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The article had advertising links plus the ones at issue with V.B. It may've been unclear to V.B. that links aren't allowed since a questionable link in the article was not being removed, just V.B.'s links. The article is cleared now of advertising links, and I've sourced it to a few books on small animal dermatology from google books. I've explained this on the article talk page to benefit all writers of the article. -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 01:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Small animal dermatology? You learn something new every day. Great work improving the article and adding refs, IP 69.226 and Gordonofcartoon. tedder ( talk) 01:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It pains me to have to go to a noticeboard to get help with this but is what it has come to since I have no idea how to deal with Wikifan12345 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). At the heart of this matter is a content dispute at Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. I put the article to an AfD, which had "no result". During the AfD process, per the advice of people commenting there, another editor ( User:Commodore Sloat) and I separately tried removing some of the problems that violate WP:BLP, WP:NOR, etc. Wikifan immediately accused us of being meat puppets, an accusation he refused to retract. My interactions with him regarding this entry have gone downhill from there. He is hostile and abrasive on throughout the talk page, while removing other people's comments when they don't suit him. He has also made insinuations that we are breaking the law through "plagiarism". Meanwhile he calls our identification of WP:OR accusations against him personally which he considers "slander and libelous". He has here edited my user page and has filed an edit warring report on me without merit. Unhappy about the outcome he has been hounding the commenting admin and forum shopping. On more than one occasion, and in more than one location he has told me to go "practice somewhere else", which I have to assume means "your comments don't belong here". I could go on but this is a tedious business. Anyone looking at our talk pages, the entry talk page and related noticeboards he has been using will see what is going on. Any help would be appreciated. PelleSmith ( talk) 13:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

File an ANI Pelle. If you're trying to punish me for filing a original research claim against you which was suggested by an administrator no less, then you should aim a little higher. These boards are to serve as early-stage etiquette notices. It is rather suspect to suddenly hound through my contributions and lawyer up a dossier after over a week of content dispute that most revolved around your edit-warring. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 14:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit, I actually read Pelle's entire post. It's an entire misrepresentation of what's happening and if there were promises that he would be held accountable for the above slander I'd consider going through another 30 paragraphs of argument. If I cared that much. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 14:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. One does not file an OR report "against" another editor, but I think this word choice is quite indicative of the hostile attitude being adopted here. If this should go to AN/I I welcome the suggestion by an uninvolved party commenting here. PelleSmith ( talk) 14:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize my talk page had been promoted to a forum :). Guys, it might be best if you agreed to some kind of mediation from a neutral party. Hard words are sometimes exchanged, and that's understandable, but also to be avoided. IronDuke 14:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke "hard words" are not "exchanged" when they are coming from one side only. Exchange suggests a two-way street. I welcome diffs to show otherwise. I'll be happy to admit that at one point I succumbed to calling Wikifan's behavior "trolling" but that is as far as it goes. I've also been patient with this far too long. PelleSmith ( talk) 14:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, "trolling" is a hard word, and as I think you realize, not helpful here. I also see, just on this page, you calling Wikifan "abrasive," and referring to his questioning an admin decision as "hounding." I don't think I'm outside the realm of reason calling those "hard words." IronDuke 16:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree about those two words. When someone is being "abrasive" it is quite alright to point it out, especially if one has been patient for days and are at the end of one's rope. And how is "hounding" a "hard word"? Both of those terms describe behavior, which is observable, without reflecting on the intentions of the behaving individual. Wikifan, on the other hand, persists to declare in various ways that I intend to do battle with him ... that this is "retribution". I'm not making any judgments on his intentions, merely asking for help on how to deal with his behavior. I'm not seeing any such help. PelleSmith ( talk) 21:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We disagree a bit, then, about what hard word is, though just a cursory look at your edits shows you taking a less than civil tone with Wikifan: on your talk page he is "incapable" of "understanding," he is "parroting himself" and here you not only call him a "troll" (as distinct from your accusations of trolling), but you write it in the edit summary, which is especially frowned on, as you can't delete or refactor it; the insult remains forever. And you are wrong that no one is offering help: I suggested and still suggest you two should find a mediator you both trust to dispassionately examine the situation and advise you both. Maybe focusing more on dealing with your relationship, rather than "dealing with his beahvior," will yield better results. IronDuke 21:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to get an uninvolved administrator for the past 3 days but no one has showed up. After the 3OO failed (by technicality, more than two parties) an admin suggested I try the OR noticeboard which I did, hoping to get a swift response. I didn't think Pelle would seek retribution so fast. And then he asks me to assume good faith? Hehe. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 14:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Again this is not "retribution", and again this word choice speaks volumes. There seems to be no end to your behavior in sight and I am asking for help. FYI, given that I see no merit in your various noticeboard complaints I have very little reason to seek "retribution". Admins are careful enough to evaluate your claims for themselves. I am simply at the end of my rope here with the hostility and disruption. PelleSmith ( talk) 14:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As a neutral 3rd party, I've reviewed the "30 paragraphs" and the bulk of the Talk page. It seems to me that most of this arguement stems from interpretation of policies - specifically the policies on WP:V, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Is this a fair view? -- HighKing ( talk) 14:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. Pelle just posted policies over and over again without actually knowing what they meant. If you look at his edit-warring in history, he removed every single one of my additions with baseless summaries like "original research." The dispute is more about content itself and Pelle/other editor advocating instead of simply editing based off what the references say. If you could take a quick look at my OR request here, or go to this sandbox: User:Wikifan12345/cair dispute. I'm pretty meticulous.

Certainly a fair view of the basis of the disagreement about what material is and is not appropriate for the article. So yes it is a fair view and I have no problem with civil disagreement when it occurs. Regards. PelleSmith ( talk) 14:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're asking to end a content dispute by removing a competing editor. You edit-warred, listed baseless policies and legalism instead of explaining edits, and removed anything remotely controversial about CAIR claiming it wasn't explicitly "critical" while loading the article with a plagiarized paragraph from the NYT (that had little to do with criticisms). Pelle, these sorts of tactics aren't particularly unique. Claiming you've been subject to "hostility and disruption" while the overwhelming majority of edits and disputes have been done by yourself says a lot. I suggest you file an ANI if you truly think I've been bad. This is totally redundant. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 14:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

asking to end a content dispute by removing a competing editor -- can I see a diff of that please? I am asking for help in dealing with you, not asking to have you "removed". Again with the warlike combative attitude towards this. PelleSmith ( talk) 14:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• This isn't the first time this editor has been involved in problems with articles in this subject area and has a decent list of blocks to show for it. I think there is a serious problem with allowing personal views to interfer with objectivity and which is compromising this editor's contibutions. I think it needs to go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. --neon white talk 15:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This user really needs to stop making false accusations of plagiarism. He continues to insist that I was plagiarizing when I put a quote from the NYT in quotation marks and properly attributed. His problem seems to be that he doesn't agree with the material, which makes the charge of plagiarism even more disconcerting. csloat ( talk) 16:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Can we close this now? I don't agree with the material Sloat, and yes you were plagiarizing. Copying and pasting entire sentences without fair attributions is plagiarism. I'm sorry if that offends you, plagiarism is usually accidental. Anyways, I stand by all my edits in talk and I'd imagine Pelle would stand by all his weird policy shopping and edit-warring (all my edits, mind you). This clearly is a Wikifan probably no doubt. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 23:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My advice to csloat and PelleSmith is the same as neonwhite's: open an WP:RfC/U. Wikifan12345 has made edits that show little respect for Wiki policies and guidelines and he dishes out a lot of disrespect to his fellow editors in comments made here and elsewhere. From his responses to this request for help, I cannot see any reason to believe that discussion will lead to an improvement in his tone, approach or editing style. Tiamut ^talk 00:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The user has accused me of Vandalism on 5 seperate occasions. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Rory&diff=302120098&oldid=301853244 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Rory&diff=302709641&oldid=302585188 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Rory&diff=302709699&oldid=302709641 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Rory&diff=302794229&oldid=302778437 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Rory&diff=302795214&oldid=302794952 The user was happy to continue this at this stage http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Rory&diff=301820052&oldid=301819960 (and had not accused me of vandalism untill the post of http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Rory&diff=301853244&oldid=301853155 When I pointed out he was not an admin so his claims (that he could ban someone) were false). The user has not attempted to discuse this issue on my talk page, and has deleted all efforts by me to discuse it in his (and indead had asked me not to post on his talk page). http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:69.204.225.103&diff=302709509&oldid=302584706 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:69.204.225.103&diff=302795117&oldid=302794777 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven ( talk • contribs) Opps sorry thought I had signed it. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Slatersteven, please allow me to note a few things that may help you. First, any editor on Wikipedia has the rights/authority/privilege to provide official warnings on any user's talkpage. Warnings are an escalating series (usually templates), that can lead to a block. Even if the specific user is not an admin (and perhaps they are an admin who is not logged in at that time), the warnings count.

From what I can see, some children were being children on the Rory disambig here, and here page. Warnings should have been applied to the children involved's talkpages, not on the article talkpage. I know you didn't give them, but it was really a basic request to stop the vandalism - nothing to worry about, because they were right.

