→Discussion: troll |
|||
Line 280: | Line 280: | ||
::I'm going to vote that Cerejota was using sarcasm.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 20:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
::I'm going to vote that Cerejota was using sarcasm.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 20:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::Undoubtedly. If Cerejota is worried about wikiquette, then perhaps he should be more careful how he replies to other users. This reply for example seems far from optimal.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_September_9&diff=449407790&oldid=449401436] [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 21:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
::::Undoubtedly. If Cerejota is worried about wikiquette, then perhaps he should be more careful how he replies to other users. This reply for example seems far from optimal.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_September_9&diff=449407790&oldid=449401436] [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 21:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::Perhaps, but if you are going to question what is being said, you should both pay attention (ie the "12 years old" comment was originated by S Marshall, I was just responding to it) and be more careful with your diffs (the one you say directs to a userbox change directs to something that is not even my edit!). In other words, if you want me to pay attention and learn from your criticism, make sure this criticism is carefully considered and not so obviously a troll.--[[User:Cerejota|Cerejota]] ([[User_talk:Cerejota#top|talk]]) 22:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::BTW, BusterD just went to ANI, way to resolve conflicts and not add to the fire...--[[User:Cerejota|Cerejota]] ([[User_talk:Cerejota#top|talk]]) 20:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
:::BTW, BusterD just went to ANI, way to resolve conflicts and not add to the fire...--[[User:Cerejota|Cerejota]] ([[User_talk:Cerejota#top|talk]]) 20:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::Cerejota you are now using the same style of confrontation that put you in this spot to start with. Please take it a bit more easy when you respond to comments. I beg you.--[[User:BabbaQ|BabbaQ]] ([[User talk:BabbaQ|talk]]) 20:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
::::Cerejota you are now using the same style of confrontation that put you in this spot to start with. Please take it a bit more easy when you respond to comments. I beg you.--[[User:BabbaQ|BabbaQ]] ([[User talk:BabbaQ|talk]]) 20:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:29, 10 September 2011
Welcome to wikiquette assistance | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
|
Active discussions
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- J3mm0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julien Modica (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julien Modica|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Normally I'd just brush this off, but I have a feeling this will only continue. Could somebody tell her that threats and other "niceties" are on the inappropriate side. I don't think I should say something about her conduct as it will only agitate her.
On the bright side, "Some very, very unkind things were said about you at my dinner table this evening. Bgwhite, Shape-up or Ship-out." will go on my awards board. Still won't top an email sent to me and other people on an AfD discussion saying, "I'm Jewish and don't believe in hell. After this atrocity, I now believe and you are all going to hell." Bgwhite (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
User Samaleks
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Samaleks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Thiruvananthapuram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Editor Samaleks has used a vulgar and uncivil phrase in the edit summary while reverting an edit of mine. He also alluded that I am a less capable editor than others. I tried to engage him in his [[1]] page. He made arrogant and defiant remarks even there.
He had been behaving hostile, often making deriding and malicious comments. He not only does not assume good faith, but also always assumes malice. In his latest edit summary [[2]], he alludes suspicion about a screen shot of a page provided for the benefit of an editor whose browser did not display the original page. Previously, he had alleged doubt about an RTI report I used as reference.
Reviewing his recent edit history shows that he had done only such malicious edits. This editor does not add value to Wikipedia. He only adds malice.
DileepKS(talk) 05:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- You need to provide diffs and notify the other party as per the instruction at the top of this page. However, after a casual glance at what little information you have provided I am far from convinced that Samaleks has anything to answer for. You might best be advised to cool down, take a large dose of WP:AGF and withdraw this complaint. If you wish to continue, it is only fair to advise you that your behaviour will also be under review. - Nick Thorne talk 11:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I see that the verdict has already been already reached, so I don't see the need to proceed further on this request. The request stands withdrawn.
Thank you for (indirectly) confirming that a statement such as aana thoorunnathu kandu aadu thooraruthu. (a goat shall not shit copying an elephant shitting) is acceptable on Wikipedia. I also take that the implied meaning there that some editors are more capable (and entitled more credibility) than others. Both are real revelations. I hope you wouldn't mind quoting another proverb veettil kaaranavarkku kalaththilum thooraam (the head of the house is entitled to shit in the cooking pot) and using it elsewhere if needed.
It is my understanding that everyone's behaviour is under constant review here, so you are welcome to review mine. I am sure you would use the same yardsticks across.
DileepKS(talk) 06:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Strausszek
- Strausszek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Strausszek wrote to me that "You really, and I mean really, need a course in logic or scientific method." He then compared my level of understanding to his unfavorable measure of the group of editors who prevent the Sarah Palin article from hosting controversy.
Strausszek next said that I am not "known for having a grip about sources in a critical way", followed by "Honestly, you deserve to have people speaking over your head; how else can we get some clarity here?". I removed this ad hominem talk page post per WP:NPA. He returned most of the post, repeating that I have not been known for having a "grip about sources in a critical way" followed by an indirect allegation that I was among the bottom few editors who would need to have a certain comparison pointed out to them.
