Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive120

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 13:05, 25 March 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


User:Ronnie42

This issue has been brought up on two other notice boards - Admin incidents and Dispute resolution - I am posting this at the advice of a user on the former. The issue I'd like to address here is Ronnie's propensity for calling good faith edits vandalism and accusing users of trolling or slander (I don't know if that qualifies for WP:Legal Threat) - here are two examples of his conduct - 1,2. You can also see the numerous cautions, warnings and bits of guidance he's received (and removed) on his talk page, as well as a comment and reciprocatetive warning he left on my userpage. The user is incredibly difficult to communicate with and seems to ignore the advice, guidance and cautioning of every single user that interacts with him. It seems he's lost interest in the article in question for the time being (he spends the vast majority of his time on talk pages) but I'd like to initiate this discussion none the less. --Williamsburgland (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I had referred Williamsburgland to bring this gentleman here with the hope that it could be communicated to Ronnie42 that his calling every edit that disagrees with him "vandalism" is itself disruptive. The goal is to successfully get him up to speed on proper ways to communicate here, as the only other tool I have at my disposal is the block button, which is still an option if he isn't capable of taking the good advice I know he will get here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ronnie42's communication style is so difficult for me to follow I cannot in good faith consider their comments incivil or simply misguided. As the focal point of friction seems to be the Zombie article/list I'd suggest letting the DRN run its course; hopefully resolving the content will also resolve any civility issues too. Nobody Ent 20:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • While the Zombie article has been a focal point for me and several other editors, Ronnie's editing history demonstrates general assumption of bad faith, using talk pages as forums and outright vandalism. Whether intentional or not, the vast majority (if not all) of his edits are disruptive and generally uncivil. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Parsecboy


This is a bit troubling coming from an Administrator. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What exactly, is the problem? I didn't warmly thank an editor for attempting to edit-war Soviet propaganda into a featured article? That I didn't blow kisses at him after I tried to explain why this was a problem for over 3 months, and all I got in response were mental gymnastics about how reputable historians are all wrong? I'm sorry, but I will tolerate disruptive behavior from an SPA for only so long. Parsecboy (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
What exactly, is the problem? The problem is that Wikipedia has well-documented methods to deal with disruptive behavior. You chose to not follow those methods and to instead be uncivil. That was wrong and you know it. No, it is not a major infraction. If I seem to be making a big deal about it it is because you have in essence declared that WP:CIVIL does not apply to you if, in your opinion, the other fellow misbehaved first. Again you know that this is wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • If Zh.Mike (talk · contribs) has a Wikiquette concern, shouldn't he be the one to bring it here? Also, with just a quick look, it seems as though this user has more experience than his contribs would indicate. As a "newbie" he certainly jumped into a dispute with both feet here. There, he has referred to other editor's positions or edits as "crap" and "trash". Parsecboy's comment indicated some frustration, but I don't think it was egregiously out of place given the context of the interactions. Taroaldo (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no rule saying that I cannot raise a Wikiquette issue without being involved. And "He misbehaved first so it is OK for me to misbehave" is not an acceptable defense. I have not yet examined the other editor's posting history, but I have no doubt that his behavior was and continues to be far worse. Nonetheless, we all need to be civil no matter what the other person does. I am also puzzled as to why nobody used Template:Uw-npa1 or Template:Uw-npa2 in response to the "crap" and "trash" comments. The proper response to WP:NPA violations is a series of warnings followed by longer and longer blocks, not being uncivil yourself, yet this user has received no warnings at all. I think you all know that this is not the right way to deal with a disruptive editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • To Taroaldo: In my opinion, we should discuss the subject, not the persons. Therefore I did not attract attention to the Parsecboy's behavior. Yes, I am newbie here, but not in real life ;) Although I am a physicist, the history is my hobby - maybe You noticed it therein. About "crap", "trash" and "reputable historians are all wrong". A part of the text is citation of "reputable" historian looks like a "2+2=5". All other historian (not Russians) write that "2+2=4", but I can not fix this mistake - it will be a propaganda! This mistake in the historians' book I have called "crap" and "trash" - it was not the other editor's positions or edits, You may check my comments. In the end, after creation ANI topic, Parsecboy did fix "2+2=4 or 5" and has advised me to go out of here. How would you call this? I ask You to talk about ground of my correction at the this page.
  • To Guy Macon: Thank you for your support: my complaint would look like as an inability to defend my point of view without becoming personal - I am not Wiki admin to do like this. I must apologize for using of strong language: to characterize the sentences cited of the book, I used the word "чепуха" and "вздор". This is absolutely literary words and are usable in all situations, even in my children's book. Unfortunately, I chose a unsuccessful synonyms for translation - English is not my native language and I could not determine the nicety. I beg your pardon. --Zh.Mike (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

User: Parrot of Doom

Likes to use expletives and uncivilised terms in his edit summaries etc. An example where he tells someone to "FUCK OFF". Fanzine999 (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

yeah... and you file this report without notifying him... great. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
What's "uncivilised" about telling it like it is? And which Wikipedia policy prohibits the use of expletives? Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Note that this is already at one forum, WP:AN3 here [1], the term wasn't used against the reporting party, and it was on PoD's own talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando


After a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard request on Thomas Sowell, the result came against removing certain material on the page.

Despite this, and despite me explicitly saying this on the talk page (diff)(diff), the material has been removed on essentially no grounds.

Here is Thargor Orlando's reasoning for the removal:

(diff)

As far as I can tell the next step is to have arbitration but I'm not sure if it requires sanctions if someone violates dispute resolution without going into arbitration. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The "dispute resolution noticeboard," for what its worth, does not seem to be binding on anything, and I was not involved with the dispute at that page anyway. There has been a discussion at length on the Sowell talk page that CartoonDiablo had, until today, chosen not to take part in. I am confident this can be resolved by discussion, assuming CartoonDiablo does not simply choose to remove himself from the conflict again. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any wikiquette dispute here -- looks like content dispute. Nobody Ent 02:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I guess it's content related but it's in between dispute resolution and arbitration. The question is whether violating dispute resolution without going into arbitration should lead to sanctions putting this either in Wikiquette or abuse. CartoonDiablo (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
How about engaging in the discussion at talk instead of threatening other editors with sanctions and arbitration? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Probably because we did that and then did it again in dispute resolution so now editors are bordering on sanctions by not going to arbitration. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I should add that Thargor has been adding discussions on my page which are clearly done to detract from this process. Specifically: "There's no "Wikiquette" problem, obviously, just a content dispute that needs solving. If you're uninterested in continuing the discussion there, say so and those of us who are trying to improve the article will do so." (diff diff)

I summarized the problem in my last response (diff)CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, someone who monitors this page considers it a content dispute. So let's hash it out at talk so we can move on. Thank you! Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

DocKino


Need outside advice about an on-going issue of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:CIVIL. IMO, User:DocKino is bullying his way around the article's talk page and discouraging article improvement. Is this how wikipedia is supposed to work? ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Apart from low levels of condescension, not really anything thats particularly bad. I would ignore the remarks to be honest and focus on the content. It barely rates 'petty' on the incivility scale. I suggest since you have it open at DRN you take it forward there as the underlying problem appears to be the content dispute. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken - Incivility, hounding and edit warring

After a minor disagreement over an ENGVAR matter, the user Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) has subsequently decided to:

  • insult me in the edit summary
  • When I asked him to remember WP:NPA, his edit summary to "Fuck you asshole" provided unhelpful.
  • A number of articles that I have previously edited were then subject to further reversions (see the user's history), followed by forays into edit warring against my edits on:
Secret Servant: The Moneypenny Diaries
Call Me Bwana (including again calling me an asshole in the edit summaries)
OK Connery
Diverticula (mollusc)
Talk:Aston Martin DB5 (Although self-reverted)

Apart from the WP:NPAbreach, there are also worrying signs of a WP:HOUNDing process and a propensity to edit war over inaccuracies. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised to see this issue here. BMK made himself known to me recently on my Talk page, to point out a mistake I had made on an article. I apologised, and tried to fix the mistake, but not to his satisfaction it seems. I felt that BMK could have been more civil and helpful in the way he raised and handled this matter.
I don't know ShroCat, but he seems to have done a good job in detailing some substantive problems in what he has said above. Is there an Admin who can help to sort out some of the issues he raises please? Johnfos (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Widescreen

The user Widescreen has been clearly violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:DISENGAGE (diff, diff) and despite being warned about it (diff) has not apologized and generally continues to do it (diff). CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo has been clearly violtaing WP:BEHONEST, WP:NOSOPHISTRY; WP:DON'TFABRICATEARGUMENTS; WP:KNOWWHENYOUAREWRONG; WP:NEVERTRYTOFOOLOTHERS and of course WP:NPOV. Diffs are known. --WSC ® 19:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Nix1129

Disruptive NPOV user, repeatedly ignoring links and discussions. edit is the second time the user has decided to leave insults rather than discussion. Despite being asked [2] to not. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 09:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Obotlig