You have, from what I can see from your talkpage, been asked by more than one editor to stop leaving them messages on their talkpage - you should pay attention to those requests; if they don't want to hear from you, then why poke the sleeping bear (you could get accused of [[WP:HOUND|wikihounding).

So, based on the above, please explain what the overall issue is, and how we can help. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 17:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Note - I have warned them about impersonating an admin. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 18:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly the user stated that not only would he report the Vandal, but also that he would be banned )as well as effetely claiming to be an admin, a claim you have now warned him about). To which I responded that he could not say that. The user had no issue with the debate about this issue until he made the claim that he could ban someone. At this point (and this point only) the user decided that the debate was unrelated to the accusation he had made about vandalism. Upon my reversion of his wholesale deletion of text he had had no issue with before I reverted it back and pointed out that he was not an admin and as such could not claim he had the right to ban someone. At this point he reverts my edits and I believed accused me of vandalism, he does not raise this issue on my talk page, he just reverts. Now it may be that when the user put Vandalism in his edit comment this was not meant as an accusation, but then an explanation from him as to why he was making this edit on my talk page would have cleared that up. He also knew I thought he was accusing me of vandalism, but made no attempt to clear up this point (if I was in error). :: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:69.204.225.103&diff=next&oldid=302794092 and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Rory&diff=302794479&oldid=302794229 he has made a number of edits after this and has not stated that he was not accusing me of vandalism (therefore it was only natural of me to assume he was), indeed it is after this post he states he does not wish me to post on his talk page. he also continues to use the phrase vandalism in his edit summaries http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Rory&diff=302795214&oldid=302794952 even though I have made it clear I believe he is accusing me of vandalism without any attempt to clear up the impression I had that is what he was accusing me of.. I also note he only decided that this was unrelated after he had made a claim that he must have realised was wrong. Before that he was more then happy to have this on the talk page. I asked him for an explanation and his response was to say, http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:69.204.225.103&diff=302323951&oldid=302215839 not to explain why it was not related. When I stated that my replies were related he just deleted the thread without explaining my error. My issue is that hte user has shown no interest in discusing this issue or in resolving it. The impression I get is that he has made a judgement and that is final. I also believe that the user was playing the system by implying (without actually making) an accusation of vandalism against me. An impression he made no effort to dispel. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And one of the users that asked me not to post on his page not only continues to discuse matters with me on my talk page, but actualy asks me to check over the page we had the dispute about. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• ( edit conflict)Comment: Slatersteven has not at any point edited the disambiguation article itself, which raises the question of why on earth he would think he was being accused of vandalism. In fact, if you look at the exchange, the IP reverted some vandalism and templated the talk page. Slatersteven then came along and told whoever was reading to ignore the IP. After an exchange, the IP then posted on Slatersteven's page that he was not to edit USA, an article which Slatersteven appears never to have edited. Very strange Elen of the Roads ( talk) 19:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

...any discussion about an article is to take place on the article page itself, so that others may partake in the discussion in order to obtain consensus. As far as the IP editor, I'm not sure (other than current warnings) what can be done here. I'll give them a standard welcome with links to policy, and urge them to get an ID. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 19:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is not a lot of disambiguation page to edit, indeed it seem that (if the page about the Rory band is deleted) it may be a rather redundant page . Three entries one of which does not even have a wiki page. I believed I was being accused of vandalism of the talk page, not the actual disambiguation page. The request (or I should say order) to not edit the USA talk page (which I last edit here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:United_States&diff=next&oldid=296796283 moreover the user is not the same (different IPs, this may be sokepupetry). Moreover the order to stop editing the USA talk page was made about a month ago, not after the events I have reported here. I also said that he was not an admin, which was why his threat could be ignored (as he had no right to claim someone would be banned). As to discussing matters on the talk page, it is that discussion that the user was trying to remove, now where would the best place have been to discus his claim of adminship, and the fact he was claiming authority he did not have? The user did not wish to discus it on his talk page, nor on the articles talk page, and made no effort to discus it on my talk page. Slatersteven ( talk) 20:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)One otehr point to note the user only removed the vandalism of the Disambiguation page after correcting its spelling, twice. why was it not removed straight away? Slatersteven ( talk) 20:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still confused as both IPs User:69.204.225.103 and User:65.215.94.13 seem to be involved somehow.

• On 2 June, 94.13 reverts some obvious vandalism and posts a message on the talk page "Simply put: Stop the vabdalism or you will be warned then blocked.". It's on the wrong page (should be on the vandal's talk page) but it's a fairly standard message.
• On 19 June, there's an exchange on the talk page of USA [19], during which you have an apparently friendly exchange with 225.103 and say you are going to post on his talk page but dont, while 94.13 posts on your talk page [20]Please refrain from editing the article on the USA and it's talk page, having called you something rude on the talk page of USA
• On 20 June, you come along to Talk:Rory -don't know why - find 94.13's comment addressed to the vandal and say "As this user is not an admin you can ignore him"
• On 4 July, 225.103 turns up and queries your comment, and then he and 94.13 engage in a tag team edit war with you, up until today.

Very strange Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did reply but kept getting redirected to http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:SSP2notification&diff=prev&oldid=296394447 for some reason, so in the end I gave up. I can’t even remember why (or how) I came across Rory. When I saw him essentially saying that someone would be banned I felt that it should be pointed out he was not in a position to make such a claim as he was not an admin. I should have worded it better, as I should my reply to the other IP. I will also admit I did not realise they were diffident IP’s at first, their language was so similar, and as you put it they appeared to be acting in unison. I too am somewhat confused by this, I’m partly at fault due to a bad choice of words (I should have put ‘he’ instead of ‘you’). Slatersteven ( talk) 21:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It would appear both IPs are socks of Dryamaka. That might interest someone. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

User 69.204.225.103 hyas chossen to delete (rather then respond) to my post informing him of this report http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:69.204.225.103&diff=302856730&oldid=302822369 thus it is clear tyhat the user has no interest in resolving or discusing this matter. Aslo the edit war seems to have started again. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is a dispute is mostly at my talk page, User_talk:Carlaude#Warning, and is about whom of two editors are following Wikipedia rules and ediquette and which ones, beginning with this.
• The other editor, User:Ottava Rima, is IMHO totally convinced at this point he is in the right, or at least stoped any pretense of listening to me or my comments.
• I asked at Wikipedia:Third opinion, here, for coment on where to take this issue.... HelloAnnyong propsed this page, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, and made other comments, as an outsider, worth reading. ^{Carlaude: Talk} 19:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, just as a clarification, I pointed Carlaude to WQA since this isn't a content dispute. It appears that one editor made an offtopic comment, the other reverted it for being offtopic, and then incivility ensued. My interaction with Ottava Rima has been less than civil; this comment on my talk page and this comment on their talk page are somewhat hostile. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that it is a breach of civility to not actually pay attention to details and to make claims that are obviously contradicted by the reality, right? Your statement as to what my actions were at 3O were completely wrong, and your statement of "what happened" on your talk page showed that you didn't bother to get your facts straight. If you want to say that my requesting you to be civil and to bother to read before speaking is hostile, then I suggest you think that WP:CIVIL in general, as with common sense, are hostile. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What a ridiculous waste of time this thread is. OR's comment was not strictly about discussing changes to the article, but it was unnecessary to remove it. From WP:TALK "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page", but there also a very important caveat: "[the policy] is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception" (own emphasis added). OR's comments were conversational, relevant to the article, and may have been of interest to the other people in the discussion. Removing the comment was completely unnecessary and common sense should have told Carlaude that. Let's close this thread and go back to doing something useful. Nev1 ( talk) 19:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My statement was in answer that yes, the work is doing it because it has been compared to Milton doing the same exact thing. This was 100% obvious. It is also as on topic as possible. The fact that this user is drawing out such an argument is troubling, especially when people have contradicted his obviously wrong statement with many uses of criticism. As someone who is very Catholic, works for the Catholic Church, and has spent a lot of time with both the Christianity project and works dealing with Christianity, I have a lot of experience in this area. His pursuit of the work in question because it may challenge Christianity in any kind of way is utterly absurd and inappropriate. Furthermore, his pursuance is nonsensical, as the work was heavily used by Unitarians and seen as something that goes after "true religion", regardless if the Bible is correct or not. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who OR is referring to as working for the Catholic Church, or whether OR's statements regarding that person are true or even relevant to this discussion, but I have to say that the inclusion of the material on the talk page, particularly in context of the existing discussion there, did make sense. It might have been phrased a bit better, but that happens on talk pages a lot, so it shouldn't be cause to remove it. I'm not sure that the comment would necessarily have ever led to a change in the content of that specific article, but the same is true of lots of comments on talk pages that aren't removed, so I can't see how it would be a good reason to remove that comment here. John Carter ( talk) 20:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