My reputation on Wikipedia is important to me. It does not need this kind of insult and innuendo. On talk pages, I argue the issues carefully and logically, weighing evidence as neutrally as possible. I don't try to paint my debate opponents as mentally unfit, and I don't wish to answer continued ad hominem attacks from Strausszek. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Those are not personal attacks as per WP:NPA - not every ad hominem argument is a personal attack - however you are correct we should avoid ad hominem arguments as much as possible. More worryingly, your templating the user with a high-level warning template against personal attacks usually reserved to repeated/escalating situations in which an uninvolved editor/admin steps in, seems to be an attempt not to resolve the situation but to escalate it. Another editor called your attention to this fact, an Straussek's reply was civil and appropriate. Since Straussek seems to be willing to talk, I suggest you try to resolve the matter between each other, and if this is not possible, try to avoid personal interaction as much as possible and that both of you focus more on the content than on each other. --Cerejota (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I see your point about the high level warning. I selected that one from a Twinkle menu as it appeared to be the only one available for personal attacks. I will see whether I can work with Strausszek on content issues while we avoid getting personal. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Those turns of phrase happened after several days of discussion about how heavily the article used a source whose author (Frances Kissling) and editor (Rosemary Radford Ruether) had personally been involved at the very centre of the events they described. User Cloonmore, myself and others had pointed out that the source was anything but neutral and non-biased and therefore had to be utilized with caution, and that effectively it was a primary source or very close to it (primary sources not being allowed). Binksternet has been quite unwilling to address this, but has kept repeating his view that because the book was issued by the University of Indiana, it is by default RS and everything in it is as good as a biblical injunction unless it can be challenged via the words of another source classed as RS. My simile with Niels Bohr joking that the moon was made of green cheese as a supposed "proof till further notice" was a way to highlight this uncritical handling of obvious weaknesses in the single most used source for the article.Strausszek (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- First, I appreciate both of you are willing to talk to each other and in this forum about this topic in a spirit of resolution. Binksternet admission that the high-level template is problematic is to be well taken, because a willingness to examine one own's behavior is a positive thing. I understand, reading the discussion, that this is a problem of trying to explain the same concept constantly. I have some experience on these kind of discussion, not all of it positive, but when it has been positive, usually it is because both sides recognize that there is an impasse, and seek ways to achieve consensus. In this case, I suggest that you seek comment from un-involved editors at WP:RS/N - be careful not to repeat your controversy there, and try to allow other voices to weight in. Binksternet, I know you are concerned with your reputation in wikipedia etc, but rest assured, if there was anything said, it was very low level compared to what truly awful editors do - so I can tell you, unequivocally, that the opinion of other editors about your behavior will not be colored by what other editors say about it, but what it actually is. So at best, try to brush aside any ad hominem arguments, if possible even ignore them and simply state your point. If you do not understand a point, or if you want clarification, simply ask for it. Assuming good faith tells us that usually, when one thinks the other editor is insulting us, that is not the case and all is just a misunderstanding. Of course, sometimes they are insulting you, if that is the case, usually asking they stop is enough, and if that doesn't work, then go to WQA or ANI. A good principle to think of, is that often discussions need to end, and a good signal is when one is making the same argument many times or when the argument is no longer about content or people. I am not making a specific adjudication - I am just trying to bring to both of your attention tools that might help both of you continue to improve the encyclopedia without so much friction. --Cerejota (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Those turns of phrase happened after several days of discussion about how heavily the article used a source whose author (Frances Kissling) and editor (Rosemary Radford Ruether) had personally been involved at the very centre of the events they described. User Cloonmore, myself and others had pointed out that the source was anything but neutral and non-biased and therefore had to be utilized with caution, and that effectively it was a primary source or very close to it (primary sources not being allowed). Binksternet has been quite unwilling to address this, but has kept repeating his view that because the book was issued by the University of Indiana, it is by default RS and everything in it is as good as a biblical injunction unless it can be challenged via the words of another source classed as RS. My simile with Niels Bohr joking that the moon was made of green cheese as a supposed "proof till further notice" was a way to highlight this uncritical handling of obvious weaknesses in the single most used source for the article.Strausszek (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I see your point about the high level warning. I selected that one from a Twinkle menu as it appeared to be the only one available for personal attacks. I will see whether I can work with Strausszek on content issues while we avoid getting personal. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm an involved editor in the very discussion that apparently gave rise to this RfA. A significant problem is that, contrary to Binksternet's assertion above that he weighs evidence as neutrally as possible, on abortion-related articles Binksternet is very often intransigent and positional. The discussion at issue on the article's Talk page is a good example. I dropped out of it for a few days because Binksternet was not engaging in genuine dialogue but issuing pronouncements such as that his edit "stands" and that if I had an issue with it I could take it to the noticeboards. That is not neutral, cooperative, constructive engagement; it's obstruction and a technique to try to wear down other editors rather than engage in true dialogue.
Binksternet also takes a very expansive view of what he considers a "personal attack" on him, and as a result he wrongly removes comments from the article's Talk page, as he did with one of my earlier comments on the same subject. When I asked him on his own Talk page what was the "personal attack" that would allow him to remove another editor's comments, he did not respond. This again leads me to conclude that Binksternet uses comment removal as supposed WP:WPA violations as another technique to intimidate and wear down other editors. His behavior is the problem. Cloonmore (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- First the light stuff, this is WQA (Wikiquette alert), not RfA (Request for adminship) :) Now, the harder stuff, can you please provide diffs for any allegations? To address the one you did provide a diff for, I will wait for a response from Binksternet too, but the appropriate policy is WP:TPO and certainly the reversion you showed didn't meet that guideline. In general, WP:EW does apply to talk pages, so if you feel a reversion is incorrect, simply restore it and if reverted again, seek admin intervention. However, be absolutely sure your comment was not a personal attack or otherwise compliant with WP:TPO. Also a reminder that we deal with civility issues here, other issues should be reported at WP:ANI and content issues in the different approapiate noticeboards. You can also seek informal mediation. Please see WP:DR for options and for the dispute resolution pyramid.--Cerejota (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I echo Cloonmore's view. I have been in various disputes with Binksternet at Susan B. Anthony List for months. We managed to work together okay for awhile but he has become increasingly combative and unwilling to compromise. He too often acts like his view is the only reasonable view, as he has done here with Strausszek and Cloonmore. Strausszek/Cloonmore aren't innocent, but they have been antagonized by Binksternet; Binksternet is the problem here. