Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive94

Štambuk's "sod off" (2)

Resolved

 – All involved editors have been warned that any future incivility will lead to blocks. Looie496 (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ivan Štambuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Croatian language (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Croatian language|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've reported this case few weeks ago [1], on 1 Oct 2010. The case was closed after Kwamikagami's words "This complaint, over a comment made a month ago, has been brought up before (I forget whether ANI or where)...". However, no diff was given. No link. Just Kwamikagami's words. No factual proof.
User Netalarm adviced me here [2] to restart the WQA "please report it to WQA again, this time noting the latest diffs".
Here're the recent diffs about Štambuk's misbehaviour and warnings of other users about Štambuk's behaviour (the admins present on those articles and talkpages haven't sanctioned him for that at all![3]) [4] [5] [6] [7][8][9].
Here's more of my discussion/consultations with user Netalarm about that issue [10] and here [11].
Problem isn't innocent, since Štambuk has continued with the attacks [12].
I've been searching through the archives of WP:ANI several times, but I couldn't find that case.
Kwamikagami alleges that the case "sod off" was reported earlier.
When? By whome? Where's the diff? Where's that case in the archives? Where's the sanction for such WP:ATTACK behaviour? Where's the sanction for the violation of WP:CIVIL? Kubura (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to complain about Ivan, you need to show at least one or two diffs of Ivan's edits, not of your complaints about Ivan's edits. I haven't been able to spot a single diff in your array that is actually from Ivan, and I don't intend to search through his contribs looking for them. Looie496 (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

E.g., in the diff I gave above [13] (my edit), there're bunch of diffs that contain Štambuk's misbehaviour: calling the opponents as "PoV partisans" [14], "sod off" [15], "nationalist bigots" [16] (admin Ricky81682 warned him), "you insolent nationalist troll" "bigoted nationalist"[17], "Proven hardline Croatian nationalist" [18], call co-discutant's words as "nationalist nonsenses" [19] for the things that were his very messages [20], calling opponents' contributions as "rubbish" [21], blanking whole referenced articles with mere redirect [22], he named kind appeals as trolling [23], calling opponents' project as "nazi-pedia" [24], insults on national basis (not these ridiculous nationalist fabrications such as "Croatian language", "Serbian language" or "Bosnian language" (and soon-coming in the fall 2009 "Montenegrin language")) [25], denigrating the opposing authors (violation of WP:BLP "Vandalism by several IP address, in what appears to be several PoV pushers in Croatian academic institutions" [26], treating Wikipedia as WP:BATTLEGROUND ( even other users told him "but I think that you are treating this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND a bit too much [27])/Štambuk explicitly said "Wikipedia is battleground" [28]... Kubura (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Or this ones: denigrating of opponents' sources (authors)[29] ("nationalist fluff"), [30] "this nutjob + (name of scientist)" (violation of WP:BLP), denigrating of opponents [31] "your own clique" .... Kubura (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Swedish general election, 2010

• Wembwandt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Swedish general election, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor Wembwandt has repeatedly attacked other editors, explicitly charging editors with promoting the Sweden Democrats (SD), a controversial political party in Sweden.

• (1) Wembwandt's attacks occured in the following editing summaries, of which I list the most severe & recent attacks: "POV pushing by the SD", "fascist sympathisers", "the neo-nazis only want to talk about themselves", and "undoing POV version added by SD apologist - this article is . . . NOT a platform for your nasty right-wing politics!".

• (2) Wembwandt's attacks have occured also on the article's talk page: "This article seems to have been hijacked by right-wing extremists." . . . . "Trouble is, if you try to tone it down or change it, the Gestapo quickly pop-up and change it back."

• (3) On Wembwandt's Talk page, Wembwandt attacked editor Lihaas, writing "you still won't get to see the Swedish Democrats in power - if such is your desire - or their anti-immigration stance gain any acceptance." . Wembwandt made a general attack on many editors of the election page: "some editors are clearly using it POV push the Swedish Democrats"

Other editors have complained that editor Wembwandt has engaged in "disruptive editing": Following a written, informal admonishment by editor Lihaas, editor Hydrox placed a warning notice on Wembwandt's talk page; c.f., editor warning 2, Warning 3, which apparently violate a prohibition on re-inserting such warnings on user pages , editors should note.

Finally, editor Wembwandt recently changed the title of a subheading from "Attack fabricated" to "Attacks fabricated", when the Wikipedia article described exactly one attack (where the police are investigating a forensic doctor's ruling that there is evidence of self-inflicted injury). Wembwandt's misleading headline is perhaps the most severe transgression, because it impairs the credibility of the article (and perhaps to some measure Wikipedia).

This is not a full report, but simply a plea for help, which can form the basis for a more extensive report, if warranted. This is the first time where I have formally reported an editor; previously, asking a senior editor for a third opinion has been remarkably effective.

However, in this case, the repeated accusations of fascist and neo-nazi partisanship are extremely offensive, particularly to those editors whose families have suffered murders by nazis or who are associated with social-democratic & liberal traditions, as one editor has already noted in a political self-outing; for many such editors, nazi/fascist insults are far more offensive than the racial, sexist, or anti-gay verbal attacks highlighted in the immediate banning policy of Wikipedia. (It may be that Wemwandt is engaging in trolling, but I cannot see the harm in banning a troll.)

Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC) 16:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I find myself pretty unsympathetic to the complaint. In fact, I tend to agree with Bishonen that the article places undue emphasis on a party that got about 5% of the vote -- about half of the article is devoted to the SD. I do however find that the behavior of Kiefer.Wolfowitz toward Bishonen is not very good in terms of etiquette. Looie496 (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wembwandt is (almost entirely) removing content about harrassment of SD political meetings, ranging from noise pollution to menacing to assaults. A few sentences about the SD's politics have long been removed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not the content, we are all willing to discuss content changes (Bishonen, Kiefer.Wolfowitz, Hydrox, and myself), but it is Wembwandt abject refusal to discuss and gain consensus when he needs to change content to the page that was reverted per the WP:BRD cycle. Which states that it is all well and good to be WP:Bold, but when challenged then one needs to get WP:Consensus, especially when consensus is already formed the onus for WP:Consensus can change then lies with the editor seeking the change. He cant reinsert info saying its "pov" in exchange for his own pov that is apparently disagreed with. All due reasons are summed up on the talk page, which is there to avoid the whims of editors having their own view.Lihaas (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor Wembwandt has again unilaterally edited the page, with another attack on editor(s): "undoing POV version added by SD apologist - this article is supposed to be about the General Election and NOT a platform for your nasty right-wing politics!", despite having a notice about this Wikiquette alert. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to what Lihaas already said. I am willing to discuss the content and have been extremely proactive in starting a discussion, sadly with poor results. Yesterday I got called a wikistalker after I tried to engage Wembwandt in the conversation on his talk page, so I take the user is not willing to discuss with me. To what Looie496 said above, I have read the article through many times, and don't find it at all biased; the tone of the article is neutral all the way through. I think the SD-heaviness is explained by that the party received lots of media coverage in mainstream newsreporting, for reasons that would be too long to explain here. If you could be more specific about what exactly you find biased, we could work to find more neutral wording. I am very skeptical to removing any article content, as many editors, special kudos to User:Lihaas, have done outstanding work in identifying dubiously sourced material, resulting in an article that could IMHO merit a good-article assesment. In this framework, we could also work for wider consensus and try to identify the alleged POV problems. --hydrox (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas, I'm afraid your statement above that I'm willing to discuss content changes is faulty; I'm not. I realise you guys could do with a leavening of neutral and experienced editors, but, well, you'd probably have to treat them better. I have better things to do than this kind of "discussion" (lovely edit summaries!). I'll try to keep a bit of an eye on the talkpage, though. I know it's not easy to pick one's way through the jungle of wikipolicies and their mutual relations. Neither consensus nor WP:BOLD (or indeed WP:BRD) are in fact the issue here; WP:NPOV is. Compare Looie496's remark about "undue emphasis" above, and try to relate it to WP:UNDUE (which is a part of WP:NPOV). Above all, please try to internalise the central summary of WP:NPOV, which goes in part:

"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research". Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

That bolding of the last sentence is mine, not original. It's clearly news to some people. Come on, guys, familiarize yourselves. You seem to be open to reasonable appeals, Lihaas; for instance, I was happy to note that you didn't re-revert me here. Bishonen | talk 20:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC).
Oh, no...:-( I just this minute discovered that you have reverted my edit, today, a couple of weeks later. Talk about coincidences. Never mind, crossed out, forget it. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

Bishonen, please identify what you regard as being an "advertisement for SD" (the attack you made when introducing yourself as an administrator) and what you regard as undue weight. As I noted above (in a crossed out hidden note), the infantile-leftist hooligans have also broken windows and destroyed materials in the local offices of the SAP's former cooperating parties, the liberalfolkparti and the centerparti (farmers). If Swedish Wikipedia had discussed such attacks, I would have translated them on election day+1, and the article would be more balanced. You can help by adding such material.

I have re-labelled the "SD" section to clarify that the section discusses the controversy around ostracism/harrassment/criticism of the SD in the election.

(This discussion would be better at the article's talk page, rather than here. Bishonen or another editor can move the content discussion to the talk page, with my blessings.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Per Bishonen, that revert was a revert of yours per se, just a perception that it was better, didnt even see your change back, but undo mine then, no harm done. ( Done)

Also, per your cited guideline for WP:Undue, it may "supercede" consensus, but when 3 v. 2 editors think otherwise there clearly is room for interpretation because most people dont feel it is undue. As it stands its the whim of a rather uncouth editor trying to determine what should be in. That is his pov. the section asks for an expansion, if people dont want to/cant be bothered to find campaign for other parties then that is not room to censor duly sourced info.

Can you seriously assert that this edit was acceptable by an stretch of the imagination and the user has not overstepped his bounds? That is beyond unacceptable both when he has been called to discuss and abjectly refused to do so and that he resorted to WP:NPA. Corrective action of soem sort must be taken. Lihaas (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, Bishonen, and Wembwandt

None of the administrators here have commented that they have any concern about User:Wembwandt's attacks, particularly the persistent charges that the editors are neo-nazis, fascist sympathisizers, etc. (Bishonen, who was active before, has recently discouraged Wembwandt from making such attacks, in friendly notes on the article talk page and on his talk page.) Would any administrator here (besides Bishonen, who was involved before) agree that there is a problem with Wembwandt's attacks? Or do you acquiesce to them or approve them?

I had wished that Bishonen would have apologized for charging us with having produced "a propaganda piece for the Sweden Democrats.", Should not an administrator like Bishonen at least withdraw that insult?

Thanks, Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

MarketsGuy

I watch a wide variety of articles on Wikipedia and frequently revert vandalism and large uncited edits. A couple days ago I reverted the edits of user MarketsGuy on High-Frequency Trading. They appeared to be improperly cited so I removed the edits. He seems to have taken this very personally as he has now started sections on 5 talk pages (although only the High-Frequency Trading article was in dispute) titled Financestudent on several other articles, and both our talk pages accusing me of some sort of conspiracy against him, and a variety of other uncivil behavior. Financestudent (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is his user contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MarketsGuy

MarketsGuy shows some pretty striking signs of being a sock. Are there any obvious candidates for puppetmaster? (Frankly, I'm not so sure about you either.) Looie496 (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to check out my account against ips, I only have this account and would be fine with it being looked into. Not to mention I have an edit count of 463, major contributions, and a couple page creations under my belt and his account was created recently and he has behaved this way since it's creation. As for him all I know is he keep starting and adding to sections of talk paged titles my name on here and waging his personal vendetta against me for an edit he obviously took personally out of the large number of vandalism reverts I do on a fairly regular basis. I'd like those posts about me to be removed and that activity stopped if there is someway to accomplish that, even if it was just moved to our talks that would be an improvement over it being plastered accross several articles unrelated to the dispute at all. Financestudent (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:24.60.116.133

This:

• [32]

and

• [33]

and

• [34]

indicate that this user doesn't understand the collabrative model of editing here, nor the proper use of his references. He's already been cautioned on language. No responses to request for discussion on Talk:Nickel-metal hydride battery nor [[User talk:24.60.116.133 ]]. Off to put an alert on that talk page. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 24 hours for edit-warring, and will follow with longer blocks if it resumes. As for yourself, since this is WQA let me suggest that you avoid words such as "gibble-gabble" and "rubbish" -- all they ever do is antagonize other editors. Looie496 (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My fault is that I care too much. I was at least characterizing edits, not editors. If one is going to be a regular contributor to Jimbo's dream here, then one must cultivate a certain flexiblity of attitude. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Of Chickenguy13 & the woes with Fat (EP)

• Chickenguy13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IllaZilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fat (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chickenguy13 moved the article Fat EP to Fat (EP) without gathering a consensus or requesting a movereq. Chickenguy13 is new & doesn't seem to fully understand the normal policies & procedure that are in place on Wikipedia (which is mostly the norm for WikiChildren). When IllaZilla requests a movereq to move the article back, Chickenguy13 becomes uncivil. They accuse the conspiracy of IllaZilla reverting all their edits & became generally hostile towards IllaZilla; which, in my opinion, IllaZilla has been extremely civil throughout the entire process. The issue originally started out on the talkpage of Fat (EP), but has spilled over to both participant's talkpages. I just would like an administrator looking into this & provide feedback on the situation. Thanks. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  20:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

IllaZilla made in mistake in using the term "other crap" to a new and excitable editor who hasn't yet learned Wikipedian, and everything went downhill from there. Looie496 (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Shorecrane1

This relates to the user Shorecrane1, the article List of C.I.D. episodes and its AfD. The user removed the AfD tag, and then made this comment on the AfD page. I deleted the user's comments — which weren't in keeping with the philosophy of AfD, and just wanted to complain about the AfD template — replacing it with a keep !vote and a link to the user's original comments. I also gave the user a warning for removing an AfD template. The user responded by removing the AfD template, for a second time, and posting this angry rant on the AfD page. Is there something that can be done about this user? — Fly by Night (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, you really should not have removed his original comment from the AfD ... that was pretty uncivil. It was effectively a keep vote. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And, why not simply help him to learn how to comment on an AFD? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove his comment! As I mentioned above: I replaced it with a keep !vote on his behalf and a link to his edit. His objection seemed to be an objection towards the AfD process itself, and that's why I did what I did. It seemed like a rant... his later edits would prove that to be correct. Obviously, in hindsight, I concede that I should have simply moved his rant to the correct place and added a keep tag. But uncivil is a bit strong. Please investigate my edit history before you assume bad faith... — Fly by Night (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Where did B say you acted in bad faith? You acted rather clueless about how a person might feel about having their legitimate comments WP:REFACTORed without good purpose. Not bad faith, just bad judgement. That the other, newer user responded inappropriately does not excuse that. At least he had the excuse of being a complete newbie with less than 100 edits. Don't bite the newcomers, try to help them understand our standards. Moving his comment to the bottom was ok. Adding a bolded "keep" to it was borderline. Changing the actual words of another persons remark was absolutely wrong. Remember that it is not a vote but a discussion. The closing administrator will read any comments and evaluate them for what they are. Removing a legitimate comment and linking to the diff of it is not ok, please don't do that again. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

RHB100

• RHB100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Global Positioning System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to report this user for constantly making derogatory remarks where the user is asked to provide proper sourcing for a section containing a mathermatical expose in the article Global Positioning System. This is clearly original research and upon my insistence on the article talk page to provide proper sourcing, the user keeps making these personal remarks.