" As someone who" means that I am speaking about myself (I clarified above to make sure no one else is confused). I am conflicted out of direct action on many of the Catholic pages because of my job. Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, from what I see (after 1/2 hr of reading), Carlaude removed a small entry by Ottava from the article talkpage. From what I can see, that section did not need to be removed - it was close enough to being on-topic, but I can see (based on WP:AGF) why someone might be tempted to remove it. It was later re-added by another editor. However, the response by Ottava on Carlaude's talkpage is extremely offensive and baiting: calling it a "Warning" and "Vandalism" merely served to increase drama, where politely discussing the removal in non-threatening terms (based on WP:AGF) would have been far more useful, and would have helped to de-escalate the situation. I'm not going to give any warnings: one removed something they maybe shouldn't, one needlessly escalated a situation. 'Nuf sed, let's all go back to editing. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 21:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to accept criticism from someone who can't spell my name correctly. :P And the warning was to make it clear not to edit war via blanking my comment out again. That would be far more drama. Snip it in the bud fast. Escalation? No. It was a fire snuffed before it became a blaze. The complaint afterward was over the snuffing out. Ottava Rima ( talk) 21:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry ... living in Ottawa makes the "w" a habit in lieu of a "v" :-) ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 22:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You should have seen how many people on IRC assumed that I was from Canada because they read my name with a "w" in it. But yeah, the point above was that people can say that drama came out of it, but then they could also say that drama could have come out of not making it very clear what my feelings were. Either way, people like drama. It was simply a warning, which can be shrugged off regardless. Just think what would have happened if this all went onto ANI. Now -that- would be drama. Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh ... with your reputation in ANI, you would have been bitch-slapped halfway to Oshawa :-P LMAO ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 23:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, things have been quite mellow there lately. I find that the more content I produced, the less people are willing to pick fights over there. Or maybe the people picking fights got desysopped. Who knows. :D Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Both Aspects ( talk · contribs) and I, C45207 ( talk · contribs), have tried to engage 76.175.161.106 ( talk · contribs) in a discussion ( Talk:Brooke White#Songs_from_the_Attic_link, User talk:76.175.161.106) about the replacement of wikilinks to Songs from the Attic in the "Songs from the Attic" section of Brooke White with external links to the album's site. Diffs include, but are not limited to [21], [22], [23], [24], [25].

I request advice, as discussion seems to have come to an impass.— C45207 | Talk 11:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anybody has explained clearly to this editor that the purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to help the artist or the artist's fans, but simply to provide objective information. You might take one more shot at explaining that, and if it doesn't work, just revert the edits, using an edit summary like "reverting linkspam". Spam reversions are not subject to 3RR, but if you find yourself having to do it more than three times, file a report at WP:3RR and the IP will be blocked. (Disclaimer: I'm not an admin, but I believe this approach is efficient and effective.) Looie496 ( talk) 19:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've posted what I think is a clearer explanation about the goals of Wikipedia: User talk:76.175.161.106#Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.— C45207 | Talk 20:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – WebHamster was blocked for additional violations of WP:CIVIL. Slatersteven got one for 3RR

This particular user has been abusive to other users on Talk:Sarah Palin. I believe that his objective is to discourage participation from others who do not share his Palinite views. Examples are represented at Talk:Sarah_Palin#Recent_edits and multiple other places on the same talk page. He has also issued me fake warnings on my own talk page [40]. What options are available for resolution?-- Dstern1 ( talk) 22:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Consider this: [41] " I say to user:Simon Dodd grow-up. Quit your tantrums. " [42] "I share the advise with you Simon Dodd and others that attacking other users does not help convince people" etc. (other examples available) show a clear problem - with the complainer. Who has also initiated an SPI on a long-time editor Fcreid at [43] oin what was described as "fishing." If there is a problem, it is clear where it is. Collect ( talk) 23:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering whether someone would say I was the problem because I had expressed concerns.-- Dstern1 ( talk) 01:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, there were no "fake warnings" issued on Dstern's talk page; the 3RR warning was for adding a personal attack onto the talk page and thrice reverting various editors who removed it (that incident was documented here). I have no idea what a "Palinite" view is, so I couldn't exclude views that don't conform to that even if I wanted to. Beyond that, I join Collect's reply, with a couple of additional observations about the SPI that DStern instigated against fcreid, Lambchop2008, Classicfilms, and myself. (1) Although Dstern was required to notify the subjects of that complaint, he didn't. (2) Notice the telling phrasing of his request ( [44]): he complains of being "unsure whether I have been 'tag teamed' or they are socks." Note the false dilemma: either we are tag teaming him ( an inflammatory charge in itself) or we're socks. That other users simply disagree with him does not appear to be a possibility that he contemplates. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 23:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Andyjsmith was blocked for wikibullying and edit warring on an unrelated incident Toddst1 ( talk) 14:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

How should I deal with this? [ [45]]. I feel like this guy is trying to pick a fight with me. I asked him to take it up on my talk page rather than using the deletion forum. Next thing I know, I get this "I note that your principal activity on WP is related to AFDs. Also that you have been reprimanded on several occasions for incivility to other editors, including being reported at ANI. Please don't compound the issue. A !vote for delete or keep would have been helpful, as would have been an informed and informative comment. The comment you actually made is totally unhelpful and somewhat troll-like." I got blocked for a day back in December, and that was enough for me. I really don't appreciate someone calling me totally unhelpful and somewhat troll-like, and then implying that I'm the one being incivil. Mandsford ( talk) 01:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and responded on his talkpage. I think he let his past interactions interfere with what I think was a petty awesome response in an AfD. Keep up the good work, and it's good to see that you didn't resort to retaliatory incivility. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 11:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit dispute over article New York Radical Feminists ( talk page) concerning dispute over (and later removal of) content that editors User:Iamcuriousblue (aka, Peter Werner) and User:Shadowjams felt constituted clear original research and reliance on almost entirely primary sources rather than verifiable secondary sources. Ldsnh2 has not meaningfully attempted to discuss and resolve dispute with other editors, but instead has responded with edit warring, personal attacks, and more-or-less assertion of article ownership. The editor has, unfortunately, left most of their assertions in the edit summary or the above-mentioned own user page rather than the talk page. The edit war in question actually went well over three reverts on July 20th, but has now slowed down, though dispute is still clearly active and unresolved. Because User:Ldsnh2 immediately went into attack mode as soon as questions were raised over original research and has behaved aggressively since then, I don't believe the regular dispute resolution process (RFD, mediation, etc) is appropriate here. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 18:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: User:Ldsnh2 has also pasted an older version of the disputed article on their userpage. I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy is on this, though I am not in the habit of disputing what other editors do with their userspace. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 18:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not editting articles from any personal point of view. I have a wealth of information about NYRF having read all NYRF newsletters and documents when working on this Wikipedia article my sister NYRF members would read and judge me about. I also have made a careful study of books about NYRF as well. I deleted information that wasn't referenced and for which I do not believe any independent accurate non-biased secondary source exists to back up.

I also deleted a reference book that was based on biased interviews from partisan factions in NYRF (for example not including any of Shulamith Firestones replies to remarks about her)and inaccuracies such that NYRF folded in 1973 when we held a March 1976 Work Conference and continued our newletter through 1977, that would not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion as a resource.

You are assuming an authority over me that I do not understand as everyone is equal here and has an equal right to edit and comment on articles. You are also assuming that I am a know nothing who has not studied or cared about Wikipedia standards. I did a lot of work on the article following standards I researched. That article was read by other Wikipedias and probably other NYRFers. It stood as is with the primary source references that only exist to verify information from early 2008 until Shadowjams found fault with them this week. If you are assuming authority over me because you are a man and I am a woman well then all women should avoid Wikipedia and any kind of work on its articles. We instead should write articles to post on archive.org that no man would pick apart and ultimately destroy with us having no say in the matter know matter what our knowledge and experience. If you report me to authorities they will clearly see a gender bias here and I will ultimately come out to the good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsnh2 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iamcuriousblue" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsnh2 ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

New York Radical Feminist article more

The article which I worked on from November 2007 until now was reviewed by many Wikipedians and probably other NYRFers. I thought it was OK. When I saw Shadowjams flags for not properly cited references I was surprised. I then carefully took out the material referenced by conversations and e-mails and when I took it out I also thought it was OK to take off the flags as the problem was solved. I did not just take off the flags, I deleted the improperly referenced material they were referring to although I have a vision problem and missed one of Shadowjam's problems. So I did the most edits necessary--except for references to dates in the calendar and Working Women Institute Newsletters that seemed OK when I read the none primary source criteria--seeing they had a validity, took off the flags then aroused the ire of Shadowjams for taking off the flags. Since I did what was necessary rereading the criteria as well, Shadowjams putting the flags back on and remarks seemed only harassment, especially since, as I mentioned, so many other Wikipedians had reviewed the article since November 2007..

Then I saw that most of my references were from NYRF documents not academic or mainstream media books, journals, etc. that seem to be the new standard--the article was OK'd by others for more than a year--and know that none of the information in the article would be valid if that was the criteria. The article that merely lists facts about NYRF and its activities within NYRF is based upon careful reading of all NYRF newsletters and other NYRF and related organization documents like the calendar and correspondence from the Working Women's Institute. Since November 2007 that seemed to be OK w/many other Wikipedians.

One can have all the flags in the world to tell editors to cite information from academic or mainstream media secondary sources but if none exist or are so hard to find no one would do the work to fix the article what good is it?

So I deleted most of the article and wrote a note saying why. Then in the new article put up by Peter Werner I deleted information that was not and probably could not be verified by reliable secondary sources and a reference to a book with inaccurate information--such as when NYRF ceased operations--and biased partisan interviews--such as none with NYRF co-founder Shulamith Firestone.

