Theseeker4 (talk | contribs) →Talk:Ray Joseph Cormier: comment |
→User:Daedalus969: It's at ANI, go there. |
||
Line 410: | Line 410: | ||
== [[User:Daedalus969]] == |
== [[User:Daedalus969]] == |
||
{{Resolved|Fine, I'll close it down as a painfully evident forum shop.}} |
|||
{{discussiontop}} |
|||
Incivility by the above on the [[User_talk:Gwen_Gale|talk page of Gwen_Gale]]. Diffs of aggressive and hostile comments follow: |
Incivility by the above on the [[User_talk:Gwen_Gale|talk page of Gwen_Gale]]. Diffs of aggressive and hostile comments follow: |
||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&diff=272818637&oldid=272816359 Accusations] against {{User|Tony1}} and {{User|Ohconfucius}} of baiting. |
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&diff=272818637&oldid=272816359 Accusations] against {{User|Tony1}} and {{User|Ohconfucius}} of baiting. |
||
Line 434: | Line 435: | ||
There seems to be a move afoot to lay the blame for the extarordinarily bad behaviour exhibited by a few administrators in this case at the door of the targets for their abuse. It is about time that ''all'' administrators adhered to the policies governing their behaviour, and acted accordingly. Instead of trying to shout down every editor who objects to the clear application of different standards with widely different penalties for non-conformance meted out to admins and non-admins. I certainly won't be holding my breath though. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 16:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
There seems to be a move afoot to lay the blame for the extarordinarily bad behaviour exhibited by a few administrators in this case at the door of the targets for their abuse. It is about time that ''all'' administrators adhered to the policies governing their behaviour, and acted accordingly. Instead of trying to shout down every editor who objects to the clear application of different standards with widely different penalties for non-conformance meted out to admins and non-admins. I certainly won't be holding my breath though. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 16:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
{{discussionbottom}} |
|||
== [[User:Quaeler]] == |
== [[User:Quaeler]] == |
Revision as of 16:33, 26 February 2009
Welcome to wikiquette assistance | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
|
Active alerts
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I've asked and then warned Victor several times to stop editing my comments at Talk:Charles_Whitman. It doesn't seem to be doing any good - in the more recent instances ( [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), he's getting more aggressive and outright deleting them. In his defense, he disclaimed knowledge of the second recent instance: "Can you explain Aimaeiji, how your edit here [[6]] got posted by my account? Jwy posted the link to my talk page, I know nothing about it, or how my account posted your content.--Victor9876 (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)" were his actual words.
- Open the first link to the contributions by the anon I joked with. One (1) edit. The one there now. None before, and none since. Arimareiji (hereafter referred to as Ari), came in unkowingly and unannounced as a Third Party Opinion, as a request by Jwy, who never formally told the community. In fact, look at the header he used to open his discourse and you will find a strike through the term Third. Yeah, Im contentious at times with others, when they post something, or argue over a post I have made. That is vigorous debate in my terms, and I have conceded at times when a good point has been made. Ari, prefers his own interpretations and there is no amount of debate to get him to change his mind. He uses double and triple entendre's, metaphors and other forms of rhetoric to twist things his way, and then faults the other person for their reactions or refactoring. This is not good debate skills, but he uses them to his advantage. As to the present situation, there are only three parties involved, Jwy and myself who were debating a situation and Ari who has inflamed the situation. I asked a question of Jwy and Ari jumped in to answer. I told Ari I was not addressing him, and he publicly mocked me on the page. In the best form I could muster, I asked him to leave it alone. But no! Not Ari, he enjoys this type of discourse when he has contempt for someone. Frankly, I don't mind bantering with someone who wants to exchange snipings, but to elevate and keep re-iterating the same verses over and over becomes annoying. He ejoyed all the battles he created and now he wants everyone to believe that I was war editing. My, my, how ironic! He came in warning me I would be banned, aggressively, while stating he didn't want that, passively. Then he fulfills the prophecy with this little tool Wikipedia has created for hunters like Ari. I'm sure he feels powerful right now.--Victor9876 (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
When I took a look at his talk page, it appears others have had the same problem. If someone could politely advise him that this is a Very Bad Idea, I would appreciate it. It seems highly unlikely that anything I say at this point will matter, if this is any indication. arimareiji (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I've been perusing the cited diffs, and on this one, I'm seeing exactly what arimareiji is talking about. Victor9876, I see that you've been editing here at Wiki less than a year, so I'm going to chalk this one up to inexperience. Your removal of content from Talk:Charles Whitman is following a dangerous road of incivility and WP:ATTACK. Specifically, calling someone an "idiot" in the edit descriptor while you're censoring the talk page is yes, a very bad idea. Refactoring other people's comments without their permission, name-calling, soapboxing...we don't do that here. I am STRONGLY warning you to stop the edit warring on the talk page, along with the incivility. If you fail to do so, this goes to WP:AN3 as recommendation for an immediate block, for WP:3RR and WP:EW. (Yes, 3RR also applies to talk pages as well.) I will also be posting this warning at User talk:Victor9876 for record. Edit Centric (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you noticed in the descriptor, I am one of the "idiots" I refer to.--Victor9876 (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- After taking a deep breath and a drink of coffee, I'm bringing this back here to the WQA from my personal talk page, as this is where we are addressing this. Cross-post begin -
- Hello, you have warned me form the perspective of one complainer. There is another side of the story, are you willing to listen?--Victor9876 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Cross-post end.
- No Victor9876, I warned you from my perspective, but only after reviewing all the pertinent diffs and edit histories of the talk page that you have been edit warring over. I warned you based upon my observations of your edit descriptor comments, revert and delete actions. Let's be perfectly clear on that point. I did not simply take arimareiji's word for it, I never do. I've made a commitment to the WQA process to always verify each WQA presented, from a neutral standpoint, before engaging. Edit Centric (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed with you Centric, for a person in you position. Ari messaged me to let me know he had committed to this action, and of course, his usual displeasure with me, and I have never been in this position to formally answer a complaint. My expectations were that at the least an inquiry would be made and I would at least be guided to this board with civility, and perhaps some concern. But what I find is, you had to take a deep breath and a drink of coffee and cross-post my message here, after previously rendering your perspectives and observations. I never said you took Ari's side exclusively, even though a "warning" is a good indicator, that some form of decision has been made against one. After all, how can someone be neutral after hearing only one party, when the other party, as hard as the evidence may seem, has yet to present their position? I merely mention this as an observation, not a character analysis. I do not apolgize for the discourse that has gone on. I do regret that it happened. I am not blaming Ari exclusively, but he was the one who came in without an introduction and statement of invitation (I know WP anyone can edit, but Ari had an agenda). I could make the case that Jwy and Ari formed a cabal, as I did on the talk page. I don't believe it was a cabal now, just poor communication. Communication that has led to this. --Victor9876 (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- This is an informal board. Edit looked at the diffs and the actions taken by you and the person making the complaint and warned you based on what he saw. That is the same warning he would give you if he happened across the talk page in question and saw your edits without being directed there by this WQA. The only judgment being made by Edit Centric is about your editing the talk page comments of others, not about the underlying dispute. Please note that no one here (that I can see) is using this board to oppose your point of view. This is simply about your language (calling someone an idiot is uncivil even if you are referring to yourself at the same time) and your actions to remove and refactor other editors' comments. The talk page in question is the place for the dispute, this is an informal board which analyzes behavior, not content disputes, and attempts to offer perspective WITHOUT going into the root of the dispute, only to advise and warn other editors about their actions. I just wanted to clear up that this alert here is not about the dispute but about your language and editing others' comments, which is not allowed. The Seeker 4 Talk 02:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed with you Centric, for a person in you position. Ari messaged me to let me know he had committed to this action, and of course, his usual displeasure with me, and I have never been in this position to formally answer a complaint. My expectations were that at the least an inquiry would be made and I would at least be guided to this board with civility, and perhaps some concern. But what I find is, you had to take a deep breath and a drink of coffee and cross-post my message here, after previously rendering your perspectives and observations. I never said you took Ari's side exclusively, even though a "warning" is a good indicator, that some form of decision has been made against one. After all, how can someone be neutral after hearing only one party, when the other party, as hard as the evidence may seem, has yet to present their position? I merely mention this as an observation, not a character analysis. I do not apolgize for the discourse that has gone on. I do regret that it happened. I am not blaming Ari exclusively, but he was the one who came in without an introduction and statement of invitation (I know WP anyone can edit, but Ari had an agenda). I could make the case that Jwy and Ari formed a cabal, as I did on the talk page. I don't believe it was a cabal now, just poor communication. Communication that has led to this. --Victor9876 (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize that you feel that way Victor9876, and I fully realize that I can't please everyone all the time here. I don't pretend to try to. Regardless of this, my baited breath and drink of Black Silk (why not, it's good coffee!), I still find that a fair amount of shenanigans have been going on at Talk:Charles_Whitman, and I don't need arimareiji to tell me that. (He only brought our attention to this.) I can plainly see from the edit history there that you've not only transgressed WP:3RR, you've run over it with a steam shovel. In addition and as I previously stated, you're refactoring and outright deletion of others' comments on the talk page is not cricket either. That's the reason for the warning.
- There's nothing wrong with discourse. I'm all for it, and don't expect you to apologize for it. Statement of invitation? (This one raises an eyebrow, and has the odiferous emanations of WP:OWN) NO editor needs a statement of invitation to edit articles here at Wikipedia. As for the "agenda", unless you can quantify that remark, it has no weight. Everyone is welcome to edit articles here, as evinced by the ability of anonymous IP editors to come on and make contributions.