In an attempt to have the article talk page free of personal comments ([35], [36], [37], [38]) I have kindly asked this user (on his user talk page) to stop making these personal comments on the article talk page:

• In my first request on the user talk page:

• "Also I suggest that you take into consideration that your lack of interest in the useful mathematics provided does not imply that all other people have this lack of interest in useful mathematics",
• "DVdm, you have completely disrupted a discussion I was having with Denelson83",
• "This indicates that you are not qualified to make any judgement on the section. Whether you like it or not, you have got to educate yourself so as to overcoming your ignorance before you are qualified to do productive work. Your comment that it is very simple is a result of your ignorance."
• "I think this view is based on a lack of mathematical maturity"]

• In my second request:

• "... in spite of his admitted ignorance ... " and "DVdm has made the idiotic statement that..."

• A little exchange on my user talk page where the user says that it is OK to say, that I make an idiotic statement, followed by my third request to nevertheless stop doing this.

• In my fourth request:

• "At present you are completely unqualified to say if it is properly sourced or not."

• Finally, when I asked the user to stop disrupting the article talk page, I got this personal attack:

• "DVdm, don't you dare accuse me of disrupting this page. You are an outright worthless liar in accusing me of disrupting this page. All of the other statements you have made in the paragraph above are lies and idiotic nonesense. The statement, "they are original research" is an outright lie and indicates a failure to understand the meanng of original research. You have shown yourself to be a dishonest person and I don't want to hear from you again. This dispute between you and me is going to have to be settled by somebody with better sense than you."

I don't think that this is appropriate, but I don't seem able to explain to RHB100 that this is not the way to handle a request for sourcing. Could someone try to explain to this user? Thanks. DVdm (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

---

I have provided DVdm with more than adequate source material for the material entered in the section, Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS. But here is DVdm's response, "Indeed, I have no access to the journal, but that is not relevant. That is why I ask you, who does have access: are the equations from the article literally present in the sources? This is a very simple question that you can answer, so please do. DVdm (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)". RHB100 (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

He is admitting that he did not take the necessary steps to acquire and read the source material. Yet, DVdm shows that he is not going to let the little problem that he has not read the source material stop him. He goes right ahead and accuses me of not providing adequate source material despite the fact that by his own admission, he has not read the source material himself. Here is a quote of DVdm, "So it is clear that the equations in the section do not appear in the cited sources". DVdm makes this statement despite the fact that by his own admission, he has not even read the cited sources. DVdm is not qualified to accuse me of not providing adequate source material or of performing original research until he at least educates himself to the extent of reading the source material. It is DVdm who has disrupted the Talk page. The accusation that I have disrupted the Talk page is totally and completely false. RHB100 (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I made this entry about RBH100's usage of personal comments. I don't think this is the place to talk about the original research. This is about RBH100's usage of personal comments about my alleged lack of interest, qualifications, education, ignorance and lack of mathematical maturity. I have explained the reasons why I found no need to acquire and read the source material and assume the equations to be wp:original research and wp:synth:

• The edit "These equations are based on those found in..."
• RBH100's refusal to provide a clear yes/no answer to my repeated question "are the equations from the article literally present in the sources?"
• The statement "DVdm has made the idiotic statement that every equation needs to be sourced"
• The plea "The statements in the section, Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS, are based on the reference, Numerical Recipes. The meaning of the word, recipes, is important. As applied to its usual use, cooking, it means that someone has performed the original research research to come up with a method of cooking a particular dish. The cook who uses the recipe follows the instructions in the recipe but does no original research just rote following of instructions. With regard to mathematical algorithms, the user of the recipes in a book such as Numerical Recipes does no original research but instead relies on the original research provided by the authors of Numerical Recipes. The equations provided in the section, Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS, are not original research but instead rote following of the recipe found in Numerical Recipes."

It is clear that the equations are not present in the cited sources and that the section is a schoolbook example of original research. Of course none of the above should actually matter. I tried to remain civil and asked RBH100 many times to refrain from making personal comments. To no avail. DVdm (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

---

DVdm makes the statement, "I have explained the reasons why I found no need to acquire and read the source material and assume the equations to be wp:original research and wp:synth", above. But DVdm does not say what that explanation was. I believe this statement of DVdm is untrue. I don't know what explanation he is talking about. He has admitted he does not have access to the journal containing the article but nothing resembling a clear explanation of how he can conclude the source is inadequate without reading it. The source document is Langley, R. B., "The Mathematics of GPS," GPS World, Vol. 2, No. 7, July/August 1991, pp. 45-50. RHB100 (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

My failure to answer DVdm's over simplified question with regard to this source does not relieve DVdm of the need to thoroughly study the source in order to determine if the GPS section, "Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS," is properly sourced or not. Unless he educates himself by reading this source document, he is just completely unqualified. RHB100 (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

DVdm's accusation that I have disrupted the talk page is an insulting personal comment that shows a complete lack of etiquette. RHB100 (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The talk page disruption consisted in your repeately making personal remarks (see above) in spite of my repeated requests not to do so.

Anyway, I just have asked a question on the article talk page about the source. Could you please answer that question? Thanks. DVdm (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Deepsix66

Resolved

 – Not a good idea to file this report, let's put an end to this now

• Deepsix66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Emily Schooley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While I know there is no inherent harm in creating Wikipedia accounts to make only a few edits, I am highly concerned that Deepsix66 created and continues to use his account contrary to WP:AGF and WP:NPOV policies. The account was created recently, on October 15th, for the sole purpose of submitting Emily Schooley's article for deletion, based on his argument that she had created the article herself and should not be considered notable.

I am concerned that this was done solely in rebuttal to an event that occurred outside of Wikipedia, where Ms. Schooley publicly outed Frozen North Productions for poor business practices. Despite claims otherwise, Deepsix66 shows a clear bias toward protection and endorsement of Frozen North and continues to make false allegations about Ms. Schooley on the deletion review page and otherwise. He made a number of comments contrary to WP: NPA on the AfD discussion, and continues to troll any discussions about her/her article. Additionally, I am concerned that his behaviour is falling into a grey area of harassment, given his original request to delete her page

• AfD comments [39]
• DRV posts [40]
• Chasing the discussions on individual userpages [41][42]

I feel that his comments were also erroneously taken as a statement of fact by some contributors to the AfD and DRV discussions, which contributed to subsequent comments that were not made from good faith or neutral points of view.

Note that only since the posting of this has he started to edit on topics beyond Ms. Schooley, and Frozen North Productions. Bytemeh (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, a brand new account is created solely to harass Deepsix66, leaving this gem on their talk page, and your response to the trolling is to warn Deepsix that he needs to abide by WP:AGF and WP:NPOV? Given the harassment that DeepSix has received since he nominated the Emily Schooley article for deletion (which ultimately was deleted and upheld despite two deletion reviews), I'm surprised that he has remained as calm as he has. I find it interesting that you are choosing to shine a light on DeepSix66's possible COI given your editing history on the same topics. Fair warning: bringing disputes to this board highlights the reporting editor's behaviour as well. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, Deepsix66 created his account with what - at first inspection - would be the intention solely to delete one specific article and to lobby against one specific person. Given that in the brief time period preceding this, Ms. Schooley posted this blog posting where she outed Frozen North's poor business practices, it seems highly suspect that he was completely an impartial third party. Casting that aside because it is not a good faith assumption, but still given the way his story slowly unravels and condradicts itself ("came across an argument she was having" vs "read an article in the Star") [43] [44], as well as the lack of answers provided as to how, exactly, he came upon Ms. Schooley's website and why he chose to spend hours on lobbying for her article deletion but not that of Frozen North, the statements he made blatantly not in good faith, and etc [45] [46] [47] ... I am not condoning harassment, just asking for accountability, honesty, and fairness.Bytemeh (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And you created an account several days after Deepsix66 and have only edited related articles. The nomination was sound and the article was deleted. You have now come along with your new account, fighting against the deletion, posting completely unhelpful message on his talk page, and now creating a Wikiquette alert. Do you not see the irony in bringing all of his supposed activities up when yours mirror his? He has denied a connection and yet you continue to harass him about it. Your second edit ever on Wikipedia was to post this message: "There are enough of us willing and able to keep re-submitting her page until it's kept, as the deletion request was submitted purely for spite - and anyone who backs it is probably just as immature and petty". You are essentially admitting to meatpuppetry, warning you will edit war to get your way, and launching a personal attack against anyone who supported deletion, all in a single sentence. Your hands are clearly not clean here, so I would be careful what accusations you make against others. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because someone needs to stand up to bullying and harassment, and call a spade a spade. I am not leaving harassing comments for him, nor have I started to editwar. I saw no point in contributing to the original AfD because it was apparent that I would not be fairly heard. I am looking for reliable sources to help bring the article back fairly - given the accusatory nature of comments Deepsix66 made right off the bat, I am not at all surprised that he managed to rile up so many of us who would like to see Ms. Schooley's article kept. Given the circumstances surrounding the RFD and the overt maliciousness behind them, I am sad but not surprised to see so many people overlooking that evidence. What I think would be most fair - though doubtful that it would ever happen - would be for the Frozen North and Flip's Twisted World articles to be deleted as well. I am trying to remain as neutral, unbiased, and level-headed as possible, as per WP:DR.

However, I am disappointed to see that two others' comments to this got arbitrarily deleted, which suggests to me further unfairness and unequality in the matter. Bytemeh (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What I would like to point out now are two blog posts written by the subject of the article that was deleted, at Emily Schooley. See October 11 and October 27. Latterly, Ms. Schooley has stated that she has verification that Frozen North was behind her article RFD, which is not surprising to say the least. Perhaps if Deepsix66 had not been quite so vitriolous in his initial submission, or not done so at all, nobody's time and energies would have been wasted on this nonsense. Continue to criticize or not my own behaviour in calling these facts to light, but I am willing to bet my left nut that the evidence she has is verifiable. And at the very least, she has chat logs outlining a bias towards her. The RFD was not submitted in good faith, or from a neutral point of view. But that is done, won't be undone, and I will work instead on contributing articles that are. End of story, and all I will say here. Bytemeh (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Bytemeh is the same editor as Missinformative, and possibly the same editor as EmilySchooley. That's a bad way to start. Also, regardless of how the AfD started, it received thorough consideration, and was properly closed, in spite of the pile-in of "keep" votes that were solicited from an external site. We don't like that sort of thing around here. If you want an article about her to go into Wikipedia, pretty much everything you've done up to this point has been counterproductive, and this WQA is just one more counterproductive thing. I'm going to resolve it at this point. Looie496 (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not the same person. Nice try, though. Then again, given the hostility with which new editors and controversial ideas are treated, it's not a wonder she didn't stick around. I don't terribly consider this 'resolved' at all, but that's neither here nor there. Bytemeh (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The user seems to be using Wikipedia as WP:BATTLEGROUND, with select few edits otherwise. Edfan77 (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks dude. Glad someone gets it. Bytemeh (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous

• The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has engaged in extensive and constant attacks and vindictiveness. He is the most nasty and uncivil editor I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I have been dealing with this editor since September, and we are on opposite sides of a heated dispute over the Restoring Honor rally article, which is now the subject of an ongoing mediation. He finally joined the mediation after much attempts at persuasion, usually met with nastiness, by multiple users for him to join the mediation and cooperate. Even his agreement to join was an attack on other editors. Since joining his behavior has only gotten worse. He filed a vindictive SPI about me. Regardless of whether or not the SPI is valid, his conduct has been egregious. As another editor noted, this user is now engaged in wikihounding of me, taking completely inappropriate actions 1 2 3 and stalking my edit history for new things to attack me on. Here are a few examples; it would take hours to find them all:

• Here, user attacks another editor, an admin no less.
• Here, user attacks me and attempts to antagonize by saying "All I'm hearing is crickets. Hmmm."
• Here, user blows off my advice to stop attacking another editor.
• Here, another editor warns user about his incivility and user responds by telling him to "chill" and stop "barking orders".
• Here, user downright assaulted other editors and was told by an admin to grow up.

User:Arzel has also taken notice and summed his behavior up well here: "I never said you were disruptive, even though you are disruptive. I said you were vindictive. Probably the most vindictive editor I have ever seen on WP. Normally I would simply remove your trollish comments, but I have decided that others should also be able to see a history of your vindictiveness."

Thank you and God bless. BS24 (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually what The_Artist is, is condescending, over and over again. There is hardly anything that infuriates other editors more than projecting an attitude that the people you are dealing with are stupid and that you are laughing at them behind their backs. Of course a truly intelligent editor would not behave in this way, as it makes it nearly impossible to get other editors to cooperate with one's goals. Looie496 (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

When I need to consult a knowledgeable admin regarding WQA, I'll find one besides Looie496. That is to say, one at least aware that filing parties of mediation requests are ineligible to use this non-binding proceedure. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie496, your are an admin?? I hope your post is just a one time gaffe and not representative for Wikipedia admins in general. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, it seems that all the personal attacks are more in this WQA itself than in the evidence brought up for this WQA. Maybe someone should open a WQA for this WQA...? And then fill it up with even more insults again .... HELLO? Am I still at Wikipedia? Where is the emergency stop button? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for my comment above. By this time I should know better than to be uncivil, even in response to incivility. I still hope that that message gets through to the subject of the WQA, though. The_Artist might consider that the reactions his behavior provokes in BS24 and other editors are very similar to the reactions my comment provoked in him. Looie496 (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor point: Equating my response to an insult, which caused no offense (just real doubts about the admin's judgement, which are all not disposed of yet) to BS24's is a whopper. If I played the victim role, petitioned admins to save my ass from perceived persecution, ignored substantial accusations and falsified my record multiple times, it might make some sense to think I am receiving in kind treatment. But BS24's, and multiple known socks thereof, abysmal record of conduct makes this idea to hilarious to consider. Unlike BS24, I have no shameful past to hide. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. As for BS24, I'm not taking responsible for this editor's many transgressions and mendacity, all of which are substantially documented at the SPI and on his talk page by another editor. So why is the WQA still open? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Basically calling another editor a liar (medancity) is not a very civil thing to do and a good example why this is probably still open. Arzel (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Really, and I thought it was demonstrable incompetence and neglect of duty. Impressions which a manifested respect for WQA protocols would reverse, even at this later stage. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

A little confused about that statement, but it seems that you are saying that Looie496 is incompetant as an admin. I thought you accepted his appology. Arzel (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

He apologized for the insult, and is taken as genuine, but that can't release him from accountability and his duty bound obligations. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

He apologized for the statement which you say he should have blocked himself for. You accepted the apology, but later say he is incompetent for not following through and blocking himself anyway. Sounds to me like you did not accept his apology. I would say this pretty much sums up my original assesment. You are vindictive. It is not enough for someone to apologize for some wrong they may have done (to you). They must also be punished for any wrong they may have done. This is clearly expressed in your continued pursuit against BS24. Arzel (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nah. Did you only read half of my last comment? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"Vindictiveness", "blows off my advice", "transgressions", "egregious", "antagonize", "pursuit", "mendacity", "abysmal record", "incivility", "nastiness", "incompetence", "assaulted other editors", generalized statements - all of these attacks must stop! Criticize incidents if absolutely necessary, but never attack a person himself/herself. Wikipedia is not a place for hobby-psychoanalysts. And by the way, I have very high respect for Looie496 now. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 00:30, 31 October

All an admin has to do is properly close this WQA like it should have been done from the get. C'mon. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

'WQA isn't moderated or controlled by admins, and discussions generally aren't closed unless both parties are satisfied or the issue is taken to a higher level of dispute resolution. If you don't want to cooperate with the process, simply stop commenting and it will just go stale. Swarm^Talk 06:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The filing party BS24 is on indefinite block for abusing multiple accounts. [48]The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

AKA is now Gloating to everyone involved. Congrats AKA I hope you are happy that your vindictive behaviour achieved your goal. I suspect you won't be happy though unless you get a certain admin blocked as well. Arzel (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The Artist apparently went to every page BS24 ever edited and posted a notice on the talk page to look out for his socks. That is completely unnecessary and demonstrates an unhealthy fixation with this particular user. If you suspect he will come back and edit these articles using socks, put them on your watchlist and keep an eye on them. There's no need to post wanted posters all over Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think it's reasonable to notify other users of the SPI result, we're not all in the loop everyday. And for the WQA record here, Arzel is involved in the various disputes mention above and has a pattern of misrepresenting others' comments when he disagrees with them. Full disclosure, I often disagree with him and he uses the same bullying tactics. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A notice on articles where they were particularly disruptive might be ok, but posting a big warning to every page they have edited even once is definitely excessive. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Veriss1

Veriss1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Multiple violations of templating regulars regarding the same edit. After I added a category he didn’t care for on John Boehner, he added a test warning, then a Welcome and a mentorship offer, even though I have over 5,000 edits. When I called him on that, he accused me of making childish edits [49] and again here, even though I clearly explain my reasons for the edit here, here and here. Meanwhile, he hasn't offered me any good reason that the category shouldn't be there. This is just unacceptable. Purplebackpack89 04:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I did. Veriss (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You realize that's it's wrong, right? You're going to stop calling me names and starting offering reasons why that category shouldn't be added on the talk page? Purplebackpack89 05:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I did template that editor before I was aware that he/she might actually be an experienced and knowledgeable editor. I did exactly as the other editor alleges but I ask those who may be interested in dredging through this childish bullshit to please examine the edit histories of three places. User talk:Purplebackpack89, User talk:Veriss1 and of course John Boehner. Just because a person may have many thousands of edits, does not grant them the ability to disregard the rules of fairness and disregard ethical conduct, especially concerning a BLP.