Obotlig, at Wikipedia, we have policies, and above those, we have what are called 'pillars'. These are strict non-negotiable policies that all members of the community are expected to abide by. One of these pillars is WP:Civility. While you may strongly disagree on content, making personal attacks or namecalling is inappropriate for the encyclopedia. If you need advice on how to proceed in the debate, please go ahead and ask, but understand that the behavior shown in the above diff records is not in line with our core policies. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)



FYI, I just redirected that shortcut for WP:DNFTT to the WP:Civility page. Actually, I think it needs to be MfD'd or PROD'd but it is an inappropriate shortcut in terms of civility. -- Avanu (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23 reverted the change I made for that shortcut, suggesting I either leave it or actually MfD it. That has now been done. -- Avanu (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Gauge00

While much of this dispute seems to be inflamed by the apparent language barrier (Guage00 seems to have limited facility with English), there is an ongoing discussion about the range of years covered by the Records of the Three Kingdoms, a classical Chinese work. Gauge00 is convinced that the beginning year in the article, AD 184, is incorrect, and to support his position he has been arguing that the book fails to mention certain events prior to 189 that it "should contain" ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9]). Three different editors (myself included) have pointed out that this is an illogical argument([10],[11],[12]), constitutes original research ([13]), and that wikipedia operates by consesus (see previous diff [14]). Gauge00's response, despite repeatedly admitting that he has not read the source text([15],[16],& others), has been to assert that the particular editor who made the date change in the first place must have been at fault because a previous version said something else ([17], [18]), that his interlocutor's are "incompetant" ([19],[20]) and "stubborn" ([21]), and has also focused on his belief that I'm advocating the consensus position because he believes I'm Chinese ([22] -- for the record, "siafu" is a swahili word). I tried to remind him to WP:NPA twice([23],[24]), but he made no acknowledgement, and continues to argue on the same lines. My personal belief is that this dispute is being fueled both by a lack of familiarity with wikiquette, and a failure in communication due to Gauge00's lack of fluency with the English language, but I honestly don't know how to proceed here. The dispute has not really risen to the level of an edit war, as yet, but could, and I'm hoping that outside help could resolve the situation better than I and others have been (not) able to thus far, and especially some advice on how to deal with editors unfamiliar with wikipedia policies and with limited command of English would be appreciated. siafu (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

On the discussion regarding deletion of a page he created (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Assassination_plots_in_the_Three_Kingdoms), Guage00 has been extremely hostile, in the discussion and in notes to his edits of the page referring to other editors as "dogs", "dusgusting morons", and "shits". Snuge purveyor (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody involved has any intention of chastising Gauge00 for his faulty English, but that cannot be used as an excuse for attacking other editors and flaunting self-perceived authority he does not have any right to. Hurling abuse at other editors should not need a wiki page; it's quite simply polite, in any respect, to refrain from insulting others. Benjitheijneb (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there really no assistance available here? Was this a complete waste of time? siafu (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that's pretty sad. Why is no admin responding or helping you guys out on this page? 119.224.27.62 (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Gauge00 today attacked an IP editor at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Three Kingdoms, where the IP suggested an AfD be created to remove the List of people of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which he created WP:POINT to prove a point from (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Assassination_plots_in_the_Three_Kingdoms. I have nominated the article for deletion as the IP requested, but Gauge00's continued abuse MUST be dealt with; there is no reason why well-intentioned editors must suffer his self-aggrandising insults. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Three Kingdoms for further details. Benjitheijneb (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

He's even abusing admins now! Benjitheijneb (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys. I'm just dropping by this page because I want to know more about how to use this forum in the future. I didn't really read through all the diffs but I did get the chance to read through Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Three Kingdoms. I think that users from both sides should review Wikipedia:Etiquette. Even if a user's post is hurtful it might be best to ignore it and kindly tell the user what you feel without commenting about their behavior or applying the policy guidelines because they may interpret it as an insult and could retaliate by insulting you guys again. If you guys have already done this then I apologize for not reading all the diffs in detail. I'm afraid that your last option should be to going to WP:ANI if no other administrator or editor responds to your posts here.119.224.27.62 (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Darkwarriorblake


Very simple. I asked a good faith question on the talk page for MOS:FILM. I received a few replies that disagreed with my inquiry but were not directed toward me, but DarkWarriorblake said I was naive to think that way. I asked for him/her to redact the comment, but I received a cold reply and not even an apology. This type of behavior is contrary to WP:CIVIL as the comment was directed toward me on not on the content of the discussion, as he/she clearly said.."It is naive to think that...", meaning I was naive to think these things. I tried to ask for a redaction but was rebuffed with more incivility, by saying "How you translated that into a personal attack and inferred information suppression is some Back to the Future style time-travel reality warping chicanery."--JOJ Hutton 22:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Having interacted with DWB in the past, occasionally finding him/her to be a bit terse, or even impolite at times, I really feel that this situation does not merit intervention. Perhaps both parties involve could take a deep breath, shake virtual hands and move on? Two pennies, that is all. --Williamsburgland (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
And please don't take that as me implying that you aren't allowed to be offended... I'm just asking if this is worth offense. --Williamsburgland (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
It takes two to tango. I asked for an apology and was tartly rebuked. JOJ Hutton 01:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My advice is to just drop it and move on. Ignore the user if possible. Just a suggestion in the future if a similar incident is applied by another user towards you, just ask them politely who was the user referring to as "naive" in a short statement. I don't think that there is any need to tell them that you took it as a personal attack such as "I ask a question and now I'm "Naive"? Is this personal?....Is that an attack of some sort?". Some users may think that you're making direct accusations or taking their posts out of context and they may feel intimidated so they could retaliate and insult you back to defend themselves because they don't appreciate being misunderstood. I know this wasn't your intent though and I understand what you really meant but remember that when you're online some people might interpret other people's words differently. I'm pretty sure DWB didn't mean to insult you either and may not be aware that others could find his/her own post as uncivil. Remember to follow the Dealing with incivility #4: Even if you're hurt, be as calm and reasonable as possible in your response. The other editor probably didn't mean to cause you pain or harm. I hope that my suggestion helps :-) 119.224.27.62 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Areaseven

Material has been voluntary taken off the user talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A while back, Areaseven and I had some minor disagreements over some article content (mainly images), a wrong button hit, and a patronizing comment he made towards me. Early last month, I discovered that Areaseven had retained a comment I made on his talk page months ago where I used wording that he construed as racist (my response to the previous diff). When I discovered this fact (despite the fact that he removes everything else that ever makes it onto his talk page), and also had added commentary. As he had refactored my original post, I removed his comment along with a harsh word, but then left a comment unrelated to that issue. He then reverted me. In any attempt I made to explain myself, Areaseven ignored it and continued to fail to assume any sort of good faith on my part. After a long and heated discussion with him, he removed everything I said from his page and I avoided dealing with him after leaving this final message where I attempted to end the dispute, which he reverted 2 minutes after I pressed save.

The other day, I attempted to extend an olive branch, once more, and request that Areaseven write some content before another less experienced editor did. After refusing, Areaseven proceeded to add back every discussion we had. My inquiry into this behavior was ignored and Areaseven instead added his own commentary to year old occurences.

Areaseven continues to fail to assume any good faith on my part, whether it be from accidentally hitting the "rollback (vandal)" link instead of the "undo" link, from an unintentional combination of words that he has latched onto as being a racist remark, or feeling referring to an action of multiple image uploads as "overboard" is a slight against him. I understand that he has some personal choice over its content, but at this point he is just being spiteful in keeping his consistent misconstrued opinions over what I've said to him. I will admit that conversations between myself and Areaseven delved into incivility, but there is no reason he should enshrining the discussions he and I have had to mock me.