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- OK, diffs please. WQA is not for all disputes (you can see a list of the different boards at WP:DR) here we try to handle civility issues - and so far I am not seeing anything except the stuff on talk page reversion and the already addressed issue on the use of high-level templates. So ar ethere diffs showing incivility? All other issues shouldn't be handled here. --Cerejota (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have any WQA problems with NYyankees51, only COI and NPOV concerns. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- OK, diffs please. WQA is not for all disputes (you can see a list of the different boards at WP:DR) here we try to handle civility issues - and so far I am not seeing anything except the stuff on talk page reversion and the already addressed issue on the use of high-level templates. So ar ethere diffs showing incivility? All other issues shouldn't be handled here. --Cerejota (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Cerejota, here's a diff taken one edit before the one Cloonmore chose to show you, in which you can see the Cloonmore edit summary "Binky's burden". I do not tolerate the nickname Binky as it is an American brand name of a baby's pacifier, and the use of that nickname demeans the target: me. On the other hand, I don't mind in the least when other editors call me Bink or Binks. When Cloonmore reverted my removal, the demeaning edit summary was not repeated, so I was okay with that. I did not respond to Cloonmore on my talk page because I did not feel I could at the time compose a calming response, one that "pacified" the involved parties, as it were. I also wished to minimize my exposure to the hated nickname, to minimize the delight some of my longterm debate opponents might feel in discovering a word that makes me go ballistic. Too bad I was not able to quiet the conflict at my talk page where a much smaller audience would have noticed. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well you need to grow a thicker hide. That you have a problem with being called Binky is entirely your problem and unless you can demonstrate that an editor has used it after you have specifically told him or her that you find it objectionable then I'm afraid that editor has no case to answer WRT civility. However, what is objectionable is you deleting another editors comments on a talk page. That is a cardinal sin in my book and you deserve to be sanctioned for it unless you can come up with an altogether better explanation for the removal than you have so far. - Nick Thorne talk 10:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- I echo Cloonmore's view. I have been in various disputes with Binksternet at Susan B. Anthony List for months. We managed to work together okay for awhile but he has become increasingly combative and unwilling to compromise. He too often acts like his view is the only reasonable view, as he has done here with Strausszek and Cloonmore. Strausszek/Cloonmore aren't innocent, but they have been antagonized by Binksternet; Binksternet is the problem here. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Whie I wouldn't word it as harshly, Nick is mostly correct. The reversions are blockable offenses. However, they are not recent enough to merit any sanctions. Binksternet, please carefully read and understand WP:BOOMERANG. No one so far has commented against the general opinion that your behavior has been less than stellar.--Cerejota (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- User:NYyankees51 was slightly uncivil at Binksternet's talk pagediff, after Binksternet made a good faith request to move the conversation on content away from the talk page. Binksternet might have issues, but this is not a license to stomp on them.--Cerejota (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- You think that's uncivil? I again give you Binksternet, retorting to my direction that he move a substantive editing complaint to the article's Talk page. Cloonmore (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is clear all of the involved should focus on the content, not the editors, and that talk page snipping like this is not a positive thing. Two wrongs never make one right. Ever. --Cerejota (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Cerejota, I did not offer the diff to suggest that two wrongs make a right; they don't. However, I disagree with your blanket assertion that "all" of the involved have been uncivil. Indeed, some have, and Binks most egregiously, as demonstrated by the diffs. Cloonmore (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that is your view, but I am giving you mine as a wholly uninterested party. And the diff you provided is less uncivil than what I saw at Binkternet's page: the diff you provide is an explanation as to why the approach was made - almost apologetic, what I saw at Binkternet's was a refusal to accept the request to talk in a more appropriate place. You all need to recognize your part on the dynamic and adjust accordingly.--Cerejota (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- You consider Binkster's edit sum, "It was about you, not the article", coupled with his retort, "The problem was your unthinking revert", to be less uncivil and "almost apologetic"?? Maybe you should read it again in full context. He raised substantative editing issues, and I responded that the issue was "your changes" (i.e., the content not the editor). Binkster OTOH emphatically and defiantly made it about me after I told him to move it to the article's talk page. I thought that kind of conduct is exactly what is condemned. Cloonmore (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- I said everyone needed to focus on the content and not the user, that includes Binkternet. I am simply trying to draw attention to the fact that in this case, the personalistic focus is clearly not Binkternet's alone, and that part of fixing this dynamic requires a recognition that this behavior is not Binkternet's alone, and to modify behavior equally. I know you are not NYyankees51, but in Binkternet's mind, I could see how he could see you as essentially the same. So if one of you refuses to discuss something in the talk page, and then another tries to discuss in user talk, it feels dishonest. Put yourself in Binkternet's shoes - how would you feel? All of you seem to be acting in good faith, and as such you should work together - in spite of different views - to develop consensus. Am giving you some tips about how to move forward. You can ignore this advice, but I think it is sound advice.--Cerejota (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not seeing how my question was uncivil...? NYyankees51 (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- You consider Binkster's edit sum, "It was about you, not the article", coupled with his retort, "The problem was your unthinking revert", to be less uncivil and "almost apologetic"?? Maybe you should read it again in full context. He raised substantative editing issues, and I responded that the issue was "your changes" (i.e., the content not the editor). Binkster OTOH emphatically and defiantly made it about me after I told him to move it to the article's talk page. I thought that kind of conduct is exactly what is condemned. Cloonmore (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that is your view, but I am giving you mine as a wholly uninterested party. And the diff you provided is less uncivil than what I saw at Binkternet's page: the diff you provide is an explanation as to why the approach was made - almost apologetic, what I saw at Binkternet's was a refusal to accept the request to talk in a more appropriate place. You all need to recognize your part on the dynamic and adjust accordingly.--Cerejota (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Cerejota, I did not offer the diff to suggest that two wrongs make a right; they don't. However, I disagree with your blanket assertion that "all" of the involved have been uncivil. Indeed, some have, and Binks most egregiously, as demonstrated by the diffs. Cloonmore (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is clear all of the involved should focus on the content, not the editors, and that talk page snipping like this is not a positive thing. Two wrongs never make one right. Ever. --Cerejota (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- You think that's uncivil? I again give you Binksternet, retorting to my direction that he move a substantive editing complaint to the article's Talk page. Cloonmore (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- The original one wasn't, the response to a sensible request to talk elsewhere was, because you focused on the editor and not the content in a combative way.--Cerejota (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- It wasn't meant that way. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have no reason to believe otherwise - but I have no reason to believe Brinkternet doesn't mean to be uncivil when he appears to be uncivil. That is why we assume good faith, you see my point?