My accuser did NOT act like a mature adult nor an experienced editor and I templated her because of her behavior. I do not regret it and I do not apologize for doing so. Charles Veriss (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

How long do I need to wait for this poor child to muster some sort of offense? Cheers, Veriss (talk)

Hey, did you find the cite with the year for the Boehner article? Are you coming back to comment at the etiquette place you drug me to? Are you going to delete this post again because you don't like it? Veriss (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been here for over two hours, I would like to know which guidelines I have violated. Veriss (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"Multiple violations of templating regulars regarding the same edit." When did this become a violation, please cite the exact policy I have allegedly violated. Veriss (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"After I added a category he didn’t care for on John Boehner, he added a test warning, then a Welcome and a mentorship offer, even though I have over 5,000 edits."

I templated her before I was aware of her high and mighty edit history. I did offer to mentor someone I thought was an inexperienced user and seriously doubt I should be penalized for that. Please cite the exact policy I may have allegedly violated while correcting her. Veriss (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

When I called him on that, he accused me of making childish edits [20] and again here, even though I clearly explain my reasons for the edit here, here and here. Meanwhile, he hasn't offered me any good reason that the category shouldn't be there. This is just unacceptable. Purplebackpack89 12:48 am, Today (UTC−4)

In a nutshell, the other editor, would like to add the "bartender" category to the Majority Leader of the House's profile but is not able to cite the years that he served as a bartender because her sources do not support it. If even the year cannot even be alledged after being asked for it repeatedly, why permit her to grab a category? This article is a BLP, put it in writing or walk.

I stood in her way and am now standing here before this group. I do not shy away from what I did. I do not strive for attention but under the same circumstances I will do it again unless someone can demonstrate how I was wrong. I don't care how many thousands of edits she has, show us your sources or walk. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

For starters, I can find no evidence anywhere that I need the actual years he was a bartender, merely a source that says he was a bartender at some point. I have found such a source. Secondly, you've templated the regulars, assumed bad faith, and since this request started, you've violated numerous other policies relating to considerate conduct, sometimes border on harassment (You've also done some things that have required ArbCom and Oversight attention). To the admins, examine Veriss' deleted edits, please Purplebackpack89 07:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Is the subject of the article currently a bartender? Has this person been a bartender in the past 30 years? Is this person currently known as a bartender? If not, then why on earth do you want to put him in the bartender category unless you have some political agenda?

2. I have templated exactly one person and that is you. Anyone can go back 2,000 edits and you are the only veteran I've templated, I even welcome vandals. That should tell you something. It was in good faith because I had not idea that such an experienced editor as you claim to be could go so far afoul of WP:BLP.

3. Please enumerate the policies or guidelines concerning conduct that you claim I have violated.

4. I call false. I have never once been called before ArbCom or Oversight and demand you produce a single whisper that I may have been even considered for such a review.

5. I only have 2,000 edits and may be a newbie but I will not under any circumstances be intimidated by anyone, especially when I know I have done no wrong.

6. I stand here, ready and open to any and all review and will not be bullied. Veriss (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This bull crap is harassment, where do I appeal from here? Veriss (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP or other issue with him being grouped with bartenders, if he is in fact "proud of" his tenure as a bartender. The catch is that unless there's a citation that establishes that (1) he was a bartender for some significant period; and (2) remains proud of it, then the category doesn't belong. I mean, if he delivered pizzas when he was in college, would he be added to Category:Pizza delivery? I don't think so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Similar reply left on the article's talk page. I've found some sources, but I didn't hear his victory speech, so I wouldn't know if he was "proud" about it. I agree with Baseball Bugs on the category issue. It seems that the bartender category is more fit for people that are actual bartenders now, or have been a bartender for a significant amount of time. If someone feels the need to mention his employment history, the history section would be best. Regarding the appeal, I don't feel it's needed at this time. Let's discuss it and see if we can come to an agreement. Netalarm^talk 07:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If I may...

@ PurpleBackPack: Let's be reasonable here, please - we're not going to categorize Boehner as a bartender. it's not something that he currently does, nor is it something that's a significant search term for people trying to find information about him. Simply finding a source that says something is not sufficient grounds for including it. Please see wp:UNDUE.

@ Veriss: I am not averse to using strong language to describe the behavior of other editors when I feel it's necessary. However, if you're going to do that yourself (which I do not recommend: I'm very skilled at it and I get in hot water over it frequently; if you lack my skill set you can expect to get yourself reamed on a regular basis) you should be sure of three things:

• Make sure that you are describing the behavior (and the editorial problems it creates) accurately and specifically. Best to stay away from words like 'childish' altogether, because they are too personal to be truly objective.
• Do not allow yourself to stray into attacking the other editor directly (there's a world of difference between saying 'an edit was ill-considered' and 'an editor makes ill-considered edits')
• Always give the other editor the opportunity to move back toa reasonable discussion. needling people just amplifies the problem.

I haven't looked through the encounter all that carefully, but from the descriptions the two of you gave above, as well your comments, I dare say you're not really working from a calm, mature perspective yourself. Save templates for vandals and newbs; if you have a problem with a regular editor, talk it out. If you can't talk it out, take it to a noticeboard and ask for help. --Ludwigs2 07:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You might be like Mark Twain, who, when his wife would use colorful metaphors, he would say, "My dear, you know all the words, but you don't have the rhythm!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm more like the old fishwife, who knew how to be a wife, and knew how to beat a fish, and knew when to do each. --Ludwigs2 06:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bugs and Netalarm and Ludwigs2,

First I want to apologize to each of you for my course language.

I appreciate your comments whole heartedly and accept your criticisms. I could have handled this unprofessional situation much better and I would like to point out that I was personally shocked to find out that our tiff was drug over here and I apologize for wasting everyone's time.

As soon as I learned that our disagreement had been brought here I felt that a more experienced editor was trying to intimidate me. I may be new and I may make mistakes quite often but I do not intimidate easily. I know I was right in both spirit and by the letter and I will not be bullied.

I feel I have been harassed and even though I did not bring this matter to this forum myself, I would like to know the next step as I truly believe that Purplebackpack89 has attempted to intimidate me and that his move should not go unanswered.

I have been accused here of the following patently false actions

1. "you've templated the regulars, assumed bad faith,": I call them as as I see them. You act like a kid, you get flagged like a kid. If I made a mistake, I strongly apologize. Even so, please enumerate the policy I allegedly violated.

2. "since this request started, you've violated numerous other policies relating to considerate conduct, sometimes border on harassment". I have asked several times for any information at all pertaining to this allegation. I have not received it. I believe that this allegation is false and is nothing more then a straw man. I again, sincerely request that the complainant fulfill the request and enlighten us all as to the policies I have allegedly violated.

3. "You've also done some things that have required ArbCom and Oversight attention)" BULLSHIT!! When, where, quotes? This is patently untrue and the accuser should be sanctioned for knowingly making such slanderous allegations in such a public area. This slander shall not go unanswered.

4. "To the admins, examine Veriss' deleted edits, please" Bring it on, examine every edit, all 2,000 plus and see that every contribution and edit has been made in good faith while the complainant has deleted my posts to his talk page. This is also slanderous and will not go unchallenged.

I have been grossly slandered here and my name has been drug through the mud. I did not start this step but want to know the next step. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is much to do about nothing, just as your empty accusations that I had "done some things that have required ArbCom and Oversight attention" was empty bull crap. Please do the right thing and clear my good name by retracting your accusations. Please do the right thing and clear my name, only you can do it. Please clear my name. Please clear my good name of what you know is untrue. Veriss (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

With regard to, #3, I had to e-mail ArbCon and Oversight because you were putting information about me that didn't belong on Wikipedia. MULTIPLE TIMES. You even did it above before you saw the error in your. That is why two of your edits last night are in gray and crossed out. Those are the edits I would like administrators to look at. The next step would be an ANI if you so choose Purplebackpack89 15:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Veriss1 really needs to back away from the term "slander" here: especially when using it to describe another editor's removal of his comments from their talk page (see: WP:BLANKING). "...while the complainant has deleted my posts to his talk page. This is also slanderous and will not go unchallenged." No, it's not slanderous, and Yes, it will go unchallenged. Even if "Veriss1" were your real legal name, he (not she, as his talk page reveals) is not slandering you, so please stop it. The "mentorship" offer is both insincere and ill-advised: an actual mentor doesn't call someone he wishes to help "childish" and tell them he has "no use" for them. Mentoring is usually not for a less experienced editor (which you say you are) to offer to a more experienced editor, and sarcastically offering it just looks bad. Purplebackpack89 is not required to "clear your good name", as you plead several times for. I agree that this appears to be over something that Veriss1 is actually quite right about, and would win in the court of public opinion: John Boehner should not be categorized as a bartender. But PBP89 is not going to be sanctioned here for "bullying", and AN/I is the place for that if that is the route chosen. WQA is sort of like the "kiddy-pool", and the "deep-end" at AN/I can be... intimidating. Hopefully Boehner will remain uncategorized a bartender, and this was all just a bad dream... Doc talk 16:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User Cybermud

I report user Cybermud for continued extreme insults. Some examples would be:

Here [50] and here [51] he calls me “SonicSpoof.”

Here [52] and here [53] he calls me a troll and a vandal. (He also writes something really weird about how I should tell him to “stop whining and be a man that my mother won't be ashamed of” and all this in response to my very calm comment here [54])

Here he removed one of my comments from the Andrea Dworkin talk page and wrote in the edit summary “vandalism.” [55] Another editor had to restore it and explain to Cybermud that it wasn't vandalism.

Here [56] he calls me a his “wikihounding sockpuppet” and attacks user Cailil. Here [57] he calls me his “sockpuppeting wikihound” and attacks user Slp1.

Everything started with this [58][59][60] series of comments by Cybermud on the Andrea Dworkin talk page where Cybermud describes Dworkin as a “hideous looking Jabba the Hutt type woman” and states that “her nastiness certainly does qualify as a valid reason to doubt she was raped.” He continues to write something about “politically motivated rapes,” and “all men are rapists” and “blatant misandry” and things like that. I told Cybermud that I thought talk pages aren’t supposed to be used for such diatribes [61][62][63] and since then he has been insulting me.

I’m sure that Cybermud will call me all the screw ups under the sun and say that I’m a vandal and a sockpuppet and a wikihounder and a troll and “SonicSpoof” and that I’m misrepresenting his edits. Please check my editing history and see for yourselves that there is no vandalism or any of the other accusations.

I was hoping that Cybermud would follow this [64] advice of an administrator and take back some of his insults. But it’s obvious that he doesn’t intend to do it and that he will continue to insult me and besmirch me whenever he addresses me. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am now more convinced than ever that you are a sockpuppet. Anyone evaluating the assertions made by Sonicyouth should look at his/her diffs in context. He's absolutely right that I will say he's misrepresenting my edits, as well as the "advice" of an administrator and everything and anyone else. I could go and create a long list of diffs where Sonicyouth attacks me too, but if you just read Sonicyouth's own diffs in context (as suggested above) you will find them yourselves. Either way I'm not investing any more time into dealing with this editor.--Cybermud (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You just can't address me without using insults or trying to besmirch my reputation.

Please look at my diffs in context and tell me if you find anything that mitigates Cybermud calling me "SonicSpoof," a vandal, a troll, a wikihounder, a sockpuppet, a non-editor and what not.

The reason Cybermud can't provide diffs is because unlike him I don't feel like calling him (or anyone) names just because they disagree with me. He's been engaged in the most elaborate character assassination of me and everyone who tells him that people have a right to disagree with him without being accused of being a "spoof," a vandal, a troll, a wikihounder, a sockpuppet. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

More hyperbole and nonsense that I'm tired of endlessly responding to. Since you and I are not editing any similar articles at the moment how about we agree to disagree and bury the hatchet (and not into anyone)? The SPI investigation was closed without any action against you so just let it go and I promise not to call a spade a spade or even mention you again. I'd be more than happy to forget you even exist if you'd stop your own attacks.--Cybermud (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly called me "SonicSpoof," vandal, troll, wikihound, sockpuppet, and non-editor. And you don't show any inclination to admit that you've repeatedly crossed the line or to change your behavior. You basically say that you'll continue with your personal attacks unless I refrain from editing similar or the same articles (which I intend to do as soon as I have more time to really commit myself to them). You leave me no other choice but to report you here and hope that you'll stop calling me names. I'd LOVE to "let it go" but I can't because you continue to insult me.

I don't need to "bury the hatchet" into you or anyone because I never picked up that hatchet. The personal attacks were completely one-sided because I never insulted you back. Other editors have pointed out that you seem to have a problem with civility and assuming good faith, like here [65].

From what I've seen, your way of communicating with other editors is very problematic. I'm just the newest target of your smear campaign. If other editors review my complaint here and don't find anything wrong with your behavior then, okay, I'll accept it and move on. I'll do it gladly. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest you invite these "other editors" you've found to come speak for themselves about my "very problematic smear campaign," "activism," "extreme attacks," etc, etc, etc? I'm sure you can find at least one other account that can come and opine here in support of you...--Cybermud (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think both of you should stop posting, and wait for others to look at the evidence and opine. There is nothing more likely to put off others from giving their opinion than two editors who continue a dispute on this page. However, since I am here and since Cybermud asks, yes, indeed other editors and administrators have pointed out that comments and actions that are problematic, including Cailil [66][67] and BWilkins [68]. For full disclosure, I have myself been in dispute with CM; however though my name is mentioned above, I do not consider Cybermud's interactions concerning me to have been particularly problematic. In contrast, the names Cybermud has called a relatively new editor, SonicYouth are inappropriate, as was deleting his/her comments as vandalism. As I think Cybermud understands, the trip to Sock Puppet Investigations was inappropriate, given that there was no real evidence offered. Personally, I find the Jabba the Hut/rape comments Cybermud made about Andrea Dworkin [69][70][71] highly objectionable; these are outside the scope of this particular page, but are likely talkpage violations. Obviously, it will be helpful if other, uninvolved, editors can comment; the point of this page is not to be a battleground, but to look forward, and to get some useful feedback to prevent similar hurt feelings and upset in the future. --Slp1 (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is it? SonicYouth has repeatedly characterized me as "attacking you" yet you say "I do not consider Cybermud's interactions concerning me to have been particularly problematic"? Since you've made it germane to this issue by characterizing me as namecalling a new editor, it bears mentioning, and you're well aware, I don't view him as a new editor. You should also clarify that the comments you link to from Cailil and Bwilkins were primarily in relation to Nick Levinson and not SonicYouth because it's as clear as mud in yours and SY's edits.--Cybermud (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's patently clear that you don't think SonicYouth is a new editor. The problem is that repeatedly making claims that somebody is a sockpuppet (including calling them Sonicspoof, for example) without any evidence is considered a personal attack. You might want to read this essay about the matter. Baldly calling edits vandalism when they are not, that editors are trolls etc are also very problematic.

