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

• User:12.5.175.135

I removed what I regard as a personal attack from User:Cynwolfe's page as vandalism and warned the IP, see [1]. The IP signed as User:Charliebray, an account blocked for vandalism, so I figured it might be worth reporting here. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 00:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Probably not the best place ... if the IP continues to edit WP:ANI or maybe WP:AIV probably better places to notify the admins. Gerardw ( talk) 01:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

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

QuackGuru has left several posts ( [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) on my talk page related to an extended dispute on Talk:Pseudoscience involving a large number of editors. I pointed out that the issue was not personal but involved the whole editing community for that article and I clearly requested that QG stop posting on my talk page. [7] [8] [9] I am quite responsive in the article talk page and I see no need for QG's personalization of the disagreements by posting the same arguments on my talk page. Today another long posting appeared. [10] I find QG's talk-page style to be dogged, repetitive, not-hearing, and tenditious. It's difficult enough in article space. I have been hiding QG's posts to my talk page but I'd rather not get them at all. Are there remedies that will keep QG's posts off my talk page? Joja lozzo 03:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Jojalozzo, do you agree you will stop violating core Wikipedia policies? What is the abbrevation dnft stand for? Why did write in part: If not, let's stop cooking this trollish feast.? QuackGuru ( talk) 04:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that QuackGuru does not actually communicate but only leaves variants of the same announcement on your talk page (basically saying that he is right and you are wrong and your responses worthless), I think you can simply follow the same approach that I did here. Presumably (I haven't checked), after that he went around telling people behind my back that I was wrong and he was right and I wasn't responding at all, but at least he left my talk page alone. Hans Adler 07:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The claim is supported by the source. I recently explained this in detail on the talk page. Do you agree you won't replace sourced text with OR again or delete sourced text from a mainstream peer-reviewed source. See WP:WEIGHT. Your previous approach was not productive. You failed to explain why you are against including the mainstream source. QuackGuru ( talk) 14:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither this nor my talk page are the proper place to conduct a specific discussion about editing Pseudoscience. Here we are discussing how to help you recognize boundaries and to limit discussion to locations where the editors involved can participate. Joja lozzo 14:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

See argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum verbosium, begging the question and straw man. Also: When did you decide that trying to cause nervous breakdowns in serious Wikipedia editors is more fun than beating your wife?

You should have been banned per WP:COMPETENCE years ago. I am pretty sure if you hadn't simply stayed out of the recent Arbcom case which you caused and in which you were named, without any excuse or explanation whatsoever, you would be banned by now. Hans Adler 15:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Link to said ArbCom case please? DigitalC ( talk) 18:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling. QuackGuru's current baseless complaints are the continuation of events in February/March that only he is still interested in. At the time, Ludwigs2 took him to ANI because of the disruption, but Sandstein decided to shoot the messenger, leading to the Arbcom case. QuackGuru was named as one of four officially involved editors, but played dead. The evidence page was blanked. For an overview of QuackGuru's disruptive activities over the years (not exclusively WP:IDHT and WP:COMPETENCE issues but also more active disruption), see here. Hans Adler 18:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. DigitalC ( talk) 18:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Hans Adler. Take QG to ArbCom again please. Why they didn't deal with him when they had the chance I don't know, but they need to do so- unless he can be community banned. BE——Critical_{__ Talk} 02:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Already done, see WP:AE DigitalC ( talk) 22:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

So far the responses here have been from those with their own problems with QuackGuru. I would appreciate hearing from uninvolved third parties with expertice in wikiquette. Thanks. Joja lozzo 14:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am. (at least I'm uninvolved) BE——Critical_{__ Talk} 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, you are involved (in the content dispute) and have refused to collabrate. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Telling you I don't want to be involved doesn't equal involvement. I made one comment on the Pseudoscience talk page, months ago. BE——Critical_{__ Talk} 04:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor's comment: I recommend a stern warning on QuackGuru's user talk page, reminding him or her about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, along with a notification that making a similar remark ever again will result in a two week block (and 4 weeks if it happens again, 8 weeks for a 3rd time, and permanent block for a 4th time). Uncivil behavior cannot be tolerated. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That won't work. It's not really WP:CIV is it? It's tendentious editing with an overall disruptive effect. If you read above, you will see it's already gone to WP:AE. Fainites ^barley scribs 21:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIV says, "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. " Continuing to barrage someone's talk page with clearly unwanted commentary despite being asked to stop is clearly NOT treating the "other with consideration and respect". We need to encourage and enforce respectful behavior, and discourage disrespectful/uncivil behavior like this, for the good of Wikipedia. People need to know, unquestionably, if they don't treat others civilly and respectfully, they will get blocked. I stand by my recommendation. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

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

After attempting to speak with this admin on his talk page following this discussion there, I was told by him that his highly rude, insulting and clearly uncivil language toward others is perfectly fine. He believes that it's acceptable to tell polite, good-faith fellow editors that their comments are "useless," "patently false pseudo-boilerplate junk" and "meaningless pseudo-rationale gibberish," among other terms.

When I tried to discuss this with him, his response was: "Those aren't insults; they were pieces of matter-of-fact criticism."

I don't think any reasonable observer would think calling someone's good-faith efforts "patently false pseudo-boilerplate junk" and "meaningless pseudo-rationale gibberish" is polite, constructive criticism. "Gibberish"? "Junk"? These are insults, plain and simple, and they were not necessary. There are diplomatic ways to offer constructive criticism. His behavior is arrogant and bullying.

Secondarily, you'll also see in that discussion that he throws his weight around announcing that he is as an admin in an editorial disagreement in which he is simply an editorial peer.

As a six-year Wikipedia editor with much experience, I don't bring up these points out of delicate sensibility or naivete. I work with many wonderful editors and mature, diplomatic admins who understand we're all volunteers and who treat us with normal, collegial respect. Insulting other editors' good-faith efforts as "gibberish" and "junk," and becoming defensive when this is pointed out — I don't believe any editor, much less an admin, has a right to insult others that way. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Tenebrae inserted himself as what he called "a mediator" into a discussion about FUR for non-free images on the user talk page of FPaS. Mediation on wikipedia is a mutually agreed process: at no stage did Tenebrae seek agreement from FPaS. Tenebrae shows some misunderstanding of wikipedia policy. There are wikipedia rules for use of non-free images. In addition criticizing edits and the remarks contained in them is not a personal attack or insult. On the other hand Tenebrae told FPaS on his user talk page that, unless he was a copyright lawyer, he had no business adjudicating or tagging non-free images. His exact words were, "I would point out that unless Future Perfect at Sunrise is a copyright attorney, then his opinions are, by definition, amateur opinions, and before any deletions are done to what I consider careful attempts at FUR that we have an unaffiliated third-party admin weigh in. Unless Future Perfect at Sunrise is a copyright attorney, his absolutism is unwarranted — as is his personally chasing down my contributions after I posted something with which he disagrees." All these remarks were inappropriate. Mathsci ( talk) 04:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It is often typical when one cannot defend someone's action that they attempt to turn things around and attack the accuser. None of what Mathsci has said here anything to do with FPaS' rudeness and language. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that will do. This isn't a one-sided process; you own behaviour is open to scrutiny. If you're involved in something more than a simple question of incivility you probably want WP:DRN, per the notice at the top of this page William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not finding evidence of significant incivility by FPaS, and this report doesn't accurately reflect the actual dialog. For example, the "useless" comment, in context, is actually "Your advice is useless as long as it doesn't touch on the actual issue," and the "I'm an administrator" comment was in response to an "I've been an editor for six years." Gerardw ( talk) 01:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

So referring to the other editor's good-faith efforts as "gibberish" and "junk" is OK, then. I'm very surprised at that. If you believe that's a perfectly civil way to speak to someone ... well. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 02:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on the case at hand, it is not uncommon to find that good-faith efforts are "gibberish" and "junk." See also WP:COMPETENCE. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the ages of my peers this thread, and it's possible that schoolyard taunts are an acceptable generational thing, like certain African-Americans using the n-word as acceptable vernacular. Perhaps rudeness is more highly valued for its directness than is diplomacy. Still, I'm surprised no one here seems willing to construct civil, alternate ways of getting a point across.

"Gibberish"? How about, "I'm not sure you're being direct and clear. What specifically are you trying to say?" Aside from treating a peer with respect — which I have seen little of here, and lack of respect and disdain is unacceptable in civilized social interaction — this also compels the peer to sharpen his thoughts and learn thorough this mentoring phrase. Mentoring is beneficial for Wikipedia's long run, while biting the newbies is frowned upon, as is violating the tenet Wikipedia:Dick.

"Patently false pseudo-boilerplate junk": How about, "Your rationales are not specific enough for these particular images. Please read Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and discuss on this article's talk page why you think your image complies with each point." That's constructive criticism, not merely throwing about insulting labels — which is easy, since with labels one doesn't have to think.

I fully accept that I'll be laughed at for daring to suggest such old-fashioned ideas as speaking diplomatically in a way that's constructive and not belittling, in a way that mentors, as any organization must to do continue surviving without becoming calcified. I've found that people who like to insult and throw their weight around have insecurity and maturity issues — because secure, well-grounded people don't need to insult others. In fact, they're glad to help others. So, please, tell me how I'm wrong in thinking that we should treat our peers with the same politeness and respect we'd like them to show us. You might not be familiar with that concept, but it goes by an old and long-established name.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Per Gw, can you provide diffs of the problem edits? There seems to be some question of you possibly quoting remarks out of context William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are the contexts. Emphasis added:

And of course, you won't keep any image as long as you can't be bothered to spell out your reasons of why you think you need them in a reasonable, correct rationale. Not the kind of patently false pseudo-boilerplate junk you placed there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing incivil about pointing out that adding meaningless pseudo-rationale gibberish won't help these images be kept. Adding such pseudo-rationales is highly disruptive, and if he does it again, he'll be blocked. Also, as long as this editor still wants images just because otherwise the page looks too boring, there is simply no case to compromise over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

-- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Recommend sentencing Future Perfect to three hours of community service improving the article The Book of the Courtier. Further recommend requiring Tenebrae to memorize " Politics and the English Language", where (s)he may build up a tolerance for less-bureaucratic language. Cynwolfe ( talk) 20:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved editor comments: I've reviewed the comments made. Rude and clearly uncivil remarks such as those made by Future Perfect are harmful to Wikipedia, regardless of who makes them, about whom, or how accurate and appropriate they are sincerely believed to be. They are rude and insulting. Any editor who makes such remarks needs to be warned and admonished. But an admin - an admin should clearly know better.

This should not be tolerated at all of admins, and the message about that needs to be clear. Uncivil behavior will continue to be the norm that it is unless we get serious about ending it. I propose a two week block of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Remember that the aim of this page is to move disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour." 28bytes ( talk) 21:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no quicker, fairer or more effective way to move these disputes towards resolution than to warn those engaged in uncivil behavior that they will be blocked if they don't immediately and completely stop. Period. Encouraging people to ignore uncivil behavior -- which seems to be the most popular suggestion around here - resolves nothing. It's putting our heads in the sand.

Nothing will make this page (and ANI and many others) see much less activity than clear and strict enforcement of zero-tolerance for uncivil and disrespectful behavior. That will give everyone more time to improve the articles. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, if an admin happens to see such behavior on a talk page he is free to issue the warning and anyone can start an ANI than can result in a block. It shouldn't matter if the incident happens to be learned about here. I just think that admins should be held to a higher standard and should not have to be reminded about being civil and respectful... they are setting examples that others do follow. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Dave1185 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2.220.204.70 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Could someone please tell this guy to leave me alone? He's gone a bit mental after I changed the word "explained" to "said" [11]. Turns out he really likes the word "explained" and accused me of vandalism for making the change, and then, bizarrely, of original research. Now he is repeatedly posting obnoxious templates to my talk page.

If this is the normal way new editors get treated, this place is an utter disgrace. I do hope it turns out that this "Dave1185" is more obnoxious than most. 2.220.204.70 ( talk) 12:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Start by tempering your language. When someone asks you to stop calling people pricks this is not the right response. Having reviewed the edit I think you have a case for "said" or "stated" but we really need the original source to get the exact words. There was nothing to stop you respecting WP:BRD and raising the proposed change on the talk page. -- Snowded ^TALK 12:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

So the fact that I got really pissed off at the ridiculously rude behaviour somehow justifies the ridiculously rude behaviour, does it?

