→Proposal, part deux: Clarifying |
→Proposal, part deux: Reponse to TParis. |
||
Line 470: | Line 470: | ||
::::Really? Other than Gerardw (neutral third party) you're the only two posting opposite me here. You're also the only two who posted on the deletion of the Kogan/Young Spock picture (until SarekofVulcan posted his opinion this afternoon). And you're the only two to post reversions on the Texas Supreme Court quotation that started all this. What am I to think? -- [[User:Jake Fuersturm|Jake Fuersturm]] ([[User talk:Jake Fuersturm|talk]]) 22:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC) |
::::Really? Other than Gerardw (neutral third party) you're the only two posting opposite me here. You're also the only two who posted on the deletion of the Kogan/Young Spock picture (until SarekofVulcan posted his opinion this afternoon). And you're the only two to post reversions on the Texas Supreme Court quotation that started all this. What am I to think? -- [[User:Jake Fuersturm|Jake Fuersturm]] ([[User talk:Jake Fuersturm|talk]]) 22:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::'''Uninvolved editor here'''This proposal seems quite fair and reasonable in my honest opinion. I would request all three of ya'all quit letting personal opinions of each other influence your remarks and making accusations and simply adopt or reject the proposal.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 00:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC) |
:::::'''Uninvolved editor here'''This proposal seems quite fair and reasonable in my honest opinion. I would request all three of ya'all quit letting personal opinions of each other influence your remarks and making accusations and simply adopt or reject the proposal.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 00:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::Would it also require Jake to stop wikihounding me and starting edit wars over material he includes that other editors find objectionable? Jake has stated (quoted above) that basically reverts are a race to whoever gets to 3RR first, so in this compromise he'd just revert back to whatever version he felt to include without any need for consensus. (period). [[User:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533"><B>Erikeltic</B>]]</span> <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533">Talk]]</span>)</span></sup> 00:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== User:Dave3457 == |
== User:Dave3457 == |
Revision as of 00:05, 1 June 2011
Welcome to wikiquette assistance | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
|
Active alerts
Uncivil conduct by User:Conte di Cavour
- Conte di Cavour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
General note: CrimsonBlack (signature) and GustoBLSJP (old username) are both User:CrimsonSabbath. Guoguo12--Talk-- 20:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Conte di Cavour labeled my edits as "vandalism" and made personal attacks on his User talk:Conte di Cavour, even with my sourced, well discussed and impersonal arguments on Talk:Italy.
diffs Talk: Italy [5] [6] [7] [8]
CrimsonBlack 15:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- As for what I remember, I only reverted some deletions by GuboBLSJP, because the user insisted to delete parts that are supplied with reliable sources. I never reverted the contributions of this user, nor made personal attacks. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am GustoBLSJP. I only deleted the redundancies and kept most of the text. Before my contribution, i stated on the talk page of the article various times. The idea proposed was not the appropriate. The data must be neutral. I always showed the sources.
- CrimsonBlack 15:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- CrimsonBlack 15:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrimsonSabbath (talk • contribs)
- I'm not asking for any kind of penalty for this User. I just want that my future contributions be respected, and the deletion of the talk i had with the cited User, on his "Talk page". I don't want any kind of association with such User.
- CrimsonSabbath (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) User:Conte di Cavour and User:Brutaldeluxe seem justified in undoing at least some of your edits. For example, in this edit, you removed sourced information citing "it's harmful to the NPOV". But, WP:NPOV tells us that to "avoid stating opinions as facts," and the text you deleted did not state, "Italy is the 'sick man of Europe'". No, it simply pointed out that it has been referred to as the "sick man of Europe", and there are references for proof. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). To quote Conte di Cavour, "You have deleted a lot of parts just because you didn't agree with them, but in case of sourced statements you simply can't do it". Guoguo12--Talk-- 19:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not protesting for the edits of the article. I had insert parts with sources, discussed the subjects and helped to turn the article more Neutral. I really think the article could be improved, as i stated.
- User:Conte di Cavour misunderstood my edits as vandalism, maybe for not reading my inserts on Talk: Italy.
- CrimsonSabbath (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- See "Economy section rationalization" on Talk: Italy. CrimsonSabbath (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
(←) I realize that you are trying to improve the article and I thank you for your contributions. I also acknowledge that Conte di Cavour is reacting to your edits in an uncivil manner (swearing, shouting, etc., see user talk) and that considering your good faith edits vandalism are violations of WP:AGF. Even edit warring is not vandalism. However, you must understand that neutral does not mean unbiased. It means that all verifiable viewpoints are fairly represented. "Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say" (WP:V). However, calling your edits "vandalism" is certainly incorrect. Guoguo12--Talk-- 20:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help and opinion, Guoguo12.
- This section must be ended, to not get tiresome.
- CrimsonSabbath (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I have sent Conte di Cavour a follow-up message summarizing this discussion. I hope that both you and Conte di Cavour will continue to edit and improve this encyclopedia. I especially hope that you will remain undaunted by your recent conflicts and I thank you for keeping cool and remaining civil. Guoguo12--Talk-- 23:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I apologize with Crimson/Gusto for having exaggerated. I hope that now everything is settled. Thanks a lot to Guoguo12.--Conte di Cavour (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I have sent Conte di Cavour a follow-up message summarizing this discussion. I hope that both you and Conte di Cavour will continue to edit and improve this encyclopedia. I especially hope that you will remain undaunted by your recent conflicts and I thank you for keeping cool and remaining civil. Guoguo12--Talk-- 23:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I will try to control more my edits and discuss more on the subjects.
Thank you, Guoguo12. CrimsonSabbath (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Milowent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pig_slaughter (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pig_slaughter|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I entered a discussion on the AfD for Pig Slaughter. User has been aggressive, insulting, and made patently false accusations with no evidence.
His first comment was prior to mine, upon another user deleting his account. Diff: [12]
He remained out of the discussion for a while after that. His next contribution was to accuse me of WP:SOCK with no evidence. I removed the comment from the page per WP:PERSONAL. Diff: [13]
I posted a message on his talk page, telling him that I did not appreciate the unfounded accusation. I will admit that I was not very polite in the message. Diff: [14]
He responded by stating it was justified since I was being extremely uncivil in the discussion on the AfD. When I said that was not sufficient reason, and asked for an example, he stated that he did not need to give one. Diff: [15]
This was especially confusing, given his previous statement on another user's talk page. Diff: [16]
His next comment made an attempt to veil his attack on me, and criticised me for citings policies, guidelines, and essays. Diff: [17]
I asked him again, on his talk page, to please refrain from making personal attacks, and asked him to review WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL, and that if he could not stop, I would have to escalate the issue. I also attempted to allay his concerns regarding policies, with the hope that he would stop. Diff: [18]
This seemed to be it for a while. He made constructive, and civil comments on the AfD [19], [20]
However, my hopes were dashed by the most recent edit [21] seemed to drop all pretext of civility.
I could not go to WP:RfC/U since nobody else seems to have asked him to stop, and it certainly is not severe enough for WP:ANI.
My hope here is to help him realize that such behaviour is unacceptable on Wikipedia, or failing that, to escalate the issue to WP:RfC/U.
Homo Logica (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sigh. HL's own incivility is the only cause of my comments, but in the interest of avoiding wiki-drama, I will refrain from any further discussion regarding HL's comments on that AfD. I would appreciate knowing HL's prior account name, however.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- As I have stated before, I have not had any previous accounts. Continuing to accuse me of WP:SOCK while stating that you will be civil and assume good faith, is problematic, at best.
- Homo Logica (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Milowent should drop the sock accusations, implicit or explicit. On the other hand, in a single delete discussion, HL's replies to Joy, Carrite, Dreamfocus, and Qrsdogg (and maybe more) strike me as unnecessarily snippy; additionally I find repeated references to an insignificant essay tendentious. I'd suggest dialing it down. Gerardw (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- AfD's are often become fairly contentious, but this isn't one that I expected to provoke such emotion. Since this is the first AfD HL has participated in, it's understandable if he/she doesn't know all the unwritten rules. It's generally good form on AfD to make a clear argument and then find something else to do, particularly if tempers are running high at the time. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to clarify that I am not emotional over the AfD. I was mildly upset by repeated unfounded accusations, as well as continued insults, implicit and explicit, which was why I took all of my comments about the matter off the page. It simply wasn't the place.
To Gerardw, can you elaborate on snippy, please? If I was uncivil, I would absolutely like to know what I was doing so I can avoid it in the future. As for calling an essay insignificant, I would say that's a subjective value judgement. It has been put up for MfD, specifically because one of the users disliked it being cited, and while people may disagree with the purpose, very few call it insignificant. The reason it was repeated, was because it was my suggestion for the article, and since people were responding to me as though I were advocating a different position, it felt very relevant to explain my position, and point them to the essay explaining it in greater detail.