The gender bias here is awful and that is the main point of this problem. And if there is no pride in one's work and "taking ownership" after doing the research and writing grunt work to put up a Wikipedia article and such work is picked on to the point of demoralization of researchers and writers--anyone can cut and paste in flags w/out doing research or writing--Wikipedia will not survive. We who want to do research and share information can write articles to post on archive.og. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsnh2 ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My original edit was to restore a previous article version. I did this because the anonymous IP had removed 3 tags (primary sources, original research, and cleanup), had broken a number of reference templates, and removed some original research tags throughout the article. This, with the edit summary that they were being "harassed". Those tags were removed again, and I restored them, again.

A user then added this note to the article space: "These notes were continually put in by shadowjams whose user page shows a cockroach after all material he/she questioned resources about had its reference improved or was removed entirely. Such harassment undermines Wikipedia's gender equity effort."

I copy pasted that commentary to the talk page. I bolded the page title in the intro. A user then removed the tags for a fourth time. I restored them again with a warning about 3R and an invitation to discuss the issues.

The following edit summaries read: Shadowjam will remind readers now and forever that women have a long way to go "just to be" as people w/o harassment. I am not discussing anything w/you Shadowjams. You've no more authority for your harassment of people than anyone else here. You kill our spirits, wanting to contribute to Wikipedia. I've done all I can and Shadowjams continues his/her harassment underminig the spirit of Wikipedia. Will never start on another article here again.

I have no idea about the underlying content or if it's even under dispute. I think this user may be confused about exactly who made what changes, since my only edits were restoring another user's edits, and didn't involve any article content (other than bolding the title acronym). Shadowjams ( talk) 02:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

When the majority of the article was knocked back, the original disputed material was removed. The dispute was over sources that were primary, not generally verifiable sources, or even original research. (And it should be clear that a personal email is not an acceptable citation for purposes of Wikipedia, even if "personal communication" would be perfectly acceptable in an academic publication.) What is in dispute now is wither Alice Echols book Daring to be Bad is acceptable as a source. Ldsnh2 says the book is "biased", but so far has produced nothing other than her claimed first-hand knowledge to explain why this is so. Also, I suggest that we start using Talk:New York Radical Feminists to discuss this further. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 02:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User and I are involved in a POV dispute, probably an edit war by now, at Immigration Equality (organization). User repeatedly removed my POV tag [46] in violation of admonishment "Do not delete until dispute resolved." In fact, he deleted the tag in the middle of discussion at RS/N [47] regarding a disputed source. Lionelt ( talk) 03:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Put a request that the page be protected.-- Launchballer ( talk) 16:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? There is nothing from any reliable sources to back up Lionelt's claims. -- Banjeboi 22:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Lionelt first tried to delete this article then when expanded and submitted to DYK, attempted to derail that process. Now they are doing everything they can to disparage this group by injecting "criticism" with no evidence whatsoever this group has actually ever been criticized. When the John Birch Society's The New American was thrown out as a non-reliable source they looked at digging up any thing else and have tried to use "controversy" as some sort of slur against this group. Thing is, I would welcome anything reliably sourced that did show they were actually involved in any controversy - it would help round out the article and bolster their notability. Just because this group works to enact legislation that would benefit people who are living with HIV/ AIDS and LGBT people hardly makes them controversial, at all.
  This latest round was to inject criticism against the Uniting American Families Act without any evidence this group wrote the legislation - likely the legislation has changed, as most legislation does - or is the chief architect. Lionelt WP:Cherry-picked an inflamatory statement from Bill O'Reilly about the legislation as criticism about this group. Sorry, we don't go onto every article and inject criticisms of subject in which they work in such a manner. That would seem to be WP:Soapboxing. If there is any actual criticism of teh group them please share it - I'm afraid they seem a bit too boring as I have yet to see any. If it's relaibly sourced then bring it on. -- Banjeboi 22:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The New American was not thrown out. It is true Who Then found it not RS, but Squid and Will B thought it was a RS and could be included under the present situation. I don't know why Benjiboi is asserting this untruth. Anyone can read the proceedings here [48]. I guess the question is, when 2 or more editors have a dispute, and an editor adds a POV tag in good faith, and the other reverts in bad faith, what should the sanction be? Is page protection sufficient? Lionelt ( talk) 09:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: In spite of this WQA Benjiboi has enlisted the aid of another editor to assist him in continuously reverting the POV tag in order for himself to avoid being blocked. Also, Benjiboi is reverting my {{Controversy}} tag on the talk page! In spite of ongoing edit warring and the article undergoing RfC! Lionelt ( talk) 09:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) So, what we have is a content dispute, nothing to do with WP:NPA or WP:CIV. Based on that, WQA is not your correct forum.

However, I will add my 2 cents ... having read the article (and having never seen it before, nor general interest in the topic at hand), I would have to argue that a POV tag does not belong - it's quite neutrally written overall. One could argue that the fact that such a group needs to exist is because of a POV, but not the fact that an article about the group exists. Indeed, the topic is only controversial because some people (or only 1 person) without an NPOV believe it to be so. Just because you as a person does not believe in gay marriage, does not mean the topic is controversial.

Barring any proof of incivility or personal attacks, WP:RFC is your correct venue, and no further content discussion should take place here. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 11:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Could someone possibly speak to User:Ethan46 about this recent episode where they called me a liar? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ASmiley_face_murder_theory&diff=303754856&oldid=302060502 I take this quite personally and asked for proof of this attack. Ethan46 said they didn't need to provide proof and then proceeded to qualify their accusation by redefining "lie". Any help would be appreciated. Padillah ( talk) 17:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Padillah, I've noticed that you did try to discuss on the article talkpage to no avail. I have provided a warning to the user. I cannot, however, see where you advised them of this WQA filing. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 11:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - my bad. I'll post a notice now to both their talk page and the article talk page. Thanks for reminding me. Padillah ( talk) 15:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No recent activity. Marking resolved for the time being. – Luna Santin ( talk) 05:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

During an RfC over the creation of the new Project Council, Lar has insinuated that Slim Virgin is a demagogue, and that people commenting negatively on the Council are doing so because they have fallen under her spell. He has persisted in forwarding this view in this thread.

Other editors consider this a personal attack against Slim Virgin. I however view it as a personal attack against all those who endorsed her summary, which is currently 88 editors. Lar's position is in effect a massive failure of good faith because he insists that people endorsing her statement are not in fact expressing their own views. It seems to me that if one follows his reasoning, the effect is to claim that the RfC has no legitimacy and can't therefore have any standing.

Lar has been around for about four years and has served on ArbCom so he understands the importance of AGF and NPA. In this context, where the refusal to assume good faith, and the personal attack, are intended (as I think is clear from the context) to nullify the expression of views made by members of the community, in one of the few and most important means by which members of the community can express their views, I think he is showing the worst possible kind of judgment.

Another editor characterized Lar's remarks as intemperate. [55]

My first reaction to Lar's comment was to seek clarification. When it became clear that he meant what I thought he meant, my reaction was to go to his user page and warn him that if he persists he would be blocked for making personal attacks. It seemed to me at the time that a twelve hour block would be enough to get him to reflect on the implications of what he had written.

Thanks to the strongly expressed feelings of others, especially Mackan79 and Orderinchaos, I see that my own reaction was intemperate. I will strike out what I wrote.

Nevertheless, I think for Lar to suggest that those who have endorsed Slim Virgin's statement - 88 people, including myself - is a personal attack and a refusal to accept that i and others can make comments at the RfC that actually reflect our own views. And I consider it politically dangerous, to the functioning of Wikipedia, for Lar to question the integrity of everyone who disagrees with him at an RfC. If this were any other editor, I would just say this is a personal attack. But coming from a bureaucrat and steward, it is a threat to annul my voice and the voice of anyone else who disagrees with him. This is a massive failure of good judgment. I just want Lar to reflect on this, and retract his accusation of bad faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Lar hasn't alleged bad faith in any of those responding to the RfC, and in fact he clarified that he couldn't be sure about SlimVirgin. I happen to agree that simply alleging demagoguery probably doesn't help, and I'm tempted to say that there could be places where claims of bad faith could present more of a problem. But two critical points: 1.) Clearly an editor must be able to address the actions and motives of another editor as relates to project governance, so long as it is done within the reasonable bounds of civility. 2.) SlimVirgin's approach has been controversial, she has been sanctioned for personalizing disputes, and here she started by suggesting that Kirill was on a power grab. [56] In short sum, if SV can accuse Kirill of a power grab, can Lar not accuse SV in entirely civil terms of the same? One may agree or disagree, but a matter of etiquette I think it isn't. Mackan79 ( talk) 11:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That is why I am not accusing Eric Barbour of a personal attack. It was he who raised the possibility of Slim Virgin having a personal agenca, in his statement at the RfC (8:45, 15 July). In my rejection of his statement, I asked

And are you suggesting that the many people who endorse Slim's statement were also somehow victims of ArbCom on some vendetta? Or do you think we are all sockpuppets of Slim? Even if we discounted her single endorsement of the statement, there is still a huge number of editors who support it in good faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC) [57]

My point was that even if Eric was right - I have no objection to him raising that issue - what about all the other people, people who do not have SV's history with Lar and Kiril and others? Surely the 88 people who endorsed her statement do not share SV's alleged personal agenda. My point was that what is most important in an RfC is not the motives of someone making a statement, but how many other editors endorse or reject that statement.