Also I've posted here, because the last time I posted to WP:ANI regarding a similar situation, I was told it was not meant for that board. If I'm incorrect, again, please move this and tell me where it's gone to.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to ignore the problem and the user per WP:DENY. If the editor wants to reject an olive branch or do something childish on their usertalk, let them, it only reflects badly on them and not you. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
But clearly Areaseven should not be allowed to retain this content in a means to spite me.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Just wondering, what do you want to get out of this? - Areaseven (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
First and foremost, I want you to undo your "Never Forget." edit (and related edits). And I would like to end this unnecessary hostility between us. I am sorry that I have been uncivil towards you, but that is only because I have not once received any sort of civility from you in any of our discussions that I can recall or that I found while writing this up.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Fine. Consider this a truce. - Areaseven (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Fairlyoddparents1234 v. DreamMcQueen: Edit warring


Hello there. I am currently involved in a dispute with User:DreamMcQueen. I have added a link to CBS Television Stations to List of CBS television affiliates (table) after where it says "This list does not include independent stations or stations affiliated with The CW". I am not sure why, but he decided to remove it, citing redundancy as an explanation. What makes me concerned is the fact that he has not yet removed such links from List of NBC television affiliates (table) (for Telemundo O&Os) and List of Fox television affiliates (table) (for MyNetworkTV O&Os), all three which I have added. To make matters worse, he sometimes deliberately leaves the edit summary field blank. I have attempted to revert my edits until I decided to give up and report this, on account of the policy WP:3RR. Also, for List of ABC television affiliates (table), he has been repeatedly removing the designated market area from the O&O list, even though I still kept it in alphabetical order (see edit history). He reverts my edit. I revert back again. I recently had the article put on a one-week edit lock. What concerns me is that there would be consensus at the TV station WikiProject before the DMA's could be removed from article lists. There WAS a discussion, but it was NOT supposed to affect affiliate lists of the "Big Six". Apparently, DreamMcQueen is not part of the project. In addition, the NBC, FOX and CBS (oh wait, he stripped the DMAs off the CBS table too) have not been affected yet. This has made me think that he is effectively attempting to claim article ownership; clearly a violation of "Da Rules". In addition, I am starting to be concerned about his edits in general, as it seems he is abusing the vandalism marker. In my personal opinion, I think he should begin to familiarize himself with the policies and guidelines here. If he does not comply, I think it's safe to declare him a vandal. Further problems with this issue and it's headed for the RFC noticeboard. Thank you. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 12:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It is best that you refrain from constantly applying policies and guidelines towards this user's post as it may be interpreted as a personal attack where the user will just ignore it and take it as an insult. Also your tone of language at the user's talk page such as saying "Piss me off via edit war or any other method and I WILL IMMEDIATELY REPORT YOU TO AN ADMINISTRATOR AT ALL MEANS!!!!!!! You've been warned. And don't you even dare respond to this at my talk page. Don't you dare get me hot or else you will find yourself hanged above the flames of WP Admin Hell!" will definitely not help get your own point across this user at all so I'd advise that you review the Wikipedia:Civility so that in the future conflicts like this won't happen anymore. Remember that the more civil you post the easier it will be for administrators and other editors to help you both resolve your differences and carry a proper discussion.119.224.27.62 (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Well I have already tried to be civil to him, but he keeps making the problem worse. Besides, I have tried WP:DRN, but he wouldn't get in the discussion. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 18:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi again. Just remember to be civil at all times. If the user insults you next time, just ignore the insulting parts of the comment even if its hard not to and focus on what is the user's point. If that doesn't work then put then you can finally take the problem to either WP:DRN or WP:ANI where the administrators can take action(such as what had happened here). The easier it is to identify who is more civil the faster it will be for other's to help you out. Anyways it seems like the problem has died down now and an admin had already helped you so that's great progress. Well done. :-) 119.224.27.62 (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – referred to ANI Nobody Ent 02:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Guy Macon is following me around in talk pages, where I participate in on topic discussions, and follow my comments with off topic negative comments related to me and to other discussions:

Regards. --Nenpog (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I was really hoping to be able to agree with Guy on this. Proper process for dealing with a person who is alleged to be interfering with WP:Consensus process (like forum shopping) is to notify an administrator. Typically, this would be at AN/I. Guy is advised to follow that process.
Please do keep in mind that if you don't get a consensus at one place, you should try to avoid hopping around until you get what you want. In many cases there is an escalation process, and its possible that you are trying to use that process, although it appears Guy doesn't see it that way. I haven't bothered to read the specifics of this, but please honor consensus, or come up with a novel argument and re-argue the dispute. If you feel like people simply aren't listening, feel free to ask for advice on how to approach it next, but don't try to win by taking something to 10 different places. Nenpog is advised to follow this process. -- Avanu (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I looked at the links and do not see a wikiquette issue. It is standard procedure to use the contributions list provided for each user to see whether any follow up to an issue is warranted. The way to respond would be to address the substance of the claims made by Guy Macon, preferably on one talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • OP appears to be forum shopping; nothing wrong with Guy Macon pointing this out. Nobody Ent 10:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Its also not in line with consensus building to hound people though. At this point, if it is indeed forum shopping, it needs to be brought up in a place that can adjudicate it, not pushed into discussions as a poison pill. -- Avanu (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
What? Above you say you haven't read the specifics, and now you think it's hounding? While supporting editors is great, some judgment is required to choose which side of a disagreement should be supported. I looked at the links, and there is no hounding—as I mentioned, it is an entirely standard procedure and it appears highly appropriate in this case. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
What I meant is that I didn't read the specifics of whether Nenpog was "in the right" in going to all these forums. What I can easily see, however, is that Guy is putting a fairly similar set of notices in each place. If Nenpog is forumshopping, there are places for recourse, specifically AN/I is one example. -- Avanu (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you withdrawing your statement suggesting that Guy Macon is hounding another editor?
If not, some evidence should be provided very soon.
Anyone with a large number of comments at noticeboards should be aware that people at ANI are tired of every little problem being taken there—it's up to people participating in the community to sort out what they can. Johnuniq (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I've given my advice on this, in fact, I was first, so lay off, relax, and read what I said, or don't, your choice. If you have a particular problem with the word 'hound', please point out exactly what *I* meant by it. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
It is hard to comprehend how an experienced editor could imagine that it is acceptable to imply that a named editor is hounding another editor. From WP:WIAPA, "What is considered to be a personal attack?...Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". This is a noticeboard, not a 101 Philosophy course where we discuss whether "hound" has an intrinsic meaning. Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There's no benefit to Wikipedia to hash out exactly what noun (gerund?) is most appropriate to describe GM's behavior. Posting a notice at the various forums that the edits where in response to a particular situation was a reasonable thing to do. Starting an ANI thread is a legitimate alternative. Personally I think GMs action was the less inflammatory course of action to take. Nobody Ent 11:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, maybe you could point out exactly where I said that Guy Macon is hounding anyone? Please go read what I actually said which was "Its also not in line with consensus building to hound people". Followed by "if it is indeed forum shopping, it needs to be brought up in a place that can adjudicate it". So, again, relax, stop looking for additional problems, and focus on the issues brought before us here and the two editors involved. Have a great day. P.S. Although I agree with Nobody Ent's comment about this possibly being the less inflammatory approach, we find ourselves here now, and so he should decide whether to continue the method that brought us here, or take it to AN/I. Wouldn't you agree? -- Avanu (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I think ya'll should just agree to disagree and take no further action. Nobody Ent 11:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It would be best if Guy and Nenpog could figure out an amicable way to relate going forward. I don't think AN/I wants to see a post where Nenpog has to report Guy, and I doubt Nenpog wants the reverse. I went ahead and read through a bit more of the debates. Nenpog sounds like a person with a very deep understanding of X-Ray technology and seems to be well received in the discussions. Obviously something led to Nenpog going to outside forums for review and advice, but just as Johnuniq says above, if we're going to make a claim, we should back it up. EdJohnston said Nenpog seemed "to be eager to draw attention to the risks of ionizing radiation to the patient" and advised him to "negotiate patiently on the talk page to see if you can reach agreement with the others". I can't say for sure how much of that has happened, but following an editor from page to page and putting up a 'disclaimer' is not a valid approach to consensus. -- Avanu (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Since it doesn't seem to be staying closed I'll respond instead. I am not involved in this dispute and don't know all of the background. What I do know is what I observed at COIN and on IRC: Nenpog has been consistently pushing his views on the wiki on multiple noticeboards/locations etc, including IRC. On #wikipedia-en IRC for example, related to this dispute, he joined the channel to argue that being a doctor in a hospital that has a CT scanner is a conflict of interest. He also tried to argue beyond what was reasonable about basing WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims off an unreliable source as well. The level of reliable sources required for this exceptional claim just don't exist. He appears unable to accept any of the responses or points made against his point and continues on, a case of WP:IDHT. It's also clear the content is just not going to go into the article and the consensus is against it, he should drop the WP:STICK and walk away. Guy is fully correct to keep tabs on what Nenpog is doing, because so far it has been consistently disruptive to the point of exacerbation. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Do I need to respond to these not related allegations? Why not related? Because it is clear from reading my posts, to which Guy Macon has uniformly replied, that each post of mine was about a separate subject. One was about the operational procedures of the COIN, one was about the MEDRS rules, one was about if simple logic is a synthesis, and one was about due weight. Two of these discussions were opened by other people, and I have only joined them and responded to the discussion. Guy Macon came, and has put there his message, that is not even related to the topic being discussed.
IRWolfie joined the discussion here and claimed, well yes, but this is all justified because I am a non related person, that don't know the background, but trust me that I know these non related facts, that prove that Nenpog is the bad guy here, and so he deserves to be followed around with a disclaimer, so that all the other innocent editors will be careful, and this is my own disclaimer here, to warn you of that bad guy, and to remind you, that even if this is not fair, he deserves it. Does this sum it up close enough to what you meant IRWolfie?--Nenpog (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that before Nenpog accused me of uncivil behavior he accused me (without evidence) of having an undisclosed conflict of interest. I would have ignored that -- if you volunteer at WP:DRN you will get a few false accusations from disputants -- but he also accused another editor who, like me, chooses to reveal his true name and who is an Emergency Room Physician in Canada. That is totally acceptable behavior.