To Qrsdogg, my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that an AfD is very much like a Talk page. People discuss back and forth, to come to the best solution for the article. Much like how Joy and Dream repeatedly responded to the sock, to attempt to address the concerns. Just as both discussed with me, within the AfD, to attempt to address the concerns.
Homo Logica (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you're basically correct. AfD's are supposed to be an open discussion rather than a vote. Discussion is good, but at times it can degenerate into people repeating the same things over and over again, often becoming less civil as time goes by. So while it is usually good to discuss things (sometimes discuss things at length), it is sometimes best to just walk away. Here's a good example of an AfD that turned into an avoidable "battleground" type arguement. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Requested samples:
And please, don't try to make this into a WP:POINT. It isn't about WP:WINNING. But, as I stated, that's just for my suggestion that you to spend some time away from the page. Fix it. Joy, please refrain from making this personal …. As for how big the problem is, I would refer you to my complete breakdown of the WP:UNDUE and WP:ORIGINAL of the sections, above.
That, and the repeated posting of rebuttal statements, especially when the significant consensus was keep. Gerardw (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will try to be more careful in the future. The first comment was mostly about the edit summary "Two can play at this game", which seemed to be going down the route of trying to "win". I was probably unnecessarily terse, though, in all of them. I'll try to mind it.
- I would also like to point out that Milowent has been continuing to attack people on the AfD, and related talk pages. [22] [23] [24].
- It is quite evident that what Milowent has gotten from this response is that his actions are acceptable.
- Homo Logica (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps my "two can play at this game" edit summary was unwise, I could see how you got the wrong impression from that. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not that Milowent's actions are ideal, it's that WP is not a police state and minor incivilities are best dealt with by ignoring them or walking away. Yes, some of his responses were snarky, but not sufficiently egregious that any action is warranted. Gerardw (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- So, to be clear (and not meant as a criticism, just trying to understand the position), his 9 explicitly incivil and insulting comments [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] (and the one on here) related to a single AfD, are not significant enough to warrant a warning template on his page about his behaviour?
- Homo Logica (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think, reading through this, that there's no disagreement with you that Milowent shouldn't continue implicitly/explicitly suggesting you're a sock without acting on that accusation. It's tiresome and inappropriate. I, personally, don't see a need for a warning template, nor do I really understand what that achieves. This isn't Congress, and official "censure" doesn't have tangible effect (if it even does in Congress).
I suggest that you re-review the comments above that you deem "explicitly incivil and insulting" as several of them are clearly neither. Further, you should be careful with your AfD contributions as noted previously, to avoid the appearance of trying to shout down a clearly developing consensus. Also, your repeated suggestions in the AfD that people "calm down :-)" when they were not, in any way, acting un-calm might also be construed by some as being...well, if not uncivil, then certainly rather obnoxious. Dream Focus makes a very valid point on these "calm down :-)" suggestions on your talk page. I think the relevant essay is WP:KETTLE. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 12:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think, reading through this, that there's no disagreement with you that Milowent shouldn't continue implicitly/explicitly suggesting you're a sock without acting on that accusation. It's tiresome and inappropriate. I, personally, don't see a need for a warning template, nor do I really understand what that achieves. This isn't Congress, and official "censure" doesn't have tangible effect (if it even does in Congress).
User:Blofeld
Some interesting edit summaries from Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) after he removed notability tags inserted by two independent editors from an article about a random pub in Montevideo. [33][34] [35]. I think this user needs to be reminded about some of our basic policies.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Before you get off on your civil high horse Mr. Maunus, when you make fucktarded responses like this and this and your comment "from my viewpoint your crusade to indiscrimimnately include all information in the world in the encyclopedia degrades wikipedia and does nothing to improve it." then it is clear that you are the one in need of a reminder of our policies. To assume good faith and to work with people in a spirit of collaboration. The way you addressed the article came down to nothing but bullying. I haven't even had two minutes to expand these articles without you slopping tags over them or two minutes to improve them before you taking them to AFD. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- You will find that people will be more liklely to give you the benefit of the doubt and leeway in article creation if you adress them respectfully. It is pretty funny that you are reacting like that to me turning your own comment against you (except without expletives).·Maunus·ƛ· 17:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- One of our basic policies Maunus is that when you start a thread about another editor here at WQA you are to inform them that you have done so. You may also want to take a look at WP:FORUMSHOPPING. MarnetteD | Talk 16:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have notified him at my own talkpage - where we were engaged in conversation. And what is your point with forum shopping? I have not posted about this in other fora - I have mentioned it to himself on his talkpage where I was told to "fuck off". He is now again calling me a "fucktard" in a Wikiquette Alert thread... This does not make sense.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I told you to "F off" of berating me with civil messages on my talk page. Also I have not directly called you a "fucktard". Rather I am saying that your behaviour of not even giving editors a chance to improve articles they create or salvage others before slopping tags and AFDs on them is against the spirit of wikipedia and fucktarded behaviour. You seem to lazily plague the website adding a plethora of tags without actually doing anything to fix problems you see yourself. Marjan Bojadziev I think meets WP:ACADEMIC and is a notable economist. If you think wikipedia is worse off and you are going to berate me for thinking we should have better coverage of countries like Macedonia and Uruguay then that's your problem. You bullied me into getting your own way over an article I create on a landmark of Montevideo by using another editors notability concern as a reason for why it should be deleted outright. I move the page to attempt writing a more productive article summary and you AFD it before i even have a chance to improve. You may think that I degrade wikipedia with the work I do on here but very few would agree with you in terms of overall article work, see User:Dr. Blofeld/DYK, even if some of my work is questionable in terms of its obscurity. I virtually always write articles which are covered in multiple reliable sources and which some may find interesting to read about. The pub perhaps is more suited to coverage in Irish Uruguayans but I resent your remarks that every bit of my work I do for wikipedia is degrading this website. Your response and treatment of me deserves this kind of response and its absolutely completely pointless in bringing this here. If you make such nasty comments and persist with your tagging multiple times and have nothing better to do than slop tags over articles you run into then other editors are not going to be very happy with you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Reply to M. First, your talk page reads that you will file one not that you have. Those are two different things and that post was made before you WQA post. The policy at the top of the WQA page reads "Notify the reported user(s). Place a short and polite statement on their talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved. You may wish to use the template {{subst:WQA-notice}} on a user's talk page". Thus, you needed to inform Blofeld that you had started the thread. As to the shopping you have a thread at WQA and an AFD going on at the same time that can be construed as FS. MarnetteD | Talk 18:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- In the course of a conversation between the two on Maunus' talk page, he said "I have filed a Wikiquette alert about your personal attacks". Whether or not a pretty little template was used on Blofeld's talk page is irrelevant. Hell, Dr. Blofeld commented in this WQA before you ever did, so it is safe to say that the message was received. As for forum-shopping... Facepalm AfD is to dispute articles, while WQA is user conduct. Not the same. Honestly, if I were ever to file a WQA on someone, I'd be more tempted to do so over this wiki-lawyered semantic masturbation, as it is far more aggravating and disrespectful than Blofeld dropping a few f-bombs. Tarc (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Reply to M. First, your talk page reads that you will file one not that you have. Those are two different things and that post was made before you WQA post. The policy at the top of the WQA page reads "Notify the reported user(s). Place a short and polite statement on their talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved. You may wish to use the template {{subst:WQA-notice}} on a user's talk page". Thus, you needed to inform Blofeld that you had started the thread. As to the shopping you have a thread at WQA and an AFD going on at the same time that can be construed as FS. MarnetteD | Talk 18:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I would say that you both need to step back for a moment, and review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.
Manus - I believe that Dr. Blofeld it objecting to WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and you not giving his articles a WP:CHANCE. Whether he is correct or not, is not a matter for WQA. This is his concern. It's a valid concern, and can be addressed in kinder ways, certainly.
Blofeld - You definitely need a review of CIVIL. Remember, Manus did whatever he did for the good of Wikipedia. He did not do it to attack you. Even had he not, it would not warrant the kind of responses that you have made here. Please remember not to make it WP:PERSONAL.
For both of you, over editing concerns, I would suggest Mediation. Remember that it isn't about winning. This is about coming to a consensus. That means concessions, and that means working together, civilly.