- Not to be pedantic, but I know I don't own the article and even mentioned it above. The invitation wording was to show that Ari knew his reason for coming in and, if I may say, was uncivil for not at least making me aware of his purpose before accusing me of things. If this forum is about behavior, maybe Ari's and Jwy's diffs should be looked at as well. Again, to the agenda, he admits on the page he should have let it be known and struck the word Third in a leader on the page. I'm not saying he had bad intentions initially, but we're here now. And anons can be used to skew an issue.--Victor9876 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- In the end, it doesn't matter that you're disappointed with me. All that matters is that you take away from this that it is not copasetic to violate content, 3RR and civility policies and guidelines to suit your own ends, and hopefully this will not be an issue in the future. Edit Centric (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- No amount of excuses would have stopped a warning being given in this case so i recommend taking heed and reviewing your civility in future. --neon white talk 02:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- (Was I TLDR there, neon? :-) ) Edit Centric (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I do take umbrege with the excuses characterization. There is a difference between excuses and reasons, I defer to the latter!Victor9876 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) All moot point, consider yourself warned. Re-review of these diffs and edits yielded this, which is vandalisation of another user's talk page. You don't remove talk comments from another user's talk or user page, and insert your own. Added to the 3RR, civility and other content removal shenanigans, I'm this close (place index finger and thumb approximately 1 cm apart) to recommending a block, if the shenanigans continue. Edit Centric (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
From the talk page, do you notice who used chutzpuh? Who's baiting? I did not copy and paste from anyone, that one still baffles me, Jwy admitted it was probably a cross edit conflict on WP's part. 3RR I admit, blanking to remove uncivil exchanges I admit. The warning not to antagonize me was from the exchange below! Moot point or not! Warning acknowledged.--Victor9876 (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to file a Request for Comment to bring in more fresh eyes, by policy you're always welcome to do so and I would wholeheartedly endorse it. As the old saying goes, "Many hands make light work." If I misunderstood and you're upset at the idea of more fresh eyes on the article, I'm afraid it's neither desirable nor possible to make any article an exclusive club. arimareiji (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't addressing you, you're apparently afraid a lot. Let Jwy answer on his own.Victor9876 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Answer what? "Insult insult mock stop quoting policy la la la insult mock insult stop quoting rules insult chutzpah chutzpah demand demand, does this answer your concerns?" doesn't seem like much of a question. arimareiji (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've blockquoted the comments of mine that Victor pasted in from Talk:Charles Whitman, because without any formatting or even quotation marks they looked like new comment entries to this page. Which they're not. This is probably unintentional - but it could be construed as the converse of deleting an editor's comment, i.e. making it look like an editor commented "blah blah blah" on ABC page when it's really a quote from XYZ page. I'd recommend that Victor do the same for his own comment he pasted in as it has the same issue, but that's up to him. arimareiji (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Finally, Victor - I'm well aware that my conduct at Talk:Charles Whitman has been less than exemplary (I have bitten back a few times), and I'm pretty sure Edit is too. I can't speak to the WP:WQA process specifically, but I know WP:3O involves at least scanning through the context of discussion to make sure that quotes aren't being pulled out of context. Often it involves taking a read through the entire discussion, including past ones, and a scan over the edit history of the article.
- The reason Edit hasn't addressed this is not because he/she condones or encourages it. It's because as violations of Wikiquette go, editing/deleting others' comments takes precedence over criticism.
- Whether it's intended that way or not, editing/deleting others' comments makes civilized discussion impossibly laborious (i.e. you have to scan through diffs every time to see who really said what). It also breaks the basis of WP discussion, which is that any editor can come in to a page and see what's been going on, and trust that the record of discussion hasn't been tampered with. And as he noted, it's also a form of edit-warring.
- As a trivial side note, the correct shortening of my handle would be the surname "Arima." I'm certain you didn't mean anything amiss by shortening it to "Ari," though. arimareiji (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you once again Arima for a fine dissertation on the elements of WP Style and processes. Since I have you to thank for our being here, and in an effort to practice my new civility and etiquette, I believe one of the concerns you related was my "refactoring" of your edits. So as an example, would you explain the difference between my refactoring and your reply in the last sentence I pasted above...where you begin, "Answer what...", and there is a list of words in a non-sentence format? Your explanation will greatly save me the error of repeating the mistake in the future.
- Thank you also for your suggestion to blockquote the pasted exchange from the Whitman talkpage, however, I trust people to understand that the exchange follows form, so I'll trust that the reader gets at least the cursory evidence that I supplied in the opening statement.
- I've never been able to speak for others with any success, but I'm sure Edit will thank you for saving him/her the time and effort to explain why he/she did not address the issues you did for him/her. And your right, tampering with edits is wrong, even if intended to remove questionable discussions and hide momentary errors of judgment. But still, there is that quirky little tool called Revert, that seems to bring it back at the request of a curious finger. I have been warned and changed my ways.
- And yes, again, you are right, edit-warring has its drawbacks, which is why I would like to present the following, also on the Whitman Talk page, when a very popular and wise editor stepped into the thread to warn the two of us, you may recall ----
What I see is someone who helped another person with an employment issue get it straightened out. That in turn sparked his interest in the Whitman case. What I see here is that he has then used what he learned from his interest in the Whitman case to add a lot of content to this particular page. And yes, I think that avoiding the pages where he had a modicum of involvement with the subject is trying to avoid COI. I also see that this childish back and forth continues to deteriorate and again, I'd recommend everyone take a step back, a deep breath and slow down. I thought that responding to WP:3O involved working on the content that was under dispute. All I'm currently seeing is a pissing contest. Are you actually here to help with a third opinion on content or to chastise an editor? Can you actually point to anything that was added to the article itself that has skewed the facts of the article in some way to benefit this editor or paint something in an inappropriate light? I was under the impression that the content dispute was about something else entirely. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:3O is about providing a third opinion between two editors who are resolved to disagree, not mediation and not to work on the article. I saw an editor who has a history of fighting with multiple editors, so I should have explicitly noted I was not speaking in the capacity of a "third opinion" - you can't be a third opinion when you're the fifth or sixth to see the same thing. Your familiarity with the page may have made it less obvious - sometimes it takes an outsider, or a new editor, to notice a pattern that builds over time. If you review the recent history, I believe you'll see the same pattern of advocacy rather than neutral editing. arimareiji (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- After the lesson to her on WP:3O, and having admitted that you "should have explicitly noted..."(this isn't refactoring is it?) that you were not speaking in the capacity of a "third party" and gave your reasons why, and gave her a fine lesson on how others can come in and see what a person who is familiar with the article, can't see. That was brilliant, you even invited her to review the recent history, believing she would see what you saw, a pattern of advocacy rather than neutral editing. I was very impressed, I didn't agree, but impressed, yes.
- I'm a new man thanks to you Arami.--Victor9876 (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I believe this is an issue that deteriorated and wasn't completely one-sided. I don't believe you can find on User talk:Victor9876 a pattern of arguing over things, since most of the edits were from me, and I can state plainly that it was not incivil, no matter how someone might interpret it. No, I don't agree with refactoring talk pages, and I told Victor this. Having said that, I also have to say that it was my impression that arimareiji began his involvement on a note that seemed contentious to me, and yes, I did speak up and counsel that everyone take a step back, a deep breath and start over. But I don't see that it was completely one sided. At some point, Jwy said he would be away and would continue upon his return. Everything being discussed here happened in the interim, so it was never clear to me that arimareiji was speaking as an effort to actually assist in the debate that had been going on. It was certainly never addressed in any way that I could see, so I have to wonder how helpful it was when the first comments were not what I would consider helpful. I would suggest at this point that Victor stop messing with the previous posts and accept the admonition to stop doing so, arimareiji either address the concerns that were being debated and the issues at hand be considered re: the article or let it go, and the personal back and forth stop on the article talk page, because that is disrupting the editing process. Just my opinion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wildhartlivie: With all due respect, your exchanges with Victor on your respective talk pages show that you're very far from being a neutral party.
- Victor: 1) I hope your sarcasm was only superficial and that you are indeed sincere this time. I would be glad for it if Edit's words succeeded in making an impression where mine and others' in the past have failed. 2) At the beginning of your comment you seem to be asserting that I've edited or deleted your comments. Could you please point to an example? arimareiji (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Excuse me, arimareiji, but I can most certainly offer a comment based on what is being posted here while still having conversations with an editor. I have not defended him blindly, and if you'll look above, I most certainly did say he was wrong to refactor talk postings. And I do not hesitate to tell him when he is wrong or has stepped over a line. In any case, I don't see where you came into the talk page neutrally, since you began in a contentious manner. Eschewing my comments as not neutral does make them invalid, and I believe that at every point in the discussion where I interjected between you and Victor, I made an effort to remain neutral. I would suggest that your comment to me is not in keeping with WP:AGF. This isn't an us against him venture. I have done nothing to warrant doubt about what I said on either page where this is being discussed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Arima, I am happy to answer your question above per question #2). I have copied and pasted, the exchange below --
- Excuse me, arimareiji, but I can most certainly offer a comment based on what is being posted here while still having conversations with an editor. I have not defended him blindly, and if you'll look above, I most certainly did say he was wrong to refactor talk postings. And I do not hesitate to tell him when he is wrong or has stepped over a line. In any case, I don't see where you came into the talk page neutrally, since you began in a contentious manner. Eschewing my comments as not neutral does make them invalid, and I believe that at every point in the discussion where I interjected between you and Victor, I made an effort to remain neutral. I would suggest that your comment to me is not in keeping with WP:AGF. This isn't an us against him venture. I have done nothing to warrant doubt about what I said on either page where this is being discussed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Answer what? "Insult insult mock stop quoting policy la la la insult mock insult stop quoting rules insult chutzpah chutzpah demand demand, does this answer your concerns?" doesn't seem like much of a question. arimareiji (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The exchange above follows a question directed by Jwy to me. You jumped in and suggested several things that I could do. I replied as above that you were not the one involved and you retorted with...Answer what? "Insult...mock...chutzpah., etc., does that answer your concerns?". Since the last part, "does that answer your concerns?" was a direct quote from me in the ex-change, and you replied in an uncivil way, refactoring my comment to Jwy, I felt that you personally attacked me and denigrated me on the Talk page. I don't know how many rules were broken there, but personal attack, refactoring and incivility are the ones that I think are there. Tell me if I'm wrong?--Victor9876 (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wildhartlivie :You're certainly welcome to make whatever comments you like. I only object to what seems an attempt to portray yourself as a neutral uninvolved party in light of these edits: [7], [8] (I am genuinely happy for the two of you); [9] (incidentally, no - I'm not Jewish); [10] ("secret" messages give a bad impression); [11], [12] (thank you for giving the warning some mild reinforcement, but this was canvassing).