This started as a content dispute on Talk:X-ray computed tomography where Nenpog faced a lack of consensus (every other editor opposed the changes he wished to make.) My only involvement is as a dispute resolution volunteer who tried to help resolve the conflict when it reached WP:DRN.
He was then blocked for edit-warring and tendentious editing.[25][26][27]
He then started Wikipedia:Forum shopping, taking his dispute to:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine,
Talk:Ionizing radiation,
Wikipedia talk:No original research,
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard,
User talk:Elen of the Roads,
Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard,
Wikipedia talk:No original research (Second time, in a different section),
At least one IRC channel (I don't follow IRC),
And now he is at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. I have no intention of reporting Nenpog at AN/I or anywhere else, for the simple reason that his behavior is not harming me. I considered ignoring the behavior, but Nenpog has wasted a large amount of other editor's time time in a large number of places, so I decided that I would simply post a short, fact-based explanation of where he has been with this previously each time his forum shopping takes him to a new noticeboard and not comment after that. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The only place in which you haven't comment 'after that' was the NOR talk page, and that is so probably only because you didn't have time to, as your first comment there was made recently in the last day.
BTW, at the NPOV talk page one of the editors responded to Guy with "Cannot fully agree. Nenpog has asked quite a legitimate question"Paul Siebert and then Guy's friend started talking about wolves, and naturally Paul Sibert wondered "What do you mean under "virtual wolves" in this particular case?"Paul Siebert. And I ask too, what do wolves has to do with a discussion about due weight, and what all of the above has to do with someone following me around and posting off topic content where it doesn't belong. I don't get it. --Nenpog (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Update: I have split the fresh disclaimer of Guy from the NOR discussion into a subsection, as it was not related, in accordance with WP:TALKO sectioning. Guy have undone that split, and accused me of POV pushing that his disclaimer is off topic. Seems like at this point Guy Macon still think that his disclaimer is in its proper place. --Nenpog (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Please WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. You wasted my time at WP:NOR after repeatedly being given perfectly good answers elsewhere. I fully approve of that notice there to give the background to what your query was about. My guess is you will eventually be blocked indefinitely as you don't seem to be able to drop the stick. Dmcq (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Dmcq, you claim that I was given a good answer to the question ("Is simple logic a SYNTH?"), that was asked at the NOR elsewhere. Please supply a diff of the good answer given elsewhere. --Nenpog (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe [28] a month ago is about the earliest saying essentially that to you. Dmcq (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
That wasn't an answer to whether simple logic is a synth. --Nenpog (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
You said 'This is not original research. CT inflict ionizing radiation on patients, and ionizing radiation cause adverse effects' and were responded to with ' When you use a source which does not explicitly mention the article's subject that is WP:SYNTH'. That was pretty clear about you basing the insertion on simple logic and a person telling you it was SYNTH and not admissable under the original research policy and they pointed you at the relevant place which explains it in more detail. Dmcq (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
It is pretty clear that that person wrote nothing about simple logic, and gave me an advice that is in line with use of simple logic: "I think that the way to post this is to provide a source which states the range of radiation to which CT machines expose patients, then state that range and reference a source which says what happens at that range."Blue Rasberry. There was no suggestion that I would find an answer in the WP:SYNTH section, as WP:SYNTH was used as a noun ("that is WP:SYNTH"Blue Rasberry). A referral was given to the WP:PRIMARY section, which doesn't include anything discussing logic. The claim that the source must explicitly mention the article's subject was not accompanied by any quote from any policy. For staying on topic, I didn't include here arguments that show that following the links to the mentioned WP:terms wouldn't have provided me with an answer to the question, since that is not relevant to the current question, of whether I have gotten an answer to the simple logic question by Blue Rasberry, and I think that what I wrote proves that I haven't.
Do you have an other diff, that you think is a good answer given elsewhere?--Nenpog (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. No matter how many times Nenpog is told that he is wrong, he won't listen. In regards to Nenpog's latest complaint, he put my comment into a separate section which he labeled "Guy Macon's disclaimer" while putting his comments and the other responses into a new "Main discussion" section. I reverted with the comment "Nenpog, stop modifying or moving comments that are critical of you in order to push your POV that they are 'off topic' or in any other way not replies to the comment above them." he ignored that edit comment as he ignored Dmcq's response to his complaint above -- more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Funny that you come up with WP:ICANTHEARYOU that fits your behavior. Did you hear Avanu comments btw? Do you think that you are being civil? You once wrote that if anyone find your behavior not civil they should tell you. Consider yourself told. --Nenpog (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nenpog. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquette violation in summary


I created the Syria Files article and Lihaas added quickly some tags: notability, original research. I added more references easily, it is an event covered in mainstream media (hundreds of news in Google News). Soon, I was reverted again by Lihaas and he wrote this comment in my talkpage. After other users removed the tags he put in Syria Files, I noticed him the changes. He has named my comment as "nonsense" and deleted it. I don't delete his comments using that summaries, so I prefer he doesn't do it. Regards. emijrp (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

i was perfectly polite in asking him, and he responds aggressively and starts to revert things on my talk page (that was undone by others). [29]. Im entitled to withdraw stuff from my talk page, as is anyone.
"You should not delete the comments of other editors" shows a misunderstanding of WP policies. His inclusion of the other editors who reverted him on my talk page is more deceptive as theyre not involved in anything. Only points to WP:BOOMERANG
At any rate, tag removals require discussion per BRD as i politely requested. This wasnt done. And a discussion is ongoing on that page. Lihaas (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure Lihaas could improve his way of dealing with other editors, but in this case, "nonsense" was a description of Lihaas' opinion of the edit, not of the editor. It's not unduly rude. Further, the comment that Lihaas put on Emijrp's talk page was completely unproblematic - it was a request to discuss and not edit war. (Although I have no idea what the smiley at the end of it was trying to imply). From the diffs given above, Lihaas is only at 1RR on the article page itself. Emijrp is at 2RR on Lihaas' talk page - Emijrp seems to have misunderstood what it says on WP:TPO. Lihaas was being slightly aggressive on the article and dismissive of Emijrp's disagreement, but the problems are not as described in the complaint. Both editors should go away and discuss it politely on the article talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Smiley to make thing slighthearted in case it was construed as aggressive.
But i did starta talk page discussion at said page. Though i handled well not perfect, but wellLihaas (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
It is best to avoid being so harsh when you are deleting talk page sections. You can simply remove them with "archiving" for example. Alternatively you can just leave them, or archive in bulk. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, deleting a talk page section with the edit summary "archiving" might be considered misleading, if one did not actually intend to archive the material. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Good point, it can be just deleted without a message. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Okey , will doLihaas (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Wasnt with that reason and that wasnt the issue. All respondents here siaid that it wasnt a fault as the OP suggested.Lihaas (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see the the edit history for the edit summary that preceded mine. There are quite clarly 2 sides to a coin if you see that other summary. At any rate, weve already been discussing resolution and solved it ourselves. Quick and easy
Please dohn't stalk my edits.Lihaas (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Careful with that accusation. I have your talkpage watchlisted because of your disruptive editing in the past. (Well before this incident.) I don't stalk your edits, nor have any need to.
I do think you should make an ongoing effort to be more careful with edit summaries when removing comments from your own talk page (which you do still have every right to do, although archiving is recommended). But otherwise, I think we're done here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia is turned off

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Nobody Ent 19:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


Dear Sirs,

I've made a donation to You recently because I like Wikipedia project very much.

You have blocked Russian part of Wikipedia, so I can not use it.

Do You think that it is honestly? Do You think that it is right when someone who asked for your help says You: “I don’t wanna see You anymore and I don’t wanna talk to You anymore because You live in the bad country, but if You want make some donation You are welcome!”

I don’t need those donated money. I hope that it will help You to develop Wikipedia project. I just want to hear an answer to my question.

My e-mail: (Redacted)
Best regards, Alex

The Russian Wikipedia apparently has decided to suspend operation temporarily to protest against a law that would impede internet freedom and its own operation. This is not the first nor the only time this happend. The English language Wikipedia shut down this January for a day to protest against SOPA and PIPA, two similarly bad laws in the US. I don't read Russian, but I assume this also is a temporary measure based on local consensus. Indeed, a short session with Google Translate lead me here, which seems to confirm this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
We did not block Russian Wikipedia. They blocked themselves.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Assuming its using the same method, disable Javascript in your browser and it will work fine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Constantly being following around Wikipedia with Uncivil intents about my actions.

Users involved

Articles/pages/diffs involved

Description

(Please note: The story is actually long. I admit that I should've gone here earlier but I'm just going to get to the main points. The users involved(including myself) will post the other parts, diffs and other articles involved later when we all have time.)

