OpenFuture (talk | contribs) →User:Pmanderson: new section |
|||
Line 858: | Line 858: | ||
:::: In all honesty, if you're asking people to dig up diffs from last December and block or ban other editors, it's not going to happen. Looking at those articles, E. Ripley's question above about involvement and COI certainly seems to be a good one. Also, do you have any connection to the account {{user|Playa27}}? [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 20:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC) |
:::: In all honesty, if you're asking people to dig up diffs from last December and block or ban other editors, it's not going to happen. Looking at those articles, E. Ripley's question above about involvement and COI certainly seems to be a good one. Also, do you have any connection to the account {{user|Playa27}}? [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 20:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::Even more so, given this [http://sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_doc_number=P98000000074&inq_came_from=OFFBWD&cor_web_names_seq_number=0002&names_name_ind=P&ret_names_cor_number=N46979&ret_cor_web_names_seq_number=&ret_names_name_ind=&ret_names_comp_name=&ret_names_filing_type=&ret_cor_web_princ_seq=0004&ret_princ_comp_name=LESLIELEVY&ret_princ_type=P filing with the Florida Division of Corporations]. It's circumstantial naturally, but I hear the [[WP:DUCK|quacking]] already. — [[User:E. Ripley|e. ripley]]\<sup>[[User talk:E. Ripley|talk]]</sup> 20:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC) |
:::::Even more so, given this [http://sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_doc_number=P98000000074&inq_came_from=OFFBWD&cor_web_names_seq_number=0002&names_name_ind=P&ret_names_cor_number=N46979&ret_cor_web_names_seq_number=&ret_names_name_ind=&ret_names_comp_name=&ret_names_filing_type=&ret_cor_web_princ_seq=0004&ret_princ_comp_name=LESLIELEVY&ret_princ_type=P filing with the Florida Division of Corporations]. It's circumstantial naturally, but I hear the [[WP:DUCK|quacking]] already. — [[User:E. Ripley|e. ripley]]\<sup>[[User talk:E. Ripley|talk]]</sup> 20:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Pmanderson]] == |
|||
[[User:Pmandersons]] first "interaction" with me was him making a massive revert of things both me an others did, after discussion on the talk page, calling it "Vandalism", [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_between_democracies&action=historysubmit&diff=368433033&oldid=367650849], implying that all those behind the consensus including me was vandals. He continues to call me a vandal [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_wars_between_democracies&action=historysubmit&diff=370604402&oldid=370535477], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_wars_between_democracies&diff=next&oldid=370605350], http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_wars_between_democracies&action=historysubmit&diff=369946605&oldid=369944453], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_wars_between_democracies&action=historysubmit&diff=369340961&oldid=369340534], while generally refusing to engage in constructive debate. Lastly he calls me a liar, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_wars_between_democracies&action=historysubmit&diff=372608491&oldid=371983720] and a POV-pusher, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_wars_between_democracies&diff=next&oldid=372628957], because I want his sources to support his edits, and don't want [[WP:OR]] or [[WP:SYN]] in the article. |
|||
When he doesn't engage in direct attacks, he is rude and claims that I have "pet definitions" or particular political views and that I edit based on POV, and not on wikipedia policies. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_wars_between_democracies&action=historysubmit&diff=372634734&oldid=372633811] |
|||
I have tried to be patient, but my patience with his attacks and rudeness and general refusal to engage in serious debate (it's possible, but only after repeating my criticism several times, he will ignore it the first few times), and this situation is not just not acceptable any more. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 20:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
--[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 20:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:14, 9 July 2010
Welcome to wikiquette assistance | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
|
Active alerts
User violating WP:3RR rule
User:Muboshgu has violated the three revert rule on Amar'e Stoudemire. He doesn't seem to understand that this player has agreed to become a New York Knick. I changed the article to reflect that but he keeps changing it back. Thanks --FourteenClowns (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is the Wikiquette alert page, not the alert page for edit warring, which is at Wikipedia:AN3. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
TickleMeister
TickleMeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to me to be personalizing a series of content disputes. I tried to request that they take a step back and focus on the discussions at hand, but I may be too close to the issue to do any good here. Might I persuade someone else to take a look at the following diffs and discuss them as you think is best. If I am off base here, just let me know and I will withdraw this.
- Speculates that one or more other editors may have base or venal motives for their edit or edits or are editing in bad faith: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].
- Accuses another editor of deliberate misinterpretation: [6]
- Accuses another editor of engaging in a campaign of AIDS denialism onsite and offsite: [7].
- Describes another editor's edit as "asinine": [8].
- Responds to my original request with the edit summary cant you read?.
- Describes another editor as "hostile": [9].
- Responds to another editor's request to avoid describing other editors as "hostile" with the edit summary rmv more worthless comments.
- Refers to the abovementioned request as "harassment": [10].
I have notified TickleMeister of this thread. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I can confirm that this is a growing problem. Polite requests and what I felt was reasonable advice have been consistently rebuffed in an uncivil way. It is harming the development of the aspartame related articles. Verbal chat 19:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- If I may add, some comments TickleMeister made about me:
- Refers to my applying WP:MEDRS to sources he wants cited as "obstructionist" "ridiculous" "OR" and "tendentious" [11]
- That my application of WP:UNDUE is "risible": [14]
- Accusing others of "tag teaming" when he is reverted: [15]
More input requested
Is this really appropriate behavior? [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobol (talk • contribs) 14:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Or any of these one wonders: [18], [19] (note the edit summary). I have never posted here before, so I hope I m doing this properly. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Response from TickleMeister
While some of my comments were made in frustration —since my edits have all, without exception, and no matter what the quality of the sourcing, been reverted by a small group of editors who seem to OWN the page— most of them are accurate and I stand by them.
- Yes, the group of editors who have blocked every one of my edits is hostile to me
- Yes, their editing is tendentious and they do tag team to revert me (just check the Aspartame and Aspartame controversy page histories)
- Yes, many of the reasons given for reverting me are risible and ridiculous, but it hardly matters because I am outnumbered and the quality of the arguments is really not material because of consensus claims
Please note that I am trying to edit a NPOV into articles discussing a product that is worth nearly $700 million annually to its manufacturers. These selfsame manufacturers have sued many people who even breathe a word against the product (it's in the record, look it up). They hire people to travel the world to give reassuring speeches about the product. They run astroturfing websites (eg http://www.aspartame.info ) that portray the product as harmless. Do they have people editing wikipedia, the #1 hit for a search on "aspartame"? I don't know, but if I were them, I definitely would. I urge any patrolling admin to study the history of edits and reverts to the pages concerned and see if they also find it suspicious. An uninvolved editor commented that some of my edits are good, but he was drowned out by the opposing group of editors, some of whom have short and very focused editing histories. TickleMeister (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ticklemeister has made it clear that he believes Aspartame is dangerous to health, that the regulators have hidden the dangers and that scientists have been bribed. He insists on inserting views that have been presented by fringe theorists into these two articles. It has been repeatedly pointed out to him that these articles must reflect what is contained in reliable sources and that these articles are no place to correct the science. Although the other editors and I are only insisting that the article follow RS and NPOV, Ticklemeister accuses other editors of having a pro-Aspartame bias. TFD (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- TFD, I object to your interpretation of my beliefs. The only firm belief I have about aspartame is that it gives me headaches. Of that I am 100% sure, through a process of withdrawal and challenge, numerous times. The other "beliefs" you ascribe to me are all false. Others (and I am not talking about "fringe" people here) have those beliefs, yes, as the reliable sources show. I just want our aspartame articles to reflect that. Once again, I point you and the other editors to WP:CONTROVERSY. Even MEDRS says we need to make people fully aware of any controversy, but the suppression and censorship of studies and opinions that is being enforced on the aspartame pages flies in the face of this stipulation. TickleMeister (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Surely you jest, my good man! Please read Aspartame and Headaches. TickleMeister (talk) 06:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- These studies have not gained acceptance in academic literature and in fact have been disproved. Until and unless they gain recognition they cannot be included. It is interesting that this case is the opposite of most involving large corporations. Usually corporate defenders attempt to discredit the scientific literature, but in this case it is all on their side. TFD (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is odd that you would claim that when published papers state as a matter of fact: The list of foods, beverages, and additives that trigger migraine includes cheese, chocolate, citrus fruits, hot dogs, monosodium glutamate, aspartame,.. and as recently as 2009 Although the data surrounding the role of certain foods and substances in triggering headaches is controversial, certain subsets of patients may be sensitive to phenylethylamine, tyramine, aspartame, monosodium glutamate, nitrates, nitrites, alcohol, and caffeine not to mention the plethora of sources that TickleMeister has provided in the link above. Stating that they have all been disproved is a fairly extraordinary claim that you should present a source for. Unomi (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Industry-sponsored studies have found no relation to headache, that's true, and industry-funded reviews point this out and choose the industry-funded studies above the independent studies. But that does not mean that wikipedia cannot point that out, and present both arguments (or sets of conclusions) to readers. There is no such thing as studies "gaining recognition" in this field, it's all opinion and counter-opinion. Studies are not "disproved", there are merely studies with different methods, cohorts and conclusions. If everything were so crystal clear-cut, there would not be an investigation by the British Food Standards Authority ongoing as we speak into aspartame. Claiming that the research is "all on the manufacturers' side" is yet another blatant example of the risible nonsense confronting my attempts to edit in a NPOV. TickleMeister (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't about the content dispute, it's about the attempts at WP:DR that have been met by incivility and personal attacks, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (eg. bringing up the FSA study, where the press release flatly contradicts your interpretation of it - they say it is safe). Verbal chat 09:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- This section, on this noticeboard, is really about trying to leverage wikipedia civility rules to gain advantage in a content dispute. In other words, a form of subtle abuse of the system. TickleMeister (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Speaking as a thoroughly uninvolved editor who is providing input at this WQA, I'd question the accuracy of that statement - there is a good chance that this would not even be here, had you not made inappropriate remarks like this. I'm not going to spend time discussing the sheer absurdity of the harassment claim that you made, but instead, I'm going to make a suggestion. It might be a good idea for you to take a temporary voluntary break from the area so that you can cool off, refresh, and avoid snapping with the bad faith assumptions; it will probably assist in making your contributions more effective, whereas if the current pattern continues, comments slowly become more and more inappropriate - eventually moves for involuntary removal are made. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- You link to an edit I made on my own Talk page, and the only thing I can see that may be even slightly questionable about it is the use of the somewhat irritable phrase "WTF", mainly because I was being admonished for templating another editor who had made a blatant assumption of bad faith towards me. If that's enough to warrant a carpeting on this Noticeboard, then something is wrong with the process. So instead of me taking a break, since I am the only editor actually attempting to insert new encyclopedic content into artic;es that are clearly POV (and now frozen in their current poor state by a group of reverters), why don't the reverters take a break? And what if there really are people with a COI editing the page to whitewash the immensely profitable chemical? Do I back off and let them win the day? Is wikipedia broken? TickleMeister (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
User: 69.86.66.128
69.86.66.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
The above IP editor has made a number of uncivil personal attacks on Talk:Albert Einstein against me (user:Quasihuman) and user:DVdm. This is part of a discussion on the section of Einstein's mistakes, in which my only contributions have been to say that the items in the section should be properly referenced. The IP has made several contributions to the talk page on this and other issues which have been constructive and civil, and the uncivil remarks have only started within the last few days, however, I find the insulting remarks to be particularly offensive and would like them to be withdrawn from the record and apologized for by the IP.