- Victor: Making one's own comment (which restates another editor's comment) is not the same as editing their comment. arimareiji (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- You are totally misconstruing what it is that was posted, and are also misconstruing a harmless back and forth that you then spun with your "I am genuinely happy for the two of you". I am perfectly able to give an opinion about this issue, and it is entirely bad faith of you to go digging through harmless banter in an attempt to discredit what I do believe was a neutral response to your entering a talk page issue under the guise of an outside or third opinion only to continue to bash anyone who speaks even slightly in opposition to your opinion. I haven't portrayed myself in anyway whatsoever, except to assert, quite firmly, that I can give a neutral opinion. You also have attributed posts that I personally did not make to me in order to what? Discredit my comments? Which one? The one where I said Victor was wrong to refactor your comments, or was it where I have said quite clearly that you began your posts in a contentious manner? For the record, I did not offer an opinion on your heritage at any time, nor did I respond to the comment that was left regarding it. There was no "secret" message, it was posted in the open and then I removed it, as the poster requested, after I read it. Also for the record, I was canvassing nothing and it is entirely improper to make it appear that way. Further, Victor asking me to give an opinion does not meet the standards for canvassing, as outlined in WP:CANVAS, which explicitly says Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive. Please point out in that exchange where anyone wrote the message in a way that conveyed an expectation that I would say something in preference to either of you. Further, since this is an informal process with no voting or consensus being requested, it wouldn't be technically considered canvassing if it were worded to skew my opinion. I would suggest that this only serves to reinforce the observation I made that your intentions do not reflect good faith and I find your post above objectionable on that basis and would suggest that you should perhaps focus your concerns here on the facts and not on what you think you are reading. What is it that you think is accomplished by attacking my ability to look at something and say that in my opinion, not only was Victor wrong, but there issues in the way you began your involvement? This is a board concerning ettiquette, and I'm fairly certain you're close to crossing that line yourself. Please contain your posts here to the issue at hand and desist in misconstruing and misattributing comments. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Wholly God, people! This was supposed to end with the warning for Victor9876, but now there's three-way finger-pointing, insinuating and "he said, she said" going on. Enough already!. If that's not plain enough for everyone, I'm holding my hands up, making the "time out" sign. I'm here and now figuratively grabbing everyone's earlobes, and leading y'all to your individual corners. If each of you spent as much energy researching sources and adding to articles as you've spent on this WQA, Wiki would be much better for the effort!
Put the mouse down, and back away from the keyboard. Take a deep breath, count backwards from 1 grand, saying "bubble" between each number. Whatever it takes. At any rate, start fresh, with good-faith, agenda-less edits. Don't let your personal foibles and others' peccadilloes interfere with the quality of the contribution(s). Maintain civility, and try working as a team. Like it or not, that other user is part of the team, so focus on ways that you can work together, and convey them in positives, not accompanied by recriminations. Recriminations at this point are counter-productive.
Summing this all up, this is where it ends friends. This is where the Michelin meets the mile. Either find a way to get beyond this, or move on to other articles. Edit Centric (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies. For the record, though, I'd like to note that these have been my only actual comments on this topic since the warning, with the rest being unmarked quotations that were cut/pasted in by other editors: [13], [14], [15].
- (These were attempts to rectify abovesaid ambiguous formatting, though I mostly gave up: [16], [17], [18]. Hopefully this doesn't also become a pattern.)
- If it provides any relief, I have requested an RfC and created this section on the Talk page to try to renew the process of article editing. arimareiji (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- My understanding of this page's purpose - or at least one of its purposes - is to reduce the amount of future incivility. I will therefore focus forward. Incivility is contagious. One person in a discussion sees something as incivility and responds in kind. Indulge an analogy: Incivility is like an extreme, unwanted hot pepper in the recipe that keeps the food from being edible. One cook puts in something to "spice things up a little," the next cook ups the ante to something more spicy and it eventually we get that giant uncivil jalepeno that no one can eat. It doesn't matter much at the moment who went "over the line" first. Somehow the vicious cycle got started and the cooks as a whole ended up over the line. What one cook thought a simple tasty pepper, another thought a jalepeno bomb. The best choice, when there is contention, is to keep to bland food until there is something everyone can eat. Only then maybe it can be spiced up with more entertaining/humorous/exciting language and interaction. And if you detect incivility, it is sometimes useful to ignore it and try to focus on the content - don't contribute to the vicious cycle. Throw out the sauce and concentrate on the meat. A neutral reminder that incivility is unwanted might be useful, but responding in kind is not. If incivil behavior continues, then others may have to review behavior, not us. But I hope we don't need that.
- If anyone is interested in knowing where I think their rhetoric went from bland to at least a little spicy, let me know and I will discuss it on your talk page as I would like this page to be positive, forward looking - and such discussions should not impede the content discussion. I welcome such observations on my behavior (also on my talk page). My hope is that the parties involved promise to reduce the "spicier" comments and try not to react in kind when they think they detect such behavior. If the argument gets stuck, suggest (as has happened occasionally - and I see has now more formally happened on the talk page) for outside comment instead of resorting to frustrated "spicy" response. If everyone points themselves in the positive direction, I don't really care about who was uncivil or simply humor or simply "spice." I don't think its useful to fight about the past. Everyone should be able to recognize "bland" and keep with it. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- For a forward-looking comment, that seemed to have a fair amount of metaphorical review material. ^_^ Seriously, I agree for the most part - but am still troubled by the currently-continuing behavior of repeatedly quoting someone's past comments into a jalapeno bomb (without enquotation or formatting to show they were actually made elsewhere) to magnify apparent participation. It could be construed as a workaround. arimareiji (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- OMG ... could you please WP:AGF just a little? It merely looks like he put the discussion heading (which, by the way, should be === instead of ==) a single line above where he should have. It truly appears he was breaking the discussion portion away from the idea itself. He even replied to your suggestion. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- That was exactly my intentions Bwilkens. I read the refactoring section which states that subheaders are allowed. I felt it would be best to have an edit break, where contributors could respond to the requested input, without going above the discussion line and mistakingly change the topic of discussion, which would or could have started another edit war. Can Arima be requested to be held to the same standards he holds every one else to?Victor9876 (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- BMW:
- I wrote the initial comment, and attributed some of my opinions, which is why I signed it. He functionally removed that signature except from the last sentence. One is certainly allowed to split subheaders if it's done in good faith, but could you point me to where it's encouraged to split other editors' comments to your liking?
- This is a long-established pattern of his and he's completely aware of what he's doing. He even jokes once "You're welcome, no problem!" in response to my asking him to stop refactoring my edits. And in the same edit, he proceeds to do the exact same thing. [19]
- It's rare that he even pretends to civility while refactoring others' comments; he much more commonly calls other editors "idiots," "morons," tells them "your opinion doesn't count... lol!", etc. See the talk page history.
- He has been repeatedly warned for this. See his talk page.