This began when I nominated the Ell & Nikki article for deletion by mistake because the AfD didn't become the discussion I planned. I gave several points but got very little replies or input from users other than being told about WP:Notability guidelines. They didn't really comment much about the I point made but instead focused on posting about why the article shouldn't be deleted. After the discussion was closed prematurely due to a snowball keep I was thinking of asking the non-admin that closed it prematurely to re-open it with the hopes of getting other Wikiproject users involved but it was rejected. I figured that if I just ask a question regarding my point rather than re-opening the AfD I would get the answer that I am looking for. However I started to panic when these two users (BabbaQ and CT Cooper) followed me here. I later discovered that BabbaQ has been notifying Wesley Mouse about my activities and questioning my intents. This is when it became a big problem. I got extremely worried about this so I left a note on this page. But their replies gave me the feeling that they were ganging up on me. I made replies that could've have violated several policies and guidelines. I think this was because I've never been in a position before where I've been completely misunderstood and this really hurt me and made me feel frustrated. In particular, Wesley Mouse mentions that I was being negative in the AfD. Something that I completely disagreed with and it really hurt me when that user told me this. I later decided to drop the argument because it was just going nowhere. This is what I just think.

After some users suggested that I should do a merger here and I took this suggestion to the talk page of the article in question more arguments erupted. It ended when Wesley Mouse gave me a kindly written letter on my talk page asking me to put my merger proposal on hold for now. I respected his letter so I agreed. I decided to move on, editing other articles, and going through several guidelines and policies here in Wikipedia so that I could handle this problem more easily in the future. During the course of that time I still had doubts and I asked for Editor's assistance if whether or not it is safe to propose a mergerhere Just yesterday, they(BabbaQ, Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper) managed to find me there. I went through their talk pages and once again suspicions about my intents have been aroused. I'm not sure how they managed to find the page but my only guess is that wthey've got my talk page on their watch list and recently a user left a comment which may have notified them of my recent activities and went through my contributions to check on what I am up to. Then notified each other of my page.

Certain points that I am failing to understand with these users?

  • Implies that the article meets WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E therefore my suggestion is unnecessary.
  • Believes that a clear consensus had already been reached on the AfD to Keep the article. Therefore, doing a merger proposal would be going against this consensus and could be a violation of policies and guidelines.

Why do I disagree with these points?

  • I disagree because according to Wikipedia:Notability: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline...This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."
  • I believe that consensus was only to Keep the article including its information in Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that its content or information is protected from being merged to other articles. I do respect the consensus and I am not trying to wipe out Ell & Nikki's evidence/existence in this site but according to this page here:"Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists."

Main point

  • I believe that Ell & Nikki's article is unlikely to be expanded in the future because it only covers their participation and involvements together at the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 and Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Therefore it is best to merge it into the "Running Scared". Besides we already have separate articles about each of the duos Nigar Jamal and Eldar Gasimov.
  • After both events ended, Nigar Jamal and Eldar Gasimov have not released anymore material together as a group. They have just released their solo materials separately and done separate endeavors. They may have been involved in some more group activities together but these are not really outside their Eurovision Song Contest involvements. This gave me some doubts that Ell & Nikki was just formed for the purpose of participating in the contest and performing/presenting the song. They were merely an official group but just a collaboration between two singers(eg. Kanye West & Jay-Z, Brandy & Monica), and Rock 'n' Roll Kids).

I am feeling really scared right now. I feel like my experience here in Wikipedia will never be the same again after my encounter with these users because I am constantly being followed and my contributions are being taken out of context. I am also worried that they will report me and get my account banned in Wikipedia which I do not wish to happen. Can someone please help us get into an understanding? Thanks Bleubeatle (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There is quite a lot here to read for a speedy response to be made, and the time here in the UK is just gone midnight. I find the entire thing to be perplexed and being taken way out of context than what was actually said. Nevertheless, I shall be courteous and delay my want of sleep so that I can respond to this accordingly. Wesley☀Mouse 23:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
A lot of what is cited above is a month old and I thought that some kind of mutual agreement had been reached to move on. We have long past the point here in which it is reasonable to request that you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. I understand that you felt others were "ganging up on" you, but you choose to make some serious accusations about other users, and a defensive response was justified. As for this "following around" issue, I think we've had this conservation. If a person starts a discussion about other users or issues to which they are involved, you should expect them to find out and comment on what you have said about them. If this was users following you round commenting on multiple unrelated topics, I would see the point, but as it stands I don't. There is no right under policy for users to demand that others don't find out or don't partake in a discussions, to which they are a party, on a public noticeboard or project talk page - this is an open and collaborative project, and a person's contributions list is public for reason. Bleubeatle's other complaint here seems to that of disagreement in a content dispute, which is fine, but this page is not for resolving content disputes. CT Cooper · talk 23:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
CT, since you are listed as one of the involved users, could you be more specific on what you feel "some kind of mutual agreement" means? It sounds rather vague to me. If you could be specific, we might be able to see if this could be agreed on by all parties here. -- Avanu (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Right, I have read this entirely, and have pre-written an in-depth response covering every little grain of sand detail thoroughly. There is quite a lot though, so would you like me to post it in its entirety, or in segments? I'm happy either way. Wesley☀Mouse 00:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The time now is 2:45am, so I'm off to bed as I'm absolutely knackered and I have a busy schedule in the morning. If there are any questions/comments that require my attention, then please could you leave a notice on my talk page, so that I can read them when I get a spare moment tomorrow. In the meantime, if you wish to read my pre-written response (which is very lengthy), then it can be accessed here. G'night all - Wesley☀Mouse 01:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I can only say that the title of this discussion is the basis of the problem. Bleubeatle throws accusations around and also stated that its not OK for us to respond to posts which are directed at us which is very odd. My main concern has been that Bleubeatle seems unwilling/unable to let the matter go for the moment or at best discussing it rationally. When given a response which isn't in line with Bleubealtes own opinions he/she either simply ignores and asks the same question again or acts like he/she doesnt understand the reply. On the question of merging I am under the impression that a majority of the responses Bleubeatle has recieved has been in favour of Keeping all three article such as the AfD on the matter and also most responses on talk pages. And still the user keeps bringing the matter up and that is where it gets trickier. Bleubeatle has the right to start new threads etc, but now it seems like the user is not following several users good faith suggestion that the user waits too ask about the Ell & Nikki possible merger for awhile and let the matter cool down. I find that a bit offensive that the user doesnt wait a while for it all to cool down, is it the users intention to stir up emotions or? I dont know. The title of this section is offensive in itself and shows that the user is unwilling to compromise on the matter. My other opinions can be found on the several sections Bleubeatle has started all over the Wikipedia about the Ell & Nikki merger. And I am not willing to respondany further and waste my precious time on this matter which has been kept alive by Bleaubeatle for over a month now. This is my only comment on this section. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I would like to know how we can be accused of having "uncivil intents", when the accuser kept on telling people who disagreed with their opinions, to "leave conversations" such as 1, 2, and 3, are just a few examples of such remarks. The accuser also admitted to being uncivil himself towards BabbaQ, which can be seen in this diff, and in the same comment he took other's comments entirely out of context. In this diff Bleubeatle made false accusations about myself, in saying I had informed Bleubeatle that BabbaQ wanted to "fight". I had never said such remarks, and fail to comprehend how Bleubeatle came to the conclusion that I had made such a statement. But that very same diff, also shows one of the numerous occasions that the user has redacted their own comments shortly after someone had responded to his original comments, thus making it look that the responders where making no sense in their remarks. What would possess a user to do that, unless there were hidden intentions? Nevertheless, everyone (as far as I am aware) assumed good faith in Bleu's unknown reasons for redactions.

I find the fact that some people are being accused of "stalking", when this has never been the case. As I am the main editor of the Project newsletter, I have every member on my watchlist, so that I can make sure the EdwardsBot had delivered the newsletter to everyone without any technical glitches. Is this the wrong thing to do? Also, Bleubeatle keeps on stating that everyone questioned his intentions to have an article deleted, and that he never had any such inclinations to have an article deleted to begin with. If that be the case, then why would someone with no intent to have anything deleted, proceed with a nomination of deletion? Surely that is evidential enough to show that every action and comment being posted in regards to the deletion was premeditated with intent.