Diffs: [20] pervious edit was undone by user:HumphreyW and subsequently reinstated by the IP: [21]. [22]
For the record, my contributions to the discussion: [23][24][25][26][27]
Thanks for your time, Quasihuman (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your suggested role is to discuss the issue directly with the user - even using warning templates about violations of WP:NPA before bringing it here. An anonymous editor thinks he can hide behind such anonymity and mouth off - likely very different in person, or should they actually register for an account. I see no signs on his talkpage about any discussion, other than the WQA notice. Can I ask why not? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have discussed this with the user on the talk page of the article, I asked him here to strike out his comments (which at that stage amounted to calling people dipshits and telling people to bugger off), in response to this, he accused me of being mentally handicapped, and I asked him here to apologize for that. I was not aware that it was necessary to discuss this on his talk page, and was not inclined to do that given that IP's are prone to being changed & fears that he might not receive the message. Quasihuman (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: the user has continued to make insulting remarks, and has now changed his IP to 75.24.127.154. [here] is his most recent response on Talk:Albert Einstein. I have tried to solve this on his talk page (the old one), but have received no response, probably because he has changed his IP, the reason I did not go there in the first place. Anyway, another editor has removed the relevant posts and my replies (athough I predict some edit warring over this), which was one of my demands, and I see no prospect of the IP apologizing, so I think it would be best to withdraw this alert.
- It might have been helpful had an uninvolved editor here explained to the IP that personal attacks are against the basic principals of Wikipedia, unfortunately this did not happen, and I was effectively asked to deal with this on my own. As a relatively new editor (this was my first major dispute) this leaves the impression that Wikipedia is not interested in protecting good faith editors against personal attacks, and not interested in helping (relatively) new editors deal with hostile elements. Quasihuman (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Additional note: I've just realized that the IP made a very helpful reply on this page. For those interested, here is the edit. Perhaps a block is in order? (yes, I realize how ineffective that would be) Anyway, the IP has made it clear in that and the previous edit that he is no longer willing to edit constructively. Quasihuman (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
John Halloran (talk · contribs)
This recent edit by an editor I have been in (civil, on my part) dispute with is going too far in my opinion: "Her 'top university' is probably a Christian school, and to a religious fanatic, the ends justify the means." Although ridiculous, I don't consider the "She" part a personal attack - I also haven't claimed special authority based on qualifications.
It shouldn't take long to review his edits, there haven't been many recently. We first "crossed swords" at the Astrology software article where I noticed it may be a copyvio of another page based on the other page's copyright date. Moonriddengirl dealt with this issue perfectly. John seems to have taken it as an attempt to get the article deleted. When the article was restored I attempted to clean it up, and was met with resistance by John - a major contributor who claims to have written the article along with others who are also, like him, the authors of astrological/horoscope software mentioned in the article. He then made six edits to the article undoing my copyediting with the edit summary "Undid revision xx by Verbal Undo vandalism by biased user" diff. I was polite and explained that this wasn't vandalism and pointed John to the relevant policies, and even apologised that there were so many. In return he stated I shouldn't edit the article ("user Verbal should be disqualified from editing this page","A person who knows nothing about the field should leave the decision of relevance up to those who do know.", etc), said wikipedia shouldn't be edited by High school students, says I should be too busy too edit wikipedia if I had a PhD (shows what he knows!), and then goes on to further question my credentials and compare me to Essjay.diff He also keeps bringing up typos which seems a bit silly and is due to using a French keyboard at the moment. In all my replies and dealings with John I've been polite and civil. His last two actions were the post I first mention, which I feel goes too far, and an off topic discussion about a love of rules rather than knowledge.
If this continues this editor may need to take a break. Opinions, advice, etc welcome. Thanks, Verbal chat 19:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- You already said on your discussion page that you were going to take a break in order to give birth to a child. John Halloran (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so. I did say elsewhere I was going to be a dad soon. I specifically haven't complained about the "She", that's not a problem (unless you do it again now you know). Would you care to address the actual concerns, such as the clear implication that I am a religious fanatic? I've asked you on the talk page to remove that comment. Thanks, Verbal chat 20:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- I belive that the user may need mentoring. He seems to have some knowledge of the field, yet seems to be unable to crasp that that dose not give him the right to ignore rules about RS or OR.Slatersteven (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agree: a mentor would probably be a good option here to help the user contribute constructively. As for the "religious fanatic" comment, a polite warning to assume good faith and remember to maintain civility when participating in discussions wouldn't go amiss. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Still waiting for input. If my description was too long I will refactor. Basically, "religious fanatic" is going too far. Verbal chat 08:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Did you leave the user a polite message to remember to maintain civility before posting this here? I looked on their talk page but didn't see such a comment. This should always be the first action you take; don't forget that WP:WQA is here to render advice and opinions on civility issues and/or to refer the matters to other noticeboards. You should try to deal with the matter yourself before advice becomes necessary, and in this case a polite comment about maintaining civility or request to retract the statement that you are a "religious" fanatic would have sufficed unless the user refused to address your concerns civilly. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
All I can suggest is that you should have discussed the problem with the user and/or issued a level 1 npa warning and let that be that. WP:WQA is here to help resolve issues of incivility and exists only to render advice and/or refer the issue to a relevant noticeboard. Incivility is inevitably going to happen during the consensus-building process, and while I agree that calling someone a "religious fanatic" is a personal attack, IMO it's a pretty minor one and could have been dealt with via polite discussion and/or npa template until it became a more serious problem. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well this board is certainly useful. Thanks for nothing. The only advice is slap a template on them. Yes sir, that would have deescalated the problem. Sorry Giftiger, as I know your advice is well meant, but it is wrong and would have made the situation worse in this case. There is no point in my talking to them, as they have already said I should be banned and that I am a religious fanatic that should be ignored and talking to them makes it worse. Verbal chat 21:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you find that talking with the user isn't going to help, then I'd say just avoid them. While calling someone a "religious fanatic" isn't very pleasant, it's not really worthy of much more than a warning about civility. Just avoid them where possible, and if they make any particularly malicious remarks they could be taken to WP:AN/I at a later date. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Off topic
Ummm, Verbal... if this is an "accusation of bad faith" - what exactly is this? I wouldn't "request opinions" on open threads if you're not prepared for responses that might not be to your liking. Doc9871 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Doc9871, what's the relevance to this thread? Verbal, please don't collapse other people's comments since you have pretty clear motives for wanting to removing Doc's comments. It's not exactly relevant to the thread, but collapsing it should be at the discretion of an uninvolved party. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Verbal is on a personal vendetta here. Experienced users (or at least users trying to throw their weight around policing articles) going after inexperienced users over petty breaches of wikiquette is a rather pathetic spectacle in this editor's opinion. --dab (𒁳) 10:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is not true. Being called a "religious fanatic" (despite never mentioning religion!) when I have been polite and helpful is clearly a problem. You put this comment in the right section at least. Verbal chat 13:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
"subsequent comments [on archived discussions] should be made in a new section." Irrelevant to the closure, so doesn't belong here.
|
---|
|
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Now here's an odd thing. And it is a lot more than just an "etiquette" lapse. But I'm not sure where to go. This is not a content dispute, but a situation where another editor has, for some unknown reason (I don't recall ever working with this editor) apparently taken an extreme dislike to me to the point where he made an extremely noxious attack on me and won't withdraw it. Normally I would shrug this off, but I am unwilling to for various reasons described below.
This editor has (with no justification whatsoever) accused me of being a pedophile, or at any rate of indicating that accusations made by others that I am a pedophile are justified as I have "brought [them] upon myself", as he puts it.
This is a very, very serious accusation. It it was true I would be instantly banned with no appeal, but much more importantly to me is that it could have very serious real-world implications for me and my family. There is various background to this which gets kind of involved and I won't go into here but can provide if required.
I tried to ask this editor to explain himself, but he has been unwilling to do so in a satisfactory manner and has now told me to "fuck off", so that seems to be a dead end. This thread is here.
I am very upset and angry. This is an accusation which I cannot allow to stand, as a matter of principle, as a matter of precedent for the protection other editors like myself who protect the Wikipedia against pedophile bias, and as a matter of protection of my reputation and myself.
This is definitely a matter for ArbCom, I would think. However, I don't want escalate more than I need to. At one point, a simple apology, withdrawal of the statement, or cogent explanation from Mr Fatuorum would have satisfied, but it looks like matters have gone far beyond that point now. Absent some solution, it is looking now like one of us will have to resign in disgrace, and I don't intend it to be me, without a fight.
What should I do? Any advice? Herostratus (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
User's response to my informing him of this thread was "I have never taken much interest in the WQA children's playground, and I have no intention of starting now", so I'm not sure what can be accomplished here. I would still value any advice. Herostratus (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I may be completely mistaken, but I thought Malleus's comment "He brought this upon himself" was in regards to the entire RFA recall, specifically the jokes you made on your own user pages, not the pedophile accusations. (While I myself wouldn't have taken them seriously, many users would). While Malleus can be particularly, er, anti-admin, he's never been one for personal accusations of such a high degree (as far as I've seen anyway). My advice, Herostratus, is to let it go. I don't think anyone here really believes you are a pedophile and surely that's what matters? (Of course, I could be wrong about the whole thing. That's just the way I interpreted it.) Regards, OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 05:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's how I interpreted it too, and I think Bunnies' advice is generally sound. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agree, though perhaps Malleus could have clarified that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Editing on Wikipedia is (unless otherwise wished by the editor) anonymous. Herostratus by his actions has not only publicised his interpretation of certain comments, but has given details about his personal life which if given by another editor in relation to him would be a serious breach of privacy. I never heard of this editor until he started posting on MF's page- his own efforts at drawing attention to himself are damaging to the encyclopedia. Ning-ning (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict...)