And we do not need the original source "to get the exact words". Copying and pasting does not make a good encyclopaedia. Changing "explained" to "said" is utterly uncontroversial and I can't believe the Kafka-esque absurdity that's followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.204.70 ( talk) 13:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:CIVIL; loosing your temper and swearing just weakens your position, especially name calling against other editors.. Otherwise wikipedia depends on reliable sources so what they say is relevant if there is any question as to the words you use. Now I suggest you strike all the swearing, and make your case on the talk page of the article concerned. I'll put the article under watch so that at least one other set of eyes is looking at it. Bringing the case here without exploring that option is I think a mistake. -- Snowded ^TALK 13:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dear 2.220.201.70--If you have a diff of someone else's "ridiculously rude behavior" then please post it here so we can see the full story but so far the only diff I see is one which illustrates your rude behavior. In any case, rude behavior and foul language directed at another editor is never justifiable in any situation.(see WP:NPA) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, at least I have it amply confirmed that if a new editor makes a constructive change, they can expect a pile-on from all sides, accusations of vandalism, plenty of admonishments to learn all the acronyms that everyone else does, and general disbelief that anyone could possibly be rude to an anonymous editor. And it's good to know for sure that outrageous lies from people with usernames are permitted and indeed encouraged, and that it's fine to accuse someone of vandalism and original research for changing "explained" to "said", and that no-one will dream of reining in that kind of behaviour. I had no idea the atmosphere would be so petty, cliquey and vindictive here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.204.70 ( talk) 14:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please use indentation. In fact you have been treated the same way as any editor who pours out a torrent of abuse. Better in some ways, many an editor has received a block for less. You need to calm down, use reasonable language and make your case like anyone else. -- Snowded ^TALK 14:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD applies, but the use of {{ welcome-anon-vandal}} and original research templates isn't justified here; neither are the [12] [13] personal attacks by the anonymous user. As for the cause of the dispute, I prefer "explained" to "said" - it isn't about whether the explanation is believed, it's the motivation for Lee to say what he said. Peter E. James ( talk) 22:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This might be a relevant matter: Has User:Tasc0 ever had any sockpuppets? -- Σ ^talk _contribs 02:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

•   Looks like a duck to me... Yes, the coward had one and you just nailed him! See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tasc0. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

An SPI has been created, to be safe. -- Σ ^talk _contribs 03:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

How completely insane. Let me remind you - I changed "explained" to "said". I got accused of vandalism, by someone who must obviously not know what vandalism is. The same person said that using the word "said" amounted to original research. His two dishonest claims were evidently made because he didn't like the word "said", for no reason that I can even begin to imagine. Does he get criticised for lying? Does he get reprimanded for accusing new editors of vandalism? Does he get a talking to for having no idea of the meaning of "original research"? No. I get criticised for getting angry, because apparently my anger justifies the lies that provoked it. And not content with bringing the farce this far, you decide I must be someone else who you also didn't like?

I seriously can't believe what a poisonous atmosphere you've created here. You've got this policy, apparently, about not biting new editors. You should scrap that policy because it obviously means nothing to any of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.204.70 ( talk) 15:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion there's no difference between "explained" and "said", but it is likely that you would've been treated more nicely if you just ignored or removed the warning and didn't call everyone "prick". -- Σ ^talk _contribs 16:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So when someone makes dishonest accusations, and the accused gets angry, the accusations wouldn't have happened if the accused hadn't got angry. Right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.204.70 ( talk) 22:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends on whether you can control your anger or not. ⚖ ( talk | contribs) 23:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately stupid and provocative or can you genuinely not see how ridiculous that is? Perhaps I was writing in too subtle and clever a way for you. Let me put it more clearly so there is no chance of misunderstanding. You're blaming me for someone's lies, on the grounds that I got angry about those lies. You're saying that the guy wouldn't have lied, if I hadn't got angry about him lying. Do you see the logical issue here? And neither you nor anyone else seems to have thought it might be an idea to tell the guy not to lie. Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.204.70 ( talk) 06:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved outsider, I understand that anyone who posts something here is subject to behavioral review too, but I don't understand the apparent penchant, at least in this case but I don't think it's an isolated one, to hardly look at all at the behavior of the one who was originally accused, make a clear judgement about whether that behavior was inappropriate, and, if it was, decide what should be done about, and do it. Instead, there is all this focus on the accuser's behavior (about which nothing is done either). It's this kind of response that makes this board close to useless, and hurts Wikipedia.

As to what happened here:

1. IP makes a minor edit, changing "explained" to "said", without a summary [14].
   • NOTE: edit summaries are recommended, not required.
2. Dave1185 reverts back to "explained", without a summary [15]
   • Reverts without explanation are, or should be, frowned upon.
3. IP reverts back to "said", with reasonable summary/explanation: "Using the word "explained" implies that you believe that explanation. "said" is neutral" [16]
   • Ideally perhaps it would have gone to D for Discussion in BRD here, but another revert with a good explanation like this is not unreasonable, considering the revert had no explanation.
4. David1185 reverts again, this time with an edit summary explanation that is arguably dubious: "original text quoted was "explained", nothing remotely near to the word 'said'" [17]
   • That explanation is arguably dubious. The word "explained" is "nothing remotely near" to the word "said"?
5. IP reverts again, with more explanation: "That's pathetic. The link in the reference doesn't even work. "Explained" is not neutral, "said" is. Are you seriously saying that the guy didn't "say" this? Did the words just appear in the cosmos direct from his brain?" [18]
6. David1185 reverts again, no edit summary, but also appears to fix link [19]
7. At some point (I didn't figure out exactly where in the chronology), Dave leaves the big warning on the IP's talk page [20], and the IP responds inappropriately, and angrily.

Now, Dave1185's contribution history goes back to 2008. He (I'm assuming - Dave) should know better than to engage with an apparent newbie like this on several levels. He should be warned against:

• reverting without explanation,
• reverting with dubious explanation,
• engaging in an edit war instead of taking it to discussion per BRD, and
• putting big overblown template warnings on user's talk pages.

All of that is disrespectful and uncivil, and this needs to be made absolutely clear to him on this talk page, preferably backed up with a warning that he'll be blocked for, say, 2 weeks if he treats anyone else like this again.

The IP should also be given advice, as he was above. Unfortunately all that was done without addressing Dave's clearly uncivil behavior.

But I would add that the IP should be warned that he will be blocked for 2 weeks if he reacts inappropriately and uncivilly like that again.

Are we serious about civility, or not? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 01:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Born2cycle, for your level-headed and sensible comments. It is very nice indeed to realise that not everyone here will join a mass attack on an IP for making a constructive edit, and I appreciate your reasonableness. But I fear you may be in a small minority. They have now changed the article to their preferred version and protected it, dishonestly claiming that there is "persistent sockpuppetry". The behaviour of this clique of editors really is disgraceful, and it looks like their behaviour is being largely condoned. 2.220.204.70 ( talk) 22:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually looked at the source, and by my reading neither explained nor even said is supported by it. I explained this on the talk page. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Espmiideluxe ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cold Steel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After vandalizing the Cold Steel article twice: [21] and [22] this user User:Espmiideluxe, decides to resort to personal attacks on my talk page: [23]. Funny thing is the company in question threatened legal action against myself and Wikipedia [24] I'm not a "fan" of this company, but you can't put libelous information in an article. Just starting the claim, because I have a feeling he's going to get nutty.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad language is not polite. I think user should be banned for personal attacks (although i dont have power to do that).-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 23:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't know about banning the guy, just don't feel like getting into an online "rock fight" with anyone on here.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Two things. One, thou shalt not use the word libel on Wikipedia unless you're editing libel. Two, I don't see how the edits to the article are anything more than ordinary POV pushing. In the future, consider using a more specific template like {{uw-npov2}} for edits like this since vandalism isn't very apt; it's perfectly possible that Espmiideluxe is acting in good faith, albeit with a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Using a "last change" warning template is almost certainly inappropriate with edits of this kind.

I've placed a warning on Espmiideluxe's talk page. -- Danger ( talk) 02:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Really, even when he calls the owner of the company a "mall ninja"? That's ordinary POV pushing? Seemed to go beyond the typical "their product suck" POV drivel I normally see. So someone could go to the Oprah Winfrey article, call her a wookie and its not vandalism?-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the difference is that, if "mall ninja" means what I think it means, the former could be construed as an criticism one might reasonably find in a reliable source, albeit in different language and "wookie" is not meaningful criticism at all, unless it has some other flavor I'm not aware of. I don't know, the distinction is pretty much academic, because the end result of persistent reinsertion is a block either way. At any rate, the other party has not responded and there's much to be done unless xe edits again. -- Danger ( talk) 05:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, in my world, "Mall Ninja" is a slang, but unflattering term. Basically it implies that the person is non-tactical, overweight, and a wannabe...think of a Mall Security Guard pretending to be a Navy SEAL or LAPD SWAT Office and kitting out like he's going to raid an Al Queda safe house in Fallujah with flashbang grenades and an M4 Carbine while wearing body armor and a gas mask, when he's really just protecting the food court. A wookie is a big hairy ape-like creature from the Star Wars franchise; i used it because i didn't want to get too offensive in comparisons. Like, I said, it looked like a personal attack on the owner of the company to me. I tried to select a warning to reflect more of a BLP type violation. Thanks all the same, I guess I'm less tolerant of trolls than some.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Bus stop ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dominique Strauss-Kahn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think it is apparent to many regulars that Bus stop and myself have had many heated debates. While I'd readily admit to not being as civil as I should, I do at least attempt to conform with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Bus stop, on the other hand, has a habit of making repeated edits to his talk page posts. While most of these are prior to any response, and thus probably not a breach of guidelines (though a darned nuisance, as they cause edit conflicts when attempting to reply), on occasion he breaches the guidelines by editing his comments after they have been responded to. Rather than get into another argument with him over this (the last one ended in us both being blocked for edit-warring), can I ask an uninvolved person to point out to him that edits such as this [28] are contrary to the guidelines - the datestamps clearly give a false impression that I was responding to his post at 02:28, not his revised version at 02:42. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is inappropriate to substantively edit your talk page comments, especially after a response has already been made. Fixing typos, grammar and the like is fine. In this case the clarification would have been much more helpful to everyone involved had it been made in a later comment. Bus stop, please do not do that any more.

That said, structuring a comment in the form "If you don't understand ... , you aren't qualified ..." is certainly uncivil, and arguably a personal attack. AndyTheGrump, please do not do that any more.

Further, I suggest this: imagine the other is a hot looking member of the sex to which you are attracted, and you're trying to get a date. Now deal with them accordingly. Now consider how you each have been behaving. Do you think that would get you the date? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 05:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle—I had no idea that AndyTheGrump made an intervening edit. I was absorbed in getting the link that I presented, and the link to the AndyTheGrump quote is not substantive. Not only did only 129 seconds elapse between AndyTheGrump's post and my subsequent post (I have a clock attached to heaven), but all that my addition did was clarify what in AndyTheGrump's post I was responding to. There was no harm done. This could be referred to as a technicality. Don't remind me of hot looking members of the opposite sex as I'm trying to banish such thoughts from my mind. I feel that it detracts from my constructive single-mindedness. Bus stop ( talk) 06:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, you made your original edit at 2:28. Andy replied at 2:40, and then you made your addition at 2:42. 14 minutes is a pretty long time to wait to update a comment. And I got the impression that the issue wasn't necessarily this particular comment update, or that you knew Andy made an intervening edit, but the practice of doing this pretty often in general for which this is just a recent example. In this case what you added seems redundant anyway. I wouldn't worry about it, except to know that you've been asked to no longer make comment updates like this any more. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 06:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle—the key phrase in your above post is "update". I know fully well that it could be very unfair to alter one's post in a way that changes what it is that you are saying. But providing a link only provides clarification. Others are following the discussion. Intervening posts by others can make the logic of responses, and the framework of original posts, unclear to later visitors to the dialogue. Assuming good faith matters a lot here. I had zero awareness of Andy's intervening post. It occurred 2 minutes before my alteration of my post. Those two minutes were no doubt occupied by my hunting down the link, inserting it, previewing, finally "sending". But most importantly the meaning of my post was not changed by providing a link to the post of Andy's that I was responding to.