Then we come to the points that Bleu has raised in bullet-points above. Every single one of those points where originally asked in the AfD, and everyone who voted to keep, explained to Bleu that he had misunderstood the guidance on WP:BIO1E, informing him that those guidelines where for events and not living persons. The same people also pointed out that WP:BLP1E would be the correct guidance to look into. Providing the correct page link was an act of goodwill, and in the assumption that Bleu was unaware of that page. However, following the snowball closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ell & Nikki, Bluebeatle went on what can only be described as a canvassing exercise posting the same questions and directly/inadvertently naming users on talk pages Wikipedia talk:Notability (music), Talk:Ell & Nikki, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision, Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and more recently Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests; also accusing an editor of barnstar misuse in regards to the AfD debate. Blatantly going around various pages casting false accusations about other editors is by far more uncivil, and from reading the original comment before the user redacted their own words, again, then it is no wonder that people would start to have suspicions about why someone who is generally quiet and reserved, would start to behave in such a condescending manner. Anyhow, I have clearly written a lengthy response here as it is, so I shall pause for now, and am willing to answer any further questions in due course. Wesley☀Mouse

I am also somewhat frustrated that this has been dug-up yet again, since I have a lot better things to do with my time. I am however happy to answer questions, and what I meant by "some kind of mutual agreement" was closing comments made on the discussion at WT:EURO, in which Bleubeatle stated amidst some problematic comments, that he wouldn't reply any more, in which I interpreted to mean that he was going to drop the issue, for which I was happy to do. Bleubeatle however instead starting more threads on the subject, sometimes in inappropriate places such as WT:ATA, and usually containing at least some kind of questionable statement about what other editors had done or said.

What Bleubeatle needs to understand is that when you propose something and consensus doesn't go your way, you let the issue die and move on, even if you are not personally satisfied with the reasoning - you don't forum shop by starting lots more threads until you get the answer you want. Starting one or at most two more threads on a subject might be defensible depending on the circumstances, but the level to which Bleubeatle took it was way past what was acceptable.

There is clearly a lot of emotion in the above comments by Bleubeatle, which I see as unjustified for the situation he actually faced - for instance nobody has called for him to be banned before now. As I've said before, his earlier comments stating "I don't care how you feel about what I wrote." and "I am not going to bother reading what you've written below. No matter how disheartening that it will make me feel" do come back to haunt him here. Bleubeatle needs to learn that editing a collaborative project such as this does involve receiving criticism and dealing with disagreement, and he needs to learn to handle such events appropriately, and not respond with extreme emotion or unjustified allegations about "questioning my intent" or the like, which can and did in this case, make things worse. Finally, and most importantly of all, Bleubeatle needs to realize that his actions have consequences. It has already clear that by digging this up again, he has caused a great deal of stress to one party involved, and therefore convinced me that he has crossed the line from behaving inappropriately to causing significant disruption to this project, and that such behaviour, even if done in good faith, is not going to be put-up with indefinitely. I have repeatedly tried to explain to Bleubeatle where he is going wrong, but such efforts have failed so far. CT Cooper · talk 22:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best if I explain that situation now. I have to say that what you've said in WP:EURO actually hurt me: "I am offering no apologies, and expect few others will either, as I don't think I or anyone else has committed any real offence here." Afterwards you started making corrections about my posts but I don't think that you even realized how much frustration I was going through after my posts were taken out of context by Wesley Mouse. That gave me the impression that you were belittling me and that actually hurt. I know that may not have been your intention but if you wanted to help me then you could've at least been more cautious with your replies and showed some sign of understanding about my feelings. I felt that if I retaliated further then it would only make this discussion much more worse so I decided to leave and tell you that "I don't care how you feel about what I wrote." and "I am not going to bother reading what you've written below. No matter how disheartening that it will make me feel". That may not have been the reply that you intended to hear but I was pretty much hurt about what you've written. In another talk page you even stated that what I said in regards to those comments: "may come back to haunt him here." and to me that felt like a threat and made me question if you were even trying to help. I think you should just be more careful with your replies and think about how it can actually make people feel. Also maybe you could try and understand what situation they are going through in the discussion first before focusing on what they've written wrong? Anyways I have actually already learned a lot from that incident when I read through it again and I will make sure that I don't make anymore replies like that in the future. I just hope that this Wikiquette assistance page will help clear things for all of us and I hope that you understand what I've said in this paragraph regarding my conversation with you at the WP:EURO discussion page.Bleubeatle (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I have only just noticed this part been sneakily added midway as if intended to be unnoticed. Firstly, to accuse me of taking your posts out of context is a blatant lie. You know fully well that I never once took a comment of yours out of context. If there was something that made no sense, then I always asked you to further explain. To come out with such a lie like that you are actually belittling me. You then accuse CT Cooper of "correcting your posts". Cooper has never corrected any of your posts, it is known that Cooper is fully aware of WP:TALK, so again a second lie. And on the subject of Cooper's comments, you state he posted "may come back to haunt him here." on a different page!? I see no other page other than this one where that comment has been posted. Then you tell us that we should've been "more cautious with your replies and showed some sign of understanding about my feelings" - yet in every other post you have made you state that you never told us about how you was feeling. We have even told you that you should have made your feelings known so that people could have been more sensitive towards you. So you have literally contradicted yourself there. To leave comments such as "I don't care how you feel about what I wrote." and "I am not going to bother reading what you've written below. No matter how disheartening that it will make me feel" are clearly uncivil, and you would have known that as you have in a round-about way confirmed this. You know as an established editor to always assume good faith, and to assume the assumption of good faith - both of these had been pointed out to you several times, and you stated you knew about those policies. So no matter how upset you may have felt, it didn't give you the right to be uncivil towards another editor by using such remarks. A proverb that is well known is "treat those how you expect to be treated in return", so if you are to treat people uncivilly, then you should expect to get the same treatment back. Everyone was courteous and explained/answered every question you asked in a civil manner. By repeating the same questions on near enough every talk page possible, caused people to wonder why you were behaving in such an unusual manner. People, even uninvolved editors, asked you why you was repeating posts, and advised you to let things drop. Instead of taking their advice, you continued on a rampage of nuisance repetitive thread posting. Anyhow, a proposal has been made below, which 3 of the 4 involved users appear to support. So the sooner this draws to a closure, the better. Then I can get back to stressing over the Olympics (which are 14 days away now). Wesley Mouse 16:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