- You needn't take my word for it, ask Edit Centric who reviewed the history when he responded. arimareiji (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- BMW:
- Ok then: this is your FINAL warning. You never insert your own text in the middle of someone else's text. You only add BELOW a signature. You will note that I am actually inserting this comment between two comments - it is well below yours, above the reply, it is indented differently, and it is signed by ME separately. Text entries/edits must remain easy to follow as to WHO posted it. Inserting text in the middle messes that up. In other words, you may never change someone else's comments on a talk page in any manner, by either changing the original text, deleting original text, or inserting your own comments in the middle. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks BMW! I appreciate the distinctions and understand now very well! This has been valuable.Victor9876 (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Then what were you responding to when you said "You're welcome, no problem?" And how did you miss the fact I disentangled your edit into my comment right before you repeated the action? arimareiji (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Arima - give it up now, your replies are becoming disruptive, and you're not helping SOLVE an issue. If you don't believe in AGF then Wikipedia isn't for you. There are many reasons that might make someone post in the middle of your comments: a reading disability, lack of knowledge about how edits work, a lack of policy knowledge, etc. AGF. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- You might want to look at the pertinent edits before and after it before you respond. He entangles. I ask him to stop, and disentangle. He entangles again, replying "You're welcome, no problem!" I disentangle again, and tell him that his attempt at humor isn't funny. He stops doing it. But somehow, he only realized it today? Please AGF about how long I AGF'ed on this topic - AGF is not meant to cover repeatedly doing the same thing and pretending every time that you didn't know better. arimareiji (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Also, please read back to my original response to you, not to Victor's response to it. arimareiji (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- With that, you can rest assured I will leave this alone unless he continues, at which time I will take it to a more appropriate channel. WQA is only for voluntary compliance, and I put you in a bad spot by trying to get you to force anyone to listen. My apologies. arimareiji (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Trust me, you would not have liked the original reply to your response to me: good thing there was an edit conflict. And trust me, I recommend that you do not accuse me of not reading "pertinent edits". I will advise that you take something from this WQA as well: properly explaining issues (most people don't understand the word "refactor", for example) with an editor directly, and not running back for help everytime you perceive a minor issue will help your future cases on WQA, ANI, and anywhere else. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Personal attacks
This editor is following articles related to technocracy issues and picking fights with me in some kind of personal way.. instead of improving the articles or editing constructively. He has used 2 or 3 year old information (sometimes from off site unrelated sources) to foment nasty commentary on talk pages... like quoting a person from a couple years ago... when that person called me a troll on a Admin. page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wafulz This is the editor... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnfos that I feel is on a personal crusade against me.. - The articles involved are growing where this user is removing old stable information to make some kind of point. Energy Accounting and Technocracy movement Here is the kind of info. that Johnfos is interjecting into the discussion pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Energy_Accounting&diff=prev&oldid=271497446 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Technocracy_movement&diff=271809172&oldid=271234878#Old_tricks - I would appreciate it if someone could ask him not to involve the talk pages with trying to intimidate or humiliate other users. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see on the Technocracy movement, you've tried to discuss things with people, who just keep reverting, and often not talking about it. Any editing dispute should involve discussion on the talk page, with everyone "assuming good faith", and not constantly bringing up something unrelated from the past. Dream Focus 22:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have tried very hard to be flexible. The situation started out with a drive by tagging of something... then another person going from article to article... removing information and tagging inappropriately in my view... that is without making improvements... and then searching old blogs and unrelated information to make diatribes about a user. I am going to try to follow guidelines.. and edit constructively in this situation. skip sievert (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- In my opinion it seems quite inapropriate for User:Johnfos to keep posting the link. Whilst there is no specific policy that says not to do it. I consider it a personal attack. It's commenting on an editor not contributions. User:Johnfos isn't a new editor and has plenty of good edits so i think a note to remind him to discuss the issues on the talk page, assume good faith and comment only on content should hopefully be adequate. --neon white talk 17:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree it may have been somewhat off topic of Johnfos. The problem is that skip sievert in my opinion has been really difficult to communicate with, and I believe Johnfos is of the same opinion (even though that doesn't justify off topic contributions). We have tried to explain for skip sievert that we don't think the article in question (Energy Accounting) comply with WP:NPOV. Although this is obviously a dispute whether the article is neutral or not, skip sievert has removed the POV-tag as soon as we have put it up. I think this is against WP:NPOVD. Skipsievert tries to accuse me and others for inappropriate behaviour, for having a POV and for breaking different WP policies, while it's me who should take him up for discussion here for the same reasons. I think it's a really dubious method to try to look clean, by accusing others. I have no agenda, and no reason to set myself up against Skipsievert (on the contrary, I think TechInc which he is an advocate for, looks like a really interesting organization; also, Skip has provided for me, very interesting articles outside WP in the subject of energy economics). I'm just eager that WP should be a neutral encyclopedia. On the other hand, for Skipsievert's part, it must be said that there is an obvious risk that he has a POV, since he is an advocate of TechInc, and also since he has made the major parts of the editings of the article in question (actually, it seems that the second and the third editor there are also technocrat supporters). I would like to leave this accusation part of the whole matter, and continue to the real point at issue: is the article Energy Accounting presented in a NPOV or not? I believe it's not, since on the whole it presents TechInc's view of the concept energy accounting. Neon white, Dream Focus and others - please help us with this, and have a look at the article in question. Mårten Berglund (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You're right, Neon White, I'm not a new editor and I have plenty of good edits. I am mainly an article writer and don't tend to get involved in people and personality issues on WP. In my two years on Wikipedia this is the first time that I have had such a serious dispute with an editor. But I have never seen such a blatant case of POV-pushing, across a whole raft of articles as in Category:Technocracy movement.
Skip has said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technocracy Study Course that...
"...Technocracy Incorporated and its program.. is perhaps the most important social movement of the 20th. century in my opinion... it influenced and continues to influence many... and was the fastest growing social movement of the early to mid 1930's." skip sievert (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
He also says on his user page:
I am an advocate of the Technate design for North America. The Technate design has its origins in the Technocracy Study Course. That is the research material from the Technical Alliance. The Technocracy Study Course is available at http://base.google.com/base/a/TheNorthAmericanTechnate/3350637/D11836088541498036302 It is a free file. Skipsievert 20:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It's fine to have your own personal views, but the aggressive promotion of a particular point of view in wikipedia articles is POV-pushing. I am concerned that Skips own brand of pro-technocracy views have unbalanced articles such as Technocracy movement, Technocracy Incorporated and Energy accounting. I and other editors have discussed this extensively on the Talk pages of the articles and in extensive edit summaries, but we are not getting anywhere fast. Johnfos (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- If there is a dispute here and problems communicating it might be an idea to post on the NPOV noticeboard or ask for a third opinion/rfc etc. but whether or not you feel it's the case, i think skip sievert, like most editors, believes he/she is improving the encyclopedia, so assuming good faith is a must here. --neon white talk 02:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I work hard at being a good editor. I contribute to many different types of articles.
- Example...Urukagina, which I added a new section and have made two ref. citations for recently. I am not remotely a single purpose editor. I helped to rewrite the main Economics article a few months ago... and large areas of the article were formatted and stylistically put together by myself, and others. That article got around 140,000 hits last month... and is under severe scrutiny... which is good, and my edits have done fine there. I have learned over the years to follow guidelines and pay attention to wording and phrasing. It should be noted that I am not an advocate of or for TechInc... as stated above by another editor. I am very interested in the subject though, as I am also interested in the information from the Technical Alliance. Though I like the idea of energy economics and am an advocate of this idea... that is a lot different than saying I promote it on Wikipedia... which I do not. I am only interested in the facts surrounding and connected to these issues as information, again because I find it interesting.
- As far as the quote above by Johnphos... it is out of context... and again, this is digging around for what apparently he may think is negative information personal attacking again... connected with a very old A.f.d. that... I voted to delete. So, it is totally out of context here, as I did not vote to keep that related article, so it is not so much trying to prove some point here again that Johnphos is doing, in my opinion, as again trying to use old information that does not apply to cast another aspersion. I would note that Johnphos has not edited the article to any degree... only removed information. I would note that I have not heard one specific complaint or example of me adding any non neutral or promotional aspects to any article in question.
- It's fine to have your own personal views, but the aggressive promotion of a particular point of view in wikipedia articles is POV-pushing. I am concerned that Skips own brand of pro-technocracy views have unbalanced articles such as Technocracy movement, Technocracy Incorporated and Energy accounting. end quote Johnphos. I am not a member of that group. I have not been connected to members of that group for many years. I do not promote a particular point of view. I have not unbalanced articles connected to this information. I resent that another user is conjuring up his opinions of another editor, instead of the actual edits being done. I also suggested to both editors to request outside comment Rfc. skip sievert (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Request concerning Energy Accounting article was put on the WikiProject Energy talk page by skip sievert. By my understanding this is a request for third opinion, and by my understanding this is also a reason why Johnfos get involved. I don't think that bringing up this old comment about skip sievert was a right thing to do; however, there is too much POV pushing these times and any information concerning potential COI should be made available. I have also to say, that unfortunately skip sievert removed the tags on the Energy Accounting article without content discussion. I think also that making questionable accusations about a personal attack could be qualified itself as a personal attack. So, lets restore the tags, discuss the content of the article and not discuss other editors. Beagel (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you and the person in question here are editors that have worked together and consult each other frequently on your talk pages, and I assume you may be biased here, or so it seems from your comment above. I went to the page yes... but I did not go there to find a person to attack me or drive by tag related articles. I went there in good faith to inform people about something in order to improve the article. I reported Johnphos here because of personal attacks, and going from article to article and removing content and putting on needless tags without doing any thing constructive or actually debating the putting on of the tags. I also came here for some fresh and unrelated thinking about this situation... and while any Wikipedia editor can comment here... I do not think your comment is helpful. In effect you came here to also say indirectly that I may be Pov pushing above. There was ample content discussion which was addressed.
- As far as I am concerned this matter is over. A suggestion and comment above, which I am quoting below, clarifies for me my attitude about this situation with user Johnfhos....
- In my opinion it seems quite inapropriate for User:Johnfos to keep posting the link. Whilst there is no specific policy that says not to do it. I consider it a personal attack. It's commenting on an editor not contributions. User:Johnfos isn't a new editor and has plenty of good edits so i think a note to remind him to discuss the issues on the talk page, assume good faith and comment only on content should hopefully be adequate.
- This comment and a follow up comment by [[User_talk:Neon white|talk] means to me this issue is resolved. I came here to complain about user Johnphos making personal attacks, I have done that. I assume that this situation will now deescalate since interested parties have been heard. My hope at this point is that editors follow guidelines .. act responsibly, and continue to improve content. Thanks all. skip sievert (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Need Help in Understanding Other Editor's View
Mytalk page, here, summarizes the point of (perhaps mutual) confusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ihaveabutt#Danny_Casolaro_and_David_Corn.27s_article
See the top and bottom entries (not the middle one). The top entry is my critique of a part of "Danny Casolaro". (my heading: Danny Casolaro and David Corn's article)
The bottom is a response (Dixie Brown) that I don't understand, and that I perceive as confusing and attacking. [heading: Casolaro talkpage comment] I particularly don't understand the other editor's references to
Logic, philosophy, sentence structure, disruptive, self serving, syntax, logic, see to have you blocked, (and questioning my purpose, and questioning what article(s) I have read.)
Perhaps I and the other editor have different thinking or explanation styles.