I would like to [let it go], but its not possible now. I do not understand your reading of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2#Oh, and..., if you did read it. Here, I will abstract it, removing extraneous chatter. What it amounted to was this:
- Herostratus: Oh, and would people stop calling me a pedophile for crying out loud? ... [This is in response to a post beginning "What this RfA should come down to, in my opinion, is whether or not the candidate is a pedophile..." where the editor uses a Wikipedia Review thread about me as his ref, and then some follow-up discussion]
- Another editor:: It's a disgrace that there are Wikipedians... that give [Wikipedia Review] legitimacy by posting there. The absolutely halfwitted shite posted there about you, that some editors were even so daft as to repeat here...
- Another editor:: ... Allegations concerning pedophilia can be extremely damaging, and editors should therefore remain civil and avoid engaging in speculative public accusation...
- Malleus Fatuorum:Herostratus brought this upon himself. Don't let's pretend otherwise.
How on earth is Mr Fatuorum referring here to the RfA in general? This thread has nothing to do with the RfA in general, nothing. Except for off-topic chatter is is solely about me being called a pedophile. If you think that my abstract above is not accurate; fine, just use the actual thread.
So anyway, let me get this straight. According to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, this is OK and I should just forget it? What the heck do you have to do to violate Wikiquette? Call someone a murderer? Rapist? Nazi? Threaten to kill their children?
I appreciate your character references for Malleus Fatuorum, but I'm afraid they don't cut a lot of ice with me at this time. Again, I have no idea who Malleus Fatuorum is or what he does, I don't remember encountering him or have any idea why he would hate me. Maybe I deleted one of his articles once or something, I don't know. It's quite a mystery to me.
But anyway, thank you very much for your time and consideration. I'm sorry this was not successful, but thank you for trying. Herostratus (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
(now responding to comments by Ning-ning: Whaaat? Is this person one of the regular volunteers here? Just what kind of place is this????? What details about my personal life??? I'm damaging the encyclopedia by trying to defend myself against a false and noxious implication withc the person will not withdraw? Urk.... well again, thank you all for your time... I think... Herostratus (talk)
- Threatening to kill someone's children would certainly violate the rules of WP - as well as the rules of most societies. Take a breather, Herostratus - we all get "pissy" from time to time. Relax a bit: it's a big wiki... Doc9871 (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
We have a zero tolerance policy on this particular accusation, hence User:Malleus Fatuorum should be indef blocked until they agree to retract and not repeat such comments. Verbal chat 10:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- If that is how the comment was intended, then I agree. However, I was commenting on the discussion at the time and despite the unfortunate way in which it has appeared, I don't think the user was referring to the paedophilia comment with this statement, and I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt. It'd be helpful if he could clarify this, however... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually it doesn't matter how it was intended, it can easily and clearly be read as agreeing with the accusation - hence should be removed and User:Malleus Fatuorum should be blocked per policy. Zero tolerance is zero tolerance. Verbal chat 10:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Verbal's actions in removing the offending post. If MF didn't mean it the way it can be read, then at the very least he put the post in the wrong place. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I noticed Verbal removed the comment and I certainly don't have an issue with that; regardless of how it was meant, it could be very easily misconstrued and it's suitable to remove the comment until Malleus rephrases it in a way which makes it clear as to its meaning. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wait, Malleus saying that Hero brought the pedophilia accusations on himself, while not a very nice thing to say, is completely different to Malleus calling Hero a pedophile. Saying that he has called someone a pedophile is completely jumping the gun. :/ OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 12:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree; saying that he brought it on himself is suggesting that he did something to justify the comment; that's essentially supporting the accusation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) And I disagree again. Look at Malleus's talk page, he said he was referring to the jokes Hero pulled on his user pages. At no point has he called Hero a pedophile! OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 13:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Let me try and say this in words of one syllable, so that even Verbal may be able to understand. I have no idea who Herostratus is, or whether he (I assume it's a he) is a pedophile or not. Either way, I have certainly never accused Herostratus or anyone else of being a pedophile. What I have clearly explained to Herostratus is my view that he brought the accusation upon himself by the stupid prank he played on his user page, an escalating series of messages claiming that his local council was restricting his internet access. It's a mystery to me why Herostratus and Verbal have singled me out for an indef block and characterised my opinion as a "personal attack" while ignoring those who actually suggested that Herostratus might be a pedophile, or why Herostratus keeps banging on and on about this instead of letting the fuss die down, but I suppose that's the way of the playground. Malleus Fatuorum 13:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well Malleus, that's rather what I thought you meant. Contrary to what some people here have said, there is a difference between saying someone brought accusations upon themselves and saying that the accusations are true. The former is certainly not a blockable offense. OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 14:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, though that doesn't resolve the concern about inflammatory commentary like this which is avoidable. Responding to a misunderstanding by accusing someone of being obsessed with a topic (let alone this topic) is utterly stupid; such disputes are predictably escalated rather than deescalated. In other words, one cannot ignore the fact that Malleus was (in large part or otherwise) responsible for this needless escalation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have escalated nothing. Herostratus came to my talk page and asked me what I meant by suggesting that he'd brought the accusation of pedophilia on himself. I told him and he got the hump, Hence this childish nonsense here. I can understand that Herostratus will likely be feeling a little hurt by his failed reconfirmation RfA, but that does not excuse him of making unfounded allegations, as he has done not only here, but elsewhere. Neither does it excuse you Ncmvocalist. You're just out for blood. Malleus Fatuorum 14:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Take responsibility for your edits instead of making false accusations in an attempt to avoid scrutiny of your own conduct Malleus. I'm not out for blood, no matter how much you would like others to believe such nonsense, and I've already suggested the part Herostratus also played in this. Herostratus asked you what you meant; you made a vague useless comment that clarified nothing. Herostratus explained why he approached you on your talk page - what he interpreted your comment to mean and asked if that was what you meant [28] (which was the first sign of an actual misunderstanding). You then denied that was what you meant but simultaneously accused Herostratus of being "so obsessed with pedophillia". Again, you clearly played a role in escalating this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am quite happy to take responsibility for my edits, as Herostratus should responsibility for his. It has been explained to him repeatedly what was meant by the observation that has apparently so offended him, yet he persists in his accusation that I called him a pedophile, and has now begun making vague threats– "I guess what matters is no longer my opinion but the opinion of the people tasked with enforcing WP:PED. You will not be hearing further from me, but I am sure that you will be hearing about this case, and soon"– and accusations of sockpuppetry.[29] Malleus Fatuorum 15:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I like that: attack someone, and then whine "Why can't they let the fuss die down?" If I may say so: classic bully logic. Letting the fuss die down is and always has been in your hands: even at this late date, I'd be willing settle for a sincere apology, some evidence of self-reflection, and a promise to avoid further wrongdoing.
Don't try to shift this over to be about the people who directly suggested that I am a pedophile. They had the basic good sense to shut up about it. You didn't. You have chosen to double-down and triple-down and quadruple-down and continue to pretend an innocence that you don't have, and maintain your right to address me and speak of me in in this manner, with "Fuck off" being a typical bon mot tossed off to calm the waters.
Here is the entire comments of my userpage taken from the diff which you yourself cited:
- Ever since The Incident — you probably read about it in the papers — they have greatly restricted my computer access, therefore I have not been and will not be as active as I would like. For a while. After a certain period of good behavior the Local Council may restore my computer privileges. Thank you for your patience.
A later addition which you didn't cite but which I'll include for completeness is:
- UPDATE: Rather than improving, my situation has deteriorated. Now I am no longer allowed access to the internet, and am forbidden to watch television or listen to the radio. Nor am I allowed to view any periodicals published before 1960. The only way I can make edits is to mark up a printout and pass it to my majordomo to be typed into Wikipedia. Frustrating!
Don't like it? Fine. Think it's stupid? Fine. Don't like me in general? Fine. But how on this planet can this in any way shape or form be taken to mean that I am a pedophile or am "bringing upon myself" an accusation that I am a pedophile?
Of course not. Look, let's not play games: you are referring to a thread on on off-wiki web site, the Wikipedia Review. Some people there, apparently reading the above, decided that it somehow showed that I am a pedophile (I don't follow their logic; they may have emotional problems and/or cognitive issues or something). I can only figure that getting this type of treatment, either from Wikipedia Review or on-wiki, is something that I "brought upon myself" with the innocent, if admittedly unfunny, userpage text you cited. Is there some other explanation?
All I wanted (originally) was for you to explain what this post was doing in the middle of thread discussing accusation of pedophilia against me. You have not done so because you cannot. In which case, fine. Everybody makes mistakes, although not usually this kind of obnoxious playground-bully type of mistake. In the case of this kind of mistake, as I said, an abject apology, some sign of self-reflection, and a promise of no further bad behavior is generally in order.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that you can talk to people the way you do, but whoever gave you that idea was doing you no favor. My assessment of your current situation: you're in a heap of trouble, pal. This could get out of hand, and nobody wants that - I hope. (Although I do wonder: if you treat me this way, what kind of poison might you spreading against other editors?)