--Cerejota (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Uh, no. I have plenty reason to believe that Bink means to be uncivil. How else to take removals of other editors' talk page comments without warrant, refusing to discuss said removals and other poor behavior? The corollary of assuming good faith is demonstrating good faith. (And, btw, assuming two different editors to be "essentially the same" and "feeling" that they're "dishonest" ain't AGF by a longshot.) Thanks for your personal thoughts, Cerejota. You've quite clearly confirmed for me that WQA isn't the place to address this. Cloonmore (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have no reason to believe otherwise - but I have no reason to believe Brinkternet doesn't mean to be uncivil when he appears to be uncivil. That is why we assume good faith, you see my point?--Cerejota (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- It wasn't meant that way. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- The original one wasn't, the response to a sensible request to talk elsewhere was, because you focused on the editor and not the content in a combative way.--Cerejota (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt you would have gotten a different answer elsewhere. The poor behavior you mention has indeed been addressed directly, however, poor behavior is not incivility, and poor behavior doesn't warrant incivility back, and certainly doesn't warrant stopping to assume good faith. WQA does work, what happens is that you don't always get what you want.--Cerejota (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, I did not mean to be uncivil. I simply removed a post you made under the edit summary "Binky's burden" which I saw as an attack. Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- That wasn't an attack, while "binky" might be offensive to you for reasons you stated, other people might not find it offensive, and the burden part is policy: WP:BURDEN. Again, just because you are offended, it doesn't give you or anyone the right to refactor other's comments, and furthermore, "edit summaries" can only be hidden by admins, so even if you revert the text, you are not reverting the edit summary. As told above, please read WP:TPG, in particular were it specifies that reversions for personal attacks are to be done only in extreme cases. Even if we consider the comment you reversed as personal attack, it was not a extreme form warranting reversal.--Cerejota (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hoising (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Template:South China AA squad (edit | [[Talk:Template:South China AA squad|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ? (not sure)
On 17 July 2011, User:Hoising wrote on my talk page and saying that "好心你一出黎就唔好del哂D"  ;"啦。冇咗佢一個球員個名斷開2行,仲話佢唔重要。" (in English: Don't remove all "  ;" when you come back to Wikipedia, please! Without this ( ), the name of the players will be broken in two lines. Unexpectedly you said that it is not important). First, I have not said that it is not important but said it is not necessary. It is because without "& ", there is not line break within the player name in the template now. Second, I have quitted from Wikipedia on 17 June (known by Hoising) and did not make any edit between 17 June and 17 July. His latest comment on my talk page is read by me today.
I am not actually requesting to block him or give him any warning. However I am really tired of being a editor of Wikipedia and talking with User:Hoising. I am writing to explain the conflict between me and him and express my view. Hoping all of you may give some comments to me and him but I will not edit anymore.
After the incident about the article "James Ha" between me and him in February 2011 (We both were banned), he seems very angry and becomeing unkindly when we had different ideas on editing. In June 2011, we have different ideas on how to name Hong Kong Football Club in short form. We have talked about this in Chinese. I want to use "HKFC" while he want to use "Hong Kong FC". Although I have tried to explain why I use "HKFC" (it is officially used and commonly used), he said that "Hong Kong FC" (not officially used) is already a short form of the club, and told me to respect the fact with uncivilized manner. I have tried to provide sources of why using HKFC, including but not only the result numbers of Google, but he did not accept. I want to have and keep a good relations between me and Hoising. However, he has already used unkindly wording in the early stage of the talk. In the end, I decide to give up editing Wikipedia. Therefore after 17 June 2011, I have not done any edits on Wikipedia.
On 17 July 2011, which is one month after I have decided to leave Wikipedia, he wrote on my talk page and said the thing I have typed in the first paragraph of this section. I do not know why, and his words also seems unfriendly to me this time. I have not checked my talk page until today. It is really difficult to understand that he said these to me after one month I have qutited.
I write this not because of requesting to block him, but I hope he can finally become friendly to all Wikipedians. He usually seems unfriendly to others who have different ideas that he cannot accept.
- --FootballHK (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
False sock puppetry accusations.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Good afternoon! I am here to report User:Hobartimus. He insists insists to revert me on the grounds that I would be the sockpuppet of a banned user. It is a false accusation, and the on-going SPI case did not reach any conclusion yet, so his actions are rush. Can you please assist me in this problem? (Keeeeper (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC))
- You know about the SPI but didn't respond there before you came here. There is a section for your reply on that SPI report, and you should use it. Doc talk 11:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Niteshift36
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, user Niteshift36 has been seriously bothering me. He posted this to my user page:
Violeta, what "sounds like a ghetto" to you doesn't matter. The source doesn't call it a "ghetto" and your assessment of it as one is WP:OR. Similarly, your assessment of the city ordinances is WP:SYNTH. I will be posting this dispute in the Georgia Wikiproject to get more input. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
YOU are calling it a ghetto, not "facts". YOU are calling it a "red light district", without any reliable source saying it (save a 70 year old reference that was discussiong new military traffic that no longer exists there). Your say so means nothing. Find actual reliable sources that say these things. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to presume that you haven't read WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Otherwise, if you have read them, you don't understand them. Find actual reliable sources that say these things. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It's very simple. If a reliable source didn't say it, you can't make that conclusion. That ordinance proves nothing, other that IF there was a business that was deemed sexually oriented, it would have to go there. That does not state that a) there are or b) it magically becomes a "red light district". Similarly, just because an area is economically disadvantaged, doesn't make it a "ghetto". You ask me what city will call it a ghetto.......that should tell you something. It's offensive sweetheart! Just like calling overweight people "fatass" or calling a mentally handicapped person a "retard". You know what? If you're not going to bother actually reading the applicable policies, there is no reason to try to discuss it further with you. Show a reliable source that says it or show a policy that allows you to make up these conclusions. Even better, take 2 minutes and read the essay WP:TRUTH. You might find it enlightening. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Violeta123321&oldid=448805785 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Violeta123321&oldid=448811545 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Violeta123321&oldid=448811590 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Violeta123321&oldid=448848304 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Violeta123321&oldid=448849356 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Violeta123321&oldid=448850724