This discussion is not about SonicYouth. It's about your interactions and communication with other users and in particular SonicYouth. I personally don't feel you've crossed the line with me, but the diffs I provide show both Cailil and Bwilkins telling you that your interactions on the SPI page are over the line, with no evidence that they were "primarily in relation to Levinson". [72][73] But frankly, if they were, it just shows that the problematic edits have affected multiple editors, making the issue worse, not better.

Cybermud, you are a relatively new user too. There is a lot to learn here about WP ways of editing and interacting. I have made plenty of mistakes in my time and no doubt will continue to do so. It is totally understandable that there is a learning curve in getting to know all the ins and outs and the best ways to go about things here. For example, I noticed your confusion about sockpuppet checks; yes, it is easy and fast to do a checkuser on a editor, but for privacy reasons this is never done without solid evidence of abusive sockpuppetry, and never as a "fishing" trip (ie I think X is a sockpuppet, please check it out"). Now you know. It's the same with learning about how best to interact with other editors. It's easy to see this place as a battleground, but that isn't the vision; in fact being combative and uncivil does not work to one's favour in the long term. As I said, it's fine to have some initial problems in this regard, but as several other editors have pointed out, you do need to change your approach. It will actually serve you better, here as in real life. --Slp1 (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

To further respond to your remark on the "trip to Sock Puppet Investigations" I do feel it was inappropriate, but not for the reasons you would both like to imply. As I clarified there a number of times, though SY, and apparently you also, would like to obfuscate it, I do believe that SY is a sockpuppet and this Wikiquette alert only reinforces that belief. I regret misunderstanding the way the process worked, what the level of behavioral evidence apparently is, and feeling the need to put forth a putative puppetmaster for SonicYouth (which needlessly and regrettably pulled Nick Levinson into it,) but none of that changes the fact that I opened the SPI because I believed that SonicYouth was a SP and SPA. The clarity of this is largely lost now because SY has since gone editing a number of new pages and asking for help "as a new editor."--Cybermud (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only does Cybermud continue to call me names but he ridicules me in the most vile manner. I posted a comment on his talk page telling him that I had no other choice but report him here and he posted this: [74] In my opinion, this is harassment. His incessant insults and taunts are very offensive and I beg you to please comment on his behavior and tell him to just STOP. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

At some point perhaps someone will address the theatrics of SonicYouth in all this... His various claims, assertions and statements like "ridicules me in the most vile manner," "very offensive," "extreme insults," "men's rights activist... w/ an axe to grind," "father's rights activist," "attacks s1p1," "attacks everyone." We can continue to beat a dead horse in regards to my dragging Nick Levinson into a SPI investigation, which I have already apologized for and even Nick has said he believes I did in good faith, or we can take a look at the way SonicYouth has tried to blame Shakehandsman for the SPI and characterize him as working in concert with me for all the above baseless assertions. An action that no one, least of all Shakeshandman, will call acting in good faith. SonicYouth is grossly mischaracterizing my edits and the edits of many other users. He has been warned about as much at least several times, by Shakeshandman [[75]] [[76]] and then by Bwilkins [[77]]--Cybermud (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

talk page problems at Talk:Transistor–transistor logic

• User:Circuit dreamer
• Talk:Transistor–transistor logic

I've already directed this user to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines but the talk page continues to fill with chest-thumping instead of productive discussion of article improvements. Edit summaries such as this [78] are troublesome as well. The talk page entries are longer than the article they are nominally "discussing". Could we get a tutorial on proper use of talk pages? --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This behavior article has extended to Flip-flop (electronics)‎ and in particular this edit summary which describes an effort at a technical clean-up by User:Zen-in as vandalism. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The so-called "clean-up" or as you have diplomatically said - "technical clean-up", is simply reverting without any comment (see also Schmitt trigger). Edit summaries used by Zen-in are misleading and bluffing; he uses them to disguise his unworthy behavior exactly like Wikipedia vandals. If you scrutinize his contributions, you will find that most of them (maybe, more than 99%) are removing of my edits; less than 1% are something creative; the rest are common phrases and wrong assertions. He regularly inspects my contributions; then visits and "cleans-up" the pages where I have inserted some text. It sounds paradoxically and incredibly but it turns out the Zen-in's existence in Wikipedia is on purpose only to destroy my creations?!?! Of course, you know excellently these facts but you and others (some of them are administrators) maintain a stubborn silence (instead to join the discussions to solve the problems) thus encouraging his vandal behavior. I don't know the reason of your sympathy; I can only guess... Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 16:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Other editors have asked me to try to discuss my edits with him. He doesn't seem interested in accepting other editor's advice and continues to push his pov. In one instance I was slandered by circuit-dreamer. [[79]]. In August he received a final warning for this same behavior- User_talk:Circuit_dreamer#refactoring talk pages. Since then his behavior has gotten worse. His outburst at Wtshymanski is unacceptable. Zen-in (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Scott MacDonald

• Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:ANI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Scott MacDonald (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• In the course of a previously civil discussion on ANI, an apparently upset administrator turned it into a blatant attack here.
• After a polite, non-templated warning, the problematic conduct continued in an edit summary.
• Comments broadened to include others [80] here.

I think we hold our administrators to higher standards than this. Toddst1 (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If you display outrageous stupidity you shouldn't be too surprised if someone points the fact out with drastic words. You can avoid this in the future by thinking before writing. Hans Adler 21:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but if it becomes OK for administrators to each other names when their perspective on a situation are different (note that my perpsective aligned with at least on other admin's on that issue), this place becomes unworkable. Toddst1 (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) For some additional perspectives, here you can see how the grown-ups reacted to the matter. Hans Adler 21:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not trying to second-guess ARBCOMM or anyone else. I made a comment on ANI in good faith. You are free to disagree with it. Folks are not free to verbally abuse other editors, even admins. Toddst1 (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"their perspective on a situation are different"? To quote Dilbert "since when did ignorance become a point of view?".--Scott Mac 21:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I apologise for calling you an idiot which was an inarticulate personal attack - beneath me. What I really should have said is that your administrative actions are incompetent, your priorities seriously fucked, and your judgement well below the level I'd expect of any functionary on this website. You have continually behaved in a vain and ill-considered manner straining on gnats and swallowing camels. A long-term user, who apparently edits under his own name, makes a serious and (as it happens) well-founded complaint that he is being libelled by association. He is upset and has spoken of (understandably) of legal consequences. Your response? Focus on the fact the victim hasn't been civil - while ignoring the slander. Rev delete his cussing someone out, and then shut down the thread (which has noted that the allegation about the SPI slander isn't being dealt with). Then when I call you on your incompetent judgement, you get more upset about my "wikietiquete" than reflecting on how your actions have helped in a string of re-abusing a victim. Go reflect on yourself, this does not make you look good. I'll not call it idiocy, but it is.--Scott Mac 21:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Calling one another idiots should be avoided. Focusing on policy technicalities rather than serious underlying issues should also be avoided. And policies and guidelines should always be interpreted with their underlying purposes in mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• May I just point out to Scott Mac, that unlike him, Toddst1 is not only an "awsome wikipedian" but also "reports threats of violence on Wikipedia to appropriate law enforcement authorities" (I expect that means the police). So it may be opportune to back away from this very contraversial situation before it degenerates further.  Giacomo  22:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

My own very personal viewpoint: Regardless of the actual events, Scott Mac has a penchant for being harsh to the point of incivility about everyone who doesn't share his own personal "priorities". He is obsessed with the protection of article subjects: while I agree this is a noble objective, I often have the feeling that he is ready to sacrifice every other aspect of WP to achieve this, and this is not healthy to the project and to his interaction with other editors. --Cyclopia^talk 22:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Today's dispute has nothing to do with an article subject and I am not at all certain that this is a helpful contribution. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I know we're not talking about an article subject. It's that this kind of ethical absolutism pattern of Scott Mac is pervasive and, while it can be sometimes commendable, it is prone to lead to both minor and major problems, and I think Scott Mac should reflect on his behaviour regardless of who is "right" or "wrong" here. --Cyclopia^talk 22:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What is much more pervasive in general among Wikipedia's editor population is a complete lack of responsibility. (Fortunately not everybody is as fundamentally anti-ethics as you. [81]) Scott is merely a counterweight to that problem. Hans Adler 22:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What you call "fundamentally anti-ethics" is simply having different ethical standards, and that's exactly the gist of the problem: people who simply cannot accept ethical priorities different from theirs. The thread you link hasn't even anything to do with ethics: it simply asked to include a widely sourced fact. --Cyclopia^talk 23:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You insisted on including an obscurely sourced fact on a child, IIRC based on wikilawyering that an explicit BLP rule against that doesn't apply because the child wasn't notable enough for their own article, so technically the rule didn't apply. This kind of behaviour is despicable. Hans Adler 23:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That's quite false as reading the thread will demonstrate. But we're going way off topic now -apart from the fact that you still can't wrap your head around the fact that people can have different opinions on what is appropriate and what is not without having to be called "despicable". This is deleterious ethical fundamentalism. --Cyclopia^talk 23:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Cyclopia, I think Toddst1 should reflect on his behaviour regardless of who is "right" or "wrong" here. Toddst, sometimes the best way to respond to a personal attack is not to respond at all. (Per WP:NPA.) Sometimes or indeed often. I always thought this was good advice, especially for admins. Let it go, if you feel a user has been disrespectful to you. Look away. It's unbecoming to make a big deal of it, to give the impression that your own dignity is of such importance, and to waste admin time typing up complaints for posting on this or other boards. If they're disrespectful to somebody else, don't let it go and don't look away; the two cases are different. Bishonen | talk 00:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC).

• We do indeed, and should, hold our administrators to higher standards. Irrespective of the incident which triggered this, which this is not a forum to discuss, it is entirely incompatible with the function of administrator to go around calling others "idiots", much less to follow this up with a fake apology that is full of more insults (" I'll not call it idiocy, but it is"). For whatever reason.  Sandstein  06:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You are right, of course. When admins are angry they should not resort to bad language. That's what the block button is for, after all. Hans Adler 07:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing of this matter and don't care to, really. My intent here is to bear character witness: I have always felt Toddst1 to be one of the finest Wikipedians of my experience. I also agree with his comment that admins should be civil at all times. It sets a higher tone for the project as a whole, in my view. Jusdafax 07:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• So to recount. Toddst1's actions are considered by some editors (including myself) to be fairly poor, Scott MacDonald rather idiotically called him an idiot. Toddst1 then brings this to WQA rather than acting like a grown up admin who can deal with this sort of low grade stuff. This is absolutely pathetic behaviour from both of them and is reminiscent of a catfight. They should both be told to shake hands and go away. Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, Polargeo 2. I'll rephrase that, if I may, to "Suggest both parties shake hands and move on." Civil resolution is the purpose of this page, as I understand it. Jusdafax 16:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, therefore they should both shake hands and promise to be nice to each other even in disagreement. SM was wrong to make the comment but also the lack of a serious attempt to reach a resolution by the the user who filed this complaint should not be encouraged by a display of minor outrage. What should happen is an encouragement that both editors communicate civily. This will be better for the long term health of wikipedia as both editors are likely to continue meeting each other. Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, fair enough. Whaddaya say, parties at odds? Can we resolve this one here and now? Jusdafax 16:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this where the new process for voting on Scott McDonald's awesome wikipedian day has moved? Just casting my vote in favor. Snow already! I'm off to find a suitably cute cat for the barnstar...Bali ultimate (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Cat Shmat! Use the cute animated fishapod barnstar. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

Swedish general election, 2010

• Wembwandt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Swedish general election, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a second request for administrative assistance regarding personal attacks. I quote from the archive:

Editor Wembwandt has repeatedly attacked other editors, explicitly charging editors with promoting the Sweden Democrats (SD), a controversial political party in Sweden.

• (1) Wembwandt's attacks occured in the following editing summaries: "POV pushing by the SD", "fascist sympathisers", "the neo-nazis only want to talk about themselves", and "undoing POV version added by SD apologist - this article is . . . NOT a platform for your nasty right-wing politics!".

• (2) Wembwandt's attacks have occured also on the article's talk page: "This article seems to have been hijacked by right-wing extremists." . . . . "Trouble is, if you try to tone it down or change it, the Gestapo quickly pop-up and change it back."

• (3) On Wembwandt's Talk page, Wembwandt attacked editor Lihaas, writing "you still won't get to see the Swedish Democrats in power - if such is your desire - or their anti-immigration stance gain any acceptance." . Wembwandt made a general attack on many editors of the election page: "some editors are clearly using it POV push the Swedish Democrats"

My previous posting raised other issues that did elicit helpful comments --- about the neutrality & balance of the article, about Wikipedia policy, and about the Wikiquette of myself, Bishonen, Lihaas, and Hydrox. However, nobody on this page addressed the Wikiquette problem of Wembwandt's behavior.

For convenient reference, I quote from the Wikipedia policy No Personal Attacks, leaving the quoted policies hidden (as administrators should be familiar with this policy):

These guidelines imply that Wemwandt's attacks have two "types of comments [that] are never acceptable":

• "political . . . or other epithets . . . directed against another contributor."
• "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence"."

The NPA section describes the consquences of personal attacks:

Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks . . . may face serious consequences through arbitration, such as being subjected to a community ban. [ . . . ] In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. [ . . . ] Recurring attacks are . . . more likely to be considered "disruption". [ . . . ] A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What, again? You should stop nagging the unfortunate curators of this page, or they may become seriously impatient (I know I would). Submitting the same complaint twice is a little... I don't quite know what to call it... well, the least of your problems is that it's counterproductive. If you regard it as a rational project to further pursue Wembwandt, a user who hasn't edited since 27 October, I suggest an WP:RFC/U. You are mistaken when you state that your previous alert "did elicit helpful comments - about the neutrality & balance of the article, about Wikipedia policy, and about the Wikiquette of [yourself], Bishonen, Lihaas, and Hydrox." No, it didn't; those comments didn't in any meaningful sense come from this board, but from the pro-Sweden-Democrats mutual admiration society that followed you here from the Swedish election talkpage. Could that have been why you found them "helpful"? Plus a few comments from me. I'm sorry now that I wasted time on you and your tendentious editing, and I won't any more. The one WQA admin who responded to you, Looie496, addressed your etiquette exclusively, nobody else's. Not mine, not Lihaas', not Hydrox's. Only Kiefer.Wolfowitz'. In his two-line comment, Looie spoke tersely of his lack of sympathy with your complaint, and stated that "the behavior of Kiefer.Wolfowitz toward Bishonen is not very good in terms of etiquette." Do you really think repeating yourself is likely to get you more sympathy here? They're against incivility, you know. And even though you have blanked all incivility warnings from your talkpage, people from here can still easily see on Talk: Swedish general election, 2010 that you think rudeness is just fine as long as it's your rudeness. Perhaps you'd better archive it? Bishonen | talk 19:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

Bishonen, you impudently intensify your previous insult by now writing that the three editors from that page form a "pro-Sweden-Democrats mutual admiration society". Editors here may distinguish themselves by admonishing you to obey WP policies you claim to enforce.