Anybody here who has your best interests at heart might want to have a little talk with you. I suggest you listen. Herostratus (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hero, Malleus didn't 'attack' you. If he thinks the jokes you quoted were above were unwise and contributed to the pedophilia accusations then he's perfectly entitled to think that. He speaks his mind in a somewhat blunt manner (to say the least) but it's not an attack for him to have an opinion on your conduct. You're not going to achieve anything by dragging this out. Sometimes people are going to say things about you that you don't agree with - that's life. Wouldn't you rather see all of this behind you? OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 15:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I am going to say this again, so that Malleus can understand (hold on, that's not civil is it. Hmm) Zero tolerance is zero tolerance. The explanation above could have been given earlier, but Malleus' continued problem editing and the other highlighted comments () show that a block is fully deserved as an educational measure, to prevent further disruption, and per zero tolerance. Verbal chat 15:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Malleus has not committed a blockable offense in this case. OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 15:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am inclined to believe that Verbal hasn't read anything I said. Because you didn't call Hero a pedophile, ergo the zero tolerance policy he keeps repeating doesn't even apply. But what you can you do? This entire page makes me want to kill kittens. And I like kittens. OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 16:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sheesh, the facts are plain. We have a zero tolerance policy. His comment could easily be read as such an accusation and he refused to clarify and made further problematic comments. Blocking is what policy and practice call for. If he were to fully retract the statements, without sarcasm, then all that might be required is a warning. Any repeat of such innuendo, intended or not, would lead to a block per the zero tolerance policy until the comment is retracted or refactored. Malleus has committed a blockable offence in this case. Verbal chat 16:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please stop bleating the words zero tolerance, it's grating. Anyway, Malleus DID clarify what he meant, before the whole issue was brought here. To quote him: I said no such thing, and I've got no idea why you're so obsessed with pedophilia. I was referring to the exceedingly bad taste stunt you pulled on your user page. See? He clearly states that he was referring to the jokes on Hero's user page. The phrase I've got no idea why you're so obsessed with pedophilia, while not completely un-inflammatory, kind of implies that he therefore does NOT think that Hero is a pedophile. I see no accusations. OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 17:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Verbal, take some time out to cool off and consider what you just said. "I've got no idea why you're so obsessed with pedophilia": how is that even close to an accusation of paedophilia? From what I understand, Herostratus' edits are very much within the field of paedophilia and child abuse, and Malleus was simply saying he doesn't understand why he chooses to edit so much in that topic. I don't think there's any ambiguity there, that's not a personal attack. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure there's going to be no blocking going on here today. Giftiger and Bunnies have hit the nail on the head in setting this straight. This comment was made five days ago? While ncmvocalist may not be "out for blood", there are plenty who are and, believe me, Hero, they would have been all over that at the time on your behalf. The fact that nobody gave it a second glance (until now) must show you that you have gravely misinterpreted it. Verbal removing the comment had more of an "escalating effect" than anything else on display here (apart from calls for indefinite blocking) and ridiculous claims of sockpuppeting aren't much helpful either. I suggest everyone takes a step back and see this for what it really is... anyone got a clue what that is? – B.hotep •talk• 19:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Good lord, telling someone they are "obsessed with peadophillia", following on from the understandable (and, AGF, unintended) accusation should be met with a block. It is a personal attack, and a blatant innuendo with a clear insinuation. We should not, and do not (due to the policy which is ridged in it's interpretation) have to tolerate this kind of abuse. Just so people don't think I'm involved, to the best of my knowledge my only interaction with these people is to agree with the call for Herostratus to be desysoped. You are right, there is no ambiguity. Malleus has been incredibly uncivil, caused this to be escalated when he could have resolved it simply in the first instance, and continued to claim no wrong doing while making these gross insinuations about other editors. Verbal chat 19:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, Verbal is right. The wall he is meeting in demanding basic tenets of our core policies is a constant feature when dealing with Malleus. See this recent thread for an example. Simply put, there are admins and editors that somehow protect MF whatever he does and explicitly refuse to enforce policy on him. This is obviously outrageous, but it seems it will also obviously not be resolved soon unless we put together a case and bring it to ArbCom. --Cyclopiatalk 19:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, and assuming good faith, Malleus hasn't made any personal attacks in this instance; I won't speak for other cases as this is one of the few times our paths have crossed). Claiming that a group of admins are protecting him from due process is not constructive, and at least in this case, completely untrue. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm truly at a loss as to how you can defend or shrug off the "obsessed with peadophillia" comment. Verbal chat 19:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Claiming that a group of admins are protecting him from due process is not constructive, - Why? See the thread I linked above. It is exactly what happens and it has been explicitly admitted other times. This thread seems just another example of it -an obvious civility breach met with unexplainable denial of intervention. --Cyclopiatalk 19:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe that's because nothing has happened? Verbal, the comment was said and I am pretty sure meant in much the same way as if someone had called someone who edits a lot of, say, Israel-Palestine articles, or Macedonia-Greece articles, or, I don't know... Britain's Got Talent articles – what he is saying, in not so many words is "Why on earth would you invest so much time and energy in such areas when they are fraught with headache and inevitable controversy?" Elsewhere, I presume I am being accused of blindly protecting Malleus as I am the only admin here, or am I now misinterpreting comments? Still, nobody has told me why this has all of a sudden become important after five days? Hero either didn't notice it at the time, and by the time he did it was taken more out of context than it should have been (taking into account the flow of edits around the time to different areas of the same RfA) or he didn't want to make a fuss lest it interfere with the outcome. Obviously, by all means bring it up if it bothers you, but faced with comments that there really was no infraction, surely everyone should step back for a bit of reflection? – B.hotep •talk• 20:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Instead of turning this round to the fact that you think I am blindly protecting Malleus in some way, why don't you look at whether he has done anything blockable or not. Try to be neutral about it. My words here are by no means a reflection of the entire admin corps and if any admin thinks he has done something blockable, they may decide to block him. All I've offered here is my opinion. – B.hotep •talk• 20:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I agree in part. I think you should step back and ask how you would take it if an editor, that you are in dispute with, says you are "obsessed with peadophillia". I would be mortified, and it can only be intended as an attack. Verbal chat 20:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- You would be mortified if someone said you were just "obsessed" or "obsessed with paedophilia"? Do you think the problem might be interpretation and intent? – B.hotep •talk• 20:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- And would you also be mortified and not a little piqued if someone accused you of accusing them of being a pedophile with little more basis than misinterpreted one line comments? – B.hotep •talk• 20:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- What do you think of this diff?. Put it together with all other threads (here and on ANI) regarding MF in the recent past, and you may understand what I am saying more completely. --Cyclopiatalk 20:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- What would you like me to say about that edit? It's a loaded question. – B.hotep •talk• 20:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- So what you did was look for an excuse to block him? As far as I know, everyone wants him blocked for calling someone a paedophile. So that's what it looks like. – B.hotep •talk• 20:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Facepalm You asked for a thing (""look at whether he has done anything blockable or not."), I gave you that thing (the diff above). Now you can't come back and move goalposts. It is not an "excuse": it is part of the whole Herostratus/MF interaction we're talking about (see where is that edit, and see the original post above). Is MF accusing Herostratus of pedophilia? In my opinion yes, but it is open to debate it seems. Has MF done anything undeniably blockable or not in his interaction with Herostratus? Yes, see diff provided above. MF has a long-standing incivility pattern, and that should for sure require a block: this is only the last of a long string of incidents. The pedophilia thing is just the icing on the cake. --Cyclopiatalk 21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- There you go, this is what I meant by a loaded question. You want me to say that it's OK for Malleus to tell someone to "fuck off". You want an admin to say it's OK, or at the least by their very inaction saying it's OK. What I'm saying is, today's not the day. – B.hotep •talk• 21:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, this is not what I want, and I'd be happy if you stop attemping to read my mind -your telepathic receiver is obviously not working . What I'd want is you admitting that Malleus did something blockable, check MF's pattern, and act consequently. If you don't, well, I didn't mean it but you said it, your very inaction/behaviour says it's OK. So today is the day, sorry, whether you want it or not. The diffs are there. You're welcome to comment on them, or to refuse to do that: either thing works as an answer. --Cyclopiatalk 21:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- If it was a single incident, I would completely agree. Problem is, MF does this regularly. --Cyclopiatalk 21:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Well I can't speak to any of the other occasions you're referring to, but it appears that in recent complaints which you have made reference to, the community (note, not a secret cabal of plotting admins) decided that these actions were not sufficient to warrant action being taken (either that or said action has already been taken). We are only really dealing with these recent occurences re: Malleus' interaction with Herostratus, however, and I think it's pretty clear there was no wrongdoing by Malleus in this case. Have you tried discussing some of these concerns with Malleus at the time? That should always be the first port of call. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, I'm not going to do anything. Except go to bed There you go. What do you think about that? I suspect I thought I was coming here as a neutral person who happens to know Malleus, but treats everyone with the same respect and gives more benefits to more doubts than most (with a sprinkling of IAR for good measure) but also knows when someone is being wrongly tarred and feathered, but I guess I will now come away with the Mark of the Blind Admin who's let that dastardly Malleus "get away with it again". – B.hotep •talk• 21:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Didn't see that (I was at a biochemistry conference and I did edit something only on article space). Of course if someone did that, should be dealt with as well. Where is that incident discussed? --Cyclopiatalk 20:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, there you go. Malleus, if someone said you were obsessed with witchcraft, would you think "well, you do have a point, I do edit/create a lot of witchcraft articles!", or would you say "hang on! This fellas accusing me of being a fully fledged follower of Beezlebub and all his little minions"? – B.hotep •talk• 20:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's a comprehensive summing up of the situation here, Giftiger. And well put, I may add. The fact of the matter is, however, Malleus now has another black mark (another report against him, for those unsure what I mean) which will be used to build up this perceived pattern of incivility that keeps coming up, and oh, apparently, he has another admin (me, for those unsure what I mean) who will prevent him from being wiped from the face of Wikipedia come what may. – B.hotep •talk• 21:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that whenever someone sees Malleus' name at one of the various boards around the Wiki, they think "what has he done wrong now" rather than looking at it objectively and seeing whether he has done anything wrong. And even when they have looked, they still find something at fault to justify its being reported in the first place. – B.hotep •talk• 21:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is just a witch hunt. I simply observed that Herostratus brought the accusation of pedophilia upon himself, I did not accuse him of being a pedophile. I would suggest to you that your campaign to have me indefinitely blocked is at least a bus ride from "civil". Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Observation Is it me, or does the statement above by MF invalidate the defence lovingly crafted for him by other people? Wikipedia has great difficulty in persuading anybody to try to keep the (surprisingly many) articles connected to the subject of paedophilia neutral and clear of POV pushers from the pro-paedophilia side. Saying that someone who willingly takes this job on "brought the accusations of paedophilia on themselves" because they are "obsessed with paedophilia", isn't going to encourage new volunteers any time soon. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- And we may have established (or at least Giftiger has) that he was wrong to phrase it like that, but coupled with the fact that the "brought it on yourself" comment was meant in regards to the widely panned "bad joke" on Hero's user page, this is yet another skew from context. – B.hotep •talk• 21:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agree: I felt the comment was inappropriate as it appeared to be suggesting that Hero did something to warrant being named a paedophile; in the context of there apparently being some sort of joke made by Hero, however, it seems that this was simply out of context; it did remain poorly phrased though, and very easy to take out of context in the way it was left, so I support verbal's removal of the comment, and Malleus also agreed to it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- The dishonesty on display here makes me sick. Who decided to post those stupid "jokes" on Herostratus's user page? Certainly wasn't me. How pointing out that it was rather silly, to say the least, encouraging others to believe that he might actually be a pedophile has become a blocking offence is a complete mystery to me. Or it would be, if I didn't already know how corrupt wikipedia's governance is. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps reading your comments again, without the benefit of context which many users did not have, will explain why this misunderstanding occured. Given that this apparently isn't the first time this has happened, perhaps you should consider taking more care when phrasing some of your comments. As for wikipedia's "corrupt governance", if you feel that way then no one's forcing you to contribute to the project; we're all volunteers here, including the "corrupt governance". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Malleus is right though. He makes a one line comment which gets totally and utterly misconstrued, yet others actually did think Hero was a paedophile and yet they escape the, let's face it, rather distracting matter of a WP report. Giftiger, Malleus has long been of the opinion that all of Wikipedia is corrupt and that all admins are bad. We just have to convince him and others (there are many) that it isn't all that bad. Don't knock yourself out over it. And I'm sure he won't mind me saying that. – B.hotep •talk• 22:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wait, I thought the user who accused Herostratus of being a paedophile had been blocked? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, User:Keepscases continued editing, did not receive a formal warning (although other editors did argue with him). He repeated the allegation in at least two places on the RfA, and on his talkpage. User:Balloonman is still editing and never received a formal warning after calling Hero a paedophile to his face - although he finally did grudgingly accept that maybe
he was being an arsehe got it wrong. No-one offered to revdelete the offending remarks either. I can see why MF is up in the air over this.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, User:Keepscases continued editing, did not receive a formal warning (although other editors did argue with him). He repeated the allegation in at least two places on the RfA, and on his talkpage. User:Balloonman is still editing and never received a formal warning after calling Hero a paedophile to his face - although he finally did grudgingly accept that maybe
- Thanks, Elen. It makes the context more clear. I still think that MF is not the innocent victim that Bubba depicts above, but for sure both editors you cite (btw, can you provide diffs?) should be sanctioned as well. Have there been reports of these incidents? What happened? --Cyclopiatalk 22:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Bit late to do anything now, but FWIW,this is Keepscases's original statement, here is the second time he said it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)here is Fences and Windows remonstrating with Keepscases. Fences and Windows blanked a bunch of comments here, but left them in the history. Note Keepscases's other comments in that thread.