[edit] I was editing a section of the article Albany, Georgia when he undid my edits. I tried to re-edit it adding relevant sources. He claimed that they were not relevant, so I sourced more. The whole dispute was about if East Albany, Georgia was a ghetto or not; and if Slappy Blvd. was considered the 'red light district'. Honestly, from living in Albany my whole life...I know these things. I found a PDF showing that East Albany residents are way below the poverty level and the area is always been used to keep poor blacks out of the city. Also a city ordinance states that sexually oriented services can only be rendered in said area. By all definition these are a red light district and a ghetto. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck right? All this is really beside the point though. He accused me of OR. Which I will be the first to admit nowhere do the PDFs quote the area as being a 'ghetto' or 'red light district' I myself wasn't saying that they were concrete areas designated by the city, simply naming the areas with what they were defined as. He went on to add an article that I'm working on List of subdivisions in Albany, Georgia to a deletion list. Out of spite I suppose. I usually try to work these things out. And have had much luck. I always believe that kindness it the best policy. I have worked out many disputes on my own. But I filed this when he made his last comment. It's almost as if he is accusing me of being 'racist' or something. I was simply blown away by that. Nowhere did I say a ghetto or a red light district was a BAD thing. I myself live in an impoverished area. I read all of his policies, but again I'm simply calling the area for what it is. No other part of our city is like this. After calling my edits silly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albany,_Georgia&action=history) and hearing that my edits don't matter I just gave up the reasoning. Yes, I am new...but I don't deserve to be insulted. I've had enough of that in my life already, I don't need it on Wikipedia. This has upset me terribly and I hope to resolve this. It seems that other users have had problems with him as well. Any further discussion will result in harassment I'm afraid. --Violeta123321 (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Violeta failed to notify me of the discussion, but I found it anyway. I really don't think I even need to defend myself. I've repeatedly suggested that she read WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and even WP:TRUTH and apparently she hasn't read them. She says "By all definition these are a red light district and a ghetto. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck right?" and that tells us where the problem starts. It should also be noted that another experienced editor has made similar related removals. It should also be noted that earlier I posted to the Wikiproject for Georgia to solicit further input from other editors. Meanwhile, there is a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IKNOWIT from Violeta. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
trying to avoid an edit war
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Bugboy52.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Insect morphology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am trying to avoid an edit war. A professional university entomologist, who does not edit wikis, contacted me about a paragraph in the lede to the article Insect morphology, pointing out that it was unsourced and misleading, so I removed the para for that reason. 4 days later, User:Bugboy52.40 reverted my edit without explanation. I requested on his/her talk page that he/she undoes this revert, but nothing as yet, and they don't seem to be active here all that often. So, my question is this: what can I do to remove a bad paragraph without risking an edit war, and without waiting until if and when some other editor wanders back here?? I reiterate that the para is unsourced, violates NPOV, and makes some misleading/false claims (i.e., paucity of fossil record???) ... it needs to go, thanks ... Stho002 (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I would suggest trying to use more neutral language in your edit summaries and on talk pages, and I think it would be a good idea to bring it up on the article's talk page and ask for other editors to comment. Unless a source for the material you deleted can be found, deletion is appropriate, but the cycle is BRD, so it seem time for some discussion, at least to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Bugboy52.40 has not made a single edit since you contacted him about the reverts. He does not seem to edit too frequently/everyday. Also, this is not something for this noticeboard. This noticeboard is for events where you feel like you've been treated inappropriately/uncivilly. Nothing like that has happened here. either way (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that my edit was justified, since the paragraph was unsourced. The revert by Bugboy52.40 was not justified. I don't want to risk an edit war, so I'm not going to revert it. An edit justified by policy (i.e., mine) should not be reverted. There is no need to ask for comments/discussion ... goodness knows how long, if ever, it would take for anyone to even notice. An unsourced and misleading para should just be able to be deleted for that reason. I am asking that an admin do it, so that I don't risk 3rr. Stho002 (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, but I can take care of it, although the outcome may not be what you desire. Please understand we're not in a rush, and you can always ask for others' opinions at other venues. There's no real dispute here (yet), as Either way notes. But good practice is to initiate discussion on the article's talk page, and I think that's the best way to avoid edit wars. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
User:RPSM
- RPSM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- User talk:Sjö (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Sjö|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't want RPSM to contact me. I've tried to make that clear to him on my talk page, but he keeps writing there.
Some background: RPSM, I and several other editors have been involved in a dispute concerning sv:Skäktning (Shechita) and editing style. This ultimately led to RPSM being permanently blocked on the Swedish Wikipedia. I took this personally and I have avoided contacting RPSM. In August I was informed that RPSM wanted to apologize, and I wrote at his talk page that I accepted his apology. That doesn't mean that I want to continue the contact. I would appreciate it if someone would inform RPSM that what he is doing is not OK (provided you think that he does step over the line). BTW:regarding his last edit on my user page: I am not sv:User:Stigdaniel. Sjö (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
To clarify: When RPSM writes "On the 8th April 2011 you were asking me" (my bold) and gives a link to edits by one Stigdaniel I can only read that as an accusation of sockpuppetry.Sjö (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- I do not see further contact after you made the request for no contact, or am I missing something?--Cerejota (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- I made this Wikiquette request after RPSM's edit at 09:44, but before my edit at 16:44. Hopefully RPSM will just let me be now, but I have my doubts about that. What is your opinion on the accusation of sockpuppetry?Sjö (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Your allegations on sockpuppetry cannot be handled here, the appropiate place would be WP:SPI. However, I recommend you wait until this WQA thread is closed before going there, as per WP:FORUMSHOP. I have no opinion on the matter, but claiming this without out good evidence is not very civil, and usually is inflammatory, so I suggest you do not raise this point again here. --Cerejota (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll remember that if the issue comes up again. I don't think I'll go the Swedish WP:SPI, mostly because I don't feel the need to prove I'm not a puppet or a puppetmaster, but also because given the circumstances a request would probably be turned down (several months ago, no recent edits by Stigdaniel, etc).Sjö (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Your allegations on sockpuppetry cannot be handled here, the appropiate place would be WP:SPI. However, I recommend you wait until this WQA thread is closed before going there, as per WP:FORUMSHOP. I have no opinion on the matter, but claiming this without out good evidence is not very civil, and usually is inflammatory, so I suggest you do not raise this point again here. --Cerejota (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I made this Wikiquette request after RPSM's edit at 09:44, but before my edit at 16:44. Hopefully RPSM will just let me be now, but I have my doubts about that. What is your opinion on the accusation of sockpuppetry?Sjö (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Also you must notify the user of this report.--Cerejota (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I've done that now.Sjö (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- More background. Some editors on English Wikipedia were surprised at my Swedish block and couldn't understand it. Neither can I. What worries me most is the official reasons for the block that Sjö, as a Swedish administrator requested and Grillo activated. These were 1) being a POV pusher and 2) calling other editors antisemites. I am 100% positive I have never done this. I am currently sifting through the Swedish text on talk pages and home pages to find some trace of me having called anyone an antisemite ever. So far without success. If Sjö could give me a link to where I have called another editor an antisemite I should be eternally grateful.