Bishonen, you lack the intellectual and political seriousness to merit my attention. I suggest you return to adding smiley facies and courtseying on Wembwandt's page that it's not a good idea to call other editors "nazis", tee-hee, tee-hee.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, you lack wit, but I quite enjoyed the alliteration. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

And you have wit? Perhaps you are half right . . . . Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Lar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• I asked Lar (talk · contribs) to stop posting on my talkpage because he insists on attacking me in every post: [82]

• He responds with "if there's a need to let you know about something or clarify some misinterpretation you've made, I will, regardless of any request you have made": [83]

• This is definitely in violation of the spirit of this part of the user page policy guideline which states:

If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to).

So apparently Lar has decided it isn't sensible to respect my request in spite of it being probable that it should be sensible to do so. I'm not talking about administrative action here. (I do not begrudge him the right, as an administrator or another user to post procedural messages on my talkpage alerting me about discussions or administrator action that affects me.) He is perpetuating a battleground, and I do find it very inimical to a peaceful environment to have Lar threaten to what essentially to me sounds like wikihounding.

An uninvolved outside observer would be useful in helping us come to an agreement about when it is appropriate for Lar to post to my talkpage.

Thanks.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If this were a continued pattern, I would tend to agree. However, it is the only example you give, and I routinely have had "disinvited guests" make "one more post" and I fo not rush off to WQA on it. The issue is - is the person harassing you by continued posting after being asked to stop. "Probably sensible" is the operative term. If Lar iterates posts (other than required notices, etc.) then make a complaint. Until then, have a nice cup of tea. Collect (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. Get a perspective and do something more useful. Mind you, this is the type of lame moaning that WQA seems to relish.--Scott Mac 15:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There are precisely two posts in total. It appears SA quoted Lar. Lar responded. Then SA responded. At the end of the response, he asked Lar not to post uninvited again. Lar responded. That's it. It seems to me you can't enter into a discussion with someone and then seek to have the last word by telling them not to comment on your talk page! If you don't want to talk to them, don't post lengthy involved replies that require an answer. This doesn't even begin to approach hounding. Neither does the proposal to post only for information or to correct a misrepresentation. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

User:Rememberway

I find the language used in this edit [84] to be objectionable and discourteous. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I find Wtshymanski is making repeated assertions and reverts on the basis that we are talking about 'electric engine's when nobody has ever written that into an article or even the talk page, and frankly he's literally vandalising the wikipedia by removing internal links, and then making bad faith claims. He then refuses to discuss it on the relevant talk page. In short he's attempting to WP:OWN the article.Rememberway (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

From looking at the talkpage of Electric motor and Wtshymanski's talkpage this is a hot topic of debate at the moment in which Wtshymanski is in a bit of a minority. Suggest you try and resolve this by consensus/RfC or some other form of DR rather than getting hot under the collar and resorting to remarks like "screw you" which is indeed discourteous. Also - it is looking perilously close to an edit war. You are not going to get anywhere Wtshymanski, by reverting. There is only one of you. You need to convince the others, not just revert.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, he has no references at all to support his position.Rememberway (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if I am in a minority, I should not be abused. Sending the reader off to a link which only has one relevant link - which is the [[electric motor] article - is a waste of the reader's time. Notice that the hatnote contains a laundry list of other vaguely related terms including "engine", which should be adequate. There's no need of further time-wasting misdirection in the article text. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right you should not be abused. You also both need to find a more constructive way of resolving this issue.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Lucy-marie

This user and I have a history of protracted discussions on talk pages, which I have today stated that I no longer wish to take part in. She has now asked me a question regarding one of my comments, which was not aimed at her. I replied to that effect, and she has now taken to quizzing me on my talk page, demanding a fuller answer. I again explained that I was talking generally, and asked her twice not to engage me on my talk page. She has persisted nevertheless, as she seems to think I am obliged to provide some lengthy essay on what I may or may not have meant. She ended with an outright personal insult, which she struckthrough on the first edit, i.e. it was not an insult that she later retracted. I take very strong exception to this, and, as I have stated very clearly, I want action to be taken and this editor to stay off my talk page. The exchange is here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Please notify Lucy-marie on her talk page, otherwise she may not see this thread.

Based solely on the exchange you linked, it seems to me that both of you are being a bit oversensitive. She obviously feels like you made some veiled insult directed at her in article talk; if you don't want to clarify what you meant by whatever-it-was-you-said, then you ought to at least volunteer to strike it from article talk space. it's a bit rude to say something that could be interpreted as an insult and then refuse either to explain or redact. She has a right to request an explanation for things like that, and she hasn't yet gotten to the kind of behavior covered in wp:HUSH.

Trust me: based (once more) on just what's linked here, you are leading a charmed life if this is the worst you've experienced on wikipedia. you might want to expand a bit more on the problem, and notify her so that we can see more extensive diffs about the interactions you two have. --Ludwigs2 16:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I have explained it, and I think that is extremely clear. It was a general comment, not aimed at her. If I redacted it, it would appear that I was admitting some kind of insult towards someone, which was not the case. Frankly, I feel I could say it until I was blue in the face, and it wouldn't be good enough. Secondly, it's naturally not the worst I've ever seen - the death threat was the worst - but this is the culmination of a lot of similar discussion with Lucy-Marie over the months and years, and I've let a lot of similar conversations go by unreported. I am content to leave the lengthy arguments rest, as I have no interest in it. I was reporting the insult, but then I didn't realise it was ok to personally insult someone on their talk page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to learn the art of 'the graceful retreat'. You don't need to admit that you did anything wrong. Redact or reword the passage, and use an edit summary like Removing this phrasing because it is being misinterpreted and causing confusion. That way you remove the source of the problem and acknowledge the other editor's feelings, but leave it all on the level of "for the purposes of furthering the discussion". most editors will accept that as valid, and those who don't will usually show themselves up as particularly angry.

But again, notify Lucy, give some more diffs of your interactions with her, and then we can get into the deeper issue. --Ludwigs2 16:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This was my graceful retreat. I've stated that our interaction is over, and asked her to leave me alone twice. I'm not redacting the statement because it had nothing to do with her. I've stated that at least three times, and I cannot account for other editors being confused, bewildered, unable to read or capable of assuming good faith. That she then saw fit to insult me and cynically "retract" it on the first edit speaks volumes. I have notified her of this discussion, and as I say, the deeper issue is not worth dredging up because believe me, there isn't enough cyberspace for the ensuing exchanges. If her insult is deemed perfectly ok, then I'll just remove every comment she makes on my talk page in future. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Breton, this is a collaborative project. you don't get to say 'go away and leave me alone', at least not so long as there are topics that the two of you are mutually interested in editing. If you want to withdraw from all mutual topics then she would have no right to pursue you and this might start to look like harassment. But so long as the two of you are overlapping edits on articles, you need to find some way to communicate with her that is mutually satisfactory. If you want to resolve the issue we can try; if you don't want to talk about it then we won't (and you can handle the issue, as you say, by deleting her posts to your talk page). it's up to you; I'm just trying to help smooth things out. --Ludwigs2 17:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we are talking about articles that I and others edit, not Lucy-Marie. She doesn't edit these articles, she just argues about them on talk pages in an unsophisticated fashion. In that sense, there's no conflict. The main issue is when someone makes a proposal and she opposes it alone, for days. Or when she dredges up an old consensus that 99.99% of the WikiProject is happy with, sometimes again and again on a monthly basis, and argues about it for days at a time. She doesn't actually contribute to the articles themselves, so there's no direct conflict. I will no longer be responding to her on talk pages, and I do get to delete her stuff from my talk page, especially her insults. I do understand that the beef of our differences is not clear, but that's not what I'm complaining about. I'm calling a halt to that myself. I wanted the insult addressed, but I forgot that she has her "own interpretation of the guidelines" (her own words) and it's ok for her to insult people. If I'd realised that, I might have sunk to that sad, lame level myself. Thanks for your input, Ludwigs, I appreciate it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to this i Edit a selection of articles I am interested in and the general Formual One season articles are article I edit and keep on my watchlist. I don’t generally edit the articles of drivers or teams or circuits but the overview articles i do. I am also beginning to feel like this is becoming a form of ownership with this report here as it seems as if Breton wants me to go away so they can edit the article however they see fit without any disagreement or opposing POV being aired. As Breton also said quite correctly i have differing interpretations, but then every single user will, it’s the nature of Wikipedia. I will continue to edit in the same manner regardless of what Breton believes as I believe firmly I have not been disruptive and have asked a perfectly legitimate question which was deliberately and obstructively ignored from being answered. I stress that that is just my personal opinion.

In a nutshell the main reason Breton takes issue with me is because I edit in a manner which is how would you say "frugal" and by that I mean i try to be as succinct with phrasing as possible. Breton believes this is obstructive and removes information Breton deems essential. Breton also believes I am only there to remove information. I personally have no problem with Breton and believe that Breton is taking this far too personally and gets too involved in "their" articles.

I Do not believe that there is any serious problem at all and that all editors (Breton included) act in good faith from the start, with the only exception being vandals. I am more than willing to try and work out any problems Breton thinks there may be and any problems which I have with Breton with the help of a third party. I do though thoroughly believe this is a case of a user taking the articles they edit too personally and straying in to ownership and not realising it. I do not believe this is deliberate in anyway, but is leading to unintended obstructive behaviour.

As I said I am willing to sit down with a third party and discuss any issues with Breton, but believe this is all overblown and i will continue to edit as i have done.

--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Carolyn Baker III

• Carolyn Baker III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is showing acts of incivility by using the F word which can be seen here, here, here, and here. On one occasion the editor was asked to stop. I had taken this to the ANI, and was deferred to here. Sarujo (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The only possible problematic one on its own is this one since it appears to be related to specific editors. However, as a pattern, the editor comes across as a 12 year old who think it's cool to swear when mom and dad are not around. A little bit of invective can be useful in the right place, but in the long run, this is an encyclopedia, and not a whorehouse. Have you personally tried to deal with it on their userpage? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't think it would do any good seeing as in the episode on the editor Mathewignash's talk page as seen here, the editor Black Kite jumping in shortly after here, Mathewignash removing the comments, in responce Baker states "That's how I am", Mathewignash asking the Baker not to swear, Baker admitting to using the F word several times but claims they haven't been swearing. Then there was not too long ago today another editor pointing out their use of profanity on that project page. So I don't see how me calling out the editor on their incivility will be more than a drop in the bucket when the editor has failed to take other fellow editors' advice. Sarujo (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Unlike the time Sarujo reported Divebomb, this one might actually deserve some action taken. NotARealWord (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is one of the few swearing-related wqa that may actually be valid, whereas use of the word 'fuck' and its derivatives is in general not a big deal, this user seems excessive. But I think it is best dealt with by direct engagement rather than reporting here.  pablo 20:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

But the editor was engaged personally and they fail to take advice. Are you suggesting to continue to personal call them out whenever they use profanity? Cause a remark like "that's how I am" doesn't give much prospect to them refraining from profanity in the future. Sarujo (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

By 'engaged' are you talking about Black Kite's message or did you yourself attempt to explain what your issue was? If you did, I've missed it. pablo 23:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sanjuro did not attempt to explain anything. Sanjuro also has a history of taking other users directly to ANI or here simply over them saying "Fuck." He last did it to user User:Divebomb last month. Based upon Sanjuro's diction and grammar, he is a non-native english speaker and perhaps has some exaggerated notion that the word "fuck" is inherently uncivil, whereas we native speakers understand better the nuances of the "fuck" (and other swear words). Carolyn Baker III (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Pablo, I stated that other editors had confronted Baker over the their profanity and Baker chose to ignored them.

Carolyn Baker III, You're in no position to criticize any editor over their actions. So I'd suggest you refrain from the mudslinging. What I did here in the past is not the center of this discussion - it's your incivility. There's no point of calling out the fact that refrained from coming to you regarding the matter. As I can see in your comment, it would have been fruitless. Other editors addressed the situation to you and you continued to drop the F bomb. Also, your deduction of my gender and nationality is flawed. I'll have you know my grammar and diction is top notch. To suggest my grammar and diction as being awful by somebody who started a discussion in cutesy. I have a perfect understanding of what the F word is. It's apparent you don't, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. It may not any meaning in the New York/New Jersey area, but this is not the New York/New Jersey area - this is Wikipedia. Native speaker doesn't single out one urban area in the United States. There are plenty of "native speakers" will agree with me %110. Furthermore, I don't know why I'm responding to you since my names is not Sanjuro. So your comment's don't apply to me. Sarujo (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply Sanjuro, I am in the position to add to this discussion any way I see fit. Who made you the sole arbiter of what we editors can and cannot comment on? Carolyn Baker III (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That’s not arbitration, it’s a fact. You're clearly trying to pass the blame on to me and not take responsibility for your actions. I'm not the one on notice here - you are. So no, calling me out just take the heat off yourself is highly irrelevant and childish on your part. It won’t get you anywhere. I'd advise you to answer Fainites' question rather that trying to pick a fight with me. Oh and I refuse to respond to anymore of your childish responses until you get my name right. Who on Earth is Sanjuro? Sarujo (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The other diffs that are interesting are the two directly following the first one provided, where she "jacks it up"[85][86], apparently not thinking the original message "strong" enough. It also shows she can control herself, and that being a New Yorker is not always an excuse for being excessively foul-mouthed. Not all New Yorkers "come off" that way, so she should try to "lay off" and speak in a more professional fashion. Most people curse, but this is excessive. Just my 2p... Doc talk 21:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I also found another instance regarding the deletion discussion for Jan Goossenaerts. I think that might be all of them. Sarujo (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have read all your comments above, and am sorry it had to come to this. But honestly, I think I've been doing a lot better on the swearing lately. Regards, Carolyn Baker III (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that you have been trying to reduce the swearing recently? How recently? For today, I've found one arse, one bollocks and one fuck. Is that a reduction? For what it's worth, the occasional fuck or similar for emphasis is no big deal, however where the bollocks did you come from is somewhat aggressive and uncollegiate. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The user also created the redirect Fuck handles to clear heels for no obvious reason, at least as far as I can see. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason will become obvious, as you put it, if you check an earlier version of the article. And yes, the pace and frequency of the swearing has been slackening over the last few days in direct response to helpful feedback I have gotten from Black Kite and others. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. If in doubt, try the preview button. Are you clear about the difference between using a swear word for emphasis as opposed to using it directed at another editor? Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of "fuck handles", it is no longer in the article, presumably because it is incorrect, fuck handles being useful protrusions of flesh. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, fuck handles are super high heels , us(6+ inches), useful for grabbing onto during sex for extra leverage. I don't know anything about "useful protrusions of flesh" being classified as fuck handles. Can you please elaborate? Carolyn Baker III (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Google it! The only reference to the high heels is the Urban Dictionary but there's lots to the other version. The kinder version is Love handles. However, this is all a bit off topic. Can we go back to my question on swearing please. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I try not to use google because of privacy concerns. I hope you understand. You know they save and index every search one enters on there. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. So what about my question above? Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Caroline, can I ask you again please - are you clear about the difference between using a swear word for emphasis as opposed to using it directed at another editor? Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

the extra flesh is usually called 'love handles' not 'fuck handles'. just an FYI

Caroline, allow me to point out the obvious. I personally don't give a crap about the word 'fuck' (and I don't really give a fuck about the word 'crap', either). But insisting on using the term when other people have asked you to tone it down is rude, disrespectful, and immature. This is not some punk forum where you are given the privilege of being obnoxiously self-righteous about every little whim that tickles your fancy. We are actually trying to hold productive discussions here, and when you run around stepping on peoples' toes for no damned good reason (beyond the egotistic notion that you're somehow 'entitled' to step on peoples' toes if you feel like it), you're just getting in the way. Tuck it in, zip it up, and play nice. ok? --Ludwigs2 18:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Still no answer to my question. No doubt the answer will become apparent over time. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The editor is more content with arguing with me than trying resolve the situation. Sarujo (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In case she doesn't know, "gross incivility" is listed as a common rationale for blocking a user. NotARealWord (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, I got it. Now can we all move on and get back to writting articles? Carolyn Baker III (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that concession. This aspect is now resolved. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your candor and concern. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• This editor is posting annoying comments on my user page. When I read and remove them this user reverts it. Mathewignash (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Feel free to read and investigate these "annoying" comments about Matthew's AFD manipulation and socking. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've investigated the reversion by Carolyn. People are allowed to remove notices from their talkpage, it is a tacit acknowledgment that it has been read; reverting his removal from his own talkpage is WP:DISRUPTive. Don't do it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Sarujo hounding and threatening me.