This is the wikipage: Danny Casolaro --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- IHave...I notice that you are, indeed, a fairly new editor to Wikipedia. I do recommend that you re-read the key tenets of Wikipedia: WP:CONSENSUS, Notability, and Reliable Sources especially. You have been directed also to read WP:COATRACK. It is very important to realize that Biographies (especially of living persons WP:BLP) are treated very very carefully. I would also like to note to you that anything that is considered "disruptive" to Wikipedia can result in temporary blocks from certain articles, or indeed the entire Wikipedia project. Warnings that you are doing something that could result in a block are not generally uncivil - they are instead a learning opporunity to examine your own actions. Wikipedia can be a confusing place at first. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps I and the other editor have different thinking or explanation styles.
- Perhaps. Looking at the pages in question, I do find your chosen format pretty confusing. It'd help to look at WP:TALK for guidelines on discussion formatting. Particularly, discussions are threaded strictly chronologically: if you're commenting on something, put it before your comment, not as "PRIOR COMMENT BY ... END OF ThsQ COMMENT ... REPLY BY IHAVE" afterward. Also, if you make changes to what you've written, just re-edit it if no-one has commented, or otherwise strike it out
like thisusing the HTML <s>strikeout</s> and put the amendment after: again, no need for this distracting "CORRECTED (own text)" amendment lists. It also mentions the downer on excessive markup such as bolding. I see Hag2 has also mentioned the proper use of indentation, and the problems with your use of HTML. - As to stylistic aspects, coming on like Mr Logic from Viz with nitpicking overanalysis that fills up Talk pages is often viewed as disruptive (a form of disruption characterised as WP:SOUP). I'm not saying you're doing this, but it would help if you avoided anything that looks stylistically like it. A further fundamental angle is "original research" (see WP:NOR): your personal analysis of what someone's quote means is outside the scope of Wikipedia.
- All that, essentially, is what Dixie Brown's warning is about (User talk:Ihaveabutt#Casolaro talkpage comment). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Provocateur
User has been deleting material from the Guitar article and replacing it with his own point of view. Eg, editor comments "Greater Iran is the ultimate origin of the guitar's first ancestor - leave Iran there - ancient Iran damn well was creative - more than India". There seems to be some nationalism involved behind the edits. JamesBurns (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see where you have advised the other editor of this WQA filing. On top of that, this appears to be a content issue - WP:CONSENSUS should be reached on the article talkpage, and discussed with the editor in question. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 05:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
User:JosefBranson
User:JosefBranson has been, about once a day, or two slow for the 3RR to come into affect, has been fighting with User:Polaron on a few highway-related articles, most recently Massachusetts Route 128. What's going on is that JosefBranson is "fixing" redirects, which according to Polaron, is not allowed under WP:R2D. I posted to JosefBranson's talk page that he was in the wrong, but he has ignored my message. I haven't tried talking to Polaron, because he's a frequent contributor, and in my opinion, he's doing everything right except what I'm doing, considering how to escalate this to get a problem user to comply. What do I do? CSZero (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see that someone finally gave the user a link to "the rules" (a welcome template). Note that templates should be subst'd as {{subst:Welcome}}. They are a fairly new user, so as much as we don't want to be WP:BITEy, we want to show them policy and procedure early. You have not advised the user of this WQA filing, although it's also not civility-related. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 05:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, when I had posted the original warning to him, I put in welcome template. A bot turned it into the expanded text. I'll link him back here, but at least now he's been warned by multiple people that what he's doing is wrong. Like you said, I've been taking this as good faith, but if he does it again, I feel he's being hostile. CSZero (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, bots don't do anything ... when you use a template, clicking save automatically expands it ... that's one of the reasons you need to subst it. Hope all goes well. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
This user has made a number of edits which appear counterproductive. Lately, these have seemed to appear with disproportionate frequency on pages which I patrol. These points are not the crux of the problem, though. User:Ironman1104 has twice accused me of being illiterate [20] [21]. He has twice removed, without comment, my attempts to discuss editing issues with him on his own talk page [22] [23]. He twice edited the article Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir to introduce a usage which had been discussed on the article's talk page and rejected as potentially offensive [24] [25]. I feel that this pattern of behaviour is unconstructive, but I would welcome third-party assessment. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Your first example does not appear to be a personal attack - it's phrased as "illiterate usage", and the edit did indeed add incoherency to the text. The second is - I have given a level 2 caution re: NPA's as edit summaries are permanent. An editor is not ever required to reply to your posts on their talkpage. For this reason, the article talkpage is the best place to gain WP:CONSENSUS. Their decision to not reply there can therefore affect the article. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's also rather ironic that Ironman1104 removed your WQA notice just before I gave the warning, and has not replied here regarding his actions. This might be telling, or might not. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help - let's see if anything happens.
- I'm not sure that the dispute about 'ambiguous' in the London article justifies calling me 'illiterate'. Words with implied dual meanings like 'ambiguous' or 'dilemma' are not generally requires to carry explicitly dual meanings in modern English; Ironman1104's alternative edit was certainly no more coherent than the original text which I restored. His newest revision of that page actually isn't bad - I just object to his use of the edit summary to call me (implicitly) illiterate while doing so.
- I noticed the same thing about his own talk page. As to engaging him on specific article talk pages, I have tried [26]; in the case of Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, the talk page already carried the information he needed, and was ignored. As for Talk:London, the issue of London's status as capital is a can of worms - I decided against starting a discussion of 'ambiguous' in order to avoid re-opening that particular can all over the talk page. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's also rather ironic that Ironman1104 removed your WQA notice just before I gave the warning, and has not replied here regarding his actions. This might be telling, or might not. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- ...and now he's removed the warning, which is considered tacit acceptance of said warning. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- ...and he's also removed your subsequent request for him to come and respond here. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- ...and now he's removed the warning, which is considered tacit acceptance of said warning. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I can't force him to reply. That makes a couple of "accepted" warnings, and he knows he's under some scrutiny. Not much else to do but to see how he edits from this point forward. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Since I originally filed this report, the user in question has started making edits to articles I'd previously edited and he hadn't [27] and in one case has actually started edit-warring about English dialect differences [28] [29] on one. This is despite another user putting a warning on Ironman1104's talk page after the first of those two edits, advising him not to waste his time on perceived 'spelling' issues. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Could I get some insight on this situation? Long story short, I make comments on another editor's talk page, who censors me, I restore my comments, Gwen removes my comments per "users can remove what they want from their talk page", I restore my comments asking her to not please not remove my comments (I guess you could say per WP:Bold#Non-article namespaces), then I'm re-reverted and threatened with a ban? One minute I'm having a civil discussion with Gwen, then I turn around and I'm facing a possible ban for uncensoring my comments. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please note that I'm not filing this as some kind of quest to desysop Gwen or anything like that, I just want to know what others think of this situation.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Userpage#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings. Moreover, I did not threaten you with a ban. I said a warning would be next, that a block was near.Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(undent) For anyone who cares, this is the diff of the revert that spurred it. arimareiji (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Here's the basic rule: ANYBODY can delete from their own talkpage anything that they want. For anyone to go back and re-add it would very very uncivil. Do not ever restore your comments to another user's talkpage unless you really want to piss them off (pardon my language). It is uncivil, and disruptive. Been there, had that done, had to warn them. Gwen Gale has done exactly what should have been done in this situation. Let me add ... it is recommended that talkpage comments not be deleted, but they should be archived. This is, however, not a rule. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- ...and I will add one more thing: you put the comments, they were removed. You re-added them, they were removed. If you add them again, you have essentially violated the 3 revert rule which is blockable. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- 3RR allows for 3 reverts, it's 4 reverts that's covered by 3RR. So no, that wouldn't be a 3RR violation, altough it would be pushing it (hence this WQA, since it would basically go against the spirit of 3RR). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- What about this provision in "Removal of comments" :
"Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Important exceptions may include declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices (while blocks are still in effect), or for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates. In these cases it may be legitimate in order to keep a user from gaming the system. Such templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question, but to share important information about blocks and sockpuppetry with other users.
- When you're certified as an admin/checkuser and start posting declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices, that will be relevant. An accusation of sockpuppetry is not the same thing. arimareiji (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- So users are allowed to misrepresent the conclusions from the user check? Sheesh... Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- When you're certified as an admin/checkuser and start posting declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices, that will be relevant. An accusation of sockpuppetry is not the same thing. arimareiji (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Argh. Please read WP:3RR. It is not an entitlement. Adding, then 2 reverts to put it back on is an EDIT WAR. The portions about BLOCKS and SOCKPUPPETRY refer to the headings at the top about socks (such as here and current block notices. It does NOT refer to discussions about it. I really didn't think I had to say "don't do X, except Y and Z. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
←Hi. First I'm not a regular WPQ helper, so bear with me. I've looked through the WP:User stuff before (and the diff posted above), and the best I can think of is that if a user deleted a comment you left - then that means they have read it, and you've made your point. Reposting it (or reverting) is considered bad form. I'm sure Gwen was simply following policy, guidelines, and rules that pertained to the situation. Sometimes it just best to drop the stick and find an area that you enjoy editing in. You'll feel better in the long run for adding content to the community. I hope that helps a little.
@BMW and arimreiji, you seem to be getting backlogged here, so I put in a wake-up call to the help. ;) — Ched (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ched - thank you for the compliment, but I'm not regular either. I'm just nosy. arimareiji (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Headbomb, you absolutely have my sympathies about not wanting to let editors get by with problem behavior because everyone thinks they're warning them for the first time. But if we as a community don't/can't even trust admins to leave semi-permanent warnings other than those spurred by formal action, the same would certainly go for normal users. The current state is an imperfect compromise between "don't let people game the system" and "don't let admins with a CoI tar people's good names without any recourse to deleting."