Homo Logica (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
"This is about coming to a consensus. That means concessions, and that means working together, civilly." LOL. Do you really think comments like "from my viewpoint your crusade to indiscrimimnately include all information in the world in the encyclopedia degrades wikipedia and does nothing to improve it." and persistent tag wanking of articles and then AFDing them when somebody tries to prove them wrong and make an effort to improve them is working together and being civil? All the "Meditation" in the world is not going to prevent me from being indignant of an editor who acts like this on wikipedia. I can think of plenty of nasty things I could say about Maanus personally but I refrained from doing so. I have merely called his mindless often careless tagging of multiple articles as pointless, doing nothing to actually solve the problem, and therefore a "fucktarded operation". If people started working together and assumed good faith and he had contacted me civilly on my talk page saying I'm not sure this one is notable then we could have discussed it" then it would have been a lot more productive. But I see he has a dangerous habitat of tagging articles without doing any research.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I made the comment to both of you, not just to you, since you are having trouble working together. It's easy to be civil when the person is being civil to you as well. Takes more effort to show restraint when the person is not being civil. And yes, you have not been civil. Is it understandable? Absolutely. I might have been uncivil myself, in such situation (though, not with such colourful language :-P). However, from his perspective, his response is understandable as well. In similar circumstances, you or I may have responded in a similar way (though, not with such colourful language :-P).
- That said, if I understand correctly, you're objecting to his not following WP:BEFORE. That is an understandable and valid concern. I'm saying you could have brought his attention to it in a kinder manner.
- Homo Logica (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually I had initially refrained from saying anything at all and being "uncivil" even though my initial reaction was to respond in regards to the pub article. It was only until I saw his careless tagging of Marjan Bojadziev without actually looking into it that I made a comment and started off a "civil" rant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs) 14:54, 25 May 2011
- Yes. At that point, a kindly worded message on his Talk page, reminding him of WP:BEFORE, would have been the best response. Remember to focus on the issue, not the poster.
- Homo Logica (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Maunus, what led you to the Marjan_Bojadziev article in the first place? Gerardw (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Recent pages patrolling lead me to both of the pages in question. I edited Marjan Bojadziev before Dr. Blofeld did so in this case it was him who followed my contribution history after having been bothered by my tagging of Shannon Irish Pub. He then obviously followed me to the Marjan Bojadziev article where he reverted my tags using an expletive about ftarded recent page patrollers. This was before we had had any other exchange. When I arrived at Marjan Bojadziev the article was a copy paste of his CV obviously made by someone from his University in Skopje - it didn't even assert notability and I could have chosen to delete it per A7 which I didn't because I thought there might still be a possibility that someone could save it if I prodded it instead. Dr. Blofeld has worked on it all day now and it is quite a bit better although I still think that the notability is questionable - for example his academic appointment doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC, and he doesn't seem to have any publications. I think the fact that he lead the chamber of commerce may show notability, but that is for the AfD to find out. In any case my tagging was not "careless" copypasting a CV and passing it for an article is. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I don't see anything wrong with the AFDs. With new pages backlogged a month it's not unreasonable -- if we don't have the resources to patrol pages once we don't have the resources to delete them twice. I'll note that patrolling from the back of the log would give folks less reasons to complain -- if an article is still insufficiently sourced since April it's probably not gonna be without some external stimulus. While Dr. Blofeld's responses are, in my opinion, incivil they're probably in the WP:Gray Area such that not much can done about it. Gerardw (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- "fuck off fucktard" is a grey area...·Maunus·ƛ· 02:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I don't see anything wrong with the AFDs. With new pages backlogged a month it's not unreasonable -- if we don't have the resources to patrol pages once we don't have the resources to delete them twice. I'll note that patrolling from the back of the log would give folks less reasons to complain -- if an article is still insufficiently sourced since April it's probably not gonna be without some external stimulus. While Dr. Blofeld's responses are, in my opinion, incivil they're probably in the WP:Gray Area such that not much can done about it. Gerardw (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Recent pages patrolling lead me to both of the pages in question. I edited Marjan Bojadziev before Dr. Blofeld did so in this case it was him who followed my contribution history after having been bothered by my tagging of Shannon Irish Pub. He then obviously followed me to the Marjan Bojadziev article where he reverted my tags using an expletive about ftarded recent page patrollers. This was before we had had any other exchange. When I arrived at Marjan Bojadziev the article was a copy paste of his CV obviously made by someone from his University in Skopje - it didn't even assert notability and I could have chosen to delete it per A7 which I didn't because I thought there might still be a possibility that someone could save it if I prodded it instead. Dr. Blofeld has worked on it all day now and it is quite a bit better although I still think that the notability is questionable - for example his academic appointment doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC, and he doesn't seem to have any publications. I think the fact that he lead the chamber of commerce may show notability, but that is for the AfD to find out. In any case my tagging was not "careless" copypasting a CV and passing it for an article is. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I never once said "fuck off fucktard" or even literally "fuck off". Its not my style. I saw that you had sloppily added tags on other articles which are within requirements but you couldn't be bothered to at least cleanup it up yourself and were content for it to be deleted. I said what sort of a f'tarded patrol is this that you had got into the habit of tagging articles without researching them for notability. Then you turned up on my talk page with an incivil rant and I simply reverted you and told you literlly to "F off" and you got the message. That was all it was and anything I've dished out at you implying you are lazy or an a-hole has been fully returned my way with interest by what you said about me only contributing junk to wikipedia and calling me an asshole at the AFD. If you want to avoid this sort of thing in future then don't add notability tags twice to start class articles when the editors just spent time working with it. Approach the editor first and indicate you believe it is not notable. My biggest disappointment in you Maunus is that you clearly have a lot of potential to contribute to a specialist subject part of wkipedia on Mesoamerican languages which is greatly needed. You may very well be busy but I wish you would salvage your precious time on here contributing what content you can and avoiding patrolling other articles and kicking up a stink. Wikipedia contains masses of junk, seriously bad content like Pancakes! and List of Power Rangers episodes which people vote to keep, ther eis little we can do about it if they contains multiple sources. . We are not a paper encyclopedia and the coverage of some areas is extremely detailed. If we can have 100 articles on restaurants and bars in Manhattan why can't we have an article about one pub in Montevideo? Above all I try to address systematic bias and rarely venture into topics which are not traditional encyclopedic subjects. Only I think some hotels and restaurants in each city are notable. If you look how extremely detailed wikipedia is in parts for certain areas of Anglo countries and US TV series, then I don't see why it is junk to try to build a comprehensive coverage of a capital city in Latin America. Macedonian economists and Uruguyan cusine might not be encyclopic to you bu they meet content requirements. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)The burden is on the editor creating the article. If they don't want to put the effort in, they can just add them to the list at WP:AFC. Whether you use "fuck off" or "f off" doesn't really make very much difference. If you disagree with the AFD just say so on the AFD page. Additionally, nothing another editor does or says changes the expected standards of behavior. Gerardw (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Check for uncivility and not adhering to AGF at Talk:Environmentalism#Environmentalism
- Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Environmentalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please take a look at this discussion and see if user Viriditas did not adhere to WP:AGF and/or WP:CIVIL during the discussion which I have chosen to extricate myself from. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's quite a long discussion to be parsing for parsing policy violations. WP:DIFFs would be helpful. Gerardw (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Gerardw is correct: We need specific examples of comments that may be a problem (an easy way to do that if fiddling with diffs does not appeal is to quote some brief unique text such as the signature timestamp, so people can easily search for the comment). I just quickly skimmed Talk:Environmentalism and did not notice a WQA problem. There is a lot of discussion about a proposal to include something on "environmentalism as a religion", but in my quick skim I did not see any concrete proposal or uncivil commentary. AGF only goes so far—I did not see a comment accusing anyone of bad faith, and in the absence of a specific proposal (which I may have missed), the discussion seems unduly long. What specifically is an AGF problem? Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
GenKnowitall
- GenKnowitall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Center of gravity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I (Melchoir) have been involved in a content dispute with GenKnowitall for about two days. His attitude is partially responsible for the difficulty I'm having in resolving the dispute, because it is so taxing to interact with him. Rather than provide diffs, I'll just point to Talk:Center of gravity. Melchoir (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am sorry you are having difficulty adhering to the discussion and editing process, Melchoir, preferring to simply hijack an article and make substantive and objectionable revisions without discussion, where the article is being actively discussed and edited. Some of your material is good and may be included, with prior discussion. Yet you have been repeatedly asked to participate by submitting a proposal for discussion, which you have not done. Please submit such in discussion instead of complaining about how 'taxing' it is to collaborate. Additionally, resolving a 'dispute' first requires that there be a bona fide dispute not just disagreement, offer a position that is properly stated and supported by some authority, and then engage in good faith with responsive answer to replies to resolve it. There should there be a real (as opposed to fabricated ) dispute between authority, otherwise it is just a food fight. This has been explained to you. Please participate in the editorial process instead of what you have been doing.