Isn't this page about so-called etiquette? Do I bother reporting Andy here when he posts this? I haven't. Bus stop ( talk) 12:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Bus stop's edit was a clarification which did not change the point of the preceding statement. Complaining about this seems to be vexatious. AndyTheGrump seems to have adopted an overtly obnoxious persona here, as his user name indicates. He should please reconsider this. Warden ( talk) 12:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it normal to post personal attacks in Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, Warden? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Upon further consideration... unless you have evidence of Bus stop regularly making edits to his talk page comments that are not just clarifications that don't change the meaning, then I don't understand what you're complaining about, and I have to agree with Warden that this seems vexatious. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If something needs 'clarifying' then it must have been unclear before it was edited - If I misunderstood what Bus stop meant, and replied accordingly, the 'clarification' is misleading. Either the edit changed the meaning, in which case it was against guidelines, or it didn't, in which case it was unnecessary. And yes, I could provide further evidence of Bus stop editing posts after they had been replied to, but I'm not asking for action to be taken against him for this - I'm asking that he be told to work within the guidelines from now on. If this was an isolated case, it would probably be 'vexatious' to raise it here, but I have had discussions with him before on the issue, and he seems unwilling to acknowledge that he shouldn't do it. Can anyone suggest an alternative to raising this here when he has refused to take note of my request to follow appropriate standards? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, it's annoying to make a point that was already addressed without even acknowledging it. The point -- "Either the edit changed the meaning, in which case it was against guidelines, or it didn't, in which case it was unnecessary" -- was address by Bus stop above when he wrote, "But providing a link only provides clarification. Others are following the discussion. Intervening posts by others can make the logic of responses, and the framework of original posts, unclear to later visitors to the dialogue." In other words, he was clarifying not for you, but for others who might be following the thread. The point is it doesn't change the meaning for someone who understood it from the original version, but it might for someone who did not. Now, you might disagree with this, or not buy it, but at least address it by explaining your disagreement; don't just ignore it and make your point as if the point was never made.

You have not provided any evidence that Bus stop does not understand he should not update comments on talk pages in a way that changes the meaning to someone who understood it in the first place. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see what Bus stop now claims regarding his motivations for making the change were has to do with it. He did it, against guidelines. And how exactly do you come to the conclusion that I "understood it in the first place"? As I noted in my edit after Bus stop's 'clarification', my original response was to his original posting. Had he edited it before I replied (or even better, written more clearly in the first place), I might very well have responded differently. Neither you nor he are in any position to suggest otherwise. I will be better if we stick to the facts of the situation, rather than engaging in speculation. Do you agree that editing posts after they have been replied to is against the guidelines, or not? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm unable to reconcile your words with what has transpired as I understand it. The edit in question simply quoted the words to which it was obviously replying, as a link to the diff of that same comment. I don't see how such an clarifying-redundant edit is against the guidelines, or how it could affect your reply to it. Was it not obvious to you that he was referring to the statement you had just made?

I mean, you wrote: "There is no question that DSK considers himself ethnically Jewish.", to which he responded, "I find no occurrences of the term 'ethnically' in the Forward article". To that he later added that he's responding to you saying, ""There is no question that DSK considers himself ethnically Jewish.". Again, wasn't that already obvious? What did you think he was referring to if not that? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 19:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I can see little point in continuing this further. Bus stop is presumably now well aware that editing comments after others have replied is against policy - and my object of raising this here was to ensure that he understood it, and accepted that I wasn't the only person who considered it wrong. Unless he wishes to suggest that he is somehow exempt from accepted standards in regard to talk pages, I have nothing further to say. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It is simply not true that "editing comments after others have replied is against policy", so hopefully Bus stop is not aware of that, but if he (or anyone else) is, he's mistaken, and we need to correct that.

First, WP:TALK is a behavior guideline, not policy. Second, though it recommends against doing so, it doesn't say one's own comments absolutely should not be edited after others have replied. It certainly doesn't say or even come close to implying that editing one's owns comments even after someone replied is such a transgression that it needs be reported and dealt with. There is nothing wrong with adding clarification that is not a substantive change - doesn't change the meaning or substance of what is said in that comment - and it's wrong and disruptive to tell someone otherwise. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 19:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As it clearly states at the top of this page "the aim of this page is to move disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour. Users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors". I wasn't asking for this to be 'dealt with' in any way other than by requesting that an uninvolved person to point out to him that there were guidelines about "generally accepted standard[s] that editors should attempt to follow" regarding talk page etiquette. I had discussed this with him previously, but he didn't seem to get the message. Can you give any reason as to why I shouldn't have raised the matter here? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can give reason to why you shouldn't have raised "the matter" here. Based on what you've shown us, there was no "matter" to raise, not here, not anywhere. Now, if he's made actual substantive edits to his comments, especially after others have responded, that would be a matter worth raising. But you have not done that. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion of whether the edit was 'substantive' is just that - an opinion. Unless you have something substantive of your own to add, I'm done here. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's an opinion shared by everyone else who has looked at it too. And you have not explained why in your opinion it is a substantive change. Does the clarifying sentence that ends this comment change the substance of this comments? How so? It's essentially all that Bus stop added in the edit that you claim made a substantive difference to his comment. This is in response to your asserting that "Your opinion of whether the edit was 'substantive' is just that - an opinion." -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"It's an opinion shared by everyone else who has looked at it too". Really? So you're claiming telepathic powers now? Or do you mean "everyone else who has replied here"? That's you, me, Bus stop, and Warden, who only briefly popped in to make off-topic assertions, apparently. It seems to me that you are over-keen on debating an issue that most others would assume was settled by now. Are you doing this for a particular reason, or is it normal for you? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I meant "everyone else who has replied here". My apologies.

I'm genuinely curious why you thought it was substantive, and I like to get to a point of agreement in discussions, or at least understanding.

Did you not read it, or misread it, and assumed it was substantive even though now you realize it wasn't? Or do you still think it's substantive now?

And you didn't answer my question about whether you thought the last sentence in my previous comment made a substantive difference to that comment. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 00:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to drag out this endless debate for a particular reason, or is it normal for you? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to drag out, or debate, anything. You're the one dragging this out, by not answering very simple questions.

As I said above, I like to get to a point of agreement in discussions, or at least understanding, and I'm genuinely curious why you thought, and still think, that edit was a substantive change, or whether you made a mistake. That's why I asked the questions I asked. Why are you evading rather than answering them? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 01:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Bus stop's edit being debated here was all that substantive, but I think that it would be wise for Bus stop to take this discussion under advisement, and limit changes to comments to those that correct typos, grammar and the like. I also think that it would be wise for AndyTheGrump to stop describing other editor's work as "trolling". It may well be better for all concerned if Andy would stop portraying himself as "grumpy" and instead strive to work collaboratively with all editors working in good faith, remembering that civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. I am not trying to rub you the wrong way, Andy, because I think you bring a useful perspective to our debates, even when I disagree. Less grumpiness would be appreciated though. Now, can we get back to work on improving the encyclopedia? Thank you. Cullen328 ( talk) 06:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Um... Andy was given a final warning by TWO admins not even one week ago for such language of calling people names and insulting users... why is he not blocked? Can an admin please look into that? What is the purpose of final warnings if then Andy does it again and all is done is some people in a Wikiquette thread tell him "dont do it again, not smart", when he's already got FINAL WARNING on his talk page a week ago? Camelbinky ( talk) 07:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this, but as the top of this page clearly indicates, if you or anyone else wants/expects a block to be imposed, then you're posting at the wrong venue. Admin noticeboards exist for a reason. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 08:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Note - Camelbinky has been forum-shopping for some time over this, as well as engaging in (rather off-the-wall) personal attacks on me [29]. I'd suggest that this be ignored, unless Camelbinky wants to have a debate over snide insinuations of antisemitism, bizarre suggestions that I'm a "conservative" lacking "deference to those who've been here longer" (!), and that I am trying to make things "fair" for whites - the last of which I cannot make head nor tail of, and which it might be interesting to see how Camelbinky arrived at, if only as a study in wierdness. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps before stating that I'm forum-shopping you should read Jimbo's latest personal comment on the latest thread. Going to him was not forum shopping and is not considered so. Yes perhaps if you had edited longer than your short amount of time around here you would have seen the multiple other times he clarified that. But instead you seem to have jumped right into "declaring" your interpretation of policy as fact and bullying others with incivility, refusal to compromise or actually discuss anything of substance, and continue to insult others with swearing which you have been repeatedly warned about and given a FINAL warning regarding. And yes you have an unhealthy obsession with race/religion discussions and always seem to be against any mentioning of minorities for the reason that white's arent mentioned in their articles. Camelbinky ( talk) 18:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: Following Camelbinky's last remarks, I posted a complaint here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Personal attack by User:Camelbinky. Camelbinky has so far refused to come up with any evidence (diffs etc) to back up the personal attack contained in the final sentence. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• SchmuckyTheCat ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• China (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In an ongoing move request, the editor named above seems to be repeatedly removing an IP's comments ( 203.198.26.78) that disagree with his sentiment, on the premise that it's a sockpuppet:

• diff 1
• diff 2
• diff 3

The IP has recovered his comment each time. I reverted the last of these, stating "if the IP is not a confirmed sock then it's not up to you to decide that it is". After this, he's now striking the comments instead.

As far as I'm aware, it's normally the responsibility of the closing administrator on how to address IP contributions...? And it's normally the responsibility of SPI to determine which accounts are being used for sockpuppetry? Not the responsibility of an involved editor?

These actions seem to be selective, since when it comes to IP's that seemingly agree with his position, he's reverted similar actions by other editors and let other IP's go. It also seems that this is not the first time (I haven't gone back any further). Nightw 12:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing the edits of a sock IP of a well known and long time puppeteer. You can't have a conversation on Chinese issues without them showing up and they are extremely disruptive. They become 100XX more disruptive if he is allowed to talk - that is why he is banned. Any user can remove the banned users comments or edits. I striked, instead of removed, after someone else responded so as not to disrupt the innocent commenter. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)

The other diffs in the last paragraph are self-explanatory. An IP made a comment that wasn't non-sense. That talk page material should stay and either be discussed or archived. The other edit is a racial slur. That talk page material should be removed. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)

You're continuing to do this. Striking and removing. This is an administrator's responsibility if it's a confirmed sock (which it isn't). Not the responsibility of an involved user. Another editor appears guilty of this as well, Xiaoyu of Yuxi but his aren't restricted to IP's: here, here and here. I've moved this to ANI. Nightw 07:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Carson101 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Pfainuk ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Since this user has asked me to get outside assistance here, I am doing so.

Here, I responded to a comment made by this user. The first comment in that responds to a comment that he made here (note that this comment was edited here).

In response, he posted here, accusing me of "making this up", which he said was "quite sad really", and accusing people who I have met of being "ignorant". I responded here, asking him to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. The response here reiterates the accusation of lying.