- If you think you see a pattern, start keeping track of diffs - on your computer, not on Wiki. That's really all you can do. 1) Like a wound, the situation may get better by itself if left alone - most disruptive editors primarily want attention. 2) Even if you present a case with diffs, you're still likely to be told you're overreacting - unsubstantiated commentary has no hope whatsoever. arimareiji (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- All edits and warnings are permanent - hence page histories :-) Removing them doesn't hide them (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I got the extra pair of eyes and feedback I wanted. I don't agree with it, but such is life. You can archive this now.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Victor9876 (Second WQA)
Filed by Edit Centric
I know I'm normally the 3O in these instances, but something has come up that requires me to file a WQA of my own here. During this WQA, I will be recusing myself from the mediation end of this page, until this one is resolved.
Earlier today, Victor9876 posted to my talk page, asking me to review comments made at Talk:Charles_Whitman by arimareiji. What I found was a clear effort by Victor9876 to present a one-sided voting process regarding article content. Please see this older copy of the page, the section labeled "For John (Jwy) and Consensus".
My reply stated my findings, and quantified each of my remarks thus. I also corrected a minor oversight which left an open blockquote tag.
In a follow-on edit, I explained my additional 3O process; here is the diff.
Subsequently, after refactoring his comments on the consensus vote presentation, Victor9876 made not only one snipe comment, not two, but three, all of which I found in bad taste and highly offensive;
- Go back to your breathing excercises and coffee.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)" introduced here
- "Oh, the 'ol "wife flipped a coin and you lost" defense. Good one Centric! Use it all the time myself!--Victor9876 (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)" introduced here
- "Then let's call in an administrator who doesn't have a wife who flips coins to resolve issues!--Victor9876 (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)" introduced here
Maybe I should have simply ignored Victor9876 when he inquired at my talk page. Still, that does NOT give him the right to direct personal attacks not only at me, but my spouse as well. I never stated that my wife "flipped a coin", that was entirely HIS insinuation. Thumbing the nose directly and indirectly at me, that's simply an extension of the behavior.
Could someone please review the discourse at the talk page, and all related comments? Again, I will step down from the 3O role here as long as this is going on. Edit Centric (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- The above is a great job of recusing yourself Centric.--Victor9876 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep it up, Victor. Go right ahead. In fact, I'll answer that. Note that I am not an administrator, Victor9876. If I was, I would have the ability to block you for this behavior. Would I in this case? Absolutely not. I'm an involved party here, the recipient of your personal attacks. That would create an untenable COI, and would call my entire track record into question. So no, even in that case I would recuse myself from that role.
- Once again, I am stepping away from the 3O role here at WQA, until this action reaches some kind of resolution. Edit Centric (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for invitation Centric. You mention in the second paragraph of your complaint that I asked you TODAY, to look at arima's disruptions.<bplockquote>Centric, I'm sure you followed the WQA that has been resolved - except for arima. Would you kindly look at the Whitman talk page and look at his behavior, which has been assessed as uncivil, attacks and disruptive. He is not there for purposes of advancing the article and current discussion. It appears he is there for his own agenda. Thanks.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The time stamp shows two days ago. A lot changed during that time.--Victor9876 (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Excerpt from your complaint (...If she says I'm reading something wrong, I'm open to that. In this case, it was her that came up with the "heads I win, tails you lose" analogue...} these are your words in one of your complaints. What else is analogous to "heads I win, tails you lose"? Skeet shooting? Mountain biking? I'm...perplexed to come up with a different analogy - it had to be a coin! I don't know your wife or you. I'm sure she's beautiful and the love of your life - but YOU brought her in - not me! The remark was not intended as an insult on your wife...it was a flippant reference to your judgment. That's all!--Victor9876 (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- As to your "should have avoided", that is great hindsight. May I have the defense also. I should have had the hindsight to not call on you after all of your agreements with Arima in the prior WQA. But I was hoping you would review all of the issues, not the selective ones that you did, that were all in favor of Arima, even after another editor came complaining to you of the same.--Victor9876 (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I should apologise at this point for the hasty formulation of this WQA, as I was still looking at a trip out to the local "bodega" for sugar and other sundries at the time. What I neglected to say here is that, if anyone (aside from Victor9876, of course!) finds fault with my comments or assertions at Talk:Charles_Whitman, please let me know. As everyone knows, I'm open to constructive criticism. I already know what Victor9876 thinks of this whole thing, he's so much as made it abundantly clear by firing volley after volley across my bow today. To clear up the characterization that he made of his comments; "...it was a flippant reference to your judgment." No, Victor. One or two comments is being flippant. To keep it coming like free pancakes at IHOP is just being a smart-a^%. Take it from me, I know. I am one IRL! It has no place here in Wiki though, outside of the light-hearted occasional comment.
- This one is a chance for someone else to take the 3O guidon, and carry it across the field. While I was out and about, I asked myself this question; "What am I looking for here, by filing this WQA?" Well, the answer to that would be an apology, primarily. I'll start this process by saying that I apologise for not delving deeper into the conversation tracks higher up on the talk page, and focusing solely on the one section. I apologise for appearing one-sided and singular-minded. I apologise for failing to convey my observations in a more neutral fashion. Edit Centric (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please! Whoever comes in to render an opinion or whatever. Behavior is created negatively sometimes from other negative behavior. The history here is an edit war between an established editor on the Charles Whitman page, and a person who came in under the guise of a 3O. Please review the history in it's entirety, not in fragments as Centric has. I did not start the war, and have actively tried to end it in all manners possible. Arima (a shortened version of his name) has been the most persistent abuser, complainer, misinterpreter, accuser, and stayed longer as a 30, than a mother-in-law with nowhere else to go. All I do is edit. I am not good at html, formatting, and understanding all of WP's policies. Some get it right away, some don't! I don't! I'm simple. But don't under estimate me. When I post to an article, I know what I'm talking about. After saying all of this, I hope Centric will realize, some of my replies were in jest, and mocking of his own remarks to me in the first WQA, and not intended to be offensive. The person who should be under a WQA is Arima. Look at the history. No complaints about me since I've been here, until he shows up. And also, look at how BMW had to stop him at the end of the first WQA, which he brought against me. Be fair, that's all I ask!--Victor9876 (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Apology accepted Centric, though not necessary. I also apologize for my discretions as well. Hopefully, in the future, unless I'm thrown to the 'gators, we can work together in harmony, for the betterment of something, come what may!--Victor9876 (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- That being said (typed), I'm willing to call this one resolved. (Someone else can tag it though, as I'm still in "hiatus" mode.) Victor, I have some other thoughts for you (all constructive, rest assured.) that I'll get with you on over at your talk page. Edit Centric (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, Centric, while we're waiting for Arima to come in and render his complaints with broadbrand consumming vibrato - are you saying FREE pancakes at IHOP are a bad thing?! LOL!--Victor9876 (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, why not! My pancakes are better any day of the week! (Yea...Bisquick!) As for Arima, that can be handled under separate plain brown wrapper. Edit Centric (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, Centric, while we're waiting for Arima to come in and render his complaints with broadbrand consumming vibrato - are you saying FREE pancakes at IHOP are a bad thing?! LOL!--Victor9876 (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Victor - right now, you are being extremely disruptive to the Wikipedia project. Your role as a community member is to work on articles, and ignore petty BS. You were asked to remain away from Arima if possible (and vice versa) - there are, after all, millions of articles. Your continued browbeating and harassment of a WQA volunteer who simply tried to help is truly offensive to the concept of community.
Victor if you think action needs to be taken against Arima, file a WP:RFC right now. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Indeed, I would expect that a joint filing on both Arima and yourself would probably be in order to sort this entire load out. What an unfortunately disappointing waste of good editing time is being used up on pettiness overall.
So please, go file an RFC, and take the high road and stay away from Arima (and I recommend also /insert/ away from /end insert/ the editors who have tried to help in an overly patient manner). (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
User is repeatedly trolling at Talk:Ayn Rand. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
User also has a history of abusive posts there. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Snowded already said they were taking the incivility to an admin level...what more do you want from an incivility level? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought this WAS the place to go if one wanted to take this to an admin... it didn't seem like it was quite on the level to warrant a visit to ANI. I also would like to think that some informal corrective action might help with this user, i.e. something short of dropping the ban-hammer. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, let me check what Snowded has done with it first as multiple listings of incidents doesn't make alot of sense. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I raised behaviour by Stevewunder who hit me with the "F" word and other abuse with an admin. He looked at it yesterday but my that time the wunderkind had already been banned for a week. I think there is generic abuse (including intimidation) on all the Ayn Rand page - but that is why it is with Arbcom who (hopefully) will get round to doing something soon. --Snowded (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, let me check what Snowded has done with it first as multiple listings of incidents doesn't make alot of sense. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought this WAS the place to go if one wanted to take this to an admin... it didn't seem like it was quite on the level to warrant a visit to ANI. I also would like to think that some informal corrective action might help with this user, i.e. something short of dropping the ban-hammer. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I was aware that ArbComm was dealing with Ayn Rand topics overall. If you have dealt only with the Stevewunder incivility, then additional incivility by DarkOne will need its own. Thanks for your input! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't believe this post is abusive. It is a form of sarcasm and humor that makes the point that we are all required to edit in a neutral fashion. It certainly isn't out of line given the ArbCom on the article in question. (Which, by the way, I, TallNapoleon, and Snowded are all participants in). This edit is TallNapoleon deleting the post in question, and I'm wondering if that is right. I don't think TallNapoleon should be deleting another person's talk page entries if they aren't obviously vandalism, or name calling. Perhaps someone can point me towards the rules governing that? There has been a great deal of name-calling, wikilawyering, and a flurry of ANI, RfC, RfA, calls for bans, blocks, freezes and now a Wikiquette alert that appear to me to be more about partisan bickering gone awry or manipulative attempts at intimidation. --Steve (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
user:Hauskalainen
user hauskalainen has just levied a really ugly charge at me and other editors, claiming that we are in collusion. and the progression into this charge is jaw dropping. earlier today, he wrote:
Are you and Anastrophe twins, alter egos, or just playing tag??? It seems that when I talk to one, the other one replies. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
to which i replied:
your question is a non-sequitur, but i'll indulge. no, yaf and i are not twins. no, yaf and i are not alter egos. no, yaf and i are not playing tag. yaf is your fellow editor. you are my fellow editor. yaf is my fellow editor. my connection to yaf is precisely the same as my connection to you, in other words, no connection besides being fellow editors. since this is not a one-to-one medium, you cannot expect one-to-one communications. i'm not constrained in whom i may respond to, nor can you really have any reasonable expectation that when you direct some inquiry at another editor that they will even respond at all. this is a discussion page. it's folly to assume a conspiracy - or even to suggest it. Anastrophe (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
yet a short time later, he lets loose this bolus of uncivil claims:
Yet again you two (Yaf and Anastrophe) have chipped in to this conversation at almost the same time after a long silence. Have you been out together or something and just got back? And which one of you has the ip address which has just deleted the section on gun violence AGAIN? Your behaviours are unacceptable. I am of the opinion that you are not entirely unconnected to each other and also with SaltyBoatr judging by the speed he was able to read one of your comments, think about an answer, type it into the server, and get the server to confirm the update. All in the same minute! He is quick to get references in but they are always double edged. A wolf in sheep's clothing perhaps. I suspect the to-and-fro between you all is just a sham. I have seen this behaviour elsewhere in Wikipedia and it can be defeated. --Hauskalainen (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
this is, as i replied, intolerable. Anastrophe (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Again, Anastrophe, did you notify him that you brought this WQA? Please do so, if you wouldn't mind... Edit Centric (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- (Now returning to the 3O chair, mediate ON) It's going to take me some time to research this one, I'd like the following to occur before I make any observations here;
- Anastrophe needs again to notify Hauskalainen about this WQA, so that he / she has a chance to give some input.