- I have little sympathy for your complaint Melchoir, as you were involved in a previous incarnation of the article, based plainly on a flawed understanding of the subject, trampled an article by a previous author, mucking editing up so badly an entire deletion was the only sensible exit. You wish to do that again. No, sorry, the subject deserves better. Your behavior so far has not been exemplary, and except for the fact that I believe and hope you have good contributions to make to the article I would have made complaint about you. I submitted an article which you agree is correct as stated. I have treated you respectfully and in good faith. Join the discussion with your proposals and engage in good faith editing. GenKnowitall (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- GenKnowitall's contributions indicate he is unfamiliar with the WP:Consensus model; I've commented on the specific content dispute on the talk page. Additionally I've left warning for his personal attack on another editor on the talk page. As this is primarily a content dispute I don't think there's a lot more to be done here. Gerardw (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Gerardw, but will post the following which I had prepared.
- GenKnowitall's first edit was three weeks ago, so it is not surprising that their understanding of procedures is incomplete. I have not investigated the content dispute or much of the discussion because this comment is sufficient to show a problem: the term "vandalism" has a specific meaning here, and must not be used to describe good-faith edits; do not comment on an editor's background ("graduate student")—article talk pages are to discuss content; terms such as "You were on notice" and "I will seek your removal" are highly inappropriate in the context used. Subject experts are welcome, but they need to demonstrate their expertise by providing reliable sources that support their edits, and by responding to points raised (and there should be multiple sources for such a well known topic as this; see WP:DUE or possibly even WP:REDFLAG). Wikipedia requires collaboration and when an editor reasonably requests a reason for an edit (as was the case with the diff just given), the reason must be supplied. There is no urgent reason to revert an article back to one's favored position—instead, editors should provide explanations on the talk page and allow a reasonable time for responses. I would have thought there were plenty of good editors watching this article, but if more input is needed, post a comment at WT:WikiProject Physics. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
So... if we're done here, I can take this page off my watchlist. :-) Melchoir (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Re: Unwarranted Accusations by Boringbob4wk
- Boringbob4wk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Both on my talk page and at that of playwright Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, User:Boringbob4wk, whose contributions date only to April but who claims to have been on Wikiepdia longer, has called my fully discussed, good-faith edits vandalism at least three times (these two [36], [37]) plus an edit summary ([38]). Aside from meat-puppet/sock-puppet issues I will take up elsewhere, he attacked me for reverting, with explanation, an anonymous IP (one of several with the same initial IP address) who had removed citation requests from uncited claims; turned fully cited footnotes into a bare number and link; and inserted uncited claims within foonoted passages, along with numerous style errors, and promotional WP:PEACOCK terms and tone.
You'll see from my responses throughout that I've remained polite and temperate.
I'm sure my reputation and full record can handle the unwarranted attacks, but this type of slanderous, uncivil behavior should not be condoned. Before he does this to others, I believe someone should make clear to him that abusive posts and unwarranted accusations are not allowed.
If possible, I would like him to voluntarily remove his abusive posts from my talk page and state on the Aguirre-Sacasa page that good-faith edits are not vandalism
Thank you for any help you can give on this. It is much appreciated. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Boringbob4wk, accusing an editor of vandalism because you disagree with the content is a personal attack and not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, so please stop. Gerardw (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at it, there are a few issues beyond just that:
- Assuming good faith went out the window somewhat hand-in-hand with the personal attack in Boringbob4wk's first edit summary/edit to the article. This is also important since they reference the level one warning templtes in their post to Tenebrae.
- Both the section heading and content of their post on Tenebrea's talk page show a serious misunderstanding of what vandalism is. There also seems to be a disconnect on how biographies of living people are handled. Mainly that {{citation needed}} is rarely used and removing questioned or questionable material immediately is the common practice.
- Teanabrae's assertion about Boringbob4wk removing post's to their own talk page, [39], is a little worrying. Since Boringbob4wk only commented to Tenebrae's post, [40], the assertion comes off as hyperbola at best.
- Bringing a user talk spat to an article talk page is rarely warranted. At best, referencing user talk pages should be to point out the points have been discussed previously, that's it. A section on the bio's talk page expanding on why certain edits have been made is fine. Hammering the accusation, or making one, isn't.
- One last thing, Boringbob4wk should take another look at the warning templates, how they are worded, and how they escalate. Their post to Tenebrae, the more it is looked at, appears to be an attempt to browbeat or shame an editor away from an article rather than correct, in this case non-existent, problematic editing practices.
- - J Greb (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at it, there are a few issues beyond just that:
- You're absolutely correct about my misreading Boringbob4wk's talk page. When I went to add a post the first time, it looked as if my first post had disappeared, and so I re-added it. There may have been an "Edit conflict" page in between that confused me. I do take back that assertion.
- And now I see he is slandering me to another editor here. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Two things in direct response to Tenebrae:
- You still need to rethink dragging the accusations onto the article's talk page. I realize the accusation stings but the article's talk page is not the place to vent or add drama. If you feel the reasons for the edits need more explanation than can be provided in an edit summary, fine. Stick to the content of the edits and why they are valid or needed. If you need to comment on another editor's edits, stick to the content and why there is an issue. Leave commenting on other editor's comments on you personally to the user talk pages and venues like this.
- As noted on my talk page, the post to GoingBatty was made prior to this thread. That in no way excuses it, but you need to be careful in placing the order of events. You may have just seen the post - I missed it in the contribution history as well - but it had been done at the time of the original attacks.
- And to Boringbob4wk:
- Accusing an editor of vandalism on an unrelated page such as [41] is much worse than doing it on the related talk pages - the article's, their own, and WP:AIV. If you are going to ask an editor to check edits, pages, or re-run a bot on a page, it can and should be done without accusation about third party contributions or motives.
- And weaseling around it like [42] here is as bad. If you want to discus the content of the edits, use the article's talk page. If not, see the above point to you and point one to Tenebrae.
- Having a page semi-protected only prevents unregistered - IPs - and extremely new registered editors from changing the page. It does not affect your ability to edit the page. If an IP wishes an edit made, the can request it on the article's talk page. The tone of your post suggests you are acting on behalf of another. They can ask for themselves.
- While the post to GoingBatty was part of the initial posts attacking Tenebrae, the one to Crit is a new attack. To repeat: If you believe or have proof vandalism, file it at AIV. If you have a strong case to present of an editor being biased in there editing file it at WP:AN/I. Do not just attack them on third party user talk pages.
- - J Greb (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Two things in direct response to Tenebrae:
- And now I see he is slandering me to another editor here. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, JG, for taking the time and effort to make a thoughtful, detailed reply. You're right about the article's talk page: I would not have 'ported the post over to it had not the vandalism accusation appeared in the article's edit-summary/history.
- I've just seen that this editor has been blocked for his various actions, and I'm grateful that your post to him as to why was so detailed and specific. I've probably said this before, but taking on admin responsibilities adds so much more time and work to one's voluntary contributions to this encyclopedia. I remain very impressed by seeing both in your admin duties and as just a regular member of WikiProject Comics that you don't cut corners and that you take the time to give specific, point-by-point posts. Even if one disagrees with your point of view on one particular topic or another, as I'm sure I have in the past, anyone would have to say — I certainly have said and do say — that your points are always reasonable, clear and well thought-out. I continue to learn from all my veteran Project colleagues. Seriously. Thanks for all your work. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Sergecross73 and Nickelback
Ok so he is putting up some false information at the Nickelback Wikipedia and I don't like that. Also, ever time I change it to the correct information he reverts it to the false information, please block him for false info. Oh and he is stalking me every time I do an edit. Also, he is harassing me because he thinks I'm Picklesatwar which I'm not, but he keeps harassing me saying the two words "you are". ; Nickelbackrules1518 ; (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC);
- (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nickelbackrules1518)
- I am an involed editor in this situation and have tried to communicate with the above editor . Nickelbackrules1518 has been directed to Talk:Nickelback#On going problems on many occasions and despite my efforts to start a civil conversation he/she simply does not respond. [43]. [44]. Not all the addition merit reversal in my opinion, however others have raised concerns about the edits as a whole.Moxy (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note that Nickelbackrules1518 and Picklesatwar have indeed been shown to be the same editor and have both been blocked. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to clear things up, we have tried a number of times to work with "Nickelbackrules", but rather than engaging in numerous discussions we have started on the discussion page, he choses to ignore them, and instead break WP:3RR and engage in sockpuppetry (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nickelbackrules1518) I never harass him, I merely tell him to stop breaking wikipedia policy, and to discuss things on the talk page. Then, he has the nerve to report me here, and without notifying me. *sigh* Sergecross73 msg me 00:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- No worries, we would have notified you had there been something discuss. Gerardw (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Steven Walling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Joseph Farah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm beginning to have a hard time assuming good faith with this user, so I was hoping someone could talk me down, have a word with him, or both. He's repeatedly reverted me on Joseph Farah with a (IMO spurious) explanation that it violated WP:SELF, and then WP:BLP. I understand his desire to protect Wikipedia, and those reverts aren't the behavior I'm seeking guidance in responding to-- the content is already under review at BLPN. Rather, it's the manner in which he's conducted himself in the making of those reverts that has made me feel uncomfortable.