Now, I find this inappropriate, but were it not for his request that I take it forward I would probably have left it with a note reiterating WP:AGF and asking him not to post on my talk page again. But since he has asked, could someone take a look at this to see if this is to be considered appropriate behaviour on Wikipedia, and if not, have a word? Thanks, Pfainuk talk 17:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'd recommend just ignoring the comment and moving on. Gerardw ( talk) 01:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • And this is why uncivil behavior like this is so rampant on Wikipedia talk pages - because people choose to tolerate it by acting as if it didn't happen. I recommend a stern message on Carson's user talk page, reminding him about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and notifying him that if he makes uncivil remarks again he will be blocked for two weeks. That's how you change the culture from being uncivil to being civil. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to make something clear. If I told someone I came from Scotland and they rolled their eyes at me I would consider it an act of ignorance on their part. As far as him making things up? If someone is going to relate their personal experiences in a discussion in which he is trying to convince people to see his point of view I will take it with a pinch of salt. If I don't believe it that is my prerogative. If he gave reliable sources in his argument I would of course look on it differently. One more thing. I did not ask Pfainuk to take this here. I told him if he thought I was being uncivil then he should make a complaint. He obviously thought it was. I beg to differ. Carson101 ( talk) 10:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't see that this is uncivil, then you might reread WP:CIVIL, especially the part where it says that we "should always treat each other with consideration and respect". If you don't see that rolling eyes is disrespectful, I feel sorry for you and those in your life. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And if you actually read the diff you provided you will see that it was not I who was rolling his eyes. Have you not noticed that it was I who found the rolling of eyes disrespectful? If not, why not. You are the one who showed the diff. You should not come here to comment when you don't even bother to read your own diff. And please, lay off the crap with the "I feel sorry for you and those in your life". Take care of your own life and those in your life before commenting on a person you don't know, have never met, and are very unlikely to at any time in the future. I won't bother commenting here again as it has become rather silly, not to mention a bit childish considering the above comment made by Born2cycle. Cheers! Carson101 ( talk) 14:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"And this is why uncivil behavior like this is so rampant on Wikipedia talk pages". Really? Carson101's comment was far less uncivil than the initial comment by Pfainuk here, surely made to irritate anyone opposed to his/her view. Imagine an editor commented that all their friends privately thought all cyclists were a menace to proper road users, should not be allowed to ride two or more abreast and should have their bikes confiscated and crushed should they be caught riding on the pavement, through a red light or without a bell on their handlebars. You would probably consider that the editor had made it up, was talking out of a hole that wasn't his/her mouth, and had probably said it just to be obnoxious. And you would be right. Carson101 had every right to express his dissatisfaction with Pfainuk's initial post, which should have been the one criticised by Born2cycle, per WP:BOOMARANG, had he/she bothered to do any research before passing comment. Daicaregos ( talk) 10:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think that Carson's comment was civil, you really need to read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL again. Accusing people of lying is the very opposite of assuming good faith.

I would note that my comment was about the discussion at hand, not a personal comment about Carson. I would note that for all his objecting about my point being based on personal experience, that point was only made in response to a comment where he talked about his personal experience, and that neither I nor anyone else felt it acceptable to go to Carson's talk page and accuse him of lying. I would note that Carson took the words "I feel sorry for you and those in your life" above very badly, and it seems distinctly inconsistent to claim that it was civil and appropriate of him to leave essentially exactly the same sentiment to me on my talk page (except without the conditional "if..." bit).

Carson's point was that the fact that people don't argue with him when he says his country is Scotland means they agree both that Scotland is a "country", but also equivalent in status to the United States, France and Brazil. I do not think it was uncivil to point out that the inference is not necessarily clear. I do not think it uncivil to point out that many of these people may well disagree with him but not feel that it's not worth the effort to argue over, or just not care at all. The reference to eye-rolling is not made up, as Carson claims, but reflects my personal experience. He's welcome to accept that his experience is different from mine, and it is reasonable to expect that the closing admin will give each of our personal experiences the weight that they warrant in the close (which is probably not much). But what is not reasonable is his decision to come to my talk page and accuse me of lying. Pfainuk talk 17:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool it, various editors were making assertions about what people did to did not say in the US and/or the UK and a lot of that was offensive even if it did not technically break AGF rules. Carson responded in kind to your original post. It happens on Wikipedia and running here over such a minor issue is a waste of everyone's time. -- Snowded ^TALK 17:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one who decided to go around insulting people and accusing them of lying. I also object to your accusation of "running here". I remind you, I only posted here because Carson asked me to take it further. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me but this is pretty patently uncivil and is a direct accusation of editing in bad faith. Which is not allowed. I would also question the civility of some of your comments, Snowded, and note that Dai appears to have been inappropriately canvassed here. Pfainuk talk 21:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, in answer to your post (17:42, 22 July 2011): If you are going to comment on my posts, please have the decency to read them first. I didn't say I thought Carson's comment was civil - twisting my words to imply that I did, is certainly not. I said “Carson101's comment was far less uncivil than the initial comment by Pfainuk here”. Actually, I also find your story hard to believe, as it is not my experience either. People who have taken enough interest to ask which country I'm from are highly unlikely to be so rude when they are provided with the answer. In fact, I have never heard anyone respond 'I'm from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' to that question. As it happens you are the one who decided to go around insulting people. Relating a story about how rude your acquaintances are was completely unnecessary and insulting. And your ridiculous accusation of canvassing is at the wrong notice board. Daicaregos ( talk) 11:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please point out where I have accused another editor of lying about their personal experiences, or told them that they were "[q]uite sad really". There's nothing in that diff that comes even close to that level of incivility. Indeed, I don't see anything uncivil or insulting in it at all: by this standard it would appear that it is impossible to make the point that there is a difference between agreeing with someone and not actually starting an argument about the thing you don't entirely agree with them about without being accused of incivility. The idea that it is more uncivil than actually going to someone's talk page, accusing them of lying and making personal attacks against them is patently absurd.

The point about canvassing helps inform the board about what is going on here. You appear only to be here because Carson raised the matter on your talk page. You, Snowded and GoodDay are all involved parties. I see little benefit in taking it much further at this time, beyond pointing out that this canvassing appears to have occurred, allowing outside parties to make up their own minds on the subject.

The reason why you've never heard people respond with "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is probably because no-one talks like that in day-to-day speech. In the say way, you won't very often hear German people saying that they come from "the Federal Republic of Germany" or Mexicans saying that they come from the "United Mexican States". For my part, I have heard people respond to that kind of question with "the UK", "Great Britain" or "Britain". And when asked their nationality, with "British". Doubtless, on current form, you will tell me that saying that is insulting as well, and that I deserve to be personally attacked and accused of bad faith for that as well.

I don't believe I have ever said you have to like my personal experiences, or that you have to share them. This does not mean that they are not my personal experiences and does not give you or Carson the right to accuse me of lying. At this time, unless an outside editor comes back and asks me to discuss further, I see very little benefit in continuing to discuss this further with involved editors, such as you, Snowded, GoodDay and Carson. As such, this will be my last post in this discussion. Pfainuk talk 13:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

TLDR. Daicaregos ( talk) 13:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

From past personal expierence, trust me, you're wasting your time with this. GoodDay ( talk) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Recommend closure. GoodDay ( talk) 18:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• username ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article name (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Spla83 ( talk) 08:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Nothing 2. None 3. I hope to correct the writer of the south sudan article to source some of his/her statements. The entire South Sudanese need to understand that being in democracy means "The authority" should not impose agenda to the "people" without the consent of the "people". Therefore, entire South Sudanes need to know our capital city is not Juba,which is like Wau and Malakal. According to the CPA, the capital is at the centre of the three old states; (Equatoria, Bhar Ghazal and Upper Nile). There are a lot of benefits of having the capital in neutral place. First we shall have a very modern town planning of what a capital city should look like. We need our capital to be in the standard of Dubai, New York and Tokoy to mention a few.Second, every citizen in each state shall focus first in developing their own towns or villages to a better healthier towns. We can reduce the mudding of other states by use forestry techniques that shall make our cities and towns enivronmentally sound.(Spla83)

Spla83. Although you have not filled in the template showing us which article and which editor you are complaining about, I understand from your post above that it is the South Sudan article. On looking at the history, there are two recent edits by you in which you added the word "temporary" in front of "Juba" which is described as the capital city. On the first occasion another editor reverted you. On the second you were reverted by a bot.There are also earlier edits by you which are almost identical.

• this is a content dispute. It needs to be discussed on the talkpage. The general rule is WP:BRD. What that means is - an editor (like you) makes an edit. Then another editor reverts it. Clearly the two editors are not in agreement. The next step is to discuss it on the talk page. If instead the two editors (or more) carry on reverting each other this can develop into an edit war which can result in sanctions. Three reverts by any editor in 24 hours is an automatic 24 hour ban except in a few specific circumstances. The idea of this is to make the editors make a case for their proposed edits that other editors can see.
• This page is for concerns about editor behaviour. There are no such concerns as yet. You need to discuss this issue on the talkpage - but bear in mind that information in the encyclopedia requires notable, reliable and verifiable sources. It is best to cite these when you raise the issue on the talkpage. I will ask for sources to be provided on the talkpage.
• I will post some links to our policies and guidelines on your talkpage for you. Fainites ^barley scribs 10:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the South Sudan talk page now you will see all sorts of sources have been provided and are being discussed. Fainites ^barley scribs 14:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• {{ Ken keisel}}
• {{ Washington D.C.}}

I have updated the music section of the article Washington D.C.. The article already contained several sentences about the United States Marine Corps Band, which was founded and is based in the District of Columbia. I added information on the United States Navy Band, which was also founded in, and is based in the District of Columbia. The Marine Corps Band section includes references to a notable Marine Corps Band leader. I included information about a notable Navy Band leader. All information is backed up with refrences taken from 'The Washington Post'. The opposing editor has questioned the validity of using 'The Washington Post' as a source, and has repeatedly removed the information on the Navy Band while allowing the information on the Marine Corps Band to remain.

• I am pretty confident that Ken is referring to me. Here are two wikilinks that editors may find useful in reviewing the concerns he raises: pertinent discussion at Washington, DC Talk and a loosely related AfD. Thanks. JohnInDC ( talk) 21:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to engage JohnInDC in a discussion on the Washington D.C. article's 'Talk Page, but the user has not replied to my postings. At this point the user's perception is that including a history of the United States Marine Corp Band in the article is relevant, but including the history of the United States Navy Band is symbolic. I don't see any basis for this position. Both bands have played an equally important role in the city's history, and deserve similar descriptions- Ken keisel ( talk) 21:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have responded (four times), as have two other editors who share my concerns about the edit at issue. The two links I provided above lead to pretty short discussions (the Talk page link being the more pertinent one) and rather than lay everything out here again I would suggest that interested parties review the discussions there. JohnInDC ( talk) 21:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Jabbsworth ( talk · contribs) is acting on a very annoying and disruptive style against me. I told him to stop making PA's against me, only to get another one minutes later.

• See: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]

Several articles have already been protected due to his actions, like Exit International and Euthanasia. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