- I'd like to see why Hauskalainen is making these non-AGF assertions. (I personally find them a bit far-fetched at first blush, given the last few weeks of interaction betwixt SB and Anastrophe.)
- In the meantime, I shall sit here, scratching my head and raising an eyebrow... Edit Centric (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- apologies, i've now alerted the user. i pirated the alert you used in the last matter that came up....Anastrophe (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- If someone feels they're being ganged up on, then we need to have a look to see if they are. It doesn't need to be collusion to have the appearance of being ganged up on in order to limit input. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- that may be, but accusations of collusion are not to be made lightly, nor taken lightly, per WP:TAGTEAM. this is an egregious, uncivil accusation, based apparently on no evidence more substantial than 'several editors are editing and commenting'. woe be to the entire collection of wikipedia editors then, we're all in collusion. Anastrophe (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I was tired when I made that comment and went to bed shortly after. I have only just woken up and seen this report. My immediate response is to say that I did not see the reply to my first accusation from Anastrophe at 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC). But I don't think that changes my suspicion. A denial is just a denial. It does not change things much in my mind. I will be away from editing for a short while but will return to this matter in due course. Notwithstanding this Wikiquette report I will be looking formally at the behaviors of these editors to see if there is evidence of sockpuppetry or, more likely, co-ordinated editing by conneced persons, and I will be compiling evidence. The silly reaction to the insertion of the section regarding gun violence and the addition of statistics and academic research, and the silly insistence that the Assize of Arms granted a "right" has crystallized in my mind the realization that the main editors at that article have are overly zealous and extremely biased. --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Basic rule of thumb re: Sockpuppetry - you either file it @ SSP, or stop accusing. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- yes, please do investigate it, file it, whatever. there's no sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry here. it's freaking ridiculous to be accused of this. Anastrophe (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Like I said, it's up to the original complainant to either file it, or shut up about it. I'm closing this as NWQA. Let us know if he continues the accusations between now and when he files an SSP. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment This edit appears to be an actual situation of a violation of WP:SOCK, and I have already warned them of WP:CANVASsing. It's funny when those who accuse of socking turn around and sock themselves. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 07:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
All I did was log in under an alias to get independent advice on resolving a dispute from someone involved in WP Editor Assistance. A long long way from canvassing, sock puppetry, or meat puppetry or whatever else I have been accused of elsewhere. In fact I specifically asked Used:HowardBerry NOT to intervene by editing the article! How much clearer can you get?!!--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- You have uninvolved, 3rd party people right here trying to assist. It was a clear canvass, and you attempted to hide your own identity, as noted in your post. You've been advised to file your SSP right now, and I await the notification that it's done. Until then, I anticipate your ceasing to accuse others of Socking when you just did it yourself. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have posted an extremely clear, concise and plainly worded warning here. And, like I said in my warning, enough with the shenanigans, Hauskalainen. Either address your concerns in the proper manner and forum, or don't address it at all. What you just engaged in was not copasetic by any measure. Edit Centric (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to post this here, knowing full well that this WQA is already closed as "Non-WQA". I want all involved to have this input. Given the latest statements made by Hauskalainen, masquerading as Slinkyworm, I'm not at all sure that an SSP would clear up any misconceptions he may be operating under, to his satisfaction. In addition, he's now directed a portion of his angst at me, accusing me of "intimidation". Hauskalainen, you seriously need to drop the conspiracy theorys and shell games, and concentrate on article improvement. If you spent your energies there, Wiki would be a much better place. Edit Centric (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- For the use of an alias to be considered as "Sock Puppetry" in Wikipedia it needs to be used for "fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes". I see none of that here. Rather it looks that Hauskalainen used an alias to seek help with the harmless intent of wanting to remain anonymous. Also, your advice to 'focus on article improvement' seems to miss the reality of the hostility level being dumped on Hauskalainen in the last couple weeks. Article improvement in such an extreme hostile editing environment can be trying. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- you've reduced WP:SOCK to only the first sentence of the policy, ignoring in your elision WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY, under which his behavior is clearly sockpuppetry. you describe hauskalainen's behavior as 'harmless', and cast him as the victim here. you see nothing uncivil or in violation of AGF in his accusations of sockpuppetry against others, while committing sockpuppetry himself. you see no hostility in hauskalainen's actions? Anastrophe (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you Salty, I could not have put it better myself. I was not "masquerading" because I made it perfectly plain that I was using an alternative account to make a perfecly legitimate call for help under WP:EA. As far as the person I was talking to was concerned, I mase it easy for him to work out my main identity. The SOLE purpose of using the alternative account was to get advice without being followed around by the editors I am in dispute with. Edit Centric on the other hand has made threats to me such as " any more shenanigans, and I will personally recommend that you be blocked for disruption of not only the article(s) in question, but Wikipedia on the whole!. (The "shenanigans" he refers to was my action of using an alias to seek advice.. he calls it "Forum shopping" with a sockpuppet. My actions were perfectly legitimate. No where near sock puppetry and seeking advice is not Forum shopping!. Those threats hardly seem like they are in accord with Wiquette to me! It is because there are people willing to delete multiple times (even in breach of 3RR) that I decided to move this issue to a 3rd party for assistance with resolution. SaltyBoatr may have endless patience (because I see he is trying to press on with arguments). I on the other hand see the main issue at stake as very simple. Either the edit that was deleted was WP:SYN or it wasn't. Either it is related to the article or it isn't. A third party can help to resolve that dispute.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- For the use of an alias to be considered as "Sock Puppetry" in Wikipedia it needs to be used for "fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes". I see none of that here. Rather it looks that Hauskalainen used an alias to seek help with the harmless intent of wanting to remain anonymous. Also, your advice to 'focus on article improvement' seems to miss the reality of the hostility level being dumped on Hauskalainen in the last couple weeks. Article improvement in such an extreme hostile editing environment can be trying. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, let's clear up a few things that have gotten muddled within the "sturm und drang" over the past few days;
- Hauskalainen issued these statements, suggesting that three other editors might be WP:SOCKS - at the tail end of this post, and again at the end of this one.
- He makes the same assertion again in this very WQA, further up the thread; this post. There's no such thing as a "temporary reply here. A reply is a reply.
- Yaf brings this to my attention, which I look into with some reservations (my way of saying "Yeah, right. Hauskalainen? Why would he go and do something like that?"), as I don't possess CheckUser access. So, I have to confirm or dispel it by other means.
- Checking this out, I note that he a) Has something against editors from the U.S., and b) thinks there is some kind of right-wing conspiracy that is "well funded, and may well have "infiltrated" wikipedia at the highest levels": Here come the black helicopters
- I see this from Hauskalainen, confirming what I have been told, and then...
- I issue this warning to Hauskalainen, and cc it to his doppelganger: Warned here, page has since been white-washed.
- After some intermediate edits, he accuses me of threatening and intimidation, even going to the point of wanting me to replace the photo of myself on my own user page!: Note the edit descriptor.
- Yes, I did get a bit flippant in my reply, but only because I found his insinuations of conspiracy, assertion that my pic was "clearly intended to intimidate" and his need for me to change it completely ludicrous; My reply. At this point, someone else can try dealing with this guy. All I can do right now is sit here, shaking my head in utter "confundis". Edit Centric (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, let's clear up a few things that have gotten muddled within the "sturm und drang" over the past few days;
(outdent) Use of socks: User Hauskalainen continually accused others of being socks. He was warned to file the SSP or stop. He instead created a new account and re-made the same accusations. That is a violation of socks, as it was used to evade a warning.
Even though his actions are under scrutiny, he insists on escalating this situation in front of our eyes. You must understand, first attempts at solving this issue were mild. As the user has been overly uncooperative, the escalation continues needlessly. All he had to do was stop the accusations, maybe apologize, and life would have gone on... sure, there might have been some content issues to deal with elsewhere, but the incivility portion would have been done with. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Incivility by the above on the talk page of Gwen_Gale. Diffs of aggressive and hostile comments follow:
- Accusations against Tony1 (talk · contribs) and Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) of baiting.