I began to feel attacked and delegitimized when Steven reverted my edits with the comment "per WP:SELF" and accused me of being disengenuous on his talk, but without comment on the article's talk page. When I requested that he self-revert and discuss on Talk:Joseph Farah, he instead characterized my arguments as "stupid," "cynical," and "ridiculous.". I subsequently re-added the material, prompting another revert with an edit summary authoritatively forbiding others (presumably me) to include the sourced material, and a talk-page admonishment that my contribution was "not acceptable. End of story."
As he was originally involved in this discussion by User:JakeInJoisey requesting "administrative oversight" of my contributions, and as he declares on his talk page that he's a WMF employee, and due to what I perceived to be the inappropriately authoritative tone he was taking, I suggested that his behavior appeared to be less that of a volunteer editor on equal footing to myself, and more that of an employee of the WMF oversighting an article. This was met with an accusation that I'd made ad-hominem arguments, along with another declarative statement asserting that my edits violate WP:BLP, and that he had brought them to BLP noticeboard for further attention. That seems disingenuous to me, as the request he brought to BLP/N was for a general review of "the latest batch of contributions by [this] anon", and did not repeat his previous assertion that the edits were prima facia violative of BLP policy.
I guess, in short, I'm feeling as though this user hasn't assumed my good faith, and that he's referentially implying authority in a manner which disempowers me as an editor, and precludes collaboration on an equitable basis. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Here's what's going on: Another editor asked me to get involved because of a BLP concern (They did not get involved themselves.) Now that the anon is failing to successfully argue for their opinion, and has been reverted in part or whole by two other editors as well as myself, they've simply moved on to making ad hominem accusations against me. To be clear about "authority" or having someone "disempowered": I have not used my sysop rights, and I already reiterated on my user page and on the talk page that I'm using my volunteer account and it's not a Foundation issue. I have done nothing to prevent this anonymous editor from participating in Wikipedia, or even suggest that they cannot or should not be editing. That's nonsense. While the dispute continued, I went to the noticeboard for outside input rather than revert again, which is meant to prevent edit warring between them and myself. In short: I find this to be a frivolous attempt to try and divert the issue from content to contributors. Steven Walling 23:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Claiming that it's been "reverted in part or whole by two other editors" is an outright fabrication. It's been reverted in part by only one other editor, pending discussion on WP:BLP/N. I defy you to provide diffs that prove otherwise. I'm increasingly concerned at your failure to recognize the referential power implied by mentioning your status as a sysop. I'm also disturbed by your repeated failure to assume good faith, as evidenced by this most recent characterization of my concern as "frivolous." It's disingenuous to suggest that repeated reversion and misleading talk-page commentary do "nothing to prevent this anonymous editor from participating in Wikipedia." You've been both condescending and dismissive since the inception of this conversation; it's highly unbecoming of an admin. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly as someone in the middle of a heated debate with me, you're not in the best position to make a clear judgement about what is and isn't appropriate or becoming. Also, it really has nothing to do with being an admin, as adminship is not an editorial position and gives me no right to make an executive decision about the content. As for the diffs, everyone can see the history of the page: you continue to edit war back and forth over multiple issues in the article. Steven Walling 19:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding your accusation that I'm "edit warring"-- diffs or it didn't happen. Regarding your claim that I'm not in the best position to make a clear judgment about what is and isn't appropriate or becoming: you are 100% correct, but I suggest you're similarly compromised. That is why I initiated this WQA discussion in the first place. I would appreciate comment from uninvolved users. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- uninvolved User:Off2riorob. Stephen has not made a single edit or comment that requires dispute resolution. This is a simple content and policy discussion that is now at a noticeboard (BLP) and the article talkpage already and there is nothing at all in Stephens actions that deserves dispute resolution at all, in fact IMO his actions have been exemplary in this situation. As for the edit warring comments about IP:24 - the user WP:BOLDly added the content and it was disputed and removed and the IP:24 re added it twice against bold - revert - discuss - WP:BRD Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- We appear to have a difference of opinion on the meaning of the term "uninvolved." In my view, you are not. You should disclose your involvement in the issue. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am completely uninvolved and have a complete NPOV position on partisan Republican and Democrat content and Barack Obhama conspiracy content. I am a UK residence acting here as a neural experienced contributor to this issue and at the WP:BLPN thread, from assessing and investigating the IP:24 users contributions I am also commenting now here. I am also not a online supporter or friend or connected contributor to the S Welling account. I have made only one quite minor edit to the Joseph Farah BLP as such I am completely uninvolved WP:UNINVOLVED - Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- (ec - please use 'preview') WP:BRD isn't policy, and you are clearly not completely uninvolved. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just because you attack me doesn't make me involved. Policy or not - its good practice and as I said - I am uninvolved and S Walling has zero editing issues to reply to here Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- That was borderline incoherent. Did you even check the diff? It's hardly my attacking you-- it's your edit, in which you alter a comment you made and I'd replied to in a way that altered the context. And WP:UNINVOLVED isn't relevant unless you're secretly an admin. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- You continue with your worthless personal attacking battlefield comments and imo you are simply being disruptive. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- That was borderline incoherent. Did you even check the diff? It's hardly my attacking you-- it's your edit, in which you alter a comment you made and I'd replied to in a way that altered the context. And WP:UNINVOLVED isn't relevant unless you're secretly an admin. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just because you attack me doesn't make me involved. Policy or not - its good practice and as I said - I am uninvolved and S Walling has zero editing issues to reply to here Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- (ec - please use 'preview') WP:BRD isn't policy, and you are clearly not completely uninvolved. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am completely uninvolved and have a complete NPOV position on partisan Republican and Democrat content and Barack Obhama conspiracy content. I am a UK residence acting here as a neural experienced contributor to this issue and at the WP:BLPN thread, from assessing and investigating the IP:24 users contributions I am also commenting now here. I am also not a online supporter or friend or connected contributor to the S Welling account. I have made only one quite minor edit to the Joseph Farah BLP as such I am completely uninvolved WP:UNINVOLVED - Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- We appear to have a difference of opinion on the meaning of the term "uninvolved." In my view, you are not. You should disclose your involvement in the issue. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Involved editor comment: I'm not seeing any evidence of wrongdoing on Steven Walling's part. Gerardw (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Original submitter comment: To be very, very clear, the wrongdoing I'm alleging is that the user under discussion reverted my edits without being prepared to engage in a extended discussion, and that he employed dogmatism, arguments from authority, and personal aspersions to the end of bolstering his position. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Icex15 and User:Night of the Big Wind
- Icex15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Night of the Big Wind (talk · contribs)
I am in a dispute with Icex15 (talk · contribs). He is driving me nuts with his behaviour. He started yesterday with editing on WP, good enough to start immediately with an editwar and 24 hours block. Now he is back and haunting me over a rude remark (polite version: I told him to start using his brain) that was already removed by an admin. I gave him advice over how to sign his edits on talkpages (no effect), over the mentoring project (no effect) and to read the information in the welcoming template (plain refused). He is getting under my skin...
Effected pages:
- Revision history of Columbidae: 9 reverts, no discussion
- Revision history of User talk:Night of the Big Wind
- Revision history of User talk:Icex15
- User contributions ICex15
By now I get the idea that is a plain vandal or worse, a troll.
This goes straight out of hand, so I need your help/advice. Please! Night of the Big Wind (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I am also in a dispute with Night of the Big Wind (talk · contribs). I was only replying to a comment he made on my message that wasn't towards him. I was writing my message in my appealing block section explaining what happened to the people who review block appeals, and he kept the dispute going by leaving a message under it. He said to me use your F****ng brain which I found to be offensive he was basically called me stupid/idiot which was a personal attack which violates Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks, and Civility Codes, and he also told me to stop whining which I though was disrespectful as well.