That is when Lar interjected:

Sarah (and Slrubenstein): I found Demagogue interesting reading. You may as well. Sometimes people of good faith are taken in. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC) [58]

Note that Lar was addressing himself to me and another editor who also took issue with Eric's statement. The issue is not what lar is saying about SV, the question is, what is he trying to say to Sarah and me? It seems to me that he is saying Sarah and I are blindly following SV, not expressing our own views, but supporting SVs because we have been duped. Now, I hoped there was another interpretation to this, which is why I asked Lar to clarify himself ... and at this point I invite people just to read the thread, which I linked in my original statement, as it provides the context. The issue i am raising is not Lar and SV's relationship. The issue I am raising is Lar's massive failure to believe editors endorsing SV's statement are acting in good faith. And if we are not acting in good faith, how will the 88 endorsements of her statement be taken? Lar was not out just to discredit SV. Eric was doing that. I asked Eric to consider the implications of hs view for the 88 people who endorsed SV, Lar was responding to my point, and directing a point at me. He was out to discredit everyone else who endorsed her statement. That is the problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You do seem to be missing this statement: "Given that part of that behaviour pattern includes personal attacks on others, unsupported allegations, half truths, distortions of what others said, and conveniently ignoring past sanctions and admonishments, it fits that of a demagogue. It's important that people are at least aware that there may be ulterior motives (or not), even if they choose not to give that view credence. You're a good demagogue (if you are one) because you are so skillfully able to draw people of good faith and good intentions into your various schemes. You've got most people fooled. You had me fooled for a while too. To be fair, however, it is just possible that you sincerely believe that what you are doing is completely above board and for the good of the project, we can never know for sure. But the outcome of your behaviour pattern is disruption, nonetheless. " (emphasis mine) ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 11:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I take a personal interest in policy surrounding ad hominen attacks and have little tolerance for what appears to be fast becomming an acceptable practice here at the WP project. In this case however, I don't see the personal attack against you.

I would also add that is would be nearly impossible to discuss, in the context of an RfC, another editor without making a personal comment that could easily be construed as a personal attack. I note that Lar provided SlimVirgin with a detailed summary of his opinion on SlimVirgin's behaviour (noted above too), and even that would be probably only barely enough to warrant being labelled a personal attack. But in your case, nope, I don't see it, sorry. -- HighKing ( talk) 12:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) No, BWilkins, I read it. All this means is that this is especially sticky mud that you are throwing. You are saying that it is impossible for anyone to know whether the views I expressed at RfC are my own. That is just another personal attack, buddy.

Any editor has a right to open up an RfC. Some RfCs gain no traction; they are generally ignored and disappear. But this RfC has gained considerable traction. Even fo people who support ArbCom's creation of a new Council, it has provided a space to discuss and debate governance at Wikipedia. I hold that this is a good thing. Now what does it mean to say the RfC is disruptive? Aren't all RfC's disruptive, isn't that the point - to stop or slow down activity at some project space, in order to give a wider segment of the community an opportunity to comment? Isn't that a good thing?

It seems to me that you do not mean "disruptive" in the normal, positive sense. You mean "disruptive and destructive" in the sense that has been used by people who wanted the RfC to end yesterday. [59] But who on earth would consider it disruptive and destructive to the point where the RfC should be shut down against standard procedure? As far as I can figure, the only people who would consider the RfC disruptive in this sense are people who do not want Wikipedia to be run in a transparent way, and who do not want to be help accountable in any way to the community.

Thank you, Bwilkins, for making it clear how politically motivated these personal attacks are. You have proved my point that Lar's pesonal attack against 88 editors is part of a wider atttempt to discredit the entire RfC. As I said, coming from a bureuacrat and steward, this is very chilling. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To HighKing, I guess all I can say is, I have not accused any other editors involved in the RfC of personal attacks, even though I have been in heated debate with many of them. Beyond that, i do not know what to say. The whole point of WP:AGF is that this is a community consisting of people who passionately disagree with one another, yet must collaborate with one another. This necessarily means there will always be debates and arguments at Wikipedia. Isn't the spirit of WP:AGF that there be a minimum amount of respect among people who may be debating in the most heated way? To call someone a fool - to say I and other editors have "been fooled" into holding th views we hold seems to me to be enourmously damaging to the whole projct, corrosive to any possibility of reasonable debate.

When I express a view, I have no problem with people disagreeing or arguing against me. I registered my own statement at the RfC and eight people, including Lar, opposed it. I did not accuse Lar of attacking me personally then, and I am not accusing any of those eight of personally attacking me. I assume they disagree with my statement in good faith, and i assume that they believed I made my statement in good faith. That is how debate should occur here. But simply to say "you have been fooled" is not debate, it is not argument, it is just an excuse to ignore. It is the opposite of the minimum amount of respect AGF asks for, when people are always arguing over something. If anything is disruptive and dangerous to the project ... this is! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lar stated to you I found Demagogue interesting reading. You may as well. Sometimes people of good faith are taken in. At worst, he invited you to consider that you may have been fooled. Later on, he made it clear to SV that he believes that there may be an ulterior motive at play and that he wouldn't be fooled, but these comments were directed specifically to SV, not you. I believe that you are being far too sensitive - to the point that stating that he said you and 88 other editors had been fooled is a bit of WP:SYNTH on your part. -- HighKing ( talk) 12:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You are picking out the wrong quote. After Lar made that statement to me, I thought its meaning was vagu - which seems to be your point too, so we agree. But what I did next was to ask for clarification:

Really, Lar? And do you think anyone was actually "taken in?" Who do you think was taken in? What is your point? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think a number of good editors were taken in by this RfC. It's not the first time this sort of thing has happened, either. Again, read the ref I gave. ++ Lar: t/ c 00:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So he is not inviting me to consider that I was taken in, he is flat out saying: a number of editors have been taken in. Let's say he is not attacking me, personally. That is not the underlying issue. The fact remains that he considers some number of the people who have endorsed SV's RfC to have ben "taken in." I continue to believe that this is an assault on the very spirit of AGF meant to discredit the RfC itself. I continue to insist that Wikipedia needs healthy debate and disagreement, and saying someone who disagrees with me was "taken in" by a demagogue is not in any way appropriate for the kind of community we have and wish to have. It is an assault on the community. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct. He is saying that he thinks a number of editors have been taken in. Note that is not a statement directed specifically at you - he has not said that he believes that you have been taken in. I also disagree that it is an assault of the spirit of AGF. I'd go so far as to say that it's impossible to believe someone was taken in and was not acting in good faith - that Lar acknowledges that editors acted in good faith, but that perhaps they were taken in. Again, I understand that you appear to have taken exception to any insinuation that you may have somehow fallen under a spell, or that somehow your endorsement means less or is sullied by this insinuation. But this is still not a personal attack, and you would be better served by pointing out that your decision was made after reviewing the available material and evidence and is your own personal opinion. And note that perhaps reading between the lines a little, Lar's statement probably springs from his own admission that he believes he was once fooled by SlimVirgin and doesn't intend to let that happen again, and that since he obviously believes that if a mature and intelligent individual like himself can be fooled, then lesser mortals may also have been fooled. (tongue-in-cheek: Note that I am not insinuating that you are a lesser mortal. You, obviously, are not a lesser mortal. But you can probably point to a few...) -- HighKing ( talk) 13:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, when you say, "you would be better served by pointing out that your decision was made after reviewing the available material and evidence and is your own personal opinion," I know you mean well - but doesn't WP:Assume good faith mean that this is taken for granted in a dispute? That really is my point.

You suggest that Lar fears being fooled again. I fear that that brushes dangerously close to saying Lar holds a grudge against Slim Virgin. If that is true, I consider his expressing it to be inappropriate for a bureaucrat and Steward. If that is not true, I think you are being a little unfair to him. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this alert meant to be ironic? Reporting someone for expressing views that might be seen as nullifying the expressed views of others, in order to have the views of the nullifier nullified. I don't think the NPA policy is intended to require blocks on folks criticising the words and actions of another; in fact I think if it were, many more people would be blocked in just that RfC. Lar and SlimVirgin have a troubled history. It isn't our place to choose sides in this conflict by silencing Lar's criticism, as we have not silenced SlimVirgin in the past. Nathan ^T 16:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You are being disingenuous. If I wanted to nullify Lar's position concerning any negative comment about ArbCom or the Council, I would have filed a complaint after he rejected SV's statement, or after he rejected my statement. I did not. That should be proof enough that I consider Lar free to oppose me or to express his support of ArbCom and the Council. But Lar has gone a step too far in wishing to discredit the RfC as a whole. That is another matter. Our policy holds that an RfC should last thirty days or until a consensus forms. I would not oppose any editor who moved to close down the RfC on either of these grounds. Lar wants to discredit the RfC because he doesn't like where it is going.

There is no comparison between me and Lar. I do not favor closing down the RfC because people have disagreed withme. Lar does want to discredit the RfC because people disagree with him. For you to suggest any comparison between us is disingenuous.