User:Sarujo seems to revel in making sanctimonious accusations and overt threats. He recently left this note on my talk page after I politely asked him to stop hounding me, "Excuse you but I haven't been hounding you, this is the first time I've actually come to regarding your delay. And no, this is a serious issue that can only be resolved by your full cooperation with the admins. You're walking a thin line right now, so it's best that follow along. As there's no telling what may become of you. You were asked a question, so it's in your best interest to respond back at WQA. Sarujo (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)" (the link here)

I mean, I dont know what to make of this. He should lay off. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That's not a threat. I really didn't know what would become of you if you didn't respond. You're already in hot water. Again, I have not been hounding you, as you so put it. I asked you once to respond. Then you tell me I've been harassing you, so I responded telling you I haven't. Clearly as the record shows you're making something out of nothing. Sarujo (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for responding. We'll just take care to let the populace sort this out. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not hounding. Sarujo asked you to respond to a question in the thread above. I see you have now finally done so. Can we close this and move on please. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

... and perhaps modifying one's possibly offensive behaviour might just mean that one would no longer need prods every now and again to reply to civility issues? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Carolyn Baker III has now been blocked as a sock of a banned user. Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

One thing that struck me as odd about the name: because Carolyn is a female name, and surnames pass through the paternal side of families, it is really possible to have a "Carolyn Baker The Third?" Jus' sayin'... ;> Doc talk 18:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

talk page for Theraputic Touch article

• Theraputic touch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Adrian-from-london (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Would someone please look at the talk page and monitor it for mutual insults between editors (messages which disregard wp:civil policy). Please see the "Erroneous Article" section for details.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Therapeutic_touch#Erroneous_Article

Thanks,

Adrian-from-london (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Therapeutic touch. Seems to be afflicted by SPA, single edit editors complaining about the entire article but not entering discussion, editing or suggesting actual improvements. Don't really see "mutual insults". Perhaps Famousdog's exasperated comment is a tad strongly worded, but understandably so in my view. The complainers are being invited to edit. I'll add it to my watch-list. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Things seem quiet here - so probably no need for further monitoring. Thanks for your help. Adrian-from-london (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Peace is contagious

• Kyle Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation.

Belligerent, fairly new editor, User:Peace is contagious, who refuses to adhere to core Wikipedia policies, has heaped insult and name-calling against me on his talk page for about the last 24 hours. I've kept my tone professional at User talk:Peace is contagious, and I've asked him not to indulge in his bullying, uncivil behavior. Yet he has not stopped. A sampling:

• u comic-nerds (q.v.) are incorrigibly 'goofy'.
• ...take ur sweet time, Il Duce; I'm sure u get paid more than I, so I would not wish to cut into ur hectic schedule. Forgive my humble obstructions your grace (bows deeply here).
• some jerk who lives in his parents basement @ age 35 ;^)
• great, so ur a cynical old fart, ... ur jealous ?! ... U still read comics @ ur age ?

His behavior is not constructive, and neither are his insults nor his edits — which at least one other editor, independently, has reverted. I beseech someone to please help. He doesn't have a right to verbally abuse other people. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note - I've notified him (which the reporter should do tsk tsk :>) and hopefully explained why "undoing" edits is not a "misuse of authority". Cheers... Doc talk 23:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I should have; you're correct. I did notify him of a Admin Notice Board entry about his multiple vios and belligerence, and forgot to do a second notice.

That said, he's has since name-called me "stubborn," "old" — which is reprehensibly ageist — and "lazy" (which I think my contribution history would belie). I believe he feels he can continue to be verbally abusive. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I put the :> in for a reason - wasn't trying to give you a hard time. Insults are not the only apparent problem with this user, and I've asked him to respond. Hopefully he will. Doc talk 00:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

He reveals in this[87] edit summary that he is Davidmedlar (talk · contribs), but I don't think it's a sock issue since that account hasn't edited since before the other was created. I think... Doc talk 01:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is now here and here as well. Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Davidmedlar was at ANI here. The edting style is familiar. he also made edits on the Kyle Baker article about Shrek's donkey. As you say - it doesn't seem to be a socking issue but it does mean he is not a new user. Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

24/7 (TV series)

Resolved

 – Semi-protected. 20:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• 109.152.195.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.155.240.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24/7_(TV_series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User_talk:Hholt01#24.2F7 (edit | [[Talk:User_talk:Hholt01#24.2F7|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Flagrant PA as well as threeR, vandalism etc. Hholt01 (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the 24/7 (TV series) article, which might put a stop to the nonsense for a while. Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia

Resolved

• SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Historical figures sometimes considered autistic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently, I have begun attempting to fix what I see as many problems in the article Historical figures sometimes considered autistic (including changing much of the format in order to try to make adding evidence easier, trying to eliminate words on the MoS words to watch such as "speculated" and trying to make the article more neutral). SandyGeorgia disagrees with many of the changes I have made and I feel has violated Wikiquette in expressing her disagreement.

On the talk page, SandyGeorgia constantly assumes bad faith: "the editor who requested it hasn't read sources and is filling the article with original research at this moment."

A point of particular contention with her was my removal of the following sentence from the article: "Fred Volkmar, a psychiatrist and autism expert and director of the Yale Child Study Center says, "There is unfortunately a sort of cottage industry of finding that everyone has Asperger's."[3]"

Since there was no follow-up on Volkmar's quote (he, in fact, appeared nowhere else in the article) I felt this was poisoning the well and violated NPOV. SandyGeorgia disagreed because Volkmar (according to her) is "one of the world's leading autism experts".

When I admitted that I was unfamiliar with Volkar's work and asked her what qualified him as "one of the world's leading autism experts," she offered no explanation of who he is, instead responding "If you've never heard of him, that would explain some of the issues you've introduced into this article. Have you actually read any of the sources you removed or minimized?"

She also accused me of biasedly promoting the views of Michael Fitzgerald, despite the fact that I did not introduce his presence to the article and eventually greatly reduced it.

She refers to the article with my changes as "unintelligible" and "deteriorated" saying "I can't see how to repair what's here now."

In the articles of deletion entry for the article (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Historical_figures_sometimes_considered_autistic), SandyGeorgia refers to me as "uninformed", refers to the current version of the article with my changes as "damaged" and says "Looks to me like the nominator here didn't bother to glance at the talk page... [it] would have been good of the nominator to review the talk page."

As a person with Asperger syndrome, I recognize that there are many people out there who feel that any display of autism as something other than a pandemic cannot possibly have value, but I feel that SandyGeorgia has used her personal views as an excuse to uncivilly attack me personally. May Cause Dizziness (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you need to notify SandyGeorgia of this thread, even though you mentioned it here[88]: see the top of the page on that, as it's a courtesy we must extend to other editors. Secondly, I personally am not seeing any personal attacks with what you've shown. She seems to be commenting on your edits: and "uninformed" is not saying the same thing as saying "You're an ignorant person", e.g. I don't know, MCD - hopefully this can be worked out easily. Cheers :> Doc talk 00:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What about assuming good faith?--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm assuming good faith in both of you: I just don't see any personal attacks from what you're showing here. If you have more evidence, you should provide it in "diff" form, and then others can see what you are referring to. I see you've notified her (excellent): this should move along soon. Cheers :> Doc talk 01:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps not personal attacks, but certainly incivility. From Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility, "The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment... ill-considered accusations of impropriety... belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen")" Certainly, you can recognize her comments as belittling?--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A lot of editors here can be a bit "brusque" from time to time (myself certainly included): it's the price we all pay for editing a community encyclopedia, with a huge variety of different personalities, opinions and specialties. Is she going to be punished for "incivility" because of this report? No. I'm seeing a few other editors telling you the same thing: you need to work out your issues on the talk pages of the articles you are both editing. There are a ton of policies and guidelines to be familiar with, and they change, too. Also see WP:BOOMERANG: it happens all the time. Talk about it on the talk pages: WP:AN/I is the place to seek sanctions, but you don't want to go there, I trust. Cheers :> Doc talk 04:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: SandyGeorgia has twice tried to revert Historical figures sometimes considered autistic before consensus was reached. When I changed back her reverts she placed the edit war warning template on my talk page.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

And it was right for Sandy to do so. If members of WP will look at the AfD in question I think you'll see who is really violating WP:CIVIL in this instance. 124.180.208.132 (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Have you read WP:BRD? It seems you have significantly changed an article that has been reasonably stable for months, and you should be discussing your proposals on the article talk page. It is standard for such changes to be reverted during the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(multiple ec) It is generally the responsibility of the editor adding material to get consensus. If you add something to an article and it is reverted, you need to get consensus before re-adding it. Perhaps this is just a misunderstanding about how wikipedia works and you should try pinging SG on her talk page. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy's not doing anything wrong. She may come across as harsh to you, but she's simply following policy. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have time for this tonight, but Dizziness has submitted an SPI on me with an IP from Australia ... since most of the CUs know my IP and where I live, that should be fun :) It looks like I'm being hounded, and Dizziness doesn't seem to want to respect talk page consensus :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've seen an SPI or two that "sat" for while; and that report doesn't look like its gonna be anything like that. Toss!... whoosh whoosh whoosh whoosh...WHAP!!! Doc talk 05:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Catching up now (was very busy with something else): Dizziness is now blocked for edit warring, and the SPI will sit there until ... whenever :) I'm afraid I don't know how to get Dizziness to read talk page comments or understand policy, but clearly no one on talk agrees with his changes. The article was so damaged that someone came across it and submitted it to AFD (apparently without reading the talk page, where they would have realized that there was a good and well-sourced version) before I had time to get back to it ... although I'm not sure I could have done anything to salvage it if I had gotten back to it, because Dizziness doesn't seem to follow what's written on talk, but is willing to edit war in changes without gaining consensus on talk. I'm going to be traveling the rest of the week, so will see how the article is when I get back, although I will have some internet access. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The SPI is closed. Marking as resolved. Next time, kiddies ;> Doc talk 05:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

See? Who says WQAs never result in anything... Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Loremaster

• Loremaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Technological_utopianism#Dispute_over_new_lead (edit | [[Talk:talk:Technological_utopianism#Dispute_over_new_lead|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I started editing the Article Technological utopianism but Loremaster objected to all my edits. Loremaster previously insulted me during my editing of the Singularitarianism Article, he said I was foolish and should get a life. It seems Loremaster has distinct anti-technology views specifically related to technology making the world a better place. He feels the world is heading for ecological catastrophe. He has been blocked previously on a number of occasions, which I can see: here is one example User_talk:Loremaster/Archive01#October_2010

Currently there is a discussion on-going between myself and Loremaster, which you can read here Talk:Technological_utopianism#Dispute_over_new_lead. The bias of Loremaster is prohibiting my editing of the article. He seems to be using Wikipedia as a soapbox for his anti-technology agenda.

Here is the previous discussion regarding the insult Loremaster made towards me: "Forgive me for being insulting but if you truly believe the quote by Eliezer is a realistic scenario I regret to inform you that you are foolish and need to get a life."

Some pertinent quotes regarding Loremaster's views relating to the current discussion are as follows:

"I am an optimist who is critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."

"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that."

It seems Loremaster is fighting to promote his views, he seems to be using Wikipedia as a soapbox. This seems to be a campaign for Loremaster because he wants to avert ecological catastrophe. I feel the Wikipedia neutral point of view has not been adhered to.

I look forward to your advice and assistance.

Thank you from User:JackBlack86.173.28.149 (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This is basically a content dispute, and may be difficult to solve without getting input from other editors. That being said, I am not at all happy with this edit by Loremaster, which reverted a whole series of edits without so much as an edit summary by way of explanation. JackBlack, you need to notify Loremaster of this WQA, or it will simply be a waste of time. Looie496 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Looie496, although I didn't provide and edit summary, I explained my revert on the Talk:Technological utopianism page. Furthermore, I have repeateadly told JackBlack to discuss substantial changes on that talk page before making them. --Loremaster (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel this is more than a mere content dispute. Loremaster has blatantly insulted me and his insults continue in a indirect manner. I shall mention this WQA to loremaster. user:JackBlack86.135.39.135 (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* JackBlack's accusations are so incoherent and ridiculous that I don't think I or anyone else should waste their time taking them seriously. I'll therefore ignore this “alert” debate and go back to doing what I do best: Making sure that the Wikipedia articles I watch over are well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. --Loremaster (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A *sigh* too from me. This is a great example of the impoliteness and inability of Loremaster to discuss the issues raised. Looie496 you highlighted how you were not happy with this edit by Loremaster, but Loremaster in his typical manner fails to address that point you raised. He has stormed off in a huff stating he is going to ignore me; and on the Techno-utopia talk page he states: "I've responded to your ridiculous Wikiquette alert and it's the last time that I do." I should add this is the also the first time he has responded. 86.173.28.88 (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)JackBlack

Ranp

• Ranp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Association_for_Renaissance_Martial_Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (and talk page)

User Ranp has been a Wikipedia editor for years. I recently edited the article relating to a group he belongs to, to add significant recent historical detail (in as neutral a manner as I could). I am somewhat concerned that has chosen to revert my additions with no further explanation than "stop vandalizing the article with that Schism BS". I do not personally think this edit is vandalism, but I wrote it. I am attempting to reason with him on the talk page, but it is difficult as he seems to think I am "hostile" towards the organization in question. I would appreciate any advice on how I can improve my efforts to interact with this user. The Jade Knight (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's a reliable source that supports the material about the schism there isn't really a reason for either of you to be talking to eachother. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the only sources which talk about the organization in question on that article are from the organization's own website. In other words, the entire article lacks reliable sources, more or less. It is notable that Ranp is not arguing about the veracity of the event in question; he is arguing about its relevance. The Jade Knight (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Untillu loose

• Untillu loose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MillatFacebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have just warned the user for his clearly uncivil attack on a user. The content is absolutely irrelevant for an edit summary like that.

Just saw his contribs, and he has serious issues. Lihaas (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked, as a vandalism-only sock puppet. Does the edit summary need to be REVDEL'd? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

REVDEL the edit summaries in all of his contributions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Done many of his and his clones. I intentionally omitted some, but if I missed any others, let me or a REVDEL-self-designated admin know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Daicaregos

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

I requested sources on the talk page of Anglophobia after some deleted text was restored. After a discussion with another editor, Daicaregos has resorted to calling me a liar.[89] This comes after a long edit war some time ago in which he, among others, halted the expansion of the article. I would appreciate it if someone would explain to him what it means to assume good faith and to be civil. BillMasen (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wquette people, if you think he did nothing wrong please at least have the courtesy to say so. BillMasen (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought that this was where breaches of etiquette would be addressed.[90] Apparently you're too busy to respond to all requests. Next time I will go to ANI where I know they will respond, even if it's only to tell me to stop complaining. Too late for that on this occasion, of course. BillMasen (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) No More Mr Nice Guy, is trying to discredit me in discussions. He openly (using diff) pointed out to my previous mistake of using unrealible source in another article.[91] (The non-RS was deleted as soon as I was told that it is not reliable.) I have tried to resolve the dispute and asked the editor to remove the discrediting edit which I found to be contrary to the WP:CIV.[92]. The comment he made has certainly been done NOT in a good faith. The editor refused to comply with my request [93]. I find it very disturbing when an editor is trying to discredit other editors in discussions. I would like that the editor removes his comment from the talk page [94] and be warned to stick to civility.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 04:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The editor is not required to remove his comment from the article's talk page. The comment is a record of the actual discussion, and serves as proof that you were told that the website is an unreliable source. In a couple of months, the whole discussion will be moved to the archive, where no one will find it without looking for it.