How much longer will we as a community tolerate this behaviour? 3 bans this month alone! Moxy ( talk) 01:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have NOT had three bans this month, thank you! Arbcom recently unbanned me for sock usage (long story involving stalking and my attempts to avoid it), and I was 24hr blocked for 3RR yesterday, even though I had not technically broken 3RR. Jabbsworth ( talk) 02:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is an extremely dishonest alert from a user with his own long history of edit warring Night of the Big Wind ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The Exit International page was protected because of HIS edit warring on the page. I invite you all to read the associated talk page to see just how tendentiously and illogically he is editing there. He opposes all information added to the page, right down to info for the infobox, such as member numbers, key people, etc. He constantly PAs me as a "POV-usher" and, ironically, an "edit warrer", but god forbid I should respond in kind. He has now called a question over a possible COI he may have as a "PA". In fact, I would appreciate some action taken against him for his recent actions and gaming of the system. Jabbsworth ( talk) 02:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Note the user who made this (erroneous) report was blocked for warring a few days ago [37] Jabbsworth ( talk) 02:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not perfect, I acknowledge that. Sometimes people get under my skin. But my editwarring on Exit International? Let me see the period 22 July-23 July: 2 edits of Delta-Quad (locking up the place), 2 edits of Night of the Big Wind, 3 of ClaudioSantos and 5 from Jabbsworth (all reverts). Skipping the admin, you had just as muchs edits on your own, as Claudio and me together. Count your numbers, Jabbsworth and look at the three revert rule... Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not actually break the 3RR, interestingly, but the sysop felt like blocking someone on that page, and with the most edits, I was the man. But the point here is that you have reported me for PAing you (perhaps for correcting your spelling, as you said here [38]). I want you also to report yourself for calling me an edit warrer and POV-pusher on numerous occasions [39] [40] (while all the while warring and POV editing yourself). Is that fair outcome? Or perhaps we should apologise to the readers here for bringing this inconsequential matter to their attention? Jabbsworth ( talk) 04:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The way you push the DIY suicide bags into the article, is a way of POV-pushing, mate. See: the history of the article. And you do that on more articles. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In other words, this is not about the (non-existent) PAs at all, it's just a way of extending a content dispute to this Board. I must apologise to this forum for Night of the Big Wind's behaviour. I won't continue this argument here because in so doing, I would perpetuate the disruption here. Out. Jabbsworth ( talk) 03:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Insofar, that is proved to me how annoying and disruptive your editing style is on Wikipedia. No matter what happens, you are the innocent victim. Playtime is over. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User has definately no intent to stop his POV-pushing and disruptive editing: POV, extremely POV, disruptive (editing someone elses contributions), PA, PA, battleground AfD-nomination (suddenly not noteworthy after ClaudioSantos started editing there, two years after the first version) And is goes on and on. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Scythian77 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Taqiyya (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Me and another editor improved "Sunni views" section of the article using the most reliable sources such as Encyclopedia of Islam. In two edits user:Scythian77 blanked the article and deleted sourced materials and in his edit summaries called me "Islamphobic". First he said : "Islamophobes should not be allowed to edit this article". Then after couple of days he came back with another big blanking of article and said in edit summary "Lets not turn this into some kind of Islamophobic right-wing love fest"-- Penom ( talk) 13:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that improvement, when I caught you manipulating with sources two times. The following statement, by you, doesn't seem to solve the WP:DUE violation that editors pointed to you: "No! Improve the other sections!...". I don't see that more civil or willingly to even discuss the issue. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 17:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Really! Calling somebody else Islamphobic is civil. Although what you say is not true it still does not justify your friends action that does nothing other than personal attacks and deleting sourced materials -- Penom ( talk) 19:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Seeing as how I personally edited the section in question, Scythian's comment could have just as easily been directed towards me. I do not consider this as a personal attack. He may have been rude, but he also did make it clear what his point was. While I definitely disagree with his being rude, and I disagree with his deleting sourced paragraphs of the article, I would also point out that this was not an offence that was serious enough to open a section here. ( IMHO, that is ). Unflavoured ( talk) 05:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you are not ofended but I am. Unfortunatly, these kind of sectarian attacks are becoming popular among some editors for example User:adamrce who commented above called a well-known professor from Harvard University in such a disgusting way "the author ( Virani) is a Shias apologist with a tone of attack on Sunni's refusal to identify tagiyya". AverAdam labeled the author only because his comment was not in favor of AvertAdam-- Penom ( talk) 13:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Haymaker ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Focus on the Family (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user and I are currently engaged in a content dispute at this article as I repeatedly try to add cited information and he repeatedly replaces it with uncited information. Earlier, Haymaker once again removed the cited information and inserted the uncited information, and immediately after, requested full protection for the page.

One purpose of page protection is to halt edit wars. It's a good purpose. However, if Haymaker's goal here was to halt an edit war, he should have simply not edit warred. Requesting page protection immediately after making another try at forcing in the contested content is an obvious bad-faith attempt to game the system in the hopes of keeping his version of the page around for longer.

Note that I don't fault the admin, Ged UK, for protecting the page. Zie did the right thing given that there was an edit war going on, and the problem isn't that zie protected m:The Wrong Version, but rather that Haymaker used hir as a tool to "win" the content dispute for a few days, abusing both the page protection process and Ged UK's trust. The user's continued tendentious editing and misuse of edit summaries in other articles may eventually merit discussion elsewhere, but for now, some sort of warning against abusing systems intended to reduce disruption would be helpful. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think this is an etiquette issue; I don't see any incivility from either party. I think this is simply a content dispute. NYyankees51 ( talk) 01:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure, but the admin in question suggested WQA so I thought I'd defer to hir judgment. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It takes two to tango, you were reverted my and Lionel's edits the whole time. Like I said on my talk page, there was a 2 and a half hour lag time in between when I requested page protection and when it was granted as there often is. I knew that you easily could have changed the article to you preferred version in that time and I didn't care. I have not abused any system, I am sorry that you are so sore about how page protection turned out. - Haymaker ( talk) 02:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Aisgrigg ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ashley Olsen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Crude edit after the information on the topic mentioned before the link that has been inserted between <ref>/</ref> had several times been changed to and fro. -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 21:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Notified Aisgrigg. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Your trigger finger is too itchy. Aisgrig only has one edit - there really is no point bringing people to this board based on one edit. A polite warning on their user page and an attempt to discuss the problem should be your first step. [Oops: that was me William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)]

It looks like the wrong URL was copied into the reference - obviously the poster from CafePress isn't a valid source (or relevant to the article), but if http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20472313,00.html (or something similar) was intended it was an update of information that was in the article (but from a possibly unreliable source). Peter E. James ( talk) 13:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• XLR8TION ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I made this edit as per this edit by User:Roscelese (who I am not implicating in any way in this report, I'm just reporting what happened). My edit was the same as Roscelese's, basically a revert of XLR8TION's revert of Roscelese. XLR8TION came to my talk page and left this combative edit calling me a vandal, apparently not because of what I did but because I'm "an opponent of marriage equality" (given my userboxes on my userpage). Then, he went to the article talk page and left this edit warning editors of a "marriage equality opponent" who "vandalized" the article. I realize that many Wikipedians highly dislike political userboxes, but calling someone a "vandal" without any evidence whatsoever because you disagree with their userboxes is WP:BATTLEGROUND at its finest. NYyankees51 ( talk) 03:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Issue has been raised on user's talk page by multiple users. He deleted my posts on his page after some back-and-forth where he remained adamant about the unfounded accusations; I copied the deleted messages and integrated them with his messages on my talk page here for the record. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 03:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Frivolously calling another editor a vandal is a serious breach of NPA. This veteran editor certainly knows better. He's racked up a number of blocks, with a couple in there for incivility. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 03:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of his comments on the talk page, particularly RE:Diaz, have been a bit odd, bordering on BLP violations. Either this topic, or Diaz, is too close to his heart. He should sit it out and be a bit more careful about what he says about other editors. - Haymaker ( talk) 07:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• It would be helpful, NYyankees51, if you identified specifically which behaviors of XLR8TION you're objecting to. I would say that "vandal" is a problem, and that while "marriage equality opponent" is not a problem since you admit as much more than once on your user page, automatically discrediting your edit because of it is a problem - see NPA on ad hominem. (After all, I made the same edit, and I do not oppose marriage equality. An edit summary might have helped in your case, though.) Is this what you meant when you filed the report? Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You have it right. I object to anyone being declared a "vandal" simply because someone disagrees with a userbox. You're right that I should have made an edit summary, but still, I thought it was self-explanatory because it was a revert of his revert of your edit. NYyankees51 ( talk) 01:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, we could have been doing it for different reasons, I guess. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I should have left one. But either way, his behavior is inexcusable. NYyankees51 ( talk) 22:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• SeanNovack ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Michele_Bachmann (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:SN removed my comment from the article talkpage [41] (and made an uncivil remark in the edit summary), I restored my comment and objected on his user talk page [42], so he then proceeded to add SPA tags to my talkpage comment [43] (and another one there [44]). I removed the tags, and he restored them [45] as "entirely appropriate." I disagree. I've removed them again and my objections stand. Please note: he has attempted this tactic in the past in order to discredit others' comments. - Anon98.92.. 98.92.189.102 ( talk) 05:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The following link goes to my talkpage where this issue can be seen in it's entirety: [46]. Note that the original comment referred to is an unconstructive, unsigned attack on an editor that does nothing to forward the debate in question. Also note that removing other people's edits on talkpages is allowable under these circumstances, although when asked to stop it is generally agreed upon that one should do so (which I did). I apologized to the anonymous editor for my harsh comment, explained the edit, did not remove the unconstructive comment again when it was re-added, and asked them to remove or strike it themselves. The only justification given for re-adding the edit and the only reply to me was that my comments (which are based on Wikipedia policy) didn't mean much because I was "ignoring the posturing of my conservative cohorts". As to the accusation that "I've done this before", the only time I've used the WP:SPA tag in the past was with an editor who now titles himelf "The Artist AKA Mr. Anonymous" and while there was one editor on the other side of the argument that objected to my use of the tag, "The Artist" agreed that it was appropriate. This editor (which now seems to have a different IP address) has made a grand total of 6 edits from 98.92.185.72, all but one on the Michelle Bachmann talkpage - the other being a post on my talkpage - all in the last 72 hours (100% of all edits from this account). This other IP address has made a grand total of 18 edits, 3 of which occured 10 months ago. The remaining 15 have all been in the last 36 hours: 5 on the Michelle Bachmann talkpage, 1 on the Sarah Palin talkpage, 4 on my talkpage, 2 on something called the "Antisec Movement", and 3 here. In other words, 86% of the edits 98.92.189.102 has made have been in the last 36 hours. Of those 75% are directly related to Michelle Bachmann or commenting on the edits there. To quote WP:SPA "...experienced editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and SPAs carefully in a discussion to discern whether they appear to be here to build an encyclopedia (perhaps needing help and advice), or alternatively edit for promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas. The community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject; at the same time it is not a platform for advocacy." This IP address has done nothing but complain about the edits of other users, never commenting on the subject of the articles themselves. For this reason, the SPA tag is entirely accurate and appropriate and therefore should be restored. Finally, my thanks to Gerardw for letting me know of this discussion here since 98.92.189.102 failed to inform me, as per instructions above. SeanNovack ( talk) 12:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPA (which isn't WP policy) is best avoided. The off the subject at hand IP comment was in reply to another off the subject at hand comment, and to categorize it as a personal attack is a stretch. The comment No, far worse is the activist-minded 'editors' who camp these articles and keep out anything they dont like. is pretty much self-explanatory, and removing it or tagging it SPA just draws more attention to what should be (and probably would mostly be) ignored. Gerardw ( talk) 13:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Sean was necessarily wrong to add the tag, but upon having the addition reverted, he should not have insisted on adding it again. SPA tags are useful in AfD discussions and such where sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/off-site canvassing is suspected. The IP user hasn't even !voted in any discussions, so it's not important to know whether zie is an SPA. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments by others who seem to have a better grasp of collaborative editing. To put it bluntly: User-SeanNovack (a.k.a. Rapier) is incorrect in most of his belabored reply. My comments at the article talk page were in direct rebuttal to two different points made by other editors, both of whom happen to be notorious POV pushers. The second of which blatantly lied, or at least misspoke, about how a source is used in the article. User-SN's obvious bias clouds his ability to read such comments objectively. Furthermore, in his haste to condemn my contributions and defend his own poor actions, he has misrepresented my editing history. I *choose* to edit anonymously and therefore use whatever IPs are assigned to me, all of which start with 98.92, so his statistical analysis is woefully incomplete and thus misleading. It's not so much the initial removal and tagging that I find so objectionable -- though, as I said at his talk page, he should apply the same standards to opinions by his fellow conservative activists -- but rather the repeated attempts and then wikilawyerring at his talk page and above. - Anon98.92.. 98.92.188.252 ( talk) 06:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• QuickEditor ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lexi St. George (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:SudoGhost ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

- QuickEditor indef blocked by MuZemike - Sitush ( talk) 08:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

New user seems to have WP:OWN issues with certain articles, is inappropriately removing talk page comments [47] [48] and is using inappropriate templates [49] [50] in response to those talk page comments. Also seems to have an issue with accusing people of personal attacks (See User talk:SudoGhost and User talk:QuickEditor).

Also seems to be leaving what appears to be passive-agressive barnstars [51] and [52] (which was apparently made in response to this edit). Sudo Ghost 06:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwrxyian has left a message on his page, hopefully that will help. QE certainly seems fairly sure of himself, even though he's wrong on all counts. Dayewalker ( talk) 06:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is as much a lack of understanding of the policies as it is potentially one of ownership. I requested that Qwyrxian see if they could resolve it and note that Qwyrxian is now involved. I would wait and see whether QuickEditor responds positively to that. My earlier offer of help was rebuffed (and then I made the situation worse with a bad call of my own, getting my pages mixed up - d'oh). If the response is unfavourable then, yes, "something needs to be done". - Sitush ( talk) 11:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The comment on the user's page, "If you think I did something wrong, tell an administrator, do not tell me" also seems to be a misunderstanding of what administrators do. Requesting that they not be informed of a potential issue until it builds to the point that it requires administrative assistance shows a misunderstanding of how things work here, and requesting that administrators be bothered every time this editor does something concerning instead of going straight to the source is an unrealistic request.