Before I reply to any details regarding the posts above me here I just want to start off my saying that the user I found the most difficult to communicate with was BabbaQ. I first encountered this user when I first proposed the article for deletion. The user objected and told me about it on my talk page. Later on after the AfD ended and while I was asking for the non-admin user who closed it for re-opening, the user began following on this pagepage. I have also noticed that for most of the time, the user has always been constantly the other two users(Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper) of my actions on each other's talk pages as seen on some of these diffs: [1][2][3][4]. From my observations, this may explain why the other two users have followed me around Wikipedia ever since. During the discussion that I opened on this page, the user became disinterested and rude when after many agreed that the article should be merged instead. A user noticed this behavior. I also noticed it on the article's talk page when I tried to converge with the user here. The user even tells me that "its a fight you are unlikely to win unfortunately" and "are you sure you are not looking for proof?. Im out of this discussion. Its over and done.". The user clearly opposes anything being done on the article whether it is deleting or merging and doesn't want anymore or anyone to discuss about it in the future. That kind of behavior should stop because other users may find this rude and will not lead to a proper discussion. From my observation, the user seems to be trying to gather support to prevent the inevitable from happening and that is by arousing suspicions about my contributions on these two users'(Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper) talk pages. The user needs to realize that is not a battleground and that winning is not everything. Also I believe that the user has rejected all signs of neutrality and peace as shown on these diffs:[1], [2], [3],[4] and [5].Bleubeatle (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I will probably give another statement like this paragraph for the other two users later on if it is needed. Just reading through some of the paragraphs above, I have to tell you all that I already understand most the things that you've said. What needs to change is your approach and your posts towards users like myself. You may think that you could be doing something right but sometimes it can hurt people as well. No one in Wikipedia enjoys being bossed around. I'm pretty sure neither of you do. Sometimes you need to take a break and have a good look at your own posts. You should be more careful with what you write and understand that not everyone communicates the same way you do. Besides this is the internet. Bleubeatle (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, BabbaQ has never been rude in any of his comments. He, like any other editor on Wikipedia, is entitled to put across his opinion in regards to article related matters, whether it be creations, change in policies, deletions etc, it is what is known as building a consensus, gathering data etc. If any editor, and not just BabbaQ, wishes to oppose something then they are perfectly within their rights to tell someone why they oppose it and provide reasons for that. If everyone was to just agree to everything, then we might as well not hold any form of democratic discussions, and scrap any such discussion boards all together.
Secondly, what you need to realise here is that if you go to other talk pages and start slagging off people without letting them know, then yes, it would only be a matter of time until those who you slagged off would find out about it. And they would be well within their rights to comment on what is being said about them. You cannot and should not, just put across your side of events and thing that the entire picture is complete. To put it hypothetically, would you go to a court of law and only allow one side to be told and then make a judgement without hearing what the other side has to say? No, you wouldn't - so why should that be any different in here, unless you don't want others to know the real truth.
Thirdly, in relation to redacting of comments. Not only do you start to redact your own original posts after someone has already responded to them, in order to make it look like no sense is being made. But after reviewing this redaction of other's comments is clear evidence of disruptive behaviour and goes against WP:TALK. What gives you the right to hide someone else's comments without their consent? From everything that is clearly visible and the way hat you speak to people, that you are guilty of your own accusations.
And finally, for the record, the comment CT Cooper posted above which reads "It has already [been] clear that by digging this up again, he has caused a great deal of stress to one party involved, and therefore convinced me that he has crossed the line from behaving inappropriately to causing significant disruption to this project", the person being refereed to in that statement is myself. As it is known by some editors on here, my mother passed away a few weeks ago, and on 2 July my uncle also passed away. I am going through enough pressure and stress at home dealing with that, and also the preparations for my volunteering at London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. By dragging up something that should have been dead and buried from the moment the AfD closed, has made me physically sick. I couldn't get a wink of sleep the minute this discussion was opened, when I finally managed to sleep, it was only for 4 hours. And then after that I ended up vomiting as a result of the stress that you are putting me through. Several uninvolved editors, and not just the ones listed above, have repeatedly told you to just let it go, drop the stick, walk away from it, get on with more constructive editing. You yourself have even demanded people should let things go. How can you expect people to let thing go, if you go on this crusade of dragging up shit (excuse the language) knowing full well what the consequences are, and how much distress you know it will bring to people. For someone to go about such nature is most likely doing it in a vindictive and malevolent manner. I still have my in-depth detailed response, which answers every single one of the sentences of your re-edited opening post above. And I say re-edited, because the edit history shows that you changed parts of your original report, which is becoming a bit of a normal pattern with you lately. Wesley☀Mouse 15:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
In light of the complexity of this matter, and the constant 'he said; she said' bickering. I hereby would like to submit the following diplomatic proposal in the hope that it may resolve this matter peacefully.
Proposal
  • All involved parties to refrain from making comments about users in regards to anything relating to the afd/merger issues, whether they by naming them directly or inadvertently naming in the context of 'a user' or 'the user'.
  • Any previous comments posted on other pages other than their own (such as WT:EURO, WT:ATA, WP:EAR, and WP:WQA) to be placed in a collapsible box with a brief explanation as to why that has been done - thus wiping the slate clean, so to speak. Individuals may also implement this onto their own user talk pages at their discretion.
  • Postponing any merger proposals for at least 4 months minimum - gives enough time for the dust to settle.
  • Any merger proposals connected with Ell & Nikki to be supervised by an uninvolved administrator.
  • If anyone is seen to be failing to comply to any of the above, then they are to be held responsible for their actions and may face possible sanctions, whether it be topic bans, interaction bans, or worse, as a consequence.
As the proposer of this idea, I will gladly support and abide to them. Do the other involved users (listed at the start) have any objections to this proposal? Wesley Mouse 18:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I support this proposal 100%. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
As I said on my user talk page, I agree with this proposal. CT Cooper · talk 22:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Before I make an agreement I would like to ask if I can add some more towards the proposal? I believe it is important for all of us to have an input towards this matter so that we can all come to an agreement and understanding. Please note that if you have some doubts about any of them, could you please state your comments or questions below? I would be happy to clarify or change some of them around for you. Thanks Bleubeatle (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Additional proposals
  • If you are concerned about a user's recent actions or contributions(regarding any recent edits, questions, answers, or words written in other pages) then you have the right to notify the user on their own talk page regarding your concern. The user should be prepared to explain to you what intentions they have in mind. You must then provide feedback or suggestions to help this user understand why you are concerned about their actions. If for any reason you have decided to notify 'another' first, that 'other' user should make his/her own talk page open for the user(whom is of concern) to give an explanation about his/her recent actions. Feedback and suggestion can then be provided towards the user of concern in that page or his/her own page if possible.
  • If anyone has any questions regarding the diplomatic proposal then you can contact one of the users involved(listed at the start) by leaving your questions in their talk pages. Bleubeatle (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


Not to sound to pedantic here, but those additional proposals are part and parcel of ground policies on Wikipedia anyway, and should be commonsensical to anyone who has been an autoconfirmed user for a reasonable length of time. Plus they are covered in point 4 of my proposal in a round-about way. Wesley Mouse 07:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I am with Wesley on this matter. Also it seems like a backway to continue the bickering so I still support Wesleys original proposal.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I dont want to sound gloomy but if we get too unrestricted with the proposal we can just as well not have one, because we all know that the bickering will continue. I will support Wesleys five guideline proposal and with no changes. I want this bickering to stop immediatly and atleast let it rest for the next four months.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I have also made a suggestion on Bleubeatles talk page that if we all in a months time have followed the original proposals and we all have cooled down then perhaps we could make additions such as getting less restrictive on talk page interaction etc. I feel that Bleubeatles first additions to the proposal opens up for new drama to occur within days. One comment in the wrong tone on anyone of our talk pages right now I feel could make this dispute blow up again. Im just being realistic here.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with BabbaQ's point of view. The additional proposals does appear to leave a "back-door" open for sly bickering to occur, and that should never be allowed, as it would mean we'd be running the gauntlet and could inadvertently get blocked because it would allow Bleubeatle to be able to say whatever he likes, and we'd be forced into silence. Its an all or nothing scenario now. Wesley Mouse 08:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
And not only that, Bleubeatle's additional suggestion, would make point 1 of my 5-point proposal null and void. The first point clearly states to refrain from naming users, while Bleubeatle wants to be able to continue discussing a matter which has already been proven to be a over-heated and hostile topic. Wesley Mouse 08:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I just want to say that my point is that it will help prevent further miscommunication if the user explains what they are up to. But it kind of does open some room for 'bickering' as you've stated above. Also you mentioned that they are "under Wikipedia's ground policies" therefore even if I withdraw the proposal they may still take effect right? If that is so then perhaps the first point of the additional proposal would not be needed after all. Bleubeatle (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Bleubeatle's additional proposals expand the scope beyond the AfD/merger issue which I don't think is necessary. Simply ending discussion on the merger and related discussion about the users involved, as Wesley proposes, should be sufficient. My only additional suggestion is that there be a sunset clause on the first bullet as well, possibly in four months to match the merger discussion, or if that is to likely to cause drama in four months perhaps extend it to a year, so we are all clear on how long this will apply for, in event it gets dug-up in the distant future. CT Cooper · talk 14:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, points 1 and 3 could technically go hand-in-hand in regards to a timeframe of validity. Wesley Mouse 14:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I would say that one year is much more realistic for a possible new discussion on merging the article. In four months time this discussion will probably still be as infected as it is at the present.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I initially said 4 months, as that would bring us to November, by which time people will be too busy stressing out over Christmas preparations to be bothered about stressing over this too. Wesley Mouse 15:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. A year without discussing this matter further would benefit my sanity and most likely yours too.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
OK a year sounds reasonable I suppose. Another thing that has concerned me slightly in the "proposed addition" is the following line "If for any reason you have decided to notify 'another' first, that 'other' user should make his/her own talk page open for the user(whom is of concern) to give an explanation about his/her recent actions." - I never knew a user could close their talk page from others to edit? Isn't Wikipedia an open space for anyone to post on any talk page, unless they have an interaction ban imposed on them. Wesley Mouse 15:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I think something was lost in translation there. I think it is very possible that English as for me isn't Bleubeatles first language.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, one year at a minimum for discussing that between the parties would be acceptable. And the best way to deal with the situation as that would give time for Ell & Nikki to perhaps do more music together too, making a merging discussion even more irrelevant in a year.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
A year is a long time not to discuss merging, but will certainly allow a fresh start to made, so I would happily agree to that. If Bleubeatle wants an earlier expiry, then I would happy with anything from 6 months onwards. I don't really understand the "open talk page" proposal either, since users cannot unilaterally ban users from commenting on their talk pages, and my talk page most certainly is open. CT Cooper · talk 18:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Well I'm glad to hear that your talk page is open. I guess the first point of the additional proposal may not be needed after all. I just want to say that the purpose of the main point of the additional proposal is to clear up any miscommunications. And yes I agree, waiting for 1 year would be too long. In regards to what Wesley Mouse has said, most people would be too busy during Christmas and New Year. Perhaps a minimum of 5-6 months would be better? Also, I noticed that earlier in this section of the Wikiquette assistance page did you mentioned something about the dispute resolution? Would it be a good idea to have one before a proper merger proposal can happen? Bleubeatle (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