He keeps telling me I need to follow the rules, but I think he needs to follow the rules as well. What he said was it doesn't matter if he breaks the rules, because he is an experienced editor. I am not going to listen to his advice on how to edit, because he was rude and disrespectful towards me. I might listen to another experienced Wikipedia editor who's civil, respectful, and polite on advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icex15 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 30 May 2011
- This appears to be about Columbidae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (I added the unsigned and this link to assist the discussion). Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ooops! I just noticed that this section is a result of the previous section (#User:Icex15). I suggest that no further discussion should take place here (instead, comments about both editors belong in the above section). Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Merged the two request. It is a symptom of the problem that this happened. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ooops! I just noticed that this section is a result of the previous section (#User:Icex15). I suggest that no further discussion should take place here (instead, comments about both editors belong in the above section). Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is an easy WQA case:
- Night of the Big Wind: Please do not use plain language because Wikipedia operates on the basis that there is good in all of us. Of course no one is a troll here, but when a comment is indistinguishable from that which might have been left by a troll, it is best to not respond.
- Icex15: This user appears to be incompatible with Wikipedia. First two edits: diff1, diff2. Remaining edits are to repeatedly post an undue and pointless comment diff3, and to ask users why the the undue and pointless comment was removed. Multiple editors have reverted the comment, and the user was blocked, and shows no signs of stopping. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Off2riorob
- Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- WIkipedia:Wikiquette alerts (edit | [[Talk:WIkipedia:Wikiquette alerts|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Wikipedia:BLP/N (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:BLP/N|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User repeatedly claims to be uninvolved in the User:Steven Walling issue on WQA, despite that being demonstrably not the case. User also refactored his own comments on BLPN in a way that altered the discussion's context, and responded to a request that he clarify which content was in place when, per WP:REDACT, with an accusation that I'm being pointy. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- And then he characterized my concern as "worthless." 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yawn. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's pretty much my point. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yawn. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I fear I do not see what precise violation of Wikiquette actually occurred here. Have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- How about adding an accusation that I "attacked" this user to a comment that I'd already responded to? It dramatically alters the context of my reply, and a user who simply reads the page has no idea that my response is not, in fact, intended to be responsive to that accusation. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I do appreciate the tea, though. ;-). 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Also - I dispute there is any violations worthy of report or dispute resolution in this report and I completely reject it and will not respond again. As such via my rejection this noticeboards value is degraded and anyone who considers the report valid is welcome to escalate the report. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)That really doesn't make sense -- your participation doesn't determine WQA's value. Regardless of that, this report is appears to be simply retaliatory and most unfounded. It does appear Off2riorob refactored his comment after someone replied, which isn't quite copacetic. Gerardw (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- This petty issue is a waste of precious time and anon has failed to make out claims of involvement, be it during this WQA or in the one filed yesterday (and it is becoming disruptive). Off2riorob, stop feeding the anon with excuses to end up involved in some silly dispute with you when you can just revert the amendment, or if you feel you must include it, make it as a separate sentence with a separate signature (in brackets or something if you want to include it in the same reply). Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
No problem with Wikiquette here. Move on. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 21:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- For posterity, I disagree. A tennet of WP:Wikiquette is "Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, Sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles)," which the user under discussion flagrantly failed to do. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Bullmoosebell
Bullmoosebell (talk · contribs)
There is a user named Bullmoosebell. Because he was the last who edited a page I asked him something to his talk page. Instead of telling me he cannot do it, he rudely deleted my comments. When I asked him to be more polite, he sent me a comment from which I understood he hadn't even understand what I was asking. Then I begged him to answer but he deleted me and didn't answer. Please do something to make him a)More polite and b)To understand what I ask. (I am user IP 178.128.75.48 but I changed today. I am the same person)--46.12.45.67 (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not read too much into what happened. Wikipedia is a very big place, and it is very likely that Bullmoosebell did not know what your comment (apparently this) referred to. Someone else who had more time might have replied and asked you what article you meant, and what you were suggesting, however on this occasion that did not occur. A user is entitled to remove (almost) any message from their talk page without explanation, and your message might have been quite puzzling, so the easiest course was to remove it. Repeating the message just gives an impression of unduly pressing some point, and you should not expect a volunteer editor to respond to some issue that you want raised. Next time, please put a new section at the article talk page. If you want to alert an active editor (although that should not be necessary if they are watching the article), you could post on the user's talk page with a link to the article talk. Example wikitext:
[[Talk:List of current United States Senators]]
which displays like this: Talk:List of current United States Senators. - In conclusion, unless you have something more specific to mention, I do not think there is an issue which needs consideration here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Jake Fuersturm
- Jake Fuersturm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Spock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User:Jake_Fuersturm (edit | [[Talk:User:Jake_Fuersturm|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jake Fuersturm initiated an edit war on May 28 over content that he added on May 22. I reverted one of his reverts to an earlier state that USER:MikeWazowski had done.
Jake repeatedly demonstrated issues of WP:OWN [45] [46] with the article. In addition Jake filed a bogus 3RR against me for two reverts when he had already had four reverts[47] in the article. Jake's argument was that the earlier revert MikeWazowski had should count against me for a 3RR violation. In the notes of the 3RR he filed against me a third party admin (Kuru) advised Jake against reverting further [48] which he followed. However, Jake has continued to make inflamatory and sometimes taunting remarks. Some hightlights include [49] [50] [51] [52] (many others are in his recent contribs). In the last example Jake claimed he was "having fun" when calling me sanctimonious.
Another bit of WP:POINT, other than from filing a 3RR against me when I had only two reverts, was when Jake started a discussion at WP:SPI about opening a socket puppet investigation on himself after I observed the coincidence of an anonymous editor with no previous edits in the article suddenly appearing to defend Jake. The discussion continued at SPI until another admin (Shirik) told him to "drop it". [53].
It should be noted that I offered WP:TEA to Jake twice [54] [55] in an attempt to reset the interaction between us. I also pointed out to Jake that Wikipedia is not a battleground, as he seemed to believe [56]. These jestures did not prove to be very successful.
Jake has been disrupting Wikipedia for a few days now, despite repeated warnings from at least two admins and two warnings against uncivil behavior from me. Jake's approach of making content changes and then edit warring over those changes once they're reverted appears to now be continuing here. His edit notes there are particularly pointed. Erikeltic (Talk) 20:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Given that I haven't posted an edit to the article in question in almost 72 hours is hardly being disruptive.