- I've done that now.Sjö (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- If he is not able to substantiate his allegations, I would appreciate if, at a later stage he could withdraw them and apologize.
- What I have arrived at after ruminating over this, is that it seems to be based on some obscure code of Political Correctness among lefty Swedes that proclaims certain subjects off limits. (I am grateful to Swedish editor Cutthecrap, an ethnic Kurd, for illuminating me about this) where some subjects are taboo and Wikipedia editors today feel personally insulted by the mention of the word antisemite although the person referred to is no longer living and proclaimed himself to be an antisemite in the Swedish Parliament in 1939 (Otto Wallén) The English phrase "guilt by association" has been bandied about. But this is an attempt by me to try to figure out how their minds work, and it is to me a mystery.
- I thought that no censorship was the basis on which an encyclopedia was created, especially with regard to the origins of the concept by French philosophers.
- Unwritten rules based on Political Correctness that only apply to certain ethnic or language groups limit the quality of the final product.
- My Swedish block appears to be based partly on unsubstantiated rumours and I am currently having discussions with other editors some of whom are editing both on Swedish and English Wikipedia to discover what went wrong. Should I fix my discussion style, or does the fault lie elsewhere? Should nor care about my reputation and honour and let bygones be bygones or should I stamp on libel and rumour or expose wooly group thinking based on collective paranoia?
- My block on Swedish Wikipedia is based on false and libellous allegations that have no basis in fact. Sjö made these allegations and I have no recollection of doing what he accuses me of and can find no trace in the record.
- As for me not contacting Sjö on his English Wikipedia talk page, I will do whatever is best for the community and for Sjö. Does he want me to talk behind his back, or isn't it fairer to operate with transparency? I would like to give him fair warning that an examination of the grounds for my Swedish block is under way, and he is free to act in whatever way will reduce friction and aggravation for himself and others. RPSM (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sjö to me on his talk page:
- I didn't realise until you began posting on my talk page how deeply I have been affected by the controversy on Swedish Wikipedia. For my peace of mind, I ask you again: please do not contact me. Please don't post here on my talk page or even email me. I have avoided contact with you because it upsets me very much, so please don't contact me, not even to answer this post.Sjö (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)RPSM (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
No, but your respect for his emotions and instincts (and vice-versa) is required by WP:CIVIL. We are not here to discuss your behavior or the reasons for the block in Swedish wikipedia, we are here to discuss the issues between the two of you here (My Swedish is awful, I can barely read definitely not speak, and it is based on my only slightly better knowledge of Bokmal and Nyorsk, so I have requested one of the Stewards for assistance to interface with Swedish wikipedia and see what is going on). So for now, the entire background of the situation is to be ignored, and the present situation addressed:
- Unless diffs are provided otherwise, it seems to me that Sjö has been civil with you, and that in there is nothing in this user's behavior that needs to be addressed in this sense
- The appropriate guideline to follow in this case is Wikipedia:USERTALK#Editing_of_other_editors.27_user_and_user_talk_pages and the sections in WP:TPG it links to. As you can read there, it is usually a good idea to generally honor a request not to edit another user's talk page - unless there is administrator action or some other actual content issue or warning needed. In addition, the actual editing is subjected to all of our policies and guidelines.
- From reading the thread, it is clear to me the talk page was being used to discuss matters not related to editing or ongoing situations in En-Wiki. As such, you have no legitimate reason not to honor the request to stop posting in the talk page of the user. However, Sjö must understand that there might be some cases when this communication might be needed in the future, in particular if both of you edit the same articles, so there is a difference between saying "I do not want to talk about this topic" and saying "do not ever talk to me" - one is a good request, the other can be seen as provocation, and actually counter-productive. However, if Sjö does feel there is merit, s/he can seek an interaction ban at WP:ANI - be advised however that this ban would be for the both of you.
- WP:NOTCENSORED applies only to article content, not user interaction - we can and regularly censor user comments in talk pages that are offensive to other users on a case-by-case basis, and those of a specially harsh nature are even deleted by admins, not just reverted.
- As per above, if you think that Sjö is a puppet, got to WP:SPI, but accusing a user of being a puppet without evidence is not a very civil thing, and can be a personal attack if not taken in a timely fashion to investigation.
Are there other matters to be addressed? If either of you want a neutral space in which to discuss the other issues feel free, but do not use the other's talk page for this purpose. In terms of the stuff on Swedish wikipedia, I will await response from the Steward.--Cerejota (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding point # 3: I understand your point and I agree that a request never to be contacted can be unreasonable. In my third post in the thread I was only trying to get the point across to RPSM that I didn't want him to continue that conversation. Sjö (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I refer to the thread on my user talk. I've been trying to help RPSM to be a better Wikipedian, since I failed to help him overturn his ban on Swedish Wikipedia. My heartfelt advice to him is to drop this pointless chasing of Sjo. I'd note that Sjo could offer some sort of apology / retraction / token at little cost to himself, but hey I'm an optimist, but I'm also an experienced Wikipedian who has found that gritting my teeth and apologising to people I may have upset usually ends up making us both feel a whole lot better. Main point: RPSM, just leave him alone. This behaviour is not going to help you in the way you want it to anyway - (ie getting reinstated on Swedish Wikipedia) in fact, quite the opposite. --Dweller (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Lets discuss it then
- Users
- BusterD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- S Marshall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Articles
- Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_September_9#Murder_of_Adrianne_Reynolds ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Also this thread at S Marshall's talk: page diff
- Initial comment
Basically self explanatory, I would like to get third party opinions on the issues of civility, personal attacks etc. Also, since Buster D feels like I am not approachable, I will like to know why - until I came across that nasty bit of talk page banter, I thought we disagreed and that was that (I even addressed direct questions - and that was that). I certainly didn't expect the kind of behavior I saw there. Also, claiming that I fail to assume good faith without I feel there is a miscommunication here that should be fixed, and dealt with, because I do edit areas with overlap with these users in other contexts. If I am at fault, so be it, but this cannot be let festering and lingering, and in particular, such untoward comments cannot be ignored.