Moreover, nowhere in my petition do I ask anyone to take any side between Lar and Slim Virgin. Read what I wrote. His personal attack is against all those whom he says were duped by Slim Virgin. He cannot accept the fact that many people actually disagree with them, they must somehow have been "fooled." I do not believe he was "fooled" when he rejected my statement- I believe he voiced opposition in good faith and I accept that. All I ask is the same in return: that he accept my statement, and my positions expressed in the RfC, as being my own genuin non-fooled non-duped views. A simple statement from him to that effect would satisfy me.

Wiqiquette does not have the power to silence anyone. That is why I come to Wiququette - I wanted attention given to an assault on my good faith and the good faith of others. I do not want to silence anyone. For you to say so is disingenuous. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I read Lar's comments to suggest that SlimVirgin was being less than honest, specifically by having motives and goals other than what one would presume by reading her statements on the RfC. Lar believes that this deceit, as he sees it, has fooled others into participating as though SlimVirgin's stated motives omitted or obscured nothing. This argument doesn't seem to require you or anyone else to have been "duped" with respect to the substantive issues of the RfC, only her intentions in raising it. It's a broadside on SlimVirgin, not you or anyone else, and as such is part of a continuing and long-term dispute between Lar and SlimVirgin that can't possibly be addressed on WQA. Nathan ^T 18:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You say it was not directed at me, but I quoted Lar directly addressing me. Please do not twist my words. I file a WQA against Lar, and you explain why a WQA filed by Slim Virgin doesn't hold up. Do you think I am a sock-puppet? I have not filed a WQA on Slim Virgin's behalf. If she ever files a WQA you are free to comment on that. But don't tell me that my WQA cannot be addressed because the conflict between Lar and Slim Virgin cannot be addressed. It is at best a non sequitor, at worst, dishonest. This is not about Slim Virgin. It is about the comments Lar directed explicitly to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As another element to the irony, add this statement: "As far as I can figure, the only people who would consider the RfC disruptive in this sense are people who do not want Wikipedia to be run in a transparent way, and who do not want to be help accountable in any way to the community." That statement seems to be a personal attack against those who believe the RfC has run its useful course, implying they prefer secrecy and impunity and would like to prohibit discussion for their own benefit. Should we open a WQA on Slrubenstein to debate this, or would that be disruptive? (In case it isn't completely clear, I have no intention of doing that.) Nathan ^T 16:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You say "should we ..." - does this mean you are one of the people who consider the RfC disruptive? if so, yes, you should feel free to open a WQA on me if you feel I have personally attacked you. But I never mentioned you, and i did not think I was refering to you. Lar of course is free to file a WQA against me. So far he has not. But so far, you and others have acted as if this is a WQA filed against me, rather than one filed against Lar. Isn't that odd? I guess some people are feeling mighty defensive. But this is not how I expected WQA to work. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I see no point to closing the RfC. But by "we" I mean anyone who holds a view of what constitutes "personal attack" that is expansive as yours; both you and Lar have ascribed to others characteristics you find personally negative, why should we entertain a WQA on one but not the other? I suppose I could have written "should someone open" instead. Nathan ^T 18:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never objected to anyone opening a WQA on me. You suggest that somehow I am a hypocrite, and I do not know why. You are trying to use a phantom to intimidate me. Since no one has filed a WQA against me, all we can say is, no one has filed a WQA against me. When someone does, then address it. But why make up non existant accusations against me? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nathan repeatedly insinuates that I am trying to silence Lar. But this is how I end my WQA: "I just want Lar to reflect on this, and retract his accusation of bad faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)" Nathan's insinuations are toxic and can only reflect his bad faith and conempt for this process. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lar is an expert on magical snares and feminine wiles. Therefore, his statements about such things affecting an RfC are not a breach of AGF or CIVIL. He is merely stating what he knows. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Slrubestein, can you please, whenever you copy and paste quotes from somewhere else, put them inside quotation marks and italicize them ... it looks right now like some people have posted on this WQA who actually have not. Please fix ASAP. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 21:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nathan has summed up my thinking here so well I'm not sure there's anything I could usefully add, except to deplore templating the regulars ++ Lar: t/ c 21:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's good to see experienced contributors who so clearly support the project. Thank you all for bringing the endless childish antics from other drama pages here. Tim Shuba ( talk) 22:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We do try and keep it reasonably drama-free in here :-) ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 23:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• In arguments, people are bound to question the points of view of others. Rather than getting into such a huff over something Lar said, including miles of text about how offended everyone is that he questioned someone's thought process, or block threats if he doesn't stop questioning someone's thought process... why not prove him wrong? If there's a personal attack in Lar's comments, I'm sorry to say that I'm missing it. It's a bit of a snipe, I guess, but the reaction here is way out of proportion compared to other vitriol on the page. Is it that hard to address his point directly, that we instead start filing reports and threatening him? – Luna Santin ( talk) 23:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

  Luna, how dare you post reason here! You should be ashamed. :P But yeah, when did we start acting like the thought police instead of just labeling people as hypocrites and ignoring them? :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• To me it is an obvious personal attack (or more precisely ad hominem argument) when an editor tries to discredit an argument by drawing attention to real or imagined personal characteristics of his opponent. I have been accused of making personal attacks for much less hostility and ad hominem argumentation than Lar is doing here. However I have also been subjected to much harsher personal attacks without feeling a need to file wikiquette alerts or writing six pages of correspondance. A thick skin is a good thing to have, especially since personal attacks if ignored tend to just reflect poorly on the person making them. Personally, when I see someone making snide personal attacks and then try to justify it instead of just saying "Ok, sorry I crossed the line" I'll just quietly think "What an asshole" and move along to more productive things trying to avoid contact with that person in the future. I suggest a similar attitude might be the most productive here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• I don't think it was a personal attack, but I do think it was intemperate - that being said, intemperate remarks and comments are being passed by at least 10-15 people on that page (across both sides of the issue divide) and Lar's is at the lowest end of the scale out of those. He is honestly reflecting his own view I think, but may not have fully considered how that would be seen by others. I find myself largely in agreement with Maunus on this one. Orderinchaos 02:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Not strictly a personal attack, but typical of the (to me personally distasteful) responses that Lars often makes. Several times he has intruded on my talk page with distasteful (to me) remarks. I think that is just his style. Not very tactful or thoughtful, in my opinion. And perhaps borderline troll type statements, geared to generate an emotional response. — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Something needs to be pointed out: this dialog from 15 July shows that Lar's comments at RfC talk weren't quite an isolated incident. Casting aspersions upon another editor's motives without substantial evidence is inadvisable. Labeling another editor with a derogatory term is seldom a useful thing to do. It might be justifiable in an appropriate venue as a conclusion to a well-substantiated presentation that uses specific examples and diffs. But on process talk pages, without examples or evidence, it adds more heat than light. Particularly so when the poster asserts that he presents information other editors ought to know, while he withholds a disclosure that ought to come with it: that he has been on the opposite side of a long an bitter arbitration case with that other person. It has been noted that more blatant breaches of wikiquette have come to this board. Yet this is probably the first time that a steward's conduct has come under review here. May this also be the last. Even if Lar is factually correct, his way of raising his concern has been a breach of wikiquette and unproductive. Durova ²⁸⁰ 03:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is good advice in part, but I wish it were that simple. In fact I think there is in this type of case a somewhat awkward balance between the presentation of claims and the presentation of evidence for those claims. An editor could certainly in every instance they had a criticism of another editor present the full background information to support that criticism. The problem is that this would often derail a discussion into something only tangentially relevant. On the other hand, editors who find themselves targeted by an accusation should certainly be entitled to request evidence or an explanation. Leaving aside blatant attacks or obviously baseless comments, a sensible balance often observed is to leave this question to the person criticized: do they want to pursue the issue or not? If they do, then a person making such criticism should present the relevance and basis for the claim, or retract it. If not, then the claim simply stands, for people to consider or disregard as they will. In fact the comments of both editors here, challenging the other to take any issue to dispute resolution, tends to show this balance at work, and an issue that probably is not worth pursuing on their behalf. Mackan79 ( talk) 07:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The appropriateness of the venue is also salient, as well as points made by other editors at this thread regarding the underlying logical fallacy. Given enough time, just about anyone who is active in Wikipedia namespace makes a few calls that turn out to be demonstrably wrong. It isn't a respectable argument to say "So-and-so was wrong two years ago, so disregard them." We're all human and imperfect; none of us makes the right call on every occasion, so we parse each others' reasoning in each new situation to see whether this time it holds together. Durova ²⁸⁰ 15:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

When lar made his comment, I did not run immediately to WQ, nor did I throw a hissy fit. I asked him to clarify what he meant. In fact, I gave him a couple of opportunities to explain what he meant, and other people commented as well. His response was only to state more firmly his view that I was a dupe. I am not sure if Tim Shuba and BWilkins are accusing me of being a drama queen, but there comments are in line with Maunus' wishing i had a thicker skin. But the way I see it, I have a thick skin. That is why I did not come here right away; that is why I gave lar a couple of chances to clarify his meaning. I know quite well that people can easily misunderstand one another at Wikipedia. I tried to engage Lar like an adult, and give him a chance to act like one. I came here only after it was evident to me that it was not worth trying to settle things directly with Lar. Perhaps his feelings are still hurt from the experience he had with Slim Virgin however long ago that ArbCom thing was. I am sorry if a bureaucrat and steward cannot but the past behind him. Be that as it may, I am not Slim Virgin and to me, at least, I would expect him to act like a grown up, as I assume he acts with other editors. But frankly, if he thinks Nathan's snide and slightly hysterical comments (which ignore what I wrote, or put words in my mouth, which accuse me of saying things I never said) speak for him, then all I can say is: this is really one incompetent administrator who really does need a little time out to assess how to act towards others.