With that said, however, I did not see Qwyrxian's comment on QuickEditor's talk page until right after I had started this WQA, and with that in mind I agree with waiting to see how that pans out before anything else. - Sudo Ghost 12:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: Classic socket puppetry might be being done by SudoGhost. As you can see on his user page, he has two Wikipedia accounts. Of course he will claim to not use them for sock puppetry, but he probably is using them for sock puppetry. I would suggest that his friend, the admin, take a look at his accounts and compare IP addresses. Thank you. -- QUICK EDITOR 14:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - The user above is talking about SudoKamma ( talk · contribs), the account I created to use on public computers, so as to not risk compromising my primary account. A quick view of that account's contributions will show the merit in the above comment. - Sudo Ghost 14:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of these statements directed towards me are untrue. Opinions are being stated as facts. WP:YESPOV

User:Sitush seems to be stating opinions on my talk page and elsewhere that I am new to editing on Wikipedia. I am not new to editing on Wikipedia. I used to edit on Wikipedia for two years until I left Wikipedia for about a year and now I am back, so I do know a thing or two about what I am doing. User:SudoGhost seems to be reverting and making edits based on his own opinions. WP:YESPOV

That being said, I do not see the point of contributing to Wikipedia anymore if I am going to be personally attacked on article talk pages and my talk page by these users for every single edit that I make. I am unable to make any good contributions to articles anymore because all of my edits are being reverted by User:Sitush and User:SudoGhost simply because they do not like me. WP:NPA

I would like for this conflict to be resolved in this best way possible, but that does not mean I should have to bow down to certain people in order for that to happen. Thank you. -- QUICK EDITOR 14:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have made no statement directed at you that has been untrue, a courtesy you have not extended. I have reverted a grand total of 1 edits of yours, that edit being your inappropriate removal of my talk page comment. Your time on Wikipedia does not matter, the quality of your edits are what is being discussed. If you make accusations against other editors, please provide diffs that show this (misquoting Wikipedia policies is not proof). - Sudo Ghost 14:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Was this removal of talk page content on the user's own talk page, SudoGhost, or was it on an article talk page? If the former is the case, then he is entirely entitled to remove anything he wants, and it is inappropriate to restore your comments that he has removed. This has been a standard on Wikipedia as long as I can remember, which is a good few years.

Removing your comments from an article's talk page is a different story. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 17:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't type like your an admin, when clearly, you are also being accused. -- QUICK EDITOR 21:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Clearly. I wasn't aware that people accused of things without merit were not able to type certain ways. I've been accused in bad-faith of sockpuppetry and of personal attacks, neither of which you have provided any proof of other than misciting WP:NPA. If you believe I am a sockpuppet or am using sockpuppets, you are welcome to open a WP:SPI. I'm not the only one that isn't seeing any personal attacks in my comments, and you've yet to show otherwise. - Sudo Ghost 21:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't get mad at to me. You started all of this. You reverted and removed almost every good edit I made, only for personal reasons. You clearly cannot except being wrong about something. -- QUICK EDITOR 22:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted only one edit of yours, which was an inappropriate removal of my talk page comment. Outside of that single edit, I have not reverted any edit you have made, so I don't know where you're getting this from. Edits like this are yet another example of the editor's behavior towards other editors. The editor appears to have no intention of editing collaboratively with other editors, and has behaved aggressively towards every editor that they have interacted with. - Sudo Ghost 22:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Quickeditor, if you believe that SudoGhost is sockpuppeting, can you provide some evidence? Note, the fact that xe openly declares 2 accounts is an indication that xe is not sockpuppeting. But, if you have evidence, please present it, otherwise, please don't make accusations that you can't back up. Second, could you please state where you believe SudoGhost or Sitush to have attacked you? If you know how to provide diffs, that would be the easiest way; otherwise, please provide the page and an explanation/quotation of what you think was a personal attack. Also, there's no way to "type like an admin": everyone on this site can edit articles, provide advice, debate points, and even warn editors when they are breaking policy. Finally, you need to stop marking edits that actually contain signficant content as "minor", as I explained on your talk page.

(after ec) QuickEditor: Why are you saying that "SudoGhost has reverted and remove almost every good edit you made", when there is no evidence that that is true? Could you please state where and when that happened? I don't see evidence of that in the editing history. Take a look back on the pages where you believe this happened, look at the history, and give details. It doesn't help this process if you continue to make unfounded accusations. Qwyrxian ( talk) 22:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I am frustrated with these two to the point where I do not feel like editing on Wikipedia anymore. -- QUICK EDITOR 05:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Despite avoiding the questions above and providing no evidence, QuickEditor then continued comments like this, which is the very behavior QuickEditor accused me of: personal attacks (specifically accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence). The editor refuses to make any comment towards proving such a thing, yet continues to make these unfounded accusations. As the editor also refuses to make any attempt show how I am making personal attacks, yet continues to say that I am, QuickEditor is also violating WP:AVOIDYOU, specifically, Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack.

The editor was asked directly above how I was sockpuppeting and making personal attacks, but only answered with "I'm frustrated" as if that solves the issue, but right afterwards continues to attack me on the editor's talk page. If I am making personal attacks against another editor, I invite such accusations to be investigated. Here is every page QuickEditor and I have both edited, and anyone who is interested is more than welcome to check these pages and their histories for any personal attacks on my part.

As to the question of sockpuppetry, taking one glance at the contribs of SudoKamma ( talk · contribs) will show the merit in such an accusation. SudoKamma's user page and talk page make it extremely obvious that it is the alternate account of SudoGhost, and the second account is listed on my user page, making a question of sockpuppetry on that account one without a very strong standing. If there is some other account I am accused of manipulating, I would welcome any tangible evidence of that brought forward, so that such concerns can also be addressed. - Sudo Ghost 08:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

QuickEditor, you say that you used to edit up until two years ago. Your account was registered on 22 July as far as I can make out. Since then and up to the point of this message, you have made 165 edits. Please could you elaborate on the "two years ago". I would presume that you did so as an IP editor, in which case you could show us some of those edits. I have just reverted (again) your deletion of cited info at Kim Kardashian and left an explanatory note on your tlak page. I realise that you rebuffed my earlier offer of general assistance, and that you have not replied to Qwyrxian's offer, but we do genuinely want to help here. We are all in favour of encouraging involvement in the Wikipedia project and are prepared to offer advice about how the whole she-bang works etc. - Sitush ( talk) 23:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, you were wrong to revert that edit. You are blatantly engaging in edit warring. I removed the cited info because of a notability issue, it had nothing to do with the sources. Also, it does not matter if information in an article has reliable sources or not if it is not notable. I should report you for Wikipedia:3RR, but I won't because no matter what I do, I get nowhere with you. -- QUICK EDITOR 05:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, xe wasn't--two reverts can basically never constitute edit warring. Here's the sequence of what happened: You made a bold change to an article. That's great. Sitush disagreed with the change. That's great, too. Now, it's time to discuss the issue on the talk page. If the two of you can't come to an agreement, you can pursue dispute resolution (in this case, I expect other editors will chime in eventually, but you can always go to WP:3O if no one does). Sitush, it might help if you explain (on Talk:Kim Kardashian specifically why you disagree with that removal; just because it's cited doesn't mean it should necessarily remain, as WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP may also come into play. So if both of you could take that issue back to the talk page and try to work out a solution, that would be great. While you are doing so, neither of you should really be trying to remove or add that info. Qwyrxian ( talk) 10:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, two reverts do constitute edit warring, depending on the context. Doing the same edit twice is generally not a productive way forward. It's not explicitly against any rule, but it's also not a very good idea. There are more effective strategies to use in a content dispute. Personally, I observe the zero-revert-rule, when it comes to edits that are in any way controversial. I find that strategy to be very effective.

This comment is only a response to the claim "two reverts can basically never constitute edit warring". I'm not commenting on this issue at large in this particular post, but I felt I should clarify that point. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 17:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically, one revert can be considered edit warring in certain (extreme) circumstances, an editor was recently blocked for making a single revert on a page (granted, there were somewhere unique circumstances involved that usually do not occur, but it's still technically possible to be considered edit warring for such behavior). - Sudo Ghost 17:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would just add that the rest of Qwyrxian's comment here I agree with entirely. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 17:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Just so that it's noted here, QuickEditor continues to make personal attacks against me on my talk page (per the last sentence of WP:AVOIDYOU), despite being asked to stop making personal attacks. It seems the only purpose of that comment was to be disruptive, as it was a conversation for which QuickEditor had no part in, and his comment had no purpose other than to accuse me of personal attacks (which is unfounded, and the editor has still refused to explain how I made any personal attack). This is a personal attack against me with the sole purpose of being disruptive. - Sudo Ghost 12:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, dear - see this diff. Anyone want to grant QuickEditor's wish? - Sitush ( talk) 08:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Student7 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Seb az86556 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Native_Americans_in_the_United_States (  | [[Talk:Talk:Native_Americans_in_the_United_States|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Disagreeing with me over the term "loot", User Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ called my remarks "racist".

I asked him to avoid WP:PERSONAL. Instead, he repeated the use of the word racist.

I remonstrated with him on his talk page.

This brought no result. So I tried to delete the discussion on the article page which wasn't particularly germane to the thread anyway, but was reverted by another editor.

I would like the word "racist" (twice) deleted from [[Talk:Native_Americans_in_the_United_States]. The other editor should probably be cautioned about labeling editors in order to win an argument.

Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 16:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to say cynical things (such as that people claim to be Native American only to get "loot" from casinos), and another editor sees such claims as racist, it would make more sense to explain why the claim is not racist than to try to eliminate the discussion. Looie496 ( talk) 16:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

He already did that, to no effect. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Wait; "loot" is bad, but "racism" is OK? Racism is not a word to be thrown around casually. From the discussion on [[[User talk:Seb az86556]], it appears Seb az86556 recognizes the possibility that there's some kind of regional thing going on and he's misinterpreted things, but hasn't redacted an inappropriate personal attack that is clearly causing offense. I've hatted that portion of the discussion and redacted the term. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Seb appears to be describing the comment as racist rather than the user, which, looking at the actual comment, seems pretty accurate. The comment was completely gratuitous and unrelated to the proposed changes to the article which were being discussed, and Seb was right in saying that the talk page wasn't the venue for it. Student7's contention that Seb is just trying to win an argument makes no sense to me, since Student7 was not actually taking part in substantive discussion of the article. It's also strange to me that while it's not okay to call someone else's comment racist, it's totally okay to make a racist comment about Native Americans in a conversation with a user who is Native American. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not really racist, it is simply an uninformed opinion. Saying some people will claim to be Native American to get 'loot' just means those specific people are opportunistic. However, it is likely to be Original Research to make a claim like that in an article, but if it were reliably sourced would you argue that its racist or undue or wrong to include if it were verifiably a major cause of these census changes? Hopefully we would add in it just like anything else. Calling something racist is a pretty strong charge, and certainly there is a better way to address a comment that we don't agree with than to throw out a trite term? -- Avanu ( talk) 22:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Racist is not really a useful word, but it is a misinformed and bigoted comment that should be called out as such. The editor is clearly not labeling and edior but the comment s racist. If you don't like being called out on bigotry dont say such ridiculous things. Nothing to see here. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 00:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just came back from a hiatus. Thank you for the comments from either side. I would first like to note that I was not the one who restored the section; it would have been totally fine with me to leave it removed; so I considered this whole episode "yesterday's snow." Secondly, I had figured the conversation on my talk page had given sufficient explanation from both sides of the differences in opinion. The assessment that my remark was about the comment and not the editor is correct (I don't even know Student7, how could I possibly evaluate him as a person?) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, some people here need to look up what racist means. First off- yes the comment about some people claiming to be Native American to get "loot" is a comment that should not have been made and the editor should have been reprimanded for that rude uninformed comment. However, it is not racist seeing as how he's saying the people claiming to be Native American who are opportunistic are White, and while racism against Whites is possible people here arent saying that, they are making this as if this is racism against Native Americans, which seeing as how it is not about Native Americans it very well cant be racist about them. Camelbinky ( talk) 01:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's also saying that an unspecified number of people who identify as Native Americans are fakes and swindlers and that the commenter knows more about their identity than they do. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if this really needs to continue (I had to read through the conversation again), here's what I responded to: "Tribes granted status in their state may set up legal gambling on "historic tribal reservations." People who are enrolled members of the tribe may share in the resulting loot." To me, this statement means that all enrolled members (and many of the few friends I have are in that group) gain a share of revenue acquired through illegal and criminal activity; the scare-quotes around the description of Native American homelands adds to it. The clarification given by Student7 again labels all revenue from casinos as "loot," again referring to criminal activity and/or theft. Those are the two statements I responded to. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware that some people feel that gambling is as immoral as outright theft, and therefore the proceeds really are "loot"? It is not reasonable to demand that everyone use only approving words when describing behaviors that happen to be legal in some places. I'm opposed to many things that are legal, including a good deal of pollution, worker exploitation, drunkenness, and state lotteries. I suspect that there is much in this world that is both legal and opposed by many people on moral grounds. Gambling happens to be one of them, and we should not ask people to pretend that it is universally considered a laudable endeavor merely to avoid offending the people who choose to engage in it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"what some people feel" is utterly irrelevant - some people feel any kind of profit is as immoal as outright theft. "loot