I'll admit I was a bit peeved when I responded and then reverted at the DRV, so I apologize for that. --Cerejota (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Initial response from named parties
- I'll freely admit that I have a low opinion of Cerejota, which began with his highly arrogant and unilateral actions concerning the longrunning dispute at WT:V. My first encounter with him was when he took it upon himself to close discussions at WT:V (and here). You will see that Cerejota's closures were highly dismissive and contemptuous, including sneering little images. Cerejota's closes were reversed by another editor, North8000, and Cerejota then edit-warred to put them back in. When North8000 reverted him a second time, Cerejota again edit-warred using an edit summary that threatened North8000 with blocking, despite the fact that Cerejota has no authority to block anyone. This is where my involvement began.
I said this, reverted Cerejota, and explained to him the limits of his authority. Hilariously, Cerejota responded with "I am not edit warring over this" (here) but replied that I was wrong.
Cerejota went on to open a RFC on conduct on WT:V. During this discussion, he admitted to acting like a "bull in a china shop", but he then persisted with using the sneering and contemptuous images. I asked him to stop doing that and to engage his fellow editors in discussion like equals. Other, uninvolved editors described Cerejota's conduct as disruptive and endorsed my view of Cerejota's actions, as well as describing the discussion before he arrived as "nonproblematic and productive" (and see also here). The RFC was later archived with one editor supporting Cerejota's view and sixteen opposing it.
This entirely negative experience with Cerejota, in which he basically admitted to widespread and unilateral actions in situations he doesn't understand, coloured my view of him when I encountered him at the DRV. At the DRV, Cerejota made accusations of bad faith against other editors. I asked him for his evidence. Cerejota responded by accusing me of IDHT. I asked him again for actual evidence. And it was at this point that the discussion on my talk page took place. At that time, and on the basis of everything I just said, I finally expressed a mildly negative opinion that Cerejota (specifically that he was probably about twelve).
And that's all I have to say; I very much welcome the scrutiny of uninvolved editors on this matter.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- I recall no experience with User:Cerejota until this AfD procedure. I see that we've both been editing about 6 years and we have roughly the same number of edits. It's possible we've interacted but I have no recollection. My experience with that user inside of the AfD procedure was that the user felt very strongly on the delete side of the argument, that user disputed my keep rationale and stated as fact there were paid editors at work ("PRcruft"). Not agreeing, but seeing the concern, I did some checking myself and came up with one connection I mentioned in my first response to the user.
Inside the DRV procedure, Cerejota made it clear he suspected paid editing, so several users asked for specifics. Cerejota kept referring to earlier evidence which was being ignored by every other user in the discussion (perhaps user was referring to the connection I made and assessed as more likely coincidence than conspiracy). In several cases the user chose to use nebulous accusatory language which troubled me. Quoting User:Joey Roe who is quoting or paraphrasing Cerejota: "Okay, this sort of thing is getting out of hand. "Dark cloud of irregularities surrounding it"? "Iffy creation process"? "Good evidence of malfeasance"? You have people thinking there's something 'fishy' about this article when you've advanced absolutely no solid evidence to support that assertion." In my relist assertion I said: "...while I understand Cerejota's concerns, I'm unhappy with a black brush which has been raised to categorize keep !voters with an imagined group of disruptors, paid editors (a subset of editors I myself imagine exists). I object to that tarring, and am nervous about the rise of this sort of ad hominum critique in AfD and DRV discussions. User:Hobit notes the effect of that brush in the small comment immediately above." I did not say the user was brushing black, but wielding what I referred to as a black brush (which can inadvertently tar innocent parties). I expressed my concern I saw no evidence, certainly no verification of Cerejota's concern. User raised the irrelevant issue of his failing to get autopatrol status because of an incident apparently involving user's good faith choice.
Again, I asked the user make his case, and visited the talk page of an involved
administratoreditor to ask for perspective. I made the case that such tarring had unintended and perhaps unforeseen consequences. When Cerejota posted his response in DRV, pretty much accusing myself and others of holding our hands over our ears and going la-la-la-la, I decided that I'd had enough of the badgering, and completed my involvement with the procedure.Mostly I'm disappointed that the DRV hasn't adequately discussed what I thought were the central issues Cerejota had raised in the AfD, WP:SENSATION and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. By side tracking this discussion with what I saw as spurious and nebulous accusations of paid editing pointed at nobody, user derailed the discussion in which I expected to engage. I wasn't impressed by these behaviors, so I made my decision to complete my nightly work and log off. Then this morning I get this forum to enjoin. Really, I'd rather be building pagespace.