In the meantime, please remember that everyone makes mistakes on Wikipedia, and there's no shame in having made a mistake that you promptly and willingly corrected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The comment realistically wasn't that bad. NMMG could strike them out if you have expressed concern with them to be decent. Unfortunately, the it was so trivial compared to other editors in the topic area that it is doubtful that anything will (or should) be done. If you take issue with it I recommend you see the arbitration decision and ask admins why they are not enforcing decorum (4.1.2). It is easy to make a poor comment when there is obviously a problem (he didn't make it because you are doing a stellar job here) since it is assumed that anything goes since other editors are infinitely worse in there incivility.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing do you think that the editor was assuming a good faith? Pls also keep in mind, that the comment was made in different article in different discussion page. So the comment was not relevant as such in that very discussian page. Just imagine a case when editor goes to various discussion pages and in every and each case reminds an editor not to make the mistakes that he/she did.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 09:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think my comment was uncivil. Jim was using sources incorrectly, I gave an example of previous (pretty egregious) such behavior. The diff doesn't make it uncivil, on the contrary making accusations without supporting diffs is uncivil. At least that's my understanding of how things work around here. I'm open to being corrected. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why you have chosen to go into conflict about this, nonetheless your refusal to delete the discrediting edit tells that it was not done in good faith. You could have said "pls stick to RS", but you have chosen to mention specifically (Historical Boys' Clothing) source, and your sarcastic tone was influenced by this edit, which makes it worse. You had no reason to "remind" me about the unrealiable source, because I have taken your comments and agreed with you that a number of your claims are substantated and that I will be addressing them. So, you had no reason to repeat your comment once more in a totally [[95] different article's talk page] and you did it in a rude language (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHuman_rights_in_Israel&action=historysubmit&diff=397137477&oldid=397132347 ("I find some consolation in the fact that at least this time you weren't using the Historical Boys' Clothing site as a source").-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 15:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you said you'll address my comments, and then went ahead and made several contentious edits to the article (one using a self-published source) that did not address a single one of the detailed points I made. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Does it mean that you demand me to make edits which would satisfy your standing? And if there not, then it called "a contentious edit? This is not simply way Wiki works, there are always different opinions, and the only way to deal with them, is to discuss the views in civility and come to the consensus. Violent reverts of edits is not a solution.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 16:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Also I have to report here that you have directed a personal threat against me. Your statement:

"I then reverted your edits, and will continue to do so when you continue to violate policy."

Whereas it is duty of all editors to revert, discuss, or report any violation of Wikirules, in the context of our discussion on the topic on your talk page, your statement is clearly a threat directed against me personally (WP:PERSONAL, WP:CIV). Your ground assumption that I am and will be intentionally violating Wikirules, this is contrary to WP:AGF.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 16:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As I explained to you on my talk page, that is not a threat. I also made no comment on whether you're violating policy intentionally or not, although I find it hard to believe an editor with 2000+ edits doesn't know that Historical Boys' Clothing is not a reliable source for almost anything. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jim Fitzgerald ^post - I don't think you're going to get anywhere here. These look like mildly aggressive comments from a typically aggressive editor. Not worth arbitrating over. NickCT (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to wonder if calling people "a typically aggressive editor" is considered acceptable behavior on WQA. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Aggression includes a tenacity to pick fights No More Mr Nice Guy. This isn't the first time you've got into these kind of disputes. NickCT (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is the first time I've been reported here, but nice try. Are you aware that accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are a violation of WP:NPA? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

1) When I said "these kind of disputes" is wasn't referring to "Wikiquette alerts", 2) Do you not feel that it's slightly ironic that when I say "picking fights is aggressive" you get all litigious and say "accusations about personal......violation of WP:NPA". That doesn't appear to you to perhaps be confirmation of what I'm saying? NickCT (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of things I find ironic here. 1) That you chose WQA of all places as a venue for your personal attacks. 2) That you're trying to pick a fight (or was there another reason you added a personal attack to your comment?) by accusing me that I like to pick fights. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

All right No More Mr Nice Guy. Have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Very amusing discussion. A great display of civil discussion :) Marokwitz (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I must say that I was looking for reconciliation rather than a conflict, that is why I brought the issue here, not to administrators. But it seems that No More Mr Nice Guy got even more offensive and directed personal threats against me. Moreover, the provocations and aggressiveness of the user in direction to other editors who tried to help out to sort the things out, just gets out of control and wikiethics and civility is being breached also here. I see no other way as to bring the issue up to the arbitors. But before doing that, I would like to try once again asking the user to delete the offensive remarks and threats, I am not requesting any apologies or sorries, it is up to the attacker, but I request that sarcastic comments and personal threats are removed.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 12:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Jim, just from a practical standpoint, I assume that your ultimate goal is to avoid the embarrassment of having lots of people look up and scrutinize a past sourcing mistake you may have made. If that's the case, you might consider the implications of prolonging this discussion and spreading it to multiple pages. NillaGoon (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Fainites

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2over0#Good_Faith.3F User:Fainites accuses me and calls me names. He calls me a sock puppet and Dr. B-W and of other bad behaviours. Yet this Fainites behaviour is not sanctioned or commented on by User:2over0. I would like a apology. Fainites removes my additions and yet I am blamed. I add new materials about this NCTSN and that Fainites does not like but why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_post-traumatic_stress_disorder Thank you for seeing this for me. TuvolaPHD (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Article name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. TuvolaPHD (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I am about to file a SPI/CU request in respect of this user. I just haven't had the time yet. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. It's now here. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked TuvolaPHD as a duck sock. Although CU found no connection, the behavior makes it clear, and even if by some amazing coincidence this is a different editor, the edits are nothing but pure disruption anyway. Looie496 (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Looie. He often creates brief socks when abroad and also uses proxies.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Dr.K.

This user has been rather aggressive towards me since Spring 2010, which came up in various circumstances. He initiated multiple ANIs and discussions, trying to intimidate and oppress me. Since he has a high command of Wiki Policies, it's rather difficult to pinpoint a direct blatant incivility in his actions, but there's a lot of pressure coming from him. He removed my polite messages from his talk page multiple times, calling them "hectoring". Since the last time he did this was just a few days ago, I'd like to request assistance of a mediator to somehow try and mitigate the situation. This is not an imperative request, but rather a suggestion if someone would like to have a friendly chat with Dr.K., which might ease his attitude a bit. To make the issue simple and easy to start with, I don't think it is very polite or helpful when my notifications are repeatedly tagged as "hectoring". This is also my first test of how useful and functional this noticeboard can actually be. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This complaint comes from an editor who works on virtually nothing except the article on Prahlad Jani, from what appears to be a somewhat credulous point of view, and is upset because Dr.K. insists on treating as a fringe theory the claim that Jani has lived for many years without eating or drinking anything. Looie496 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"is upset because Dr.K. insists on treating as a fringe theory the claim that Jani has lived for many years without eating or drinking anything." -- this is not true. I myself said in article discussion that Jani's claims are fringe. but even if it was true, does it justify calling my notifications a "hectoring"? -- Nazar (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"This complaint comes from an editor who works on virtually nothing except the article on Prahlad Jani, from what appears to be a somewhat credulous point of view," -- this isn't true as well. I was involved into editing multiple articles, and even started nearly a dozen of them. Prahlad Jani is my current interest. I always represented a neutral point of view, so Looie496's remark is not very accurate, leaving out the fact that it is also not very polite to evaluate the volume and thematic focus of my contributions this way... -- Nazar (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have taken you to ANI for incivility multiple times. You keep attacking me on your talkpage but I always try to avoid you so I did not reply in your latest attack against me on your talkpage ironically while you were replying to users McGeddon and Nuujin who came to your talkpage to warn you about civility. Now you come to this board and you don't inform me. As Looie496 correctly states all you do is add SYNTH and OR on Prahlad Jani and Inedia and edit-war against multiple editors and when I come to tutor you about these policies you call it an attack and harassment. You do the same with users McGeddon and Nuujin. I have reported you to User:Prodego multiple times and provided links about your incivility and personal attacks. I have nothing to add here. For anyone interested please go on Prodego's page to read about this saga of personal attacks, false statements and incivility directed toward me. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In the link you provided you mentioned: == Skeptic SYNTH == Please kindly avoid pushing skeptic SYNTH into Prahlad Jani article. Your last edits removed reliably referenced factual information. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Your tone in telling me to avoid pushing skeptic SYNTH is reprehensible. Using the verb "push" against other editors is demeaning and incivil. I proved you wrong on the article talkpage and McGeddon agreed with me. It was a clear case of SYNTH on your part, yet you chose to come to my talkpage and accuse me of "pushing skeptic SYNTH", but you did not come to the article talk page to reply to my arguments and McGeddon's. I call this harassment. What is "Skeptic SYNTH" anyway? The only SYNTH added in the article is by you and it keeps getting removed by many other editors. If I need any mediation is by someone to save me from your personal attacks and innuendo. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your claim that: He initiated multiple ANIs and discussions, trying to intimidate and oppress me. is ridiculous. I did not know that going to ANI is a method of intimidation and oppression, as opposed to say, having valid concerns about your behaviour and wanting to report it. I provided relevant diffs to support my ANI report and by going there I exposed myself to all kinds of criticism if my report was not valid. I did not get any such criticism because my report was well founded. I do not appreciate you coming long after my ANI reports claiming oppression and intimidation. Your claims simply do not ring true and it is more evidence of unfounded accusations on your part. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• When I saw this Wikiquette alert, I went read Talk:Prahlad Jani, and I can fully understand the irritation (I don't see aggression, let alone intimidation) sometimes expressed by the other contributors towards Nazar, who argues his points, big and little, against consensus, with great stubbornness and much repetition. Such editing wastes other people's time woefully. It reminded me of the editor on the Shakespeare pages who has just been given a page ban for a year for Shakespeare pages, "broadly construed", including their talkpages. Perhaps seeking such a ban of Nazar is becoming appropriate here, Dr. K? Especially if you have already initiated a number of ANI threads about his editing. Or possibly an RFC/U, though those are only useful with editors who are somewhat prepared to take community criticism on board. The timewasting aspect struck me forcibly when I saw Nazar declare on the talkpage that he saw editing Prahlad Jani as a bit of a joke:

I also don't really care much about the changes. It's more a game for me. It's fun to play with you skeptic guys and see how you react to ideas which are out of your conventional understanding. In the process of this game I also hope and try to improve Wikipedia, but that is a secondary priority for me personally, so, even if all my edits are deleted, that's really not a very big problem ;) -- Nazar 11:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

That was posted a month ago, and I don't suppose "playing with you sceptic guys" is the way Nazar consistently feels about it; after all, he has been upset enough to write an "alert" here. But if I was one of the editors on the talkpage, I'd still be discouraged by seeing it. For is Nazar's game fun for anybody else? Doubt it. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

Nazar, please avoid posting in the middle of my message, as that makes it difficult for readers to figure which of us said what. I've moved your post down here, to preserve the integrity of mine. I hope your message and its purpose remain clear, too. Please note, readers, that what follows is Nazar's comment on the passage by him that I quoted just above, that "it's fun to play with you skeptic guys and see how you react". Bishonen | talk 13:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

I'd like to comment on that, to avoid misunderstanding. It's just my personal attitude, which, I suppose, is useful in cases when lots of my work invested into an article is removed because of some reasons (valid, or invalid). I believe it's more constructive to see it as a game, rather than make a tragedy out of the difficulties experienced. This 'playing' attitude also proves more productive in many cases, like children find it easier to learn new things and overcome emotional stress when they 'play' with the subject, rather than take it deadly seriously. This attitude is not intended to be a sign of disrespect towards other editors, or their work. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Bishonen, I think you are right and more work is needed to avoid further problems. I am an involved editor because, like Dr.K., I oppose the use of Wikipedia to promote WP:FRINGE material, and I know of nothing sillier than some versions of the article about Prahlad Jani, who has lived without food and water since 1940 – seventy years without a drink. In the above report by Nazar, the only diff regarding behavior by Dr.K. is this which is given twice ("just a few days ago" and "hectoring" repeat this link). In that diff, Dr.K. removes a message from their talk page with edit summary "Same old hectoring". This is not a kindergarten, and Dr.K. is entitled to revert messages on their talk page, and if Nazar wishes to avoid edit summaries regarding hectoring, they should stop posting messages like "Please kindly avoid pushing skeptic SYNTH into Prahlad Jani article. Your last edits removed reliably referenced factual information. Thanks." on user talk pages when all the user (Dr.K.) has done is to remove yet more self-published hyperbole to promote what is obvious nonsense. Like all good fringe cases, the situation is complicated by the fact that the subject claims to have lived without food and water for seventy years, but the "investigations" are conducted over two weeks. Rather than locking the subject in a room for two months and seeing how he his afterward, the investigations involve multiple interactions with the subject over two weeks. Then lots of mumbo jumbo is written about leptin ... ghrelin ... metabolic waste material ... energy for sustenance ... hydration status, and a lot more pseudo-scientific waffle designed to impress the gullible, which we have so far managed to exclude from the article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you very much Bishonen for your erudite and insightful comments. You expertly captured the essence of my predicament. To reply to your questions: I didn't think that an RFC/U would do much because I don't think that this user would respond to such input. Further even if I initiated an RFC/U regarding this user's conduct, I am fairly certain that there would be a tit-for-tat RFC/U against me from this user. Therefore I counted out this option as counterproductive. RfAr is another option but I try to avoid it as much as possible because it involves, as you know, a lot of time and meticulous preparation. I am impressed that you chose to quote a comment where Nazar mentions that s/he sees this as a game. I had forgotten about that but you make an important observation. As you so aptly mentioned, this may be a game to Nazar but not to me or I imagine to the other editors as well, who have to explain OR and SYNTH issues over and over to this editor since June 2010 till today with reoccurring bouts of SYNTH-laden slow-motion edit-warring, occurring weeks or months apart and always targeting the same issues and the same articles. Not to mention multiple RFC's and reports at ORN, RSN and ANI. I am grateful for your expert input. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kindly John for taking the time to add your comments. I agree, as usual, with all your well-taken points. It is always nice talking to you. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

To summarize this discussion here, I'd like to remind that I did not request any administrative measures taken against Dr.K.. This was just a non imperative request for mediation, and my humble test of how this noticeboard works. Whether Dr.K.'s edits are, or are not a skeptic SYNTH (and I think that some of his edits were an attempt to push a skeptic SYNTH, though that attempt may have been undertaken in good faith), I still don't think that calling my polite message to his Wikipedia talk page a "hectoring" is appropriate and fits into the civility rules. Regarding the Prahlad Jani article, I'd like to point out that those most ridiculous versions of the article, including ridiculous fringe claims not supported by any references attributed to serious researchers, were produced by the party which opposes me in the article discussion, and, when I tried to revert those unsubstantiated and disruptive changes, the article was locked and I was accused of editing against consensus. But let's not dwell on this, as I was luckily able to fix many of these problems subsequently, and I hope my opponents were able to see the point and correctness of my edits. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to mention that this request for mediation was attempted based on advice of McGeddon, which recently said: "If you have a problem with other editors' incivility, then by all means attempt to resolve it - here are some pointers for doing so". I'm not inclined to take that offense by Dr.K. very seriously, but, well, I gave it a try, as per McGeddon's advice. Was good to see how it works. -- Nazar (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Bishonen's comments, like "Such editing wastes other people's time woefully." etc., I think this isn't civil as well and is not in accordance with WP:AGF. My time is wasted greatly as well by such non professional editing and tendentious discussions like this one. Please kindly be reminded that I'd like to receive an apology for this derogatory evaluation of my work in Wikipedia and my general attitude towards the project. I'd also like to receive such an apology from Looie496 regarding his similarly derogatory general evaluation of my work expressed above, which violates civility rules. Johnuniq's comment that "all the user (Dr.K.) has done is to remove yet more self-published hyperbole to promote what is obvious nonsense" is not professional, and does not correspond to the actual facts. The removed passage wasn't self-published, it was a direct citation from an official statement of researchers recorded and published by press, and claiming it an "obvious nonsense" is a clear-cut case of WP:OR. I'm hopeful more careful examination would reveal the mistakes of my opponents. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This is quite a breathtaking example of WP:PETARD. Although Dr.K. can be a little heavy in quoting policy and loudly thanking other editors who are in agreement, in this case it seems to have been provoked by Nazar's consistently aggressive attitude towards anyone who edits the Prahlad Jani article, who he or she lumps together as a "gang of skeptics", making casual bad faith accusations in the majority of talk page posts, and openly laughing at the idea that any of the other editors might be there to improve the article. This makes for a very uncomfortable editing environment, and I can understand if Dr.K. is sometimes a little terse towards Nazar, as a result. If the worst incivility on record is a single edit summary that used the word "hectoring" when deleting a talk page accusation of "pushing skeptic SYNTH", then I admire Dr.K's restraint.