- So is five days too late to do something about Malleus' comment? – B.hotep •talk• 23:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your call, but it should be the same rule for all of them. The ed17 blocked Off2riorob this morning for asking another editor if he was a paedophile (based on things that the other editor had said which Rob was almost certainly misinterpreting). I certainly don't know why Keepscases wasn't blocked.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Why aren't those comments refdeled (sp?)? If the accused's real life identity was revealed, these could have real life consequences. Dougweller (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)What do you mean, he's not the innocent victim I think he is?! In this case he had someone come to his talk page asking him to explain an edit, when that explanation was forthcoming and Malleus categorically stated he was not calling Herostratus a paedophile, and Herostratus persisted with that accusation, along with sockpuppetry (I remain laughing at that!), and threatening to take it further, Malleus told him to "fuck off" and basically do what he had to do. What is the lesser of evils there? So, in your opinion, someone should be flogged for an invalid crime because they happen to have been here before and got away with it? Wouldn't you rather get him with something rather more substantial? This appears to be what you want to do, so why not come out and say it. You're questioning my integrity, so let's see what your is all about, hmm? – B.hotep •talk• 23:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- The point I was making is that he is being singled out. For why, I can only hazard a guess. – B.hotep •talk• 22:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- My 2p - What a load of knicker-twisting nonsense. I'll tell you all something. I decided, for no particular reason other than it was a shite article, to improve Nick Griffin. Doing so opened me to quite a few nasty accusations that I was somehow a National Socialist, with racist tendencies, and a supporter of the man. Quite rightly I was offended, but Malleus basically asked me what else I expected - and he was right. If you're going to work on articles that involve the nastier elements of human behaviour, you're going to get mud slung in your face. So I sat back and let it wash over me, with a note on my userpage to that effect, and guess what - nobody here (to my knowledge) presumes I'm some kind of skinhead racist fuckwit, just as nobody (if you shut up about it and get on with your life Herostratus) will make the mistake of presuming that you're a paedophile. Whinging because Malleus pointed out the simple human truth of a matter isn't going to get you anywhere.
- Oh, and frankly, the behaviour here of some, screaming for a head on a stick because they neither understand civility nor like being told the blunt truth, is disgusting—but entirely unsurprising. Parrot of Doom 23:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Call to close: Can an uninvolved admin please close this now, before we start getting any further into the finer points of human behaviour? I think we're largely in agreement that no action is required here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, Malleus should be blocked for his actions. As should all the others that have made similar or more direct accusations. Malleus compounded his actions with his following comments (repeated above) and his generally uncivil behaviour. We have a zero tolerance policy. Verbal chat 07:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- We've already carefully explained why that's not appropriate and is not going to happen. WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Also, if we had a zero-tolerance policy on incivility, this board wouldn't exist to "give advice". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I've seen people try and shrug off the accusations because they weren't direct and apparently being called "obsessed with pedophilia" is civil according to some. However, it is not civil and he he should be blocked due to the zero tolerance policy towards pedophilia and accusations of the same. As should anyone else that has made similar or more direct accusations. Skinny is wrong. Verbal chat 07:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Verbal, I don't believe I have any prior history with MF - But if we are going to take the position that being a paedophile is bad, which I take to be the consensus position and that of policy - then making accusations or intimations of someone being a paedophile has to be bad as well. Unomi (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
User:OpenFuture
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
User:OpenFuture takes a battleground approach and has been extremely argumentative, made abusive comments to other editors and abuses the use of warnings and warning templates. Below are some examples of recent abuses. This type of discussion does not promote improvement of articles.
Personal attacks at Talk:List of wars between democracies
- I'm sorry, you make no sense. 13:21, 14 December 2009
- Please read what I write before you answer it. 03:16, 18 June 2010
- And we are also required to follow policy, which you are consistently breaking. And you are also repeating everything both here and on my talk page, which is unnecessary and annoying. Please cool down. 03:16, 18 June 2010
- Well, I'm sorry to say, you are as usual utterly wrong. 03:04, 18 June 2010
- Your constant attempts of inventing your own Wikipedia policies are getting a bit annoying, to be honest. 13:45, 18 June 2010
- Your arguments are now getting more and more personal, and having less and less contact with reality. That is not a constructive way forward. 07:19, 20 June 2010
- Finally something from you that is at least borderline, and at least meaningful to discuss.... 03:20, 19 June 2010
- ...unless you have some sort of agenda. 04:02, 21 June 2010
- You have no sources that support your assertion, and you know it. You are out of line, refusing to engage in constructive debate, and you do not understand the issues. 10:23, 21 June 2010
- Is this complicated for you to understand? 10:23, 21 June 2010
- You are on a crusade against windmills. 17:54, 21 June 2010
- I'm finding it increasingly hard to WP:AGF in your case, as you say one thing, and then do something else. 6:46, 23 June 2010
- Yet you apparently pretend that there is scientific consensus to claim the Boer wars was wars between democracies, when clearly, there is no such consensus. 24 June 2010
- ...and you know that. So stop claiming such nonsense as above. 17:51, 24 June 2010
- Talking to you is like talking to a wall. 21:37, 24 June 2010
- Then of course, your willingness to misinterpret sources doesn't exactly work to your benefit. 05:58, 29 June 2010
Abuse of warning templates at User talk:Pmanderson#June 2010
- Your revert is still against the consensus, as I previously explained. As such it is vandalism, and you simply reverting instead of engaging in discussion is edit warring. You are violating Wikipedia policy. Please stop. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Stop edit warring. You know you are wrong, none of your sources support the statement and one of the contradicts it. If you continue like this, you will sooner or later be blocked. It's not a constructive way forward. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:List of wars between democracies. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ref: [30] --OpenFuture (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- You know that the sources does not support your addition of the Boer wars, yet you persist, despite repeated notifications and explanations. Continue and you will get yourself blocked. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- [3RR template] OpenFuture (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hiding your warnings is considered bad form, but allowed. But note that the warning itself doesn't go away just because you remove it from your talk page. It's still valid. You make changes against both consensus, and against your own statements, and whose sources contradict your edits. If you continue like this you *will* get blocked. Try to engage in discussion and consensus building instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:List of wars between democracies. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Personal attacks at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes
- You are, to be blunt, lying to yourself to avoid admitting that you were wrong. 10:24, 3 July 2010
- I think you need to stop throwing stones in glass houses. You are after all the one that insults everyone who does not agree with you.... 20:59, 3 July 2010
- As usual, your "facts" are pure fantasy. 05:45, 4 July 2010
- Calling Campuchea "communist only by name" is a purely pro-communist rationalization. It's an excuse used to defend belief in communism.... 05:38, 4 July 2010
- FYI: TFD has been warned for this personal attack, but he removed that warning from his talk page (which is his right). Just so nobody warns him again. ;) 07:15, 4 July 2010
TFD (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- TFD is angry because he was proven wrong (by both me and others) in a recent debate, and has as a result taken to personal attacks. He started the whole discussion by implying that anyone that doesn't agree with him are racist and anti-semites, and has repeatedly accused me of being a neoconservative. He has claimed that I only read what validates my opinions and called me intolerant. I today warned him for these last personal attacks, and apparently this prompted this Wikiquette alert. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hm. First off, full disclosure, I have had issues with OpenFuture myself, and so am involved, but having said that, this is a startling and reasonably serious list (imo) of which I was unaware. I could wish you had included actual diffs to put this in context, but it may be that this material merits you reporting this to ANI, including diffs. I'd be interested in other opinions however, including a reply from OpenFuture. The whole point of this board, after all, is to work stuff out so it doesn't have to escalate upwards. Jusdafax 09:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Jusdafax often expresses his support of the conspiracy theorists on 9/11 conspiracy theory talk pages, although he rarely contributes to the argument. This support is sometimes expressed by him abusing others, and I have been a target. In return, I ignore him. It's notable that even though he requests diffs from TFD, he doesn't provide any himself to his supposed "issues" with me. To my knowledge we have never had a debate, and I have never said anything against him. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- OpenFuture, it would be helpful if you would explain the edits I have listed and I question the accusations you have made against me for which you have provided no examples. Jusdafax, you can follow the links to see the context. I could provide individual differences and will if this goes to ANI, but in the meantime you should be able to find the edits on the pages referenced. TFD (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- The quotes are all self-explanatory, and in all cases completely correct. The same goes for everything I said about you.