In this procedure, user has claimed I see him as "not approachable." However, during the AfD I visited user's talk page to ask if he knew more than what was being discussed in the procedure. So I did approach and made contact. It was only after I started seeing the entire conversation as mere disruption I chose to disengage with that user. BusterD (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Initial response from involved unnamed parties
- For me it seems like user Cerejota was overreacting for reasons that only the user can explain. Now user Marshall ofcourse flamed on the discussion by some responses but I think this is a non-issue discussion which in itself was resolved when Cerejota apologized above to for overreacting. If both parties could agree to disagree it would solve it. Simple and clear.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- I mean comments like these in a discussion is so unnecessary, now Cerejota reverted it so no harm done but it gives doubts to the genuin interest of Cerejota in the discussion. What is the goal to resolve or flame on the discussion further?. I think both users should step back here and just move on. Especially Cerejota if I should be honest.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
- I dont want to sound like I don't appreciate Cerejota's work here, but my experience with him in this very page (WP:WQA) is exactly how S Marshall has described of his behavior elsewhere. I believe, as BabbaQ has suggested, this is a bit of an overreaction and would be solved by a "agree to disagree" approach. For the record, I've taken no more than a superficial scratch at the surface of this issue so weigh my words lightly.--v/r - TP 16:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Babbaq:I think you hit on an important point, which is what S Marshall explains here: he has a vendetta against me, for reasons he explains, and *that* needs to be resolved. For example, in the very DRV in question, before S Marshall started his WP:IDHT disruption, I even commended him for a well reasoned argument: in the very response you call disruptive above. It is highly disruptive to have a user who measures your actions based not on the current discussion, but on previous grudges, and S Marshall's admitted total failure to assume good faith is a key factor in understanding what happened at the DRV, and hence, working to solve it is important to deal with future events. To let this fester, that is 12 year old kid stuff - to use S Marshall's mature and non-inflammatory description. Your call for a dismissal is both insulting and self-serving. And I am not over reacting: you accused BlackKite (an admin in good standing in the DRV of "disregarding the !keep votes" and other malfeasance- you just don't want your own words examined.--Cerejota (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Tparis: I am curious about this? Can you elaborate please?--Cerejota (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- BusterD: you didn't approach an involved administrator: S Marshall is not an administrator. Regardless if you intended it or not, you approached another editor who shared your position in the Drv to have a bitchfest, instead of approaching me directly. Did my response to the question during the AfD was not reasonable? If you felt I was being disruptive, the first step in DR is to approach me, and you didn't, and that *is* disruptive and a failure to assume good faith. --Cerejota (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- My mistake. I've stricken the word from my statement above, but a reading of my initial statement on User talk:S Marshall demonstrates I didn't understand your apparent anger and was asking for perspective, not agreement ("Am I dense? Obtuse?"). I didn't invite the "12 year-old" response, but I clearly agreed with the sentiment, that your actions revealed an apparent lack of civility and maturity. Your characterization of the brief conversation on that talkspace as a "bitchfest" is totally uncalled for and demonstrates your apparent hostility. My concern was and remains your apparent lack of good faith, regarding both the creation and development of the page under discussion and the parties involved in the the AfD and DRV discussions. My position has been and continues to be if you have accusations of disruptive behavior, make them. It could be equally well-argued that you chose this particular forum to generate friendly input, instead of approaching ME directly. I see no message from you on MY talkspace, for example, until you chose this familiar forum to critique my behavior. If you would explain yourself on the subject of your accusations of paid editing (still have no idea who if anybody is accused, btw), this conversation could go back to the subject at hand (the DRV at 9/9). I'd much rather engage with you on subjects which clearly need discussion (our interesting disagreement on the application of WP:EVENT criteria) than continue chasing tails here about vague, unspecified, baseless and insulting accusations of COI and NOPAY. BusterD (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- If someone mockingly called you a 12 year old (without outing, I am several times over 12), wouldn't you be hostile? What I am hearing in this conversation is that, except for S Marshall (to his credit), no one is owning up to their responsibility and instead wants to justify their actions behind walls of text. I didn't approach you because I had no reason to believe it would be productive, based on your conversation with S Marshall - an entirely reasonable expectation if one looks at that conversation. On the other hand, you had no reasonable expectation that approaching me with your concerns directly wouldn't unproductive, and You accuse me of lacking an assumption of good faith, and yeas, I lack such an assumption for a blocked user, and an obviously disruptive article creator, but I continue to assume good faith about you here - if you read my introduction to this report it is clear my intent is to clear things up, which mean I have a good faith approach. You need to examine your own behavior too - and so far I am less than impressed in that respect, all I see is self-justification and further accusations.--Cerejota (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I wish that Cerejota would stop misrepresenting themselves. In the diff they presented above they claim to be 12 years old.[3] Yet in 2006, as has been pointed out to me, they had a userbox announcing they lived alone.[4] This kind of nonsense has been going on for a long while now. If they intend to continue editing wikipedia, they should stop WP:TROLLING in their edits. They started editing in 2005 and evidently were not 6 years old at the time. Their edits and closures on WQA have been quite unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
can some explain why I am facepalming --Cerejota (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to vote that Cerejota was using sarcasm.--v/r - TP 20:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Undoubtedly. If Cerejota is worried about wikiquette, then perhaps he should be more careful how he replies to other users. This reply for example seems far from optimal.[5] Mathsci (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but if you are going to question what is being said, you should both pay attention (ie the "12 years old" comment was originated by S Marshall, I was just responding to it) and be more careful with your diffs (the one you say directs to a userbox change directs to something that is not even my edit!). In other words, if you want me to pay attention and learn from your criticism, make sure this criticism is carefully considered and not so obviously a troll.--Cerejota (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Undoubtedly. If Cerejota is worried about wikiquette, then perhaps he should be more careful how he replies to other users. This reply for example seems far from optimal.[5] Mathsci (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, BusterD just went to ANI, way to resolve conflicts and not add to the fire...--Cerejota (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Cerejota you are now using the same style of confrontation that put you in this spot to start with. Please take it a bit more easy when you respond to comments. I beg you.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- I would be extremely useful if you pointed out how I am being confrontational, instead of just saying I am. Because I defend myself?--Cerejota (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sometimes its better to let go of things. And move on and simply not be confrontative. And im asking you what good comes out of this? I cant see anything. Instead users have to take time from actually doing some good on Wikipedia to continue this never ending meta-debate of "you wrote this, and you wrote this".--BabbaQ (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- I would be extremely useful if you pointed out how I am being confrontational, instead of just saying I am. Because I defend myself?--Cerejota (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Cerejota you are now using the same style of confrontation that put you in this spot to start with. Please take it a bit more easy when you respond to comments. I beg you.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to vote that Cerejota was using sarcasm.--v/r - TP 20:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)