- I would contend that Erik's decision to F9 this image simply to make a point is what's disruptive -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is a Wikiquette alert. Your continuing disruptive behavior will speak for itself. Erikeltic (Talk) 20:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Erik, what did Mike say about Ad hominem attacks? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is a Wikiquette alert. Your continuing disruptive behavior will speak for itself. Erikeltic (Talk) 20:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I find this particularly disingenuous given Erik's own history with regard to Wikquette alerts, and the fact that he himself has been blocked twice in the past for edit warring, the most recent occurrence being a scant two weeks ago. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ad hominem attacks aren't warranted, Jake. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- "He did it too" is not excuse, not even for me. I learned my lesson, now you must learn yours. Erikeltic (Talk) 20:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Mike - would you agree that Erik's decision to bring this entirely unrelated edit into the Wikquette alert to be a an Ad hominem attack? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Given that the subject under consideration is your recent actions/poor attitude towards others who disagree with you, no, I do not. It has a direct bearing on the situation, whereas your comment was basically an attempt to deflect blame by making another editor look bad using an unrelated matter. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't exactly consider you to be an unbiased commenter here, all things considered. And this Wikquette alert relates to the Spock article, not to the America: The Story of Us article. Feel free to open another Wikquette alert for that one if you feel justified in doing do, but I think that would just be continuing the distuption. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Given that the subject under consideration is your recent actions/poor attitude towards others who disagree with you, no, I do not. It has a direct bearing on the situation, whereas your comment was basically an attempt to deflect blame by making another editor look bad using an unrelated matter. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Mike - would you agree that Erik's decision to bring this entirely unrelated edit into the Wikquette alert to be a an Ad hominem attack? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - What's disruptive is that Erik has insisted in posting this Wikquette alert when consensus was reached on the edit in question, but he insists on carrying the debate into another forum simply to further his point -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- You misunderstand Jake. It is your continued uncivil and disruptive behavior that has sparked this alert. Nothing else. Erikeltic (Talk) 20:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- What's disruptive was your insistence on continuing to post to my talk page just to beat a dead horse. And then continuing it here when I shut it down. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- That is in error. My last comment on your talk page was at 14:31. You archived it at 15:37. In between both of those events you made these comments [57] [58] and started yet another edit war. This was well after I attempted to be very civil with you. Clearly my attempt to offer you some tea failed. That is why we are here now. Erikeltic (Talk) 20:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)Erik, your continued posting on Jake's talk page wasn't wise or helpful. Generally, if an editor isn't reception to discussion on their talk page, you should just walk away. Gerardw (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I concede that you are correct, however, Jake never told me I could not continue the conversation on his talk page & seemed to invite continued discussion with his edits until the very end with the "last word". That was when I said okay and didn't comment on his talk page again. I had planned to drop it, but he made more uncivil comments (previously cited) and started another edit war. My last post to his talk page was to inform him to this alert. Erikeltic (Talk) 21:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Erik - you said yourself that "The discussion is over for me and I refuse to participate in any more finger pointing or needless escalations of a dead issue." [59]. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- The "wisdom" part is in grokking when it's time to leave before the editor makes an explicit request. Gerardw (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Since Erik insist's on bringing up non-Spock related issues, and overall editor behaviour, I would note that repeated user talk page posting is exactly what led to Erik last blocking -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with your continued poor behavior? Erikeltic (Talk) 21:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Don't forget that it takes two to tango. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with your continued poor behavior? Erikeltic (Talk) 21:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I concede that you are correct, however, Jake never told me I could not continue the conversation on his talk page & seemed to invite continued discussion with his edits until the very end with the "last word". That was when I said okay and didn't comment on his talk page again. I had planned to drop it, but he made more uncivil comments (previously cited) and started another edit war. My last post to his talk page was to inform him to this alert. Erikeltic (Talk) 21:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)Erik, your continued posting on Jake's talk page wasn't wise or helpful. Generally, if an editor isn't reception to discussion on their talk page, you should just walk away. Gerardw (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- That is in error. My last comment on your talk page was at 14:31. You archived it at 15:37. In between both of those events you made these comments [57] [58] and started yet another edit war. This was well after I attempted to be very civil with you. Clearly my attempt to offer you some tea failed. That is why we are here now. Erikeltic (Talk) 20:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- What's disruptive was your insistence on continuing to post to my talk page just to beat a dead horse. And then continuing it here when I shut it down. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was responding to a question posted by you. It would have been rude to ignore it. Unless it was a deliberate attempt to draw me back in? Hm? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- As as for another edit war - the edit war started with someone else (Mike)'s reversion of my edit - and last I checked it's one revert for me, and two for him. So who's edit warring? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's amazing how you can never percieve yourself to be in the wrong - which is exactly what's causing you problems. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's amazing how you and Erik can accuse me of that, but not see it in yourselves. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's amazing how you can never percieve yourself to be in the wrong - which is exactly what's causing you problems. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do you understand that when you add material to a Wiki page and it is reverted by another editor that you should go to the talk page and begin a discussion with the other editor, not just undo the revert? It's a pretty basic principle here. Do you understand that process? Undoing the revert and treating it like a race to see who ends up on top before the 3RR is counter productive to a group effort. Do you understand that? Erikeltic (Talk) 20:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- One revert for me, two for him. Case closed. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- And for the record, I did start a discussion [60] - probably not on the correct talk page, but it was a talk page nonetheless -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- No Jake, you had at least three, possibly four reverts as Kuru observed to you in the 3RR you filed. The link to that is above. Erikeltic (Talk) 21:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, so you mean the case where you insisted on posting a revert AFTER I'd already started the related talk page discussion? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- You really don't seem to "get it." When you make an edit (in this case the edit was on May 22) and another editor reverts your edit, it is not your duty to then undo the revert and restore the changes you made but you must discuss them on the talk page first. This has been your MO throughout and is what you are currently engaged in in the "America" article. Erikeltic (Talk) 21:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, so you mean the case where you insisted on posting a revert AFTER I'd already started the related talk page discussion? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- No Jake, you had at least three, possibly four reverts as Kuru observed to you in the 3RR you filed. The link to that is above. Erikeltic (Talk) 21:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do you understand that when you add material to a Wiki page and it is reverted by another editor that you should go to the talk page and begin a discussion with the other editor, not just undo the revert? It's a pretty basic principle here. Do you understand that process? Undoing the revert and treating it like a race to see who ends up on top before the 3RR is counter productive to a group effort. Do you understand that? Erikeltic (Talk) 20:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This [61] statement that Jake "enjoys sparring" and calling Erik "sanctimonious" isn't good. Jake, do you think you could dial it down a bit? Gerardw (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Gerard - with respect, that wouldn't have happened if he didn't decide to visit my talk page continuously to beat a dead horse -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Proposed resolution
Can we agree that Erik will stay off Jake's talk page, and Jake will refrain from making comments about Erik, and all go our separate ways? Gerardw (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I can live with that. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- If this includes Jake staying out of Trek-related articles, then I too can live with that. I have been involved with editing these articles long before Jake was an editor at Wikipedia. He clearly has issues with several of the "regular" editors on the Trek articles, so working with him in the future may prove difficult for anyone. Otherwise, it is my opinion that Jake's actions warrant an edit block for 24-72 hours minimum. Jake must also pledge to stop edit warring. Erikeltic (Talk) 21:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Erik, was this your intention all along? If you're going to insist that I refrain from editing Star Trek articles then I withdraw my earlier response to Gerard.
- I'm also not sure how Erik defines "regular" editor, when I've been a far more regular editor than both him AND Mike. I would note that from April 1, 2011 onwards, I added ~19K worth of material to Spock, whereas the last time either Mike or Erik (the "regular" editors) posted an edit to this article that wasn't a revert or a minor edit was July 2009. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, my intention was to engage you with respect and civility. My edits speak for me, as do yours. Erikeltic (Talk) 22:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- The attempt to CSD this file simply to make a point is hardly civil on your part -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, my intention was to engage you with respect and civility. My edits speak for me, as do yours. Erikeltic (Talk) 22:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- If this includes Jake staying out of Trek-related articles, then I too can live with that. I have been involved with editing these articles long before Jake was an editor at Wikipedia. He clearly has issues with several of the "regular" editors on the Trek articles, so working with him in the future may prove difficult for anyone. Otherwise, it is my opinion that Jake's actions warrant an edit block for 24-72 hours minimum. Jake must also pledge to stop edit warring. Erikeltic (Talk) 21:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would accept a temporary edit block if Erik is subject to one of the same duration. I believe that's customary in cases such as these. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have done absolutely nothing that warrants an edit block Jake. You on the other hand have. Don't attempt to deflect blame on to me and "drag me down with you" over your inability to conduct yourself properly. Erikeltic (Talk) 22:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- This wouldn't have continued as long as it had if you hadn't decided to drop by and continue the dispute on my talk page today. And for the record, that's the second time you've done that, the first bring on Sunday.
- The fact that you're also proposing a topic ban suggests to me that you've been acting in anything but good faith. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was on your talk page to try to reset with you, that's it. It was your continued uncivil behavior after that discussion ended that prompted this alert. You had clearly learned nothing and still haven't. I firmly believe you need to blocked from editing for at least 24 hours if not 72. Your continued behavior is disruptive. Your responses here have deflected your actions on to me and Mike and you clearly do not understand that Wikipedia or its policies. Erikeltic (Talk) 22:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I understand them just fine - you attempt to turn this into a full-blown topic ban demonstrates your lack of understanding (and judgment). -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Then take a 24 hour block all on your own, accept responsiblity for your actions, and never edit war again. Believe me, I don't want you to have a topic ban. In both of my attempts to reset with you I told you how I looked forward to working with you, and you continued to be uncivil and disruptive. Your so fond of pointing out my past blocks; why refuse to accept responsibility for your actions? Erikeltic (Talk) 22:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- FYI - I would point out that when someone truly comes along to bury the hatchet, then don't generally caveat their comments with a [62] critique of the person they trying to bury the hatchet with. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Then take a 24 hour block all on your own, accept responsiblity for your actions, and never edit war again. Believe me, I don't want you to have a topic ban. In both of my attempts to reset with you I told you how I looked forward to working with you, and you continued to be uncivil and disruptive. Your so fond of pointing out my past blocks; why refuse to accept responsibility for your actions? Erikeltic (Talk) 22:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I understand them just fine - you attempt to turn this into a full-blown topic ban demonstrates your lack of understanding (and judgment). -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was on your talk page to try to reset with you, that's it. It was your continued uncivil behavior after that discussion ended that prompted this alert. You had clearly learned nothing and still haven't. I firmly believe you need to blocked from editing for at least 24 hours if not 72. Your continued behavior is disruptive. Your responses here have deflected your actions on to me and Mike and you clearly do not understand that Wikipedia or its policies. Erikeltic (Talk) 22:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have done absolutely nothing that warrants an edit block Jake. You on the other hand have. Don't attempt to deflect blame on to me and "drag me down with you" over your inability to conduct yourself properly. Erikeltic (Talk) 22:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would accept a temporary edit block if Erik is subject to one of the same duration. I believe that's customary in cases such as these. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Erik: Why would a block be imposed on anyone? Jake just agreed to drop the personal attack-ish comments. Blocks are not punitive. Additionally the very top of this page states clearly avoid filing a report if you're looking to get someone blocked. Additionally your comments indicate WP:OWNERSHIP issues. I'm sorry, I can't help you.