- You however, may want to explain why you think warning people when they break Wikipedia policy is a reason for a Wikiquette alert. It seems to me that you are trying to waste peoples time and energy by litigious behavior, so that we have to spend time on your attacks and games instead of improving the articles. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Woah there - Let's get this straight right now, this is not about me and my actions elsewhere. I correctly noted I am involved, however you want to define it and call it abuse. That point should be moot. This is about your current noted issues above, and your attempt to deflect attention to me, and your complete lack of response to the lengthy list of your questionable comments, should be noted by all parties concerned. Jusdafax 11:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I just replied to your claims that you have "issues" with me, and gave that claim context. If you don't want your behavior to be scrutinized, it's probably better to not get involved in Wikiquette discussions. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Out of that whole list of supposed "personal attacks" only the next to last one, the "Talking to you is like talking to a wall" strikes me as potentially a personal attack, and even then it could be just something said in a heat of an argument. Maybe the very last one, depending on the circumstances. I think here, as often, TFD is confusing "criticism" with "personal attacks". There's a difference and in fact, Wikipedia needs criticism for it to function and have a certain amount of quality control, given that it consists of user generated content. Telling a person "you're wrong", which what most of these are a variation on, is not a personal attack. It may not be constructive, and without anything to back it up can be considered tendentious and rightly ignored when forming consensus, but it is not a personal attack. I haven't looked at the "abuse of templates" allegation.radek (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agree tfd has brought a sockpuppet case (dismissed), soapboxing(anyone who has a different pov than his is guilty) topic ban(12 hour), and a community ban(dismissed) against me in the span of a month. imho, tfd pushing his pov by harassing others. i have stopped editing libertarianism page to avoid having to defend his accusations. i suggest we explore ways to persuade tfd to focus on the material, and less on editors. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- An administrator blocked you for 12 hours for reverting 5 times within 24 hours, continuing even after being warned and another editor declined your appeal.[31] No one has made a complaint about you for soapboxing although you have received warnings from User:MCB[32] and User:Carolmooredc,[33] and User:RepublicanJacobite and Zhang He warned you for disruptive editing.[34][35] I requested a checkuser on your account because you displayed a similar editing pattern to a banned editor who had created numerous sockpuppets to edit the same article as you[36] and requested a ban because of a pattern of disruptive editing.[37] In fact you continue to participate in the Libertarianism discussion page.[38] Do you have any comments on OpenFuture's edits, the majority of which are from a discussion with another editor in which I was not involved? TFD (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's interesting how you try to turn this discussion into something about Darkstars behavior. How is that relevant for this issue? Are everyone who doesn't agree with you vandals, in your opinion? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it was Darkstar1st who brought up his interactions with me, and I have provided links so that people may consider that dispute on its merits. None of this has anything to do with the issues before us. And I have never called you or Darkstar1st vandals, so could you please strike that from your comment. TFD (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, he brought up your behavior, which is relevant as you posted this alert. He is claiming that you in general accuse people baselessly, and that it's therefore is not just me. So your behavior is relevant here. The question is, how is *his* behavior relevant? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- tfd, would you consider a voluntary moratorium of you reporting other editors for 1 week? i have been in wp 3 times longer than you and have yet to report anyone. imho, you have spent too much time on conflict, and not enough on sources, adding new material, or identifying unsourced material. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Whether or not the claims against OpenFuture are valid may be determined by examining his edits which I listed above. Most of the edits reported there were not directed at me and so far OpenFuture has made no reponse to them. If anyone wants to examine the validity of issues that I and other editors brought up with Darkstar1st, I have provided links to them. If Darkstar1st would like to re-examine my disputes with him over his edit history, then I suggest he begin a new thread on that issue. In the meantime, if he wishes to contribute to this discussion thread, could he please provide reasons why the edits by OpenFuture do not represent personal attacks. TFD (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I repeat: There is nothing for me to explain. It is obvious, even out of context, that most quotes above does not represent any abuse. You however need to explain why warning people who repeatedly break Wikipedia policy would warrant a Wikiquette alert. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Some observations re: Openfuture's listed comments
Since the subject of the complaint feels there is "nothing to explain", and since I respectfully disagree, I have added a numbering system to the three pages that these quotes are drawn from, and give my own views on ten of his acknowledged comments on the first page cited. I should add that I have no idea what the dispute is actually over, again because that is a moot point no matter who is "right".
From the above listed - Talk:List of wars between democracies
- 1 - "You make no sense" - A patent violation of WP:NPA, at least as I intrepret "Comment on the content, not on the contributor."
- 2 - I see it as a violation of WP:AGF to assume someone has not read your remarks and just replied anyway.
- 7 - "Finally something from you that is at least borderline, and at least meaningful to discuss... " Violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.
- 8 - "...unless you have some sort of agenda." Vio of WP:AGF
- 9 - "...you do not understand the issues." Vio of WP:NPA when taken with the next comment...
- 10 - "Is this complicated for you to understand?" A deliberate insult, clear vio of WP:NPA.
- 11 - "You are on a crusade against windmills" I assume a reference to Don Quixote, and as such an insult and vio of WP:NPA, however literate.
- 15 - "Talking to you is like talking to a wall." Clear violation as I see it of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.
- 16 - "Then of course, your willingness to misinterpret sources doesn't exactly work to your benefit." Vio of WP:AGF.
Now, I again point out that the purpose of this page is to de-escalate situations like this one, and always remember the provisions of WP:BATTLE. In light of all this, I have a simple proposal:
Openfuture both apologizes to TFD, and states they will make a stronger effort to be civil in the heat of discussion. TFD in turn accepts the apology and vows to likewise make extra efforts to edit with collaboration in mind, drops the matter, and we all move on.
Wikipedians don't have to agree on content issues; we do have to get along. Hoping this is agreeable to all, Jusdafax 05:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- the purpose of this page is to de-escalate situations like this one - Yet you do all you can to escalate it. As usual all you do is try to start a flamewar. And as usual, the best way to deal with you is ignore you, which I will go back to doing again. I think that's the best way to deal with TFD as well, and probably what I should have done with this Wikiquette alert as well. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have no doubt that you have good faith, in that you want to improve Wikipedia. It's just your choice methods of doing so which I do not agree with. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- "you make no sense" this quote being the source of an official wp complaint is rather weak imho. when did wp editors become so sensitive? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. "You make no sense" is not a personal attack; the editor clearly didn't think you were making sense; that's just honesty. In fact, most of what you apparently consider to be personal attacks are the sort of thing you're going to have to get used to if you want to collaborate with other users. Other editors don't have to agree with you, and bringing a discussion to WP:WQA when the basis of the issue involves comments like "You make no sense" or "you do not understand the issues" is just ridiculous and certainly isn't going to help to improve communication between the two of you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Shouldn't it be "Your edits make no sense" instead? Even if you disagree completely, I think you have to take it in context with the rest. What about the other nine I point out? Focusing on just this one you disagree with is a bit unbalanced, as I see it. Jusdafax 13:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to produce individual responses for every point; they are, almost without exclusion, completely blown out of proportion. Picking holes in every statement and saying everything is an AGF vio isn't helping the situation at all, and some of the "personal attacks" are just ludicrous. The very worst ones are at most incivil ("Finally something from you that is at least borderline, and at least meaningful to discuss..." and "talking to you is like talking to a wall"), and I don't see a single statement which I would consider a personal attack if it was directed at me in a heated discussion; at the most, the user needs to be reminded to keep discussions polite and constructive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- (Edit Conflict @ Giftiger) We will have to agree to disagree, then. I also feel OpenFuture's comments to me here like "As usual all you do is try to start a flamewar" merit consideration, in context of my attempt (now clearly rejected by OpenFuture) to bring this matter to a quick close. I take it you have no objections to such commentary, if directed at you? (@ Doc) I find the comment questionable, and taken with the others, in my view illustrates an ongoing series of belittling comments, and hardly close to polite. Jusdafax 14:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- A couple of comments:
- "Finally something from you that is at least borderline, and at least meaningful to discuss..." - That's said to Pmanderson, who would onto a list of wars between democracies add things that are either not wars or not between democracies. That comment was when he finally added something that was borderline and worth discussing, and not an obvious case of two authoritarian states fighting. Now tell me how that is a personal attack or even uncivil?
- "talking to you is like talking to a wall" - Well, if somebody ignores everything you say, isn't it? Pmanderson added to the same list above, conflicts based on a book that lists was between electoral states. I pointed out *repeatedly* that electoral states are not the same thing as democracies. Cuba is an electoral state. So was apartheid south africa. Neither is a democracy. So that book can not be used as a source in a list of wars between democracies. Despite this Pmanderson continues to use the book as a source. He answers me in the debate, then completely ignores everything I said. In that case I ask you: How would *you* frame that? It *is* like talking to a wall. You hear an echo, but nothing happens.
- You are on a crusade against windmills. That is after Pmanderson repeatedly claimes that I was a revert-warrior vandal that reverted because I didn't agree with his "sourced assertions", when the trouble was (as I also explained) that his sources didn't support the assertions. Pmanderson clearly believed that anyone that didn't agree with his opinions and free interpretation of sources disagreed because he had a different political standpoint. So he, repeatedly, attacked me, failed to AGF and added statements based on sources that didn't support these statements. That's what the warnings, also quoted by TFD above is about.
- Question: Is there any way to talk somebody who misbehaves that isn't a personal attack according to TFD and Jusdafax? Should we just let editors that doesn't follow Wikipedia rules continue to do so? Because according to TFD and Jusdafax, telling them to stop violating Wikipedia rules is apparently personal attacks. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not at all. In my view you misrepresent my own concerns, which center around civility. To take care in a heated discussion to stay collegial is a true art that few of us have truly mastered. (I daresay I'm not the best at it myself.) I don't agree with every one of TFD's issues regarding your warnings, but I have noted you have a pretty combative style. That is the focus of my ten points. My own feeling is that there is room for improvement, but clearly you don't agree. I'd say we are stuck, and without further input suggest we close this. Jusdafax 16:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- There are other options in dealing with badly behaving editors; many of them can be found under WP:Dispute resolution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
My opinion has been asked on this issue. I find OpenFuture an irritant, and not just for his lack of civility towards me and others.
- His contributions to List of wars between democracies has consisted entirely of removing sourceable items on this list, and then - when I have restored them, with sources - of blanking and revert warring.