Tim Shuba accuses me of bringing childish antics here. I guess any personal attack can be labeled "childish antics." But I came here because I understood this to be the least antagonistic, least confrontational, setting to seek disinterested opinions about a possible personal attack (yes, possible - that is why we want other views, to know what other people think, right?) I do not mind it when BWilkins and High King tell me they see no personal attack. True, I thought that they misunderstood my explanation, but I know they were giving their honest opinions. Nathan, Shuba and others have only expressed dismissive contempt. Is that what this space is for? Editors have a choice, when they feel someone as attacked them. They can attack back, or they can seek the opinions of others. I came here, presented my case, and the only thing I said i wanted as an outcome was "I just want Lar to reflect on this, and retract his accusation of bad faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)" I was hoping for some kind of mediation or at least (as High King and BWilkins did provide) an unbiased second opinion.

I chose not to attack back - really, I would like to know where, at the RfC, I have committed a personal attack against Lar. Nathan only insinuates, but can anyone come up with a clear case?

I chose not to respond in kind, and instead came here, only to have my own intentions and character questioned. Folks, if that is how you respond, do not be surprised if fewer people come here. Telling someone you think they are over-reacting is one thing. Questioning their good faith in coming here is something else.

The fact remains that Lar is a bureaucrat and a steward and when someone disagrees with him, he goes on the offensive. Wikipedia ought to have a forum where complaints about people given such powers are given a fair hearing, but I guess I should not be surprised when instead Lar's little toadies rush around to protect him. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find my comments snide and hysterical; my intention was to argue that (a) what you took as a personal attack against you was, if anything, limited to an attack against someone else (despite that yes, part of the comment was addressed at you in response to your query) and (b) you have a quite expansive view of personal attack, that seems perhaps to apply primarily to comments addressed at you and not by you. You find being described as unaware of the motivations of another as a personal attack, but have no difficulty describing others as interested in secrecy and uninterested in being held accountable. You've further accused me of being snide, hysterical, toxic, a toady, editing in bad faith and contemptuous of this process. While I appreciate the irony, I would prefer if you focused on responding to what I've written rather than insulting me without cause. I've made it clear why I don't think Lar's comments, addressed at you as they were, constituted a personal attack against you. They could reasonably be described as a personal attack on SlimVirgin, but as I've said, WQA is not the forum to address that conflict. Nathan ^T 14:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment While we all may wish that editors express themselves on thorny issues with decorum, there is a clear line between using direct language and the kind of personal attack that WQA is designed to address. This is clearly not a personal attack and this forum is the wrong place for what is a fundamentally different type of disagreement. Slrubenstein, I understand the point you are trying to make, but in the face of numerous uninvolved parties telling you that this is not a WQA issue, it is lamentable indeed that you should yourself indulge in the kind of behaviour you purport to dislike by bandying about accusation of toadyism and cliques. WP:WQA does not exist to provide aggrieved editors with the answers they want to hear. I recommend this be closed and archived. Eusebeus ( talk) 15:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

*Cough* "difficult communications with other editors" *cough* It doesn't say "personal attacks". It doesn't limit the discussion to only incivility. This is the first step in problems between two editors, which there is clearly a problem in the above. If anyone closes based on your statement, then they are going against what this forum is for, which would be a mockery of the whole dispute resolution process. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

When the editor bringing the complaint resorts to calling others toadies b/c he is not getting the response he is seeking, then this forum is no longer promoting useful discussion. You, Ottava Rima, of all people should know that. I myself will close this discussion if there is no substantial objection from uninvolved parties as I see no resolution forthcoming. Eusebeus ( talk) 16:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

When an editor is calling other people toadies, then that shows that there is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with. We cannot ignore this. It needs to be resolved in one way or another. How to resolve it? I don't know. However, I do see that there is a problem somewhere. Hence why we need to have this open for more than a day. Nothing is solved in a day, two days, or three. Give it time to see how this goes. Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, Ottava. Of course my words of 10:16, 21 July 2009 were motivated in part by my sense that everyone (without even responding to Durova's typically sober comments) really just want to close the books on this.

Lar said something to me that I thought was not right. I asked him to clarify and his clarification to my mind made things worse. I thought I was civil to Lar. I made one rash act, was told by others it was inappropriate, and I did everything I could to reverse the rash act - I thought all of these were done in good faith. I came here precisely because, as you point out, it is the first step in dealing with problems between two editors.

I do not mind being told my interpretation of Lar's statement was wrong. But so far Lar has yet to say that he accepts my claim that my statement and responses at the RfC reflect my considered opinion. This is all I asked for. I do not think that is an awful lot to ask of another editor. Eusebius, do you really think this is an unreasonable request? Honestly?

Ottava, you express the view that this case shouldn't be closed. It seems that you are the only one (aside from myself) who thinks this way. My comments of 10:16, 21 July 2009 were indeed quite harsh but if the consensus of others is that I was wrong even to bring this to WQA, then there is something very seriously wrong with a place that advertises itself as the first place to go in a brewing conflict. Even now, Nathan claims that "You find being described as unaware of the motivations of another as a personal attack, but have no difficulty describing others as interested in secrecy and uninterested in being held accountable;" what is missing from his claim is the dimension of time. When I first came here, I did not claim that anyone was uninterested in accountability. I wish just one person who accuses me of making personal attacks would provide a single quote from my original statement, above, that is a personal attack or that asks for more than an apology. It was only after people here, who I thought would be neutral and disinterested, accused me of trying to silence Lar, that I made the statement about secrecy and a lack of accountability. Nathan, maybe you want to take a look at your first comment to me. All you really say is, (1) I am wrong for trying to nullify Lar's views (when the only view I have asked him to retract is his view that I have been duped, i.e. I did not suggest he retrace any of his views about any of the statements at the RfC); (2) I am wrong for coming her to have Lar blocked (when nowhere in my statement do I suggest Lar should be blocked) and (3) this is not the place to resolve a dispute between Slim Virgin and Lar (when I stated explicitly that I was not interested in anything between Slim Virgin and Lar). So yeah, reading you comments changed my mind about some things, and yeah, Nathan, I did conclude that yours are the snide and hysterical words of a toady.

And even now, Nathan, you misrepresent me. You present my complaint thus "You find being described as unaware of the motivations of another as a personal attack." Nowhere did I ever say this. I defy you to point to where I wrote this. What I wrote was that Lar was attacking SV as a way of discrediting people who had their own reasons for endorsing her statement. I did not write that the personal attack was that Lar said I did not know SV's motives; I wrote that the personal attack was that Lar was suggesting that I had no motives of my own that were sufficient on their own, and well considered, to justify my expressing my own views. The point is not that I do not know what SV's motives are; the point is, I do not care. Tell me you do not agree with my statment at the RfC - fine. Tell me you think I over-reacted to Lar's comment (as othes here have) - well, okay. But your insistence on consistently misrepresent me is not just offensive, it just echoes Lar's position, which is not that my views are wrong but that the just don't count. If you cannot see why one position is acceptable and necessary at Wikipedia, and the other is corrosive to our process, you really are missing something.

I came here in good faith and expected a minimal amount of courtesy. Several people here, while disagreeing with my view, did respond to me with courtesy and I appreciate that. Mackan, Luna Santin, Eusibius and others don't find any merit in my original statement, but I appreciate their courtesy, and others whose names I have left out... Some however did not. And yes, that changes my view of the situation. My comments to Nathan were all responses to Nathan. Were his initial comments really in line with the spirit of WQA? If so ... if so, well, that really is pathetic, folks.