Jake: despite Erik's lack of cooperation, I'll suggest you refrain from personal comments anyway. For one thing, it's Wikipedia policy. Additionally, if you run into future conflicts it provides the other editor with dirt to throw at you, confounding the underlying dispute/disagreement.
Both of you: you should talk edits out on the talk page without worrying about who reverted who last. If you can't come to an agreement, open an WP:RFC. Continued squabbling could result in an admin slapping full page protection on the article, and there's a chance they'll pick the wrong version to protect.Gerardw (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- You offered a solution, I responded. I only brought this alert in the hope that Jake would learn from this. Clearly he has not and will not. That's too bad. Erikeltic (Talk) 22:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- And I responded as well. Quickly and simply. It was only Erik that insisted on all the pre-conditions. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- How exactly can we go our "separate ways" when we work on the same articles? So basically if I agree and show up in Spock again, I'm in violation of the agreement? That's the only reason I said that; I've repeatedly tried to reset with you only to be taunted and treated without civility for my efforts. Again & again you shift blame for your actions on to others and bring up things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. Erikeltic (Talk) 22:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- And I point out again, except for minor edits and a handful of reversions, you haven't touched Spock in almost two years. So are we really working on the same articles? Or is this just more tendentiousness? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- You know, if you're going to try to deflect blame and state "facts" about other people, it would help is you actually knew what you were talking about. A simple search of his edit contributions shows that Erikeltic edited the Spock article multiple times in 2011 (February, March and May), and multiple times in 2010 (March, July, August, September, October). Please, look before you type next time. You're not doing yourself any favors. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Please, look before you type next time." I suggest you follow your advice. As I stated quite clearly, edits other than minor edits and a handful of reversions -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Mike, but it's pretty obvious at this point that Jake is either unwilling or unable to conduct himself properly and those that should care don't. He has already discredited himself in the eyes of his fellow editors and I suspect he is going to have a difficult time moving forward. It's a shame for him, but the continued debate is uttelry pointless. Here he is--in this latest response above--deflecting once again. Pity. Erikeltic (Talk) 22:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Erik - you're the one who asserted: "How exactly can we go our "separate ways" when we work on the same articles?". How is my direct response to that a deflection. What is a deflection however, is your continued attempts to impugn me rather than thinking on the proposal below. - Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- You know, if you're going to try to deflect blame and state "facts" about other people, it would help is you actually knew what you were talking about. A simple search of his edit contributions shows that Erikeltic edited the Spock article multiple times in 2011 (February, March and May), and multiple times in 2010 (March, July, August, September, October). Please, look before you type next time. You're not doing yourself any favors. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- And I point out again, except for minor edits and a handful of reversions, you haven't touched Spock in almost two years. So are we really working on the same articles? Or is this just more tendentiousness? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- How exactly can we go our "separate ways" when we work on the same articles? So basically if I agree and show up in Spock again, I'm in violation of the agreement? That's the only reason I said that; I've repeatedly tried to reset with you only to be taunted and treated without civility for my efforts. Again & again you shift blame for your actions on to others and bring up things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. Erikeltic (Talk) 22:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- And I responded as well. Quickly and simply. It was only Erik that insisted on all the pre-conditions. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Great, now I can add wikihounding to the list of Jake's recent behavior. [63] I asked an admin a simple, non-binding question and Jake takes that as an invite to start up on the admin's talk page? Seriously? And he is the same person feigning injury for an so-called unwanted discussion (so-calle after the fact) on his own talk page? There is simply no end to it. Erikeltic (Talk) 23:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's interesting, because I've similarly caught Erik snooping my edits. Furthermore, I shouldn't have to remind Erik that Wikipedia edits are open to all to see, and for good reason. Although Erik attempts to spin it otherwise, all he is doing is tantamount to canvassing. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Proposal, part deux
How about this:
- any time either of us (Erik or Jake) reverts (and let's be clear - this isn't just hitting the "undo" button) a Star Trek universe related edit made by the other, and the original editor objects, we go to discussion with a 1:1 revert count (i.e. the article goes back to status quo prior to the first revert). And we agree not to do anything about that until a consensus is reached on the article talk page.
- we also refrain from posting any other Star Trek edit (talk page edits excepted, for obvious reasons) while this discussion is ongoing, to prevent any instances of WP:POINT (whether real or perceived).
-- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Now, do we need to include Mike on this, given that the two of you seem to have been allied in the Spock dispute with me? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've not allied with anyone. Quit trying to present yourself as the blameless persecuted one - it's not working. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Really? Other than Gerardw (neutral third party) you're the only two posting opposite me here. You're also the only two who posted on the deletion of the Kogan/Young Spock picture (until SarekofVulcan posted his opinion this afternoon). And you're the only two to post reversions on the Texas Supreme Court quotation that started all this. What am I to think? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Uninvolved editor hereThis proposal seems quite fair and reasonable in my honest opinion. I would request all three of ya'all quit letting personal opinions of each other influence your remarks and making accusations and simply adopt or reject the proposal.--v/r - TP 00:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Would it also require Jake to stop wikihounding me and starting edit wars over material he includes that other editors find objectionable? Jake has stated (quoted above) that basically reverts are a race to whoever gets to 3RR first, so in this compromise he'd just revert back to whatever version he felt to include without any need for consensus. (period). Erikeltic (Talk) 00:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Uninvolved editor hereThis proposal seems quite fair and reasonable in my honest opinion. I would request all three of ya'all quit letting personal opinions of each other influence your remarks and making accusations and simply adopt or reject the proposal.--v/r - TP 00:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Really? Other than Gerardw (neutral third party) you're the only two posting opposite me here. You're also the only two who posted on the deletion of the Kogan/Young Spock picture (until SarekofVulcan posted his opinion this afternoon). And you're the only two to post reversions on the Texas Supreme Court quotation that started all this. What am I to think? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've not allied with anyone. Quit trying to present yourself as the blameless persecuted one - it's not working. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Now, do we need to include Mike on this, given that the two of you seem to have been allied in the Spock dispute with me? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Dave3457
- Dave3457 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Femininity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am having a dispute with Dave3457 at the article Femininity. The tone of this dispute has been very uncivil, in my opinion, from the beginning. There's really no progress being made and any help would be really appreciated. I really just want to discuss the specific changes and reliable sources, but Dave3457 has been accusing me of a lot of negative motivations which I disagree with and I find unfair. Even if I do have some biases (I'm not going to say that I am a 100% neutral person, I doubt anyone is) I think the only useful thing is to discuss the actual changes and sources and not the other editor. I've tried being friendly and pointing out AGF, I've tried being firm, and I've also advertised this dispute at some Wikiprojects and the NPOV noticeboard. Below are some examples. Thanks. 12345Aronoel (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any obvious Wikiquette issues here. It's clearly a content dispute, and Dave3457 patiently explains and supports evidence that suggests you are editing with a bit too much of an agenda. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I honestly don't believe I have an agenda. How should I move forward? --Aronoel (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe a WP:THIRD opinion would convince you otherwise. This is really a content-dispute. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Both Dave and Aronoel seem to be editing in good faith. They just happen to be presenting two different, but valid sides of an issue. I think the discussion would benefit from a de-escalation of bad-faith accusations and more effort to keep the discussion at a respectful and collaborative tone. I would encourage Dave to refrain from the "agenda" rhetoric, and especially refrain from insulting Aronoel with comments about his/her edits being "absolutely laughable", etc. The debate should be focused on the quality of the sources, not on personal accusations about "agendas". Everyone has opinions and those opinions affect what people contribute to Wikipedia. As long as people are adhering to Wikipedia policy, that's usually OK. In other words, debate the content (and sources), not the editor. Kaldari (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe a WP:THIRD opinion would convince you otherwise. This is really a content-dispute. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I honestly don't believe I have an agenda. How should I move forward? --Aronoel (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Could anyone comment further about my behavior in this dispute? For example, how I should have handled it differently, or how I should respond to accusations that I have an agenda? --Aronoel (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Should have not edit warred. Should have not replying to Dave's explanations with more questions and "I don't understand"s. Should have gone WP:THRID or WP:RFC when it became clear your were unlikely to agree between yourselves. Gerardw (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)