- The following list of reversions is incomplete: 16:43 18 June, 17:21, 17:43, 21 June 04:13, 09:14, 10:18, 23 June 16:23, 24 June 07:42, 27 June 05:42, 28 June 04:23
- Most of his incivility on that page consists of yelling as fervently as he can manage that I am doing something in which I have no interest - and which my edits do not do.
- He is one of the unfortunate editors who believe that some past consensus can freeze a Wikipedia page; when I quoted WP:Consensus can change, he accused me of misinterpreting policy. This may involve his lack of fluency in English; some of the quotes above should show his difficulties with agreement of subject and verb.
- He is indeed highly combative, and both of these combats appear to involve an insistence on the (fairly extreme) views of a single academic with a web-site as the Truth which Wikipedia should reveal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
disagree his comments are hardly irritable or menacing. grow up wp, focus on the content. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Ddd1600
User:Ddd1600 chastises me here for demanding article content be supported with WP:RS writing among other things: "Abandon your project with regards to this page. Your un-natural regard for authority alone reveals you as the ANTITHESIS of a libertarian. Go away, you're not providing value here." Could someone explain wikiquette to him? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I left a hand written note on his page, for what it's worth (The whole "I'm objective! I'm objective!" vibe from his user page and his talk page kinda sets off my spidey sense). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- disagree Carol has been the primary editor for some time on the libertarianism article. a suggestion was made on the talk page for Carol to take a week off, which she refused. many times Carol has accused me of soapbox, yet remains highly visible in the article as well as discussion page. is it possible that you are actually the soapboxer here? please reconsider a voluntary break from the libertarianism article. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't exactly crossed paths with you or CarolMooreDC before, but based on what I saw from Ddd1600's contributions, I'm not going to withdraw my note to him. I cannot speak for other situations, but Ddd1600 did repeatedly make a bunch of edits that were unsourced, sometimes removing sourced information, and in this instance, his remarks were uncalled for. If you have any issues with CarolMooreDC, that's your business, not mine. The issue here is Ddd1600's behavior, if you want to file a report in the NPOV board, ANI/I, or whatever, fine. And if she wants to file a report about you, fine. Considering the ANI report on you I've found, it's really only WP:AGF that's keeping me from being a lot more blunt in saying I think you'll need plenty more evidence than she will. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's fully possible that both are at fault here, even if I couldn't see any examples of CarolMooreDC doing anything wrong. But even so I think Ddd1600's comment was wrong, and I agree with Ian.thomsons viewpoint and note to Ddd1600. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ian, welcome to wp. your 1st year of contributions has helped wp. being an editor for far longer, i have seen many come and go. i feel the same as the founder when he said, "senior editors are making fewer contribution because of the attitude here. more people are focusing on wp:rules and less on content. an above complaint about another editor saying "you make no sense" strikes me as childish. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've been here since 2006, and active since 2007. Please don't patronize me. I'm not quite following you for the rest of your post, could you be less vague? I don't want to get involved in the above argument between you, TFD, OpenFuture, et al, so please do not try to draw me into it. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- apologies Ian, a search of your talk page/earliest comes up december 09. Carol has contributed to the libertarianism page more than most, as well as being the primary reason for the article being listed as a philosophy page, we all owe her a great debt for her help. her edits have become so prevalent, others have grown tired of her influence "your project", and have expressed a desire for new voices. her complaining about another editor "chastises me" seems a bit much. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Invention - article edit, brutal and Vandal acts
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Dear friends in Wiki community
I would like to share with you my experience with my first edit.
This is the term Invention , a subject dear to me.
I am an engineer and patent attorney. As inventor, I was granted 8 U.S. patents.
After using Wikipedia for some time, I like it very much and depend on it on my work.
Of course I searched the subject thoroughly for this edit, apart from my experience.
Thus I was shocked to see that someone simply DELETED (undid) all my contribution.
This - without bothering to contact me, discuss it, explain.
- Vandalism - Wikipedia benefits many people, it is a treasure of knowledge comprising tiny contributions from many people like me. A vandal deletes today one contribution, tomorrow more... the next thing he will do is: Delete *.*
- Freedom of speech - a basic value in a democracy, and of course at Wikipedia. Some contributions are unworthy and should be completely deleted, no doubt. Others can be edited and improved. A select few remain unchanged.
- Leaving a contribution in Wikipedia for some time allows a free exchange of opinions, so a decision is reached based on consensus, or an obvious reason, etc.
- The communist/Stalinist approach is, rather, to kill it in the bud, to close their mouth for good and with finality, so inconvenient facts or truths are safely buried.
True intellectuals are receptive of others' views and don't try to kill their expressions.
- On my part: Although I am technically-oriented, I have a deep respect and admiration for inventions in the humanities. I don't have the temerity to judge which invention is better or more important, these wonderful expressions of the human spirit should be approached with respect.
- It is with a deep respect that I did this edit - I did not delete a single word in the previous article, nor made any changes in it except for a minor formatting of the titles.
- The Editor specifically invited Edits for this article; I started it carefully, planning to discuss it with others in Wiki community and proceed with improving the article.
But - if such acts of vandalism are permitted and people are prevented from seeing my Edit, how can we proceed?
Have a wonderful week.
- I am personally very sorry that your first experience on Wikipedia has been disappointing. Still, it is very common for edits to be reverted that way, and being this a wiki, you should gladly expect that your edits can be reverted by anyone. Actually, the revert(s) was absolutely not vandalism and in fact I endorse them completely. The problems with your edits are mostly a complete disregard of WP style guidelines (especially abuse of bulleted lists and references not inserted properly). Moreover you inserted a lot of content in one single edit, which although not technically prohibited, is a big no-no since it is difficult then to isolate what is good and what is not. About your complaints, Wikipedia is not an exercise of pure free speech, meaning that it is not a blackboard where you can just write what you like and expect it to stick: read WP:FREE, WP:NOTANARCHY for details. Reacting by throwing random accusations of vandalism and Stalinism is not going to help you one bit. You are doing what you are doing in good faith, and I congratulate with you, but if more experienced editors undo your edits, please attempt to seek an explanation from them in the article talk page instead of simply re-reverting them and complaining. Most likely than not there is a good reason for it. I hope it helps. --Cyclopiatalk 19:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Invention - Let's stop "undids" and start dialog
Hi Cyclopia. Thanks for the comments - someone to talk with ...
re your comments:
1. Abuse of bulleted lists - the WP style guidelines itself uses bullets just the way I do. Let me cite from the very Wiki article which you have mentioned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style
2. Why are references not inserted properly? Please be specific, I try to do it OK. Can you tell how to improve it?
- See WP:REFSTART for a primer. --Cyclopiatalk 20:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Inserted it all in one edit, striving to make it easier to review it all at once.
- No, it is better for review if you do individual small edits. This allows one to individually discuss/revert an edit singularly. If you do a big edit and parts of it are good but others not, it becomes a pain to edit it all instead of simply reverting individual "atomic" edits. --Cyclopiatalk 20:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Moreover, the structure is simple:
I added a first part; retained all the existing article without change, except titles format; added citations at the end of the list.
Simple to see, understand, review.
4. Still, it all is open to discussion.
More people can review it and we can reach an understanding.
Preventing other people from seeing a contribution or Edit is vandalism to me.
Intelligent people talk, don't erase each other's work in a childish brute force play. Zutam (talk • contribs)
- Also, it is you that is now engaging in edit warring on the invention page by re-reverting. Take care: while 1 or 2 reverts can be ok, reverting more than 3 times becomes edit war and it is a blockable offence -exactly because we don't want childish brute force play. --Cyclopiatalk 20:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment This really is not an issue of Wikiquette, it appears to be a general misunderstanding of Wikipedia editing as a whole. We work on WP:CONSENSUS - unfortunately, if you make 10 changes at the same time, and only 2 or 3 look good enough to obtain consensus, the odds are that the entire edit will be reversed in order to fix the other 7 or 8 (the principle of "least amount of work"). Discussions about what does or does not belong on the article belong on the associated talkpage of that article as per WP:BRD. With all due respect, there's nothing WQA-able here. Let's ensure the new editor has a nice welcome with policies and links, make sure we don't WP:BITE and acronym-the-heck-outta-him. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Before I close this, let me say that in fact this is a good example of how Wikipedia should work. The editor made a classic set of newbie mistakes (very understandable, we were all there once) and was dismayed when his edits were reverted. The subsequent discussion on the talk page is a model of patient and good faith engagement to explain the why and how of good editing and, moreover, struck a tone that was agreeable and conciliatory. The editor's subsequent stubbornness in promoting his changes over and against the consensus process is actually the WQA issue here, but at this point the talk page is the best venue for resolution. Eusebeus (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Cyclopia (talk · contribs) has repeatedly refactored talk page discussion at Talk:GNU#Additional_references_re_completeness_.2F_incompleteness. Creating subheadings labeled "Irrelevant" and moving other editor comments under that heading. Yworo (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Basically this is a summary of my take on the situation:
- Yworo creates a paragraph starting Here is a place to list additional references both for and against completeness. - This implies that you want people to add and list more stuff in there.
- I add another category under which to list references and move one of the reference there, with explanation.
- Yworo aggressively reverts, saying that it is refactoring his talk page comments, and leaves me vandalism warnings on my talk page.
- I ask Yworo "well, if so, do you really want people to edit this paragraph and help in categorizing references or is this just a place where you dump how you personally categorize them without further help?"
- Yworo repeatedly refuses to answer to this question and says that we should follow his rules, for some unknown reason, to use the paragraph (and then he explicitates that on top)
- When I refuse to legitimate that and therefore move my edits, you send me another TALKO violation warning, like he was actually owning the paragraph.