is clearly not a word that can be used neutrally about legally obtained profits.
·ʍaunus·
snunɐw· 01:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that this has all come down to the point where if the label "racist" is correct, then it is "okay" to use in a discussion. My point is that even an editor were a card carrying member of the KKK, it would not be Wiki-etiquette to label him (or her) a "racist." The arguments may be weighed but labeling (I thought) should be avoided under WP:PERSONAL. Similarly, arguments may be called WP:POV. They are not normally called names that people call each other to win (or start) arguments. Student7 ( talk) 15:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I explained my pov to the editor here before reporting the violation here. I had hoped we could hold differing povs without name calling. Student7 ( talk) 20:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A racist statement is a racist statement even when made by someoen who is not a racist. Calling bullshit bullshit is not namecalling. It is poor etiqutte that is correct- but so is making offensive generalizations about ethnic groups. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 01:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Request help over abuse from User:MarcusBritish. I think this can be traced back to an A Class review I did of an article he had entered at WP:MILHIST. The same article was entered for a GA review which as it is on my watch list. Being aware of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria I left a polite note on article talk that being a list it was not eligible. see here [86]. User:MarcusBritish responded here [87] with the edit summery Reply to prig.

I asked MarcusBritish for an apology on his user talk here [88] to which he responded on my talk

I don't apologise to arrogant, self-centred, obnoxious, Maccams who STALK my contribs, make malicious objections, and abuse their rights. GTFO my back, your actions are perverse and ill-motivated. Report me all you like, I don't boo-hoo over the opinions of strangers - you don't scare me - you are a BULLY! Leave me and my edits the fk alone - you've been HARASSING me for ages, for your own ulterior motives. You are rude, opinionated and ill-mannered. LEAVE ME ALONE! Don't play the Wiki Lawyer to me either - you don't have my respect, because you have a superiority-complex. Don't rub your opinions in my face, don't review my articles, don't touch my edits - in future you will keep your distance from me. Got that? No cookies, no apologies - get off your Geordie high-horse and stop playing childish games! NO apology - if anything you own ME one. Caphiche? [89]

I am not aware of coming into contact with this user before except the milhist review. So I can not comment on harassing him for ages without some evidence. For those not aware Maccams is an abusive term for people from Sunderland, which I can laugh at as I am from the next city further north. I am more than happy never to review or have any other interaction with MarcusBritish in the future but I believe his response is uncalled for and not acceptable in the wiki community . Jim Sweeney ( talk) 18:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I am more than happy never to review or have any other interaction with MarcusBritish in the future - I'll hold you to that, thanks! Ma®©usBritish  ^talk 18:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I completely agree that the response from MarcusBritish was wrong. MarcusBritish, can you show some evidence that Jim Sweeney is "stalking" you? He claims to not be aware of any previous history between you two. Even if you can demonstrate such a history it would not justify your comments. Calling someone "arrogant", "self-centered", etc. is inappropriate because you're talking about the person, not the issue.

However, Jim Sweeney, I'm not sure how much can be done here. MarcusBritish can't receive any formal reprimand here; this page is for reaching resolution on specific issues. So if you are looking for some something more than just "I don't think this user should have done this", then perhaps you would be best served to take this elsewhere. Ultimahero ( talk) 01:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's already at ANI. Gerardw ( talk) 01:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Camelbinky ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gyrobo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York ( | project page | history | links | watch | logs), User talk:DanielPenfield ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
• On Thursday, August 4, I made a series of strawman additions to all of the Upstate New York county articles (for example: [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], etc.). These consisted of a "Budget" section with a bulleted list for outlays, another for receipts, and a fully-cited statement of the county-specific sales tax. Note that it is easy to verify that precedents exist for this type of section in articles about government entities: United States federal budget, California#State finances, Government of Texas#State Budget, Government of Florida#Budget, Illinois#Taxes, Contra Costa County, California#County budget problems, New Jersey#Fiscal policy, Economy of Virginia#Taxation.
• On Saturday, August 6, Special:Contributions/Camelbinky reverted, without explanation, and contrary to WP:REVEXP, a subset of these articles (to wit: [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106])
• I subsequently restored most, but apparently not all of the original changes (to wit: [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116])
• Special:Contributions/Camelbinky then left an insulting message in this , claiming that "County budget sections are violations of policy" without citing any policy whatsoever and then leveling the charge of "spamming these sections onto articles" and concluding that "You were reverted for a reason, putting them back was not a good idea without discussing" while conveniently overlooking the fact that he or she did not have the courtesy to provide a reason for the original revert. (Note that WP:REVEXP accurately states that "A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith.")
• Special:Contributions/Camelbinky subsequently publicized the accusations that " Our NY county articles are being spammed with unencyclopedic section headers" and that "I have tried reverting those counties [...] but have been reverted by same spammer" in this .
• Special:Contributions/Gyrobo then reverted all of what I restored for a second time (e.g., [117]) and reverted the untouched remaining original edits for good measure (e.g., [118]), again using the "undo" feature rather than providing "a valid and informative explanation" in the edit summaries and added the charge that the additions " provide nothing useful" to the WikiProject New York talk page).
• Outraged at the accusation of " spamming" " unencyclopedic" content that " provide[s] nothing useful", I left a phrase-by-phrase rebuttal of these false, and, quite frankly, malicious charges in these fully-cited edits.
• Special:Contributions/Gyrobo subsequently left a condescending follow-up seemingly demanding "justification" for adding a budget section to county articles at all: "Instead of creating a large table refuting how Camelbinky came across to you, it would be more productive to discuss why the data you've copied and pasted into each article should remain there." in this . He also repeated the charge of WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and made outlandish claims of "put the onus on other editors to thoroughly research county government operations" and "there's no guarantee that someone who actually did that would end up organizing the data that way" which run completely contrary to WP:IMPERFECT and WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress.
• Special:Contributions/Gyrobo then left what appeared to be a magnanimous appeal to WP:Here to build an encyclopedia in this and a "generous" offer to let the changes stand. (Note that as of this writing, nobody has restored the changes.) On second glance, it appears to me to be a whitewash that is also intended to further discredit me by:

1. Characterizing the additions as "controversial changes" and as something "the rest of us really don't understand".
2. Characterizing my phrase-by-phrase rebuttal as "Questioning the intentions of other editors, and throwing random policies, guidelines and essays into a discussion, without really relating them to the topic at hand"

• Finally, I wrote a rebuttal to the "demand for justification" and filed this WP:WQA.

To make it clear: I am no longer interested in whether my additions are retained or not. However, I believe I am well within my rights to insist that Special:Contributions/Camelbinky and Special:Contributions/Gyrobo publicly retract the following accusations:

• That my additions were "violations of policy" and "unencyclopedic" and that I was "spamming these sections onto articles" as claimed in User_talk:DanielPenfield#County budget sections are violations of policy
• That I "thr[ew] random policies, guidelines and essays into a discussion, without really relating them to the topic at hand" as claimed about my phrase-by-phrase rebuttal in User_talk:DanielPenfield#Reminder
• That "Our NY county articles are being spammed with unencyclopedic section headers", "I [...] have been reverted by same spammer", "information DanielPenfield keeps adding to these articles provides nothing useful", and "additions you've been adding to county articles have no encyclopedic value" in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York#Unencyclopedic budget section headings

I would also like to see Special:Contributions/Camelbinky and Special:Contributions/Gyrobo publicly state that they will permanently abandon the use of the specious WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:USELESS claims (in any form, including "provides nothing useful") as "justification" for deleting content from Wikipedia.

-- DanielPenfield ( talk) 22:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You really can't use this board to force an apology from anyone. Trust me, I've tried. If you want Camelbinky and Gyrobo to apologize you should discuss your edits with them and explain calmly why you think they are beneficial.

To be honest, I can see the rationale to revert these edits; they mostly just add empty framework without any real material. The referenced material on the taxes is good, but the framework on the rest of the budget is lacking in any detail. This technically isn't spamming, but when you do this across a wide range of pages within a short period of time it can be seen as disruptive. If you want to create sections on municipality budgets you should be prepared to write something in them. Them From Space 22:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't have anything to add to this, other than to recap it from my perspective. DanielPenfield, by his own admission, added empty "strawman" section headers to roughly fifty articles. Camelbinky reverted some of these, but DanielPenfield reverted those reversions, all without explanation. Camelbinky then left DanielPenfield a message explaining his reasoning for the initial reversions, and began a discussion on WPNY. I agreed with Camelbinky's assessment of DanielPenfield's additions as nonconstructive, and then used rollback on all instances of them. WP:ROLLBACK allows widespread reversions in situations like these, because the discussion leading to it was centralized. Rather than engage Camelbinky and myself over the merits of his edits, DanielPenfield immediately Wikilawyered, made what could be considered personal attacks on Camelbinky, and accused me of edit warring. When I asked DanielPenfield to calmly discuss his additions, he responded by filing this. I did not accuse anybody of anything, and I stand by what I did say. My opinion is that from the outset of this discussion, DanielPenfield has been combative and difficult to form consensus with. -- Gyrobo ( talk) 22:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• In response to User:Themfromspace: The problem with Wikipedia is that everybody "skims" what I write and responds with these nonsequiturs. I am looking for a retraction of the malicious and libelous accusations from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject New York#Unencyclopedic budget section headings, User_talk:DanielPenfield#County budget sections are violations of policy, and User_talk:DanielPenfield#Reminder, nothing more, nothing less. Also, your definition of "disruptive" does not appear to match Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. And it looks to me like you are imposing a higher standard than WP:IMPERFECT and WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress require and your higher standard is in direct conflict with WP:PRESERVE which states "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained.". -- DanielPenfield ( talk) 23:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Strawman implies intentionality making articles weaker -- that's not how things are done on Wikipedia. There are templates for things like references needed, and you can always make suggestions on the talk page, but putting non-constructive text on an article isn't good. Note that WP:REVEXP is a non-binding essay, not a policy. It would have been nicer if Camelbinky had left a single explanation somewhere when he did the multiple reverts, but other than that, it's have to find much wrong with his behavior. Nothing about Gyrobo's actions seems improper to me. Gerardw ( talk) 23:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Again, looks nobody wants to read what I wrote all that closely or click through the links to verify that the claim of "spamming" and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is false (not to mention that WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:USELESS are specious arguments). BTW, Straw man proposal clearly states "A "straw-man proposal" [...] is a brainstormed simple proposal intended to generate discussion of its disadvantages and to provoke the generation of new and better proposals. -- DanielPenfield ( talk) 23:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Per your own statement regarding what a straw-man proposal is, you should have made a proposal. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) would be more appropriate than just going through and adding the empty section headers to every article. Perhaps in such a discussion others would have been able to point out to you the drawbacks and help you flesh out your proposal to where it would not have met with opposition. Camelbinky ( talk) 00:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• In this and this you accuse me of WP:SPAMing and unspecified "policy violations". Are you or are you not going to retract this malicious and libelous allegation? -- DanielPenfield ( talk) 00:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• In regard to "libelous", please see WP:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats. Dial it down, please. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