Wow, was I actually accused of not being courteous by this unsigned post? I'd like to see some proof of that please, or else that in and of itself can be contrary to WP:NPA. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 21:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I accept that you, Slrubenstein, apparently feel that suggesting that you may at some point have been fooled in some way is a personal attack on you. I don't understand such a feeling, as it makes absolutely no sense to me, but I accept that you apparently feel that way. I assure you that no personal attack on you, or anyone else, was intended by pointing it out. I gather from the comments here that most folk don't see it as a personal attack on you either. I hope that helps. ++ Lar: t/ c 17:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lar, I very much appreciate your coming here to comment. It is in the hope of helping you with your lack of understanding that I point out that I do not take as a personal attack the observation that I can be fooled or even that I have been fooled at times in my life. I do not take that as a personal attack and you do not need to apologize for that. The only thing I took as a personal attack was the suggestion that my endorsement of Slim Virgin's statement, and my own statement, were posted because Slim Virgin, specifically, fooled me with regard to this RfC, specifically. I want you to know that in my mind Slim Virgin may have noble motives or base motives; I frankly do not care what her motives are. I would have objected to the way the Council was created whether she issued an RfC or not. Moreover, my statement - which you disagreed with, and I assume you disagreed with it in good faith - reflects views I have held since I came here, views which I hold very dear regardless of what any other Wikipedia does or does not say or do. Do you believe that what I just wrote is true (not that my views are "right" but that my views are my own)? That is my main question for you. If your answer is yes - if this is what you meant to communicate with your apology, then I am very glad to accept it and put the whole thing behind us. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. ++ Lar: t/ c 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I thought that you were insinuating that you did not believe these things - that because you thought SV had fooled me, that you believed that I would not have objected to the way the Council was created if she had not issued the RfC; that my statement - which you disagreed with, and I assume you disagreed with it in good faith - reflects my having been fooled by SV, and does not reflect views I have held since I came to Wikipedia, views which I hold very dear regardless of what SV says or does. That is what I thought you were suggesting, and that is what I found hurtful and defamatory. But if this is not what you were suggesting and if you do not believe these things, if that is what you intended to say in coming here, then as I say I would be grateful to know that, and glad to put this all behind us. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea whether you are acting in good faith or not, but am happy to take your assurance that you are, and that you're acting based on your own beliefs as you see them. It has nothing to do with whether you were or were not fooled about anything in particular. That's not a change in any way from what I said before, but I hope that helps. ++ Lar: t/ c 19:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's worth anything, I believe he is acting in good faith, as are you. Orderinchaos 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess we all have our own demons to battle, Lar. Be that as it may, I know you came here in good faith and I do appreciate what you just wrote, so let's end it here. Of course no one can ever know whether someone is truly acting in good faith, but Wikipedia asks us to make the assumption - perhaps for you a leap of faith. I am glad that you accept my assurance, and my claim that the beliefs I am expressing are my own. As I state at the top of this page, I was not really sure what you meant, when you first wrote about demagoguery, and I wanted clarification. This is the clarification I hoped for. As far as I am concerned, this entire problem between us is now water under the bridge. I hope it is for you too. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not at all a leap of faith for me to assume that by and large, everyone here is acting in good faith... except when it seems fairly clear they actually are not. For long term contributors, that fortunately is a fairly rare situation. ++ Lar: t/ c 19:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is more or less resolved, so this is my last comment on this page - although if necessary, I'd be happy to continue this discussion to a more collegial conclusion with Slrubenstein on my talk page or his. My comments in this WQA begin from the assumption that Lar was expressing his personal views, which were critical and questioning of SlimVirgin. His particular point, to me, seemed to be that her motives were mispreresented and others were unaware of this fact; I realize that Slrubenstein took this to be an attempt to discredit his good faith objections to the Advisory Council, but hopefully all are now aware that this wasn't the case.

• Slr did, in fact, describe his initial belief that Lar should be blocked for 12 hours. That he ultimately struck his template warning did not, to me, indicate he had repudiated this belief.
• Because Lar was expressing his personal belief that SV was being disingenuous, it struck me as inappropriate that he be punished/censured/subject to the opprobrium of WQA for this belief because Slr saw it as discrediting his views on the RfC - when that was not the case nor the common reading of Lar's comments.
• I found it telling, and still do, that despite the absence of any personal attacks on Slr himself (as determined by any other person on this board thus far), he has seen fit to issue quite a number of such attacks against myself and others. Its a touch hypocritical that a person who initiates a WQA thread believes it appropriate to repeatedly attack respondents and accuse them of various ills. If I were the sort to care about such things, it would be reasonable to request an apology for being called snide, hysterical, toxic, a toady and accused of editing in bad faith. Nathan ^T 20:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• In my opinion it would not have been a bad idea to leave this with the intro and first two dot points, without adding the third, which risks inflaming a matter that had already been hammered out. Much of the debate at the place where this whole matter originated was pretty hysterical, there were certainly no shortage of snide comments either, although I don't think any individual editors could or should be singled out for that. Orderinchaos 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Must agree with Nathan. Coming here with a post I'd been composing, in my effortful way, I found the problem resolved—at least I certainly hope it is. But I'll post my thoughts anyway, though I hesitate to open my mouth in an atmosphere that I see as becoming harder and harder to breathe in. The way Slrubenstein was becoming more and more embattled was frankly alarming. Slrubinstein... you threaten to block an editor for giving their opinion? I'm not primarily referring to your first threat, which you "struck out" —"my reaction was to go to his user page and warn him that if he persists he would be blocked for making personal attacks. It seemed to me at the time that a twelve hour block would be enough to get him to reflect on the implications of what he had written"— although in fact it remains alarming even when struck out — but to what I take to be the second threat/slash/insult: "this is really one incompetent administrator who really does need a little time out to assess how to act towards others." (Who really does need a block... ?) Do you realize how increasingly embattled you were becoming—egged on by Durova—(I have no idea why)—towards the end of this mass of text? Please do keep it dialed down. Seriously. These threats are abuse of WP:AGF. They're classic examples of so-called "personal attacks" which are much, much better ignored; Gee... what's happening to this site? Have admins started shooting from the hip now? Are you aware that Lar has a completely clean block log, which you were proposing to smear? That's a serious matter. It's the kind of thing that loses us good editors. It's... primitive. Do you actually notice yourself talking like this, and do you actually want to be on record talking like it?

"I tried to engage Lar like an adult, and give him a chance to act like one. .. I would expect him to act like a grown up, as I assume he acts with other editors... all I can say is: this is really one incompetent administrator who really does need a little time out to assess how to act towards others."

I'm very glad to see that you consider the problem water under the bridge now; I hope it sticks. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

Hi Nathan. A couple of points I don't understand about your comment. I don't really understand why you felt the need to fan the flames when it seemed to have been settled. I don't understand why Slr's comment about blocking Lar is relevant. It's not as if he did block Lar, and all he did was say that this was his initial feeling. How you describe Slr's reasoning regarding the non-block doesn't look fair to me. It was never proposed as "punished/censured/subject to the opprobrium of WQA", but as cool down time. I'm flabergasted that someone can get hot under the collar over something that did not happen. Finally, if you feel that Slr has personally attacked you, then I think the best thing you can do is to say which parts of what he said you found personally offensive to you, and ask him to apologise for that offence. It's clear to me that often we cause offence when we don't mean it, and one person's personal attack is another person's innocent comment. Alun ( talk) 21:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen, kind of the same to you. Why are you trying to keep this going after it's been resolved? I don't understand it. But be fair, Slr never threatened to to block an editor for giving their opinion?. He said he thought about giving Lar some time out to think about how he had handled the situation. Maybe he was wrong to template Lar, I don't know, but he didn't threaten to punish him, as you suggest. As for Are you aware that Lar has a completely clean block log, how is that relevant? Is it now a policy that we don't block people who have a clean block log? I don't think it is "shameful" to have had a block, and I don't necessarily think that those who don't have any blocks at all are necessarily "better" editors than anyone else. It certainly doesn't look like a valid reason not to block someone, or even to threaten to block them. I don't have a problem with you pointing when you think Slr has made personal attacks, that's fair enough. But let's stick to substantive issues here. Slr didn't threaten to "punish" anyone, and he didn't threaten to block someone for expressing an opinion. Just for full disclosure, I was asked to come here and comment by Slr. Alun ( talk) 21:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that Slr has expressed satisfaction with my responses, it may be time to take up examining Slr's approach to resolving this matter, as several folk have expressed the view that it has been somewhat lacking in wikiquette. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but stick to the facts, and let's not get bogged down with accusations of threats to block you as a "punishment" for giving you "opinion". Stick to the substantive points, the specific instances of comments that you feel are beyond the pale. I think in fairness you should probably close this thread and start a new one detailing the instances that have troubled you. That way there is a new thread with a more appropriate heading, and also the specific instances can be given at the head of the thread, so someone who wants to comment doesn't have to read all the way through the above thread. Would that be a good idea? Alun ( talk) 21:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think both sides need to drop this and focus on editorial content instead of each other. If there are still problems, then follow WP:DR. Dreadstar † 22:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I second Dreadstar's sound advice. We risk flogging equine remains here. Orderinchaos 17:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted your close, Dreadstar, as we had a new user just pop in here (apparently canvassed here by Slr) and I think Slr has a bit to answer for... either here, or on my talk page would be fine. Now, if everyone else thinks we're done that would be fine, but I'd rather hear from folks who opined before that Slr was out of line for calling people toadies, etc. rather than from new participants. ++ Lar: t/ c 06:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the complaints re Slr's comments are out there; either he's chosen not to respond, or he's waiting for other people to agree/disagree before he decides how seriously to take them. He's free to disengage, I suppose, but I have trouble squaring that with his strong desire for you to comment here in response to his complaints. If he doesn't reply here within the next day or so, closing this thread is reasonable. Nathan ^T 13:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would personally suggest that Lar has a wikibreak as an oppose to something more serious.-- Launchballer ( talk) 16:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment wildly misses the mark here. But since Slr has chosen to ignore the request for clarifications, apparently thinking that he can cast aspersions on all and sundry but doesn't have to answer to legitimate criticism of his own actions, I think this is closable at this point, with a note to future readers, if any, that there are unresolved issues with Slr's conduct in this matter that I choose to let slide. ++ Lar: t/ c 17:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)