To be pedant, in one of his edits in this bickering, Yworo actually removed one of my signed comments (which seems a real TALKO violation), but I want to WP:AGF and assume that he didn't notice that. --Cyclopiatalk 17:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and now Yworo is calling me "obtuse much", which doesn't sond WP:CIVIL: [39]. --Cyclopiatalk 17:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I've only taken a quick look at the page history (someone please provide some relevant diffs) but WP:TALKO indicates that it is appropriate to refactor or archive comments which are unsuitable for a talk page (this usually involves collapsing them). I think moving them into a section entitled "irrelevant" is somewhat insulting to those who left (presumably good-faith) comments, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Produce some diffs indicating some of the comments refactored and perhaps we can agree on which ones were rightfully relocated, etc. the edit history appears to largely indicate edit warring between the two of you, which isn't comforting and is partly obscuring what the edits in question actually were. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)"Irrelevant" was not referred to comments (and in fact I quickly fixed that to avoid misunderstandings). It was referred to the references. Yworo wanted to categorize references as supporting or opposing a statement (namely, that GNU is an "incomplete" operating systems). One of the refs he added stroke me as not relevant to this, since it didn't support either position, so I created a third section and moved the reference there. Which can be disputed, but doesn't seem to be a TALKO violation, because Yworo was creating a public canvas to list references within (only to retract this when it turned out that someone could disagree with his own categorization) --Cyclopiatalk 17:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- So this means it is your own personal categorization, not a public space for helping? That's perfectly fine, but it wasn't clear at all. If you don't want people to edit your paragraph, don't advertise it as "a place to list additional references both for and against completeness." --Cyclopiatalk 17:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Quite frankly, that pretty tame compared to what I'd like to call you. You can fill in the blanks. "for and against completeness" in no way implies creating other non-orthogonal categories. I think I was very clear about that after you refactors, and you continued to aggressively refactor after I made clear that I felt that it violated my original discussion intent. Yworo (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is clearly a content dispute (albeit on a talk page) which is spilling over onto WQA. It sounds like both users are attempting to helpfully arrange a section of a talk page to assemble some references for the article, but they can't agree on how it should be organised... which is frankly ridiculous, you're basically arguing over how to argue about the article. The question is, what exactly would you like us to do about it? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with your analysis. Well, I'd say that asking Yworo to clarify that he can't tell other editors how to argue about the article and making it clear he should refrain from personal attacks and misuse of vandalism templates on my talk page would be more than enough for me. --Cyclopiatalk 18:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
agree no merit for the alert.
User:Captmonkey
I'd just thought It would be good to bring up some incivility from User:Captmonkey on here, here and here insulting me and other editors and a certain subject he disagrees with. User:Exxolon has listed every peice of incivility from Captmonkey here on WP:ANI. Please forgive me if i've lain it out wrong as it's my first report here. I didn't want to have to do this but I feel it should be adressed. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well he's not edited since the previous ANI so this might be somewhat stale already. The issue isn't so much in how that you laid out the report but in the fact that you failed to notify the user (in accordance with the instructions above). Obviously, if he continues to make inappropriate remarks, then ANI would be the place as he really should know better by now, and I don't think a great deal can be done here to help. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
TreasuryTag (talk | contribs)
This user's recent incivility towards me is becoming a bit of a problem; the user recently reverted the addition of a new thread to WP:AN, which was reverted by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). He reinstated it so I reverted as I felt that being reverted by an admin on the admin noticeboard is reason enough to stop reverting and discuss it with the user to avoid edit-warring. He then informed me of a thread he started to deal with the thread and complain that myself and Sarek reverted him, leaving me a rather lacking notification message. When I commented on the cause of the dispute, he refactored my comments several times, claiming that the comments had no relevance. In the meantime he accused me on my talkpage of adding reams of off-topic comments to AN and when I politely asked him to stay off my talk page unless he was going to be polite, he "refused my request". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, I see he's been blocked for 12 hours.He was blocked for 12 hours for edit-warring but has now been unblocked; my issue is more with his incivility so I have "unresolved" the thread again. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)- Note that his response when I informed him of this discussion wasn't exactly polite, either. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no comment to make about this ridiculous non-issue and will not be following any discussion which takes place. I would merely point out that if Giftiger wunsch (talk · contribs) thinks that they have the authority to 'ban' other editors from their talkpage, then they are very much mistaken. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 14:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am not surprised by GiftigerWunsch's description of TT's boorish behaviour. Do we need to sic Rodney King on you TT?--Milowent (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Wiki-Hounding, Cyberstalking and Bullying
Wiki-Hounding, Cyberstalking and Bullying
I am forced to object to the activities performed by Ckatz and Johnuniq against me in the following articles:
Print on demand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
InstaBook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Victor Celorio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
For a long time now, the editors in question have shown repeatedly a very strong bias against my entries in those articles. They follow me around and either erase my entries without explanation or they try to disqualify my entries in the articles in which I've participated by placing unfounded tags without any concrete proof or evidence. The implications of those tags are that there is something wrong or false with my entries, when every assertion I've made has been backed by independent secondary references that comply with the requirements set by Wikipedia. I have gone so far as to reference just about EVERY SINGLE LINE I write to make sure of this.
However these editors, for unexplained reasons all of their own, have been going out of their way to erase my entries, tag the articles in which I participate and/or try to bully me into erasing perfectly valid secondary references. Ckatz has refused to answer my questions and has in turn tagged my articles, again, without any explanation at all.
He has been assisted by another user named Johnuniq, who jumps in to answer my questions instead of Ckatz (they both may be the same person, I don't know). Johnuniq is the one that in those 3 articles tries to bully me into deleting valid secondary references for unexplained reasons.
Both Ckatz and Johnuniq are not interested in suggesting any improvements to any of the the articles mentioned: they just try to block me and demean the articles.
I have asked them politely why are they doing this and I have constrained myself from starting a little war of insertions and deletions as the policies of Wikipedia indicate.
I have followed Wikipedia rules. My entries are limited to state the facts without any conclusion or statement from me, and I have included plenty of reliable references (Secondary and tertiary, as indicated by Wikipedia).
It seems to me a blatant Wiki-Hounding, Cyberstalking and Bullying with an undeniable bias against me personally and/or against the subject of those articles for unknown reasons. Therefore I request formally an investigation into this matter. Llambert (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- You don't seem to have edited here in the last two months, and just glancing at your contribution history, I can't see where your contributions have been deleted, nor can I see where you've been threatened with being blocked. Can you be more specific, please? Dayewalker (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think I'm going to have to agree with Dayewalker - I had a look at the talkpages, and there's just too much to look at. It looks like Johnuniq has tried to explain matters on a few of the talkpages, but I gather you have further issues? TFOWR 18:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Dayewalker: I am sorry, but I never wrote that I had "been threatened with being blocked", as you say. In regards to my not editing in the last few months, I followed Wikipedia guidelines and stopped editing so as to let matters cool off.
The demands (what you call explanations) I was getting from Johnuniq, were not aimed at improving the article but on the contrary, to demean it. His intervention was prompted evidently by my asking questions to Ckatz, as to why he was tagging my articles and erasing my entries, so I have to assume he was speaking for him.
Johnuniq followed me around, just as did ckatz, in all the articles I participated on, watching my entries and erasing or changing my entries. In the Print On Demand Article, for example, references and links I provided were changed or deleted. Furthermore, in the InstaBook article, Johnuniq demanded that I erase perfectly valid references to US patents and magazine articles, something which I found very strange.
I think it is very telling that ckatz never answered my questions, and instead it was Johnuniq who came forth everytime, in any and all of the articles I participate. If they are not the same person, it is clear that one does the deed, and the other tries to back him up. Llambert (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I still can't see what you're talking about. Looking at your contributions, it does look like Johnuniq reverted you once on Victor Celorio, reinserting a COI tag here [43]. That was January 3rd of this year, over six months ago. Your contact with Johnuniq on Talk:Print on demand seems polite, and four months old. On InstaBook, the discussion is also six months old and the only direct contact I see is when Ckatz reverted you here [44] to readd a COI and an ADVERT tag.
- If you'll read WP:DIFF, you can see how to make a DIFF of a particular edit, as I've done above. It would help us understand what you're trying to say if you could give us specific instances of edits you have a problem with. Dayewalker (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Dayewalker, you are already mentioning some of the specific edits that I am complaining about, but let me ask you a couple of questions before we go on.
- 1.- Do you think it is proper for an editor to tag the articles of another editor, with no proof whatsoever of his accusations?
- According to Wikipedia guidelines regarding COI tags it is not:
- "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban."
- Here is the complete quote:
- "Dealing with suspected conflicted editors
- The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban."
- Both ckatz and Johnuniq did NOT follow the guidelines to place a COI tag, and they did tag my articles precisely as a way to "harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute". ckatz did it on December 15, 2009, right after I deleted some unsourced entries I found in those articles, following Wikipedia guidelines. As a response to my deletion, ckatz tagged all of my articles. You can check the date on the tags.
- That is my entire point and the one that gave origin to this entire incident. And this is what I like to correct. If you still cannot "see it", I'll be glad to provide you with the diffs.
- 2.- Is there a time limit to request an investigation? I ask this because you keep mentioning that this happened some time ago and I don't see the relevance since the problem persists still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llambert (talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that a lot of the angst here is coming from whether or not the article should be tagged with a COI tag. So let me just ask this: Are you connected to the product in such a way that you would have a potential conflict of interest? — e. ripley\talk 19:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- See also WP:BOOMERANG.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- In all honesty, if you're asking people to dig up diffs from last December and block or ban other editors, it's not going to happen. Looking at those articles, E. Ripley's question above about involvement and COI certainly seems to be a good one. Also, do you have any connection to the account Playa27 (talk · contribs)? Dayewalker (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Even more so, given this filing with the Florida Division of Corporations. It's circumstantial naturally, but I hear the quacking already. — e. ripley\talk 20:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- In all honesty, if you're asking people to dig up diffs from last December and block or ban other editors, it's not going to happen. Looking at those articles, E. Ripley's question above about involvement and COI certainly seems to be a good one. Also, do you have any connection to the account Playa27 (talk · contribs)? Dayewalker (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- 2.- Is there a time limit to request an investigation? I ask this because you keep mentioning that this happened some time ago and I don't see the relevance since the problem persists still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llambert (talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Pmandersons first "interaction" with me was him making a massive revert of things both me an others did, after discussion on the talk page, calling it "Vandalism", [45], implying that all those behind the consensus including me was vandals. He continues to call me a vandal [46], [47], http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_wars_between_democracies&action=historysubmit&diff=369946605&oldid=369944453], [48], while generally refusing to engage in constructive debate. Lastly he calls me a liar, [49] and a POV-pusher, [50], because I want his sources to support his edits, and don't want WP:OR or WP:SYN in the article.
When he doesn't engage in direct attacks, he is rude and claims that I have "pet definitions" or particular political views and that I edit based on POV, and not on wikipedia policies. [51]
I have tried to be patient, but my patience with his attacks and rudeness and general refusal to engage in serious debate (it's possible, but only after repeating my criticism several times, he will ignore it the first few times), and this situation is not just not acceptable any more. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC) --OpenFuture (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)