- "back the hell off, try reading WP:DICK yourself, as you really are being one"
- "Please just shut up now, I'm sick of this disruptive trolling of yours on this talk page"
Ohconfucius (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Having already read the above items as a neutral party, and responding to them on that specific talkpage this morning, this WQA to me appears to be significantly disruptive and WP:POINTy. Tony has indeed been baiting an admin, and I expect additional sanctions to come from elsewhere ... you're only lucky I think that Gwen Gale is extremely patient. Try actually reading WP:DICK - it's a standard essay that is recommended when people are indeed acting in a specific manner. Try also reading the article on Trolling. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not guilty, m'lud.
For a admin who"just happened to pass" by that page, this is quite a fine example of neutrality (sic) in action.You're an admin, andI would have expected a bit more restraint on your part than that outrageously thinly disguised personal attack. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC) [edited Ohconfucius (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)]
- Um, "not an admin"...and now you are baiting. But thanks. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Give me a break. This was posted here with the pipe "no more Mr. Nice Guy". This entire issue, Tony and Ohconfucius included, is a monumental waste of volunteer time. Tan | 39 15:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Happen to watch that talk page for other reasons. I don't think i've interacted with Tony, Ohconfucious or Daedalus. I agree with bwilkins. Tony and Ohconfucious have been way out of line and have been handled more reasonably than they probably deserve (i'd just be blanking/ignoring them by now). Have no opinion or knowledge about the dispute behind all this, but the problem behavior is originating from the complainant in this case.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I do beg your pardon, but since when has insistence/pressing for compliance with policies "way out of line"? The contention is that the repeated bureaucratic stonewalling which is "way out of line". Ohconfucius (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, your forum shopping instead of being pointy. I get it now. You've been given explanations. You may not like them, but insisting you have not recieved explanations when the record shows you have isn't going to get you anywhere. You should probably drop it. Bali ultimate (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Even though proof has been shown that policy was followed, you and Tony seem to feel that a) it's not good enough and b) that you have no need to show your own proof. I'm a simple volunteer - not an admin, not a bureaucracy component - and from what I see, the both of you are disrupting a lot of project work. I would expect that this Plaxico of yours will end up at ANI, but more likely not the way you were thinking ... so, as I said, take it to ANI yourself now, or I would expect you will be taken to ANI. Your call. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- While Daedalus may have responded inappropriately, this Ohconfucius character is out of line and should have blocked some time ago. This entire thread here stretches good faith to the breaking point. Chicken Wing (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Even though proof has been shown that policy was followed, you and Tony seem to feel that a) it's not good enough and b) that you have no need to show your own proof. I'm a simple volunteer - not an admin, not a bureaucracy component - and from what I see, the both of you are disrupting a lot of project work. I would expect that this Plaxico of yours will end up at ANI, but more likely not the way you were thinking ... so, as I said, take it to ANI yourself now, or I would expect you will be taken to ANI. Your call. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Um, "not an admin"...and now you are baiting. But thanks. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not guilty, m'lud.
Please note this diff, where the user changes his username, through a inter-wiki link, to Osomething the same word I used to describe him when I couldn't remeber his name on another thread. He is obviously making fun of me here. Secondly, note this diff, where he says, and I quote: *Oh, quelle surprise to find you here. In need of friends perhaps? to a user who was trying to tell me not to be bothered by both him and Tony. I do not believe, given these past two diffs, that I should be the one here under the spotlight.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed but not surprised to see this spurious WQA. As I commented on Daedalus's talkpage, Tony, Ohconfucius et al have created a forest fire, of which this is only the latest outbreak. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Closure was totally out of order. I have reverted. BMW, you're not an admin, and even if you were, you'd be conflicted out. To be continued... Ohconfucius (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad I now have the chance to comment, since I got here after one of the participants at the page in question closed this section with a dismissive comment (see top). I've rarely seen such extraordinary rudeness at WP as the abuse heaped on me by the subject of this WQA. Tony (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a move afoot to lay the blame for the extarordinarily bad behaviour exhibited by a few administrators in this case at the door of the targets for their abuse. It is about time that all administrators adhered to the policies governing their behaviour, and acted accordingly. Instead of trying to shout down every editor who objects to the clear application of different standards with widely different penalties for non-conformance meted out to admins and non-admins. I certainly won't be holding my breath though. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Editor left an extremely rude message on my account discussion page. Judging by his own discussion page, he seems to make a habit of it. Moreover, he threatened me with various punitive actions which he himself has no power to enact. That kind of bullying has no place here or anywhere else.--Benjamin canaan (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- The message was neither extremely rude nor habitual - removing spam links is a critical part of Wikipedia maintenance. He also did not "threaten" you nor did he claim to do it himself; that is a standard spam warning and is used thousands of times a day by hundreds of Wikipedia volunteers. Nothing to see here, certainly no admin action necessary. Tan | 39 16:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- We need a diff so we know what comment is being discussed. Assuming it was the warning left by User:Quaeler, that isnt the usual warning template and parts of it such as "If you have more to contribute to an article than shilling for a web site, please consider adding actual content" are not really civil and come across rude. i suggest asking the editor to use the templates at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace instead. On the subject of the warning, i believe it may have been done in haste without due consideration which is another issue. --neon white talk 19:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Would a cool headed editor be willing to drop in on Talk:Right to keep and bear arms and give some encouragement to help raise the level of civility there? Thanks in advance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- See a couple of entries above ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
In this edit, I am told that I may suffer from dyslexia (actually, I do, and have admitted so before on-wiki, but I doubt the user in question was aware of this), but my disability, which has no effect on my ability to read (it is very minor and effects only my ability to recognize spelling mistakes) is used by someone who I am in a disagreement with to discredit my ability to understand their arguments (which I believe I understand completely.) I would appreciate someone who is not me asking or telling my adversary to comment on the content, not the contributor. Hipocrite (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- You need to notify the editor about this alert. Seems like an obvious personal attack to me. Maybe consider a talk page warning about commenting on content not editors. --neon white talk 00:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've taken care of the notification for you. Hopefully, we can get some input from the other editor on this one. Neon, I'll let you take care of any warning you see apropos. Edit Centric (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- The Editor who posted this notice is correct. I did not know he suffers from dyslexia. What I wrote was ,¨I´m beginning to suspect, Hipocrite, you may may suffer from dyslexia¨ which is not an unreasonable supposition if other Editors wish to comment AFTER reading the history between Hipocrite and myself.
- You will come to the conclusion I have been extremely patient and civil with this editor since he placed the tag nominating my BLP for deletion February 14. Having failed in that effort, the day after, he then started editing and deleting the article piecemeal, removing ALL WORDS showing the subject in a positive light, leaving only snippets of information that would leave any reader with a negative impression of the subject in blatant violation of Wikipedia NPOV policies and guidelines. Finally other Editors had no choice but to intervene.
- This editor then followed me to another Article Cana I was attempting to improve, and reverted all my edits unilaterally without any discussion in the Article talk.
- I echo the comment, ¨I would appreciate someone who is not me¨ reviewing the history of Ray Joseph Cormier and Hipocrite. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- You might also wish to check DoDaCanaDa's contribs on my talk page. They may be illuminating, as well. In fact, just randomly check a few of DoDaCanaDa's contribs. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've removed a lot of OR, badly sourced stuff, etc from Cana in the last 24 hours, I don't know how much of that id DoDaCanaDa's, but he obviously doesn't understand our policies on reliable sources and original research. dougweller (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, he does not appear to understand WP:OWN either ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I should probably state that it might be due to my suggestions that DoDa is at Cana at all - I noted that all 50 of his article edits (as it was) were to the article about himself, and mentioned SPA accounts. If he is there due to my hints, then we should welcome his desire to move beyond just his article and learn to edit Wikipedia - and it seems sourcing is one of the first places he will need help. It is a pity he is still being rude and dismissive of others, and making further personal attacks. DoDa, I suggest you treat your fellow editors with more courtesy. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, he does not appear to understand WP:OWN either ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Without delving into the content dispute, I have to say you have to be careful of the ownership language you use dodacanada. It is not your BLP, it is Wikipedia's article. Even if you had made every single constructive edit to an article that has been made over the past 5 years any other editor would have as much right to edit it as you have. You do not own the article, it is not your article, and understanding this may bring you a long way to resolving this conflict. Someone editing an article you have worked hard on developing is not an affront and should be welcomed, not discouraged. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. Let me unequivocally state I fully understand it is not ¨my¨ BLP even though it is. I will attempt to be more articulate when discussing it, DoDaCanaDa (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Little bit of clarification: I understand it is an article about you. However, even with that understood calling it "your" article still smacks of ownership. I am not saying you feel you have ownership, but it tends to raise red flags when someone calls an article "their" article even if your intent is "the article about me." That said, editing an article about yourself or something you are directly related to is often a bad idea. There is no policy prohibiting it, but the WP:COI concerns means you need to provide even better sources and citations for claims you make to prove to fellow editors that you are trying to edit from a neutral POV. There is no assumption of bad faith in this statement, but it is a fact that it is nearly impossible to write about yourself from a neutral point of view, since one cannot be truely neutral about themselves. My advice would be to simply avoid the article about you for a bit, and only made additions to it if you have reliable third-party sources to cite your additions. It would also be a good idea to propose any changes on the talk page before you make them for other editors to comment. I only suggest this because of the aversion many editors have to people editing articles about themselves and the fact that it has already caused conflict (this WQA for example) that would be good to avoid in the future. Just my 2 cents. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)