( ←) There were a few instances where Camelbinky's behavior was inappropriate throughout this ordeal. If you're going to mass revert someone with no edit summary, you need to start a discussion somewhere. Daniel was initially reverted without any explanation whatsoever. Camelbinky's later comment on Daniel's talk page was unhelpful, particularly, "spamming", which is an inflammatory bad faith accusation. Also, their comment, "You were reverted for a reason, putting them back was not a good idea", was not appropriate, remembering that no reason whatsoever was given, and they did not provide a link to the discussion. I don't see any major problems with Gyrobo's conduct. Content-wise, I'm more inclined to agree with Gyrobo and Camelbinky, and per WP:SILENT and WP:BRD they are 100% justified in reverting those actions. However, Daniel's contributing, and discussing, in good faith, and has provided detailed and intricate arguments, and the other two users would do well to extend the same courtesy. Regards, Swarm ^{u | t} 03:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

First off, my behavior was not inappropriate. I am under no obligation to provide an edit summary, those are completely voluntary at my discretion to provide or not. When there are multiple issues with the person's additions and they look and feel like obvious problem to the average user (which they appear to have consensus that they were not appropriate additions) and I have to revert on multiple pages then I do not see a reason to explain. Second, using the word "spamming", I'm sorry I dont see any other word for what was put on all those pages, perhaps I will invest in a thesaurus. As you point out BRD I'd like to point out the purpose of BRD, be BOLD, which Daniel did, Revert which I did, then instead of discussing Daniel reverted my revert, I am the one that started the discussion which should have been the onus of Daniel. Which he should have done before doing any edits in the first place anyway, these were edits the Community should have discussed first. When I said "Our NY county articles" I was including the ENTIRE community, including Daniel. No ownership. Detailed and intricate arguments? Of what? Of how I'm a dick? I'm willing to stipulate for the record that I'm a dick, but that's not a matter for this board actually, despite the name of this noticeboard. Gyrobo and I are the only two who put forth why, according to policy, the additions should not stand. All Daniel did was provide snippets of policy out of context to show why I'm a dick. Camelbinky ( talk) 00:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WP policy is to leave edit summaries, per WP:EDIT. Gerardw ( talk) 01:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Does not say it is mandatory and I'm willing to put it forth at the Village pump to see if the Community feels that is how it should be applied, because it is not applied as mandatory and it does not matter the literal wording of a policy. Policy is simply the best consensus written version that could be made of what the community has done in the past; to put it succinctly "policy is descriptive, not proscriptive". I dont have to leave edit summaries, and if someone wants to slap my wrist for not leaving them go ahead and try. Ridiculous this discussion is about leaving an edit summary about a revert on an edit we all have agreed should not have been made. And when you do a copy and paste edit on around 50 articles, each edit which should not have been done, that is called spamming. If there's a better word, please enlighten me. However, this is ridiculous. Nothing was done wrong. I explained myself in a discussion at the NY wikiproject, I did the step in BRD that Daniel refused to do. This discussion is useless and as far as I'm concerned done with. I wont be watching because nothing will happen. Camelbinky ( talk) 02:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

( ←) I never said that you were required to leave an edit summary. I said, "If you're going to mass revert someone with no edit summary, you need to start a discussion somewhere." That is not an opinion, that is an explict provision of WP:EDIT: "Be helpful: explain your changes." Deliberately failing to explain your edits is, plain and simple, disruption, and I strongly encourage you to start a straw poll about how the community feels about the question: "Is explaining your edits mandatory?" Swarm ^{u | t} 23:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy Dingley ( talk · contribs) has, in the past dozen hours or so:

• Called my edit removing a link that fails numerous guidelines "unconstructive."
• Called me a single purpose account, even though I've worked on various articles since 2006.
• Claims he discovered this particular talk page though means other than following me on my contributions page, but he came into the middle of a conversation I was that he had no previous involvement in only to counter me.

In addition, Andy Dingley gloated to another user about their past block, accused him of following WP:COPYVIO only "to spite the project," and called him silly.

• Reported me for "edit warring" for reverting twice (which was just as much as he reverted).
• Continually dismisses my edits as robot like, and continually suggests or implies I should be replaced with a robot script ( 1, 2, 3, 4), not in a helpful manner but a dismissive one. I have shown an example on his talk page of where I left a link a bot would have removed, and provided justification for including the link.
• Claims that some bookspam I'm removing is a cited source when it is not ( 1, 2) (the bookspam in question may be seen in the first link).

I have brought up him calling me a SPA multiple times, and he has not apologized, but continued to call me bot-like. I have pointed out repeatedly that the book in question was not being cited, and another editor has explained that the link for the book is spam. I have explained to him in the edit warring noticeboard that I've only reverted twice (just as much as him).

This user has shown no/little respect for other users, and is contrary to the point of illogic and obstruction of the site's goals. Ian.thomson ( talk) 02:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I am pleased to see Andy Dingley's conceited words and deeds being called to account. Eddaido ( talk) 04:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I presume this is a response to the pig's ear you made at Preselector gearbox, where you confused it with epicyclic gearbox and rewrote the whole article on that basis? Or was it when I corrected you at Commons for creating a non-existent van manufacturer called commons:category:Bradford vehicles? Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

His conceit lies in his belief that his opinions - in particular the cases mentioned above - are correct! Eddaido ( talk) 07:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ian, how do you justify In case you ever come back ... Consider this your final warning to be an appropriate reaction to a new editor? I would remind you again of WP:AGF. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ian's edits; the user clearly had a COI and was spamming their books all over the place. It's difficult to assume good-faith in such instances. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Given your hysterical over-reaction to another new editor at digital curation (a new editor who behaved exactly as we ask them to), you're hardly a good example of how to behave towards new editors. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I justify it thusly: I'm not weak on spam, even if I don't catch everything. And Andy, why is it that you can't defend your actions at all, that you have to go and draw attention to other users? Seems to show that you've got a problem. That you have editors coming out of nowhere to agree that your behavior is unacceptable but noone is helping you in your attempts at character assassination shows that you've got to learn to be more kind to your fellow users. I've dealt with a lot of bookspam (I edit a lot of religion related articles, and ministers, new-age gurus, and freethinkers of all sorts want their opinions heard), so pardon me if I don't feel like explaining the concept to someone who apparently doesn't get it. You could just apologize, back off, and change your ways, but you argue. If you want to prove me wrong, apologize for your behavior (not just to me but to others you've mistreated), accept responsibility for your actions, and change your ways. Ian.thomson ( talk) 23:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I expected from Andy. Not much else to say. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually Jamie, I'm sorry we've any dispute over this, because I see a lot of your edits removing spam and vandalism and generally they're all good stuff. In this case though, you were wrong. You were wrong because it's a useful link from a potentially useful new editor (who not surprisingly, has since disappeared). Secondly, they didn't spam the link at all, they already did what we ask them to. Fine, you made a mistake, it happens. Raising it at COI though...

The trouble with reverting vandalism is that after a while it skews your view of other editors. Not every addition is spam. Not every IP editor is a vandal. Look into the abyss for too long though and the abyss starts to look back into you - you see everyone outside the cabal as a threat to be resisted. This is a wrong principle, and it was wrong in the specific case here. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! Eddaido ( talk) 07:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Dingley's out-of-left-field comments directed at me were based on him not reading my own comments very carefully. Hard to tell if it was a true personal attack, or just a need for a new lens prescription. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy Dingley ( talk · contribs) occasionally resorts to a robust turn of phrase when exasperated by obdurate stupidity. Don't we all? As my very modest contributions are often in a field to which Andy also contributes, I have some length of experience of his work here. I find that he always has the best interests of the project in mind. I fully agree with his support of new editors who happen to actually know something against excessive pettifogging enforcement of what they think are 'rules' by overzealous policekids. How about climbing down off your indignation and improving content somewhere instead, like I would prefer to be doing instead of wasting my time with this storm in a teacup. Globbet ( talk) 00:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I initially assumed good faith and considered your comments sarcasm, but looking over your past conversations with Andy Dingley, I'm having extreme difficulty with that. How about you and him develop a sense of civility (one of the site's founding principles)? "Obdurate stupidity?" What exactly are you refering to here? Are you refering to me removing what other users concluded was book spam, me issuing a final warning to the book's author after she had already had four other warnings related to the book, or what? Aside from the bookspam issue, I have not dissed Andy's contributions to articlespace, but regardless of the quality of his work, WP:CIVIL is not a guideline, it is POLICY. It is one of the five pillars of this site and one of the things that determine if someone is qualified to work on this project (civility is what makes it a project instead of a battleground).

At any rate, the only person defending Andy Dingley has called stupid those of us Andy has insulted. Shows the sort of company he keeps, eh? Ian.thomson ( talk) 01:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I apologise for "obdurate stupidity". It was meant as a generalisation, but in retrospect it is hard to see how you would not take it as meaning you, and it is far too strong in this instance anyway. Since we are here at Wikiquette assistance, the issue is not one of content but of behaviour and attitude. In general terms, learning to become an editor has been made a difficult and disheartening process by all the rules (I am not inclined to study the precise local jargon) and their often peremptory and arbitrary application by those (not necessarily applicable here) too young and inexperienced to have developed humility and good judgement. This is what I find exasperating. It is basically a question of WP:BITE. You may not think it applies in this instance, and you may be right, for all I know. As I see it, editors whose primary contribution is in policing need to be very careful not to dissuade potential good editors, when I find so much of the content remains so feeble and the pace of improvement so pathetic - so much so in my field of engineering that I begin to think the task is a hopeless one. While everyone has their own form of contribution to make, to me, creation and expansion of good quality articles is still the prime task at hand, and I am ashamed for the project when obstacles are placed in the path of that, albeit in good faith. While he can (and does) speak for himself, I think Andy thinks the same way. I am disappointed that you should think I have a history of incivility. Globbet ( talk) 09:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)edited 09:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right about Dingley being "too young and inexperienced to have developed humility and good judgement." Give it time. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering his 180-degrees-wrong interpretation of comments I made over on commons, Ding-Dong might be suffering from the same level of obdurateness. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the nostalgia trip Bugs, I haven't heard that insult since I was about nine.

re your actions at Commons, they're in relation to your threat that, If you block me again, I'll have to ask that all the images I uploaded here be deleted, on the grounds that they are all copyright violations - i.e. you were prepared to lie over image copyright, just to disrupt Commons. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Which insult in particular? You need to be more specific. Anyway, as you may have observed, I did make good on my threat and all my images are now deleted on bogus copyright violation claims, as per the Alexander Liptak methodology. The reason I called the so-called leaders there "clueless" is that they don't see the implications of what they did when they let him get away with it. It would render the "irrevocable" rule unenforceable and obsolete. If you think that's just fine, I don't know what to tell you. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Everyone here's human (except the real bots). That's why we have WP:CIVIL. WP:BITE is important, but it is an extension of WP:CIVIL, which applies to any user regardless of how long they've been on. Ian.thomson ( talk) 17:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• I see that I'm now being threatened with AN/I (Oooh!) by Ian, after he has now removed the book reference six times, three of them just today. What an interesting view of policy and the value of useful editing you must have.

I would remind you that I'm still the only one who has bothered to read the book in question, but you want it removed because either the URL offends you, the author of the content offends you, or the content (of a book you haven't read, on a subject you have no interest in) offends you. Despite others favouring its restoration, you're so far against this that 3RR becomes just one of those rules for the little people. You're really going to love it as an Admin. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This is all trivial stuff. My interaction with Andy Dingley proves to me that he is prickly only when necessary, and remarkable open to good ideas. I don't see any need for community censure. Binksternet ( talk) 23:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait a sec - did you just call him what I think you called him? If so, he might need to file his own WQA report! ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)