If anyone here needs advice in basic Wikipedia etiquette, it would seem to be Nazar - last week, he or she chose to reject polite WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL reminders as "baseless accusations" (seemingly on the grounds that other editors also deserved the same reminders). That Nazar is now demanding apologies over perceived WP:AGF breaches from Wikiquette commenters who have remarked critically on his or her behaviour suggests a very flawed interpretation of Wikipedia etiquette policies, and one that needs addressing. --McGeddon (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the context of Bishonen's comments, as you have not provided a link or a diff, but the statement you cited does not contravene AGF - she indicated that the editing wastes other peoples' time, not that your intention was to do so. Based only on what's been said at this page, I see no need for either her or Looie496 to apologize. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)::Thank you, Nikkimaria; I don't see any need for it either. Nazar, I note you want both the outside, uninvolved reviewers — Looie496 and me — who have commented on the "alert" you posted, to apologise to you for the nature of our comments. But if you take somebody, in this case Dr. K. to some board — ANI, WQA, RFC, RFAR, whatever — and complain of them, your own demeanor will naturally also be scrutinised. You are mistaken in believing that frank commentary which you have by implication requested yourself (by posting at this board) violates WP:CIVIL; it does not. Don't use these venues if you don't want to risk having your work and your attitude criticised. I'm sorry you're disappointed, but I don't have an apology for you. I spent some time on this (reading a long unfunny talkpage) and summarised what I found. That's what I'm supposed to do. Bishonen | talk 13:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

• We don't normally give out sanctions at this page, but I'll drop a hint that one particularly stubborn, shall we say tendentious, editor is likely to get a topic ban at minimum if this editing pattern is reported at WP:ANI. Shall that be the next step? Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Do you see where I have already suggested the same thing, Jonathan? [96] Bishonen | talk 13:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

• Ok. Thanks everyone for the input. I might agree or disagree with particular points expressed here, but for the moment I don't seem to receive much support from this noticeboard, so there's probably not much sense in continuing the topic. The use of WP:PETARD was very cleverly suggested by McGeddon, but well, thanks for the experience. Regarding Prahlad Jani article, I don't think we have a major problem at this moment and the article wasn't the main point of my original message here. But, if some of the editors feel that topic ban can benefit the editing environment, I encourage you to follow the appropriate procedure. I can only add that most of the referenced information for this article was provided by me, and it was me who started this article. The editors who oppose me mostly modified the available info (often just messed it up) to better reflect the points they defended. I also think that an editing environment, in which editors representing somewhat alternative views are excluded from the editing process, does not benefit the neutrality and completeness of the article content. But, of course, you may think differently. Thanks so far. -- Nazar (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• @"your own demeanor will naturally also be scrutinised" and "Don't use these venues if you don't want to risk having your work and your attitude criticised" -- I don't mind someone criticizing my work, demeanor and attitude. Moreover, I greatly welcome it, since I attempt to gradually improve these and other aspects of my activity. However, I feel it is my right to point out some deficiencies of the respective criticism, as well as its one-sided, tendentious and inaccurate nature. Of course, some aspects of the criticism are definitely worthwhile considering, and I'll do take them into account. Thanks again, and the apologies I requested can still be provided at a later point, if respective users become ripe enough to provide them. I can also add that regardless of my own faults, it is usually expected from more experienced advice-givers and administrators, as well as from the kind minders of such noticeboards, to behave in a more mature and delicate way. Being ready to apologize for caused offense (regardless of who's right and who's wrong) is one of expressions of such maturity and expertise in dealing with difficult situations. -- Nazar (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow up

Some follow up will be needed to monitor Prahlad Jani and Inedia because it is easy to add mumbo jumbo to lend an air of authority to the claims that certain people can live indefinitely without food or drink. There is a serious problem with the way WP:IRS can be interpreted in a case like this because there is an institute which has "investigated" Jani, with an enthusiastic supporting doctor (see this page on the doctor's website for text like "Can you imagine a human being staying alive & doing all routine activities even at age of 70, just by Sungazing – i.e – Surviving on cosmic – Solar energy"). Then, media outlets join the fun by repeating the claims, and editors can use all this as sources to add tidbits to the articles. By contrast, no reliable scientific source would bother taking the time to refute the nonsense. I have tried to argue that WP:PARITY means that sources like this should be permitted to refute obvious nonsense, but strict application of WP:IRS rules that out (see RSN discussion). Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent ideas but this is not the only problem. Even discounting your well made points about the media-circus and the weird medical theories surrounding the practitioners involved in this research, I think we are facing a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problem of monumental proportions. The edit-warring to add this SYNTH and OR into these articles has been a lengthy affair spanning a period of many months. It is tiring to keep cleaning this up every time it flares up. Just looking at the edit histories of these two articles reveals the amount of edit-warring and SYNTH these articles have gone through. It is about time something was done about it. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps to follow up Jehochman's suggestion? A report for long term edit warring at ANI? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

e/c. Agree with Elen (ahem, that was my suggestion, repeated by J.) Dr.K., nothing is going to be done about it unless the editors of the article — say, you, or McGeddon, or Nuujinn — do it. You can see several people above suggesting that it's time for a page ban. ANI would be the place to propose that, if you guys are up for it, and if you think now is a good time. After all, one can hope that Nazar's editing style is about to improve spontaneously; it's always possible that the advice on this page has, despite appearances, given him something to think about. Bishonen | talk 00:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Thank you Elen and Bishonen for the suggestion. Going to ANI may be one option which could bring some resolution to this problem. It may take some time though to present a clear case and to gather all the facts and diffs. It would be a time-consuming task. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The ANI report is here. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Untanglement of the misleading presentation by Dr.K.

This is just to notify that after spending a few hours of my office time to go through all the massive (but mostly baseless) accusations of Dr.K., I was able to untangle a few major points he used to accuse me, showing them as twisted presentation of facts by Dr.K., based on manipulated timing of my messages and cross-linking unrelated events. See here for more detail. It takes really LOTS of my time. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Concluding that Dr.K is making "revengeful twisted accusations" and referring to all other editors of the Prahlad Jani article as your "opponents" suggests a continued unwillingness to assume good faith of fellow editors, or to conduct yourself in a civil manner. Your response to the Wikiquette commentary on your behaviour has been to dismiss it as "one-sided, tendentious and inaccurate" and to suggest that the only reason these editors didn't deliver the apologies you demanded was because they weren't "ripe" (mature?) enough. You really need to recognise and address the fact that you are not interacting civilly with other editors - if Wikipedia discussion is taking up too much of your time, consider that your attitude may be part of the reason. --McGeddon (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's a bit of a stress for me, especially in the office hours, and my current schedule is tight as well. I apologize for "revengeful twisted accusations", though there may be reasons to call them this way. But let's assume good faith really. Regarding your other points, I'm sorry, but they are taken out of context. In any dispute there are "opponents", so I don't see any problem with that word. It's not intended to sound like "enemies". And "one-sided, tendentious and inaccurate" were just a part of my message. The other one was that I'll take into account the remarks expressed and use them to improve my actions. I repeated this many times in many contexts. If you keep accusing me of not interacting civilly with other editors, while I say multiple times that I do recognize the flaws of my behaviour (as there are flaws in each person's behaviour) and I'm working on improving that, that is rather a lack of good faith on your part. Do you think your actions are always perfect? Because I don't remember you or Dr.K. or other skeptics, who violently attacked me in disputes, ever admitting any serious flaw in their behaviour. Isn't it a bit of self-conceited attitude? I'm just asking, not implying it :) And I'm sorry, but I really need an emotional break from this all. I'm one person attacked (this is dispute term, not implying enmity) by many here. I do realize that this community is dominated by skeptics, and they will want to have articles represent their point of view, but still I expected more understanding, neutrality and self-restraint from educated 21st century people. It's a bit too much for me. I have my work and home matters to take care about. These continuous wars (which are really not always caused by me) take a lot of my time and are emotionally too heavy. And whether you believe it or not, I did my best for Wikipedia, with all the due respect to the principle of neutrality and trying to follow all the restrictions implied by previous disputes in various places. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Also wanted to add that both McGeddon and Bishonen above have taken fragments from my messages out of context, and tried to accuse me of laughing or taking Wiki Editing as a game, implying that this somehow is a violation of something. This is seen as very inappropriate from my point of view, to say the least. Do you guys prefer me to be weeping when I edit Wikipedia? Or are you going to forbid me being in a good mood and have some fun when editing? There are funny situations occurring here, and I believe it's better to see them as "funny" rather that try to "kill that guy" by ban, topic ban, or other sanctions (which some people seem to prefer). I said in a few places before that my playful attitude and using of smiles (like :) ) does not mean that I'm not respecting other editors or their work. I explained it here above as well in a polite and respectful manner. Yet, Bishonen has used that out of context citation accusing me of laughing and having fun again in the ANI section, without providing any of my clarifications, of course... So, in other words, she simply ignored my points and tried to use the same baseless accusation (already dealt with) again for the purpose of maybe insinuation? I'm saying "maybe", to avoid violating WP:AGF, but I'm not happy about how she did it, and I don't think it was done right. It was very inappropriate, in fact. It was also her who suggested a topic ban based on virtually nothing but her personal dislike. She did not provide any diffs to substantiate her position... Well, OK, I hope I made the point clear. I'm not saying it's a tragedy, but it is my right to at least ask for an apology in such a situation. If I don't receive it -- OK. no problem. But when people try to accuse me even for asking for this apology -- this is a bit too much as well.... -- Nazar (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You have understood "anyone can edit", but you are not showing an understanding of other core Wikipedia principles. This community is dominated by people who respect reliable sources, and while it is fine to have an article on someone who claims to have not eaten for seventy years, dressing up those claims with pseudo-scientific terminology to lend an air of credibility to the subject is classic cherry picking from a primary source. Sometimes it is necessary to discuss other editors, but too many of your comments here relate to other people rather than the issues. Do you have any evidence of a wikiquette problem? If so, post the diffs; if not, retract your report. If you feel that Bishonen has misrepresented you, post diffs showing that the quote is out of context (that is, provide a context in which the quoted text is compliant with good editing principles), or retract the statement. Commenting on other editors without following these principles is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

These allegations about "untanglement" are an absolute mess. Nazar came to my talkpage having in his/her mind this edit: Dr.K. (talk | contribs)(→Investigations: Anyone can claim anything they want. Until they publish them they are not "published". Remod ved "and were claimed "confidential" by DRDO spokesman, until the results of processing the ...." per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH. He revealed this during the now resolved ANI report. Meanwhile the actual message that Nazar left on my talkpage did not provide a diff showing the edit that Nazar had in his/her mind. Nazar's message had no diffs. Here is Nazar's message on my talkpage, (it has no link to the edit Nazar found objectionable): Revision as of 09:38, 15 November 2010 (edit) (undo)Nazar (talk | contribs)(→Skeptic SYNTH: new section). When I received Nazar's message I thought s/he meant this edit: title=Prahlad_Jani&diff=396923818&oldid=396910699 Dr.K. (talk | contribs)m (→2010 tests: DIPAS methodology is irrelevant. We also don't comment on things that did not happen. Please take this to talk for consensus.). So when I complained above I had in mind the latter edit, having forgotten the previous edit. Guess what. Nazar makes this inadvertent mistake into a Federal case and starts accusing me that I intentionally misled the readers. No. I did not. When I read Nazar's message which did not include a link I did not go out checking for time stamps, like he did after the fact, to verify what edit Nazar was referring to. I assumed, wrongly as it seems, to be the second diff and not the first. That's all. An honest mistake. Now we have a separate section about "untanglement" on wikiquette alerts implying that my honest mistake was a devious ploy to mislead. Not to mention the ANI comments about "twisted allegations" or some similar-type stuff. Please draw your own conclusions. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

And finally why would I want to mislead anyone? I stand by all of my edits. My point was that someone coming to my talkpage to accuse me of "pushing" anything is commiting a demeaning and profoundly insulting act. Accusing a fellow editor personally of "pushing" something is cynical, rude and profoundly insulting and incivil. Not to mention the accusation that I "push skeptic synth" is nonsensical and false because there is no such thing as "skeptic synth" and obviously I did not "push" it. I chose a diff to make my point that one doesn't go to an editor's talkpage to accuse them of "pushing" but one goes to the article talkpage to discuss grievances and other problems with the other editors. I happened to choose the wrong diff. But that is immaterial. Because the main point still stands: Noone is supposed to incivilly accuse other editors of "pushing" anything. Editors are just that: Editors. They are not "pushers". Comment on the edits not on the editor. This is the essence of our NPA policy. That was my point. And it remains true irrespective of the fact that I chose the wrong diff to illustrate it by. So let's just cut all this -- (fill in blanks with your favourite exclamation) of "Untanglement of the misleading presentation by Dr.K" and instead acknowledge that implying that your fellow-editors are "pushers" should never happen again. In fact my retort calling this accusation "hectoring" did not actually do justice to the insult received. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I don't think this is going anywhere. You want my apology for "pushing"? Here you are. I'm not a native English speaker. I don't really feel anything offensive in this word, at least the way it is translated into my language. We are all "pushing", or "advancing", or "promoting" certain points, which represent our understanding of the issue. But no problem, you can have my apologies, if that makes you happier :) Maybe in your understanding your edits are not a SYNTH, but in my understanding they sometimes were such a SYNTH. Therefore the message. But I don't want to dwell on that now. I came to this noticeboard having no issues with Prahlad Jani article. Just wanted to mildly address and straighten out the issue of the word "hectoring" used by Dr.K., which seems inappropriate from my point of view. What I got was a massive stress and a ton of unrelated accusations. So, here's my current position: you want to use "hectoring" and remove my messages with such tag? Ok. Please do it. I'm OK with that. Anything more? I don't want to deal with Bishonen and whatever other users might have expressed their negative attitude about me. It's their right. Let them feel and think the way they prefer. I apologize again if I was of any trouble to anyone. Peace. -- Nazar (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I did not ask for an apology for the "push" expression. I asked for an acknowledgment that it should not happen again, specifically because I did not want to dwell on the past or push you in a corner. Inasmuch as your statement above, not in its totality by any means, but partially, may contain a kernel of accommodation of the issues involved, I consider in good faith that the matter may be resolved at present. It is a far from perfect resolution but at least like the recent ANI thread closure this WQA closure may lead to a better understanding of the issues involved and thus promote more goodwill in the future among the principals. In an imperfect world this can be the best anyone can hope for. Thank you everyone. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

lol. Amen :) -- Nazar (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

:). Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)