6 months sounds good to me. And nobody mentioned dispute resolution in this very thread. Disruption yes, but dispute no. Going down DR before a merger would basically be failing points 2 and 3 of the proposal. And why would we need to revisit the past 6 months from now by opening DR? The whole point of the proposal is to just drop everything, and start a clean slate. Wesley Mouse 11:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with six months. There are many forms of dispute resolution - with discussing an issue on the talk page and trying to reach a consensus being the first method of choice. I would suggest that after the six months have passed, we have a fresh discussion on an appropriate talk page and try to reach a consensus in either direction. If talk page discussion breaks down, then requesting mediation is generally the next step. According to Wesley's proposals we will already be having a supervising non-involved admin involved anyway. CT Cooper · talk 21:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, do we have an agreement? Once this is confirmed, the terms can be implemented. CT Cooper · talk 08:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I guess 6 months sounds fine. Oh and what about the second point that I made on the additional proposals? I might discount that as well but..if we do have any questions regarding the proposal we can just ask each other right? Bleubeatle (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The additional proposals haven't reached consensus and therefore aren't presently part of the agreement. However, if anyone is confused about the agreement after it has passed, then I won't have a problem with anyone asking for clarification. CT Cooper · talk 10:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with what CT Cooper has said. The additions don't seem to have reached any consensus, and the context of them do seem to cover either core Wikipedia policies or the point that were made in the original 5-point proposal. In regards to asking for clarification at a later date, yes I can agree on that too. As I'm sure my brain will go into a complete state of mental breakdown once I've completed my Olympic Volunteering schedule in September (I'd wave to the cameras so you can see me, but you don't know what I look like, unless I walk around with banners showing your Wiki-names on them LOL). That being said, I'm assuming we're safe to implement this proposal then, and set an expiry date - which upon calculating from the calendar would be Monday 14 January 2013? Wesley Mouse 14:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I am a longterm WQA volunteer (over 1000 edits) who was asked to comment by Wesley Mouse. Historically I don't comment unless I have time to thoroughly review all contributions. While I've spent some time the past fews reviewing the interaction history here, I can't claim I've reviewed everything.

My overall impression is everyone has been acting in good faith and without any malicious intent; it's simply that disagreement leads to frustration which can lead to ill considered words. No individual editor is jumping out as significantly more at fault than anyone else.

This alert is actually fairly extraordinary because it is very rare that editors who have gotten to the point where they get to WQA show the maturity and grace to work through to a mutually agreeable solution as well as I'm observing here; that's a compliment to all the involved parties. In general I'm wary that elaborate interaction proposals are hard to maintain in practice; however, since you're all agreeable to the concept I encourage you to proceed as you are.

My two pieces of advice are:

  1. If you're willing to meet the other editor halfway -- you're probably going to fail miserably! You'll end up getting into a scuffle about where "halfway" actually is. Try to be willing to meet the other editor at least 3/4 of the way. When another party posts something particularly wrong or unfair, take an extra moment or two before replying. (Sometimes my extra moments are measured in days). The more calm and neutral the tone of your replies the more effective they are in the long run.
  2. Take into consideration that any agreement you make among yourselves cannot be considered binding upon the rest of Wikipedia. So if after you come to final consensus a new editor comes along in next month and Afds Ell & Nikki you have to ready to participate in a positive manner without getting on each other's nerves again. Nobody Ent 13:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Firstly thank you Gerard for taking time to look into this. I appreciate how extremely busy your schedule is at this present time. Also thank you for the complements too, that indeed caught me by surprise and brought a smile of pride to my face learning that I had done something right and diplomatic. Sure has inspired me in the right direction here, and giving that want to do more similar acts of diplomatic help in the future on Wikipedia. Wesley Mouse 14:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Assistance concerning user America69 undoing edits I made and threatening banning me

So I apologize in advance if I have not entered all of the above information correctly. I have not attempted a dispute resolution before. Concerning user America69 I have been unable to contact this person as they are "Semi-Retired" and I don't see how to type on his page to notify them. My issue is concerning the Florida Gubernational Election 2014 page. I originally edited it to add myself as an independent to the page. America69 removed my edit and the current comment he posted as his reason is "(→‎Potential: this is all self-promotion... there is no reputable source to indicate he is running.. so annoying all these people that have to self-promote) (undo)"

Yes I do realize I added an Independent category to this page and added myself to it. I believe the entry was very neutral. I did not hype myself in this edit nor did I add any links to the page. Independent voters do exist as do independents running. I have produced over 6 hours of Youtube videos discussing candidacy issues for Florida Governor. Based on the Wiki guidelines if I can not add myself as an independent and people that know me can not add me as an independent then how can anyone ever be added as an independent/democrat/republican? By definition anyone adding anyone else to the page 'knows them.' So at what point then is an Independent candidate considered to be a valid candidate? Do they have to spend $10,000 on tv ads? $100,000? $1 million dollars? I personally feel it is a sad day when democracy in America is determined by whom can buy elections which is what this seems to be coming down to especially with America69 comment in his edits and his threats to have my account squashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnblumberg (talk • contribs)

Note that this isn't dispute resolution, this is board is for discussing issues related to civility and not content issues. Note also that the edit summary "This is all self-promotion... there is no reputable source to indicate he is running.. so annoying all these people that have to self-promote" [31] was not actually directed at you. Further, click here to be lead to the dispute resolution noticeboard, but note that they require that significant discussion on the relevant article page should already have taken place. They also require that interested parties agree to the dispute resolution; it isn't mandatory. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
And note also that it appears that you have fundamentally misunderstood how Wikipedia works, and what its purpose is. It is not a venue for self-promotion, no matter how worthy the cause. I suggest you start by reading Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and then ask yourself whether you might do better to direct your energies elsewhere. Without published secondary reliable sources to verify the fact, and to verify that it is in any way of note, the fact that you are running as a candidate in an election is of no direct consequence to this encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility at WikiProjectMedicine

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – The kind of disruption can not be dealt with at WQA. WQA is not actively patrolled by admins and only deals with providing guidance with WP:UNCIVIL actions. ANI is a possible venue, but for those filing with unclean hands, watch out for the large boomerang. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


As some here might know, WLU has been wikihounding me for over a year, even including false accusations to this board[32]. However, that is not the current reason I'm asking for help. I've long been watching wikiproject medicine, and noticed a post involving the Dissociative Identity Disorder article. There, WLU was making an ad hominen attack against another editor, pointing out her self-disclosed DID as a reason to revert her[33]. WLU's victim had my sympathy, since he had used many of the same tactics against me. I spoke up to defend her, and WLU's friend whatamidoing echoed WLU's attack, and added a claim about my sexuality as a reason to ignore me, arguing that people with conditions were apt to "accidentally misread sources."[34] I pointed out that these were ad hominen attacks, a violation of Wikipedia policy. WLU deleted both of my comments[35].

WLU has also edit warred to force his version of the DID article[36][37][38], placing a 3RR warning on Tylas' user page[39]. WLU was at 3RR, Tylas was not. Tylas lost initiative in the edit war when she discussed the deceptive 3RR warning instead of reverting.

WLU's victim has invested a lot of time into the DID article in good faith. I would hate to see her driven off. However, there is little that I can do: I'll be out of town this weekend and if I do anything, WLU and friends will doubtlessly accuse me of wikihounding. BitterGrey (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Bittergrey. That would be me! It's so nice someone on WP understands what it's like to try and work on an article where WLU has time invested. I have felt attacked since I first tried to edit the DID article. I still have had ever single edit I have ever tried to make reverted by WLU. ~ty (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add to this that in the past, I have attempted to edit this article and suffered similar attacks from WLU (as well as a few others), although not directed at any particular personal condition (perhaps because I have revealed none?). Unfortunately, these repeated attacks eventually drove me off, which is what they are apparently designed to do. Prior to giving up a few years ago, I considered perusing the dispute resolution process, except against DreamGuy (who has also engaged in similar activity). I would say that the two of them seem to work together to hold the article hostage to their POV. I've seen numerous new editors arrive and make descent contributions only to be blindly reverted. Then, they appear to wonder off figuring they can't get anywhere with the article (here's just one example). The environment for any would-be editor to this article is extremely hostile and, I believe, designed to deter editors from touching "their" article on "Why alleged 'DID' is just a lie invented for therapists to make lots of money", going so far as to saying that alleged trauma survivors have not endured any trauma at all, since their condition is one strictly caused by seeing a therapist. I would go so far as to call this a personal attack against anyone claiming to have DID and a sort of chilling effect (i.e., "you're lying/delusional/mentally ill, so shut up"). Daniel Santos (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Your diff does not show anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
WLU wanted editor and content expert TomCloyd banned from the DID article and he got his way. As a result, this man, Tom Cloyd, who worked happily as a Regional Ambassador left WP in it's entirety leaving this comment about his experience with WLU: "I have learned first hand why there are so very few content experts involved with Wikipedia. Initially, I thought it odd, but no longer. From the moment I showed up at the DID article, making clear who I was (something I have always done - at my User Page and professional website), and what my interest was (I offered an critique of the article, and some suggestions as to where I thought it needed to go), I have been meet with attempts to control me, and outright hostile reactions. At no point was I welcomed. I was treated as if I know little about Wikipedia, not to mention the subject of the article itself. On its face, both of these reactions should seem illogical." ~ty (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Tylas, your user talk page User_talk:Tylas#WLU_gets_a_Content_Expert_Banned and User_talk:Tylas#What_is_a_Wikipedia_Bully.3F has a number of inappropriate comments about WLU, I suggest you remove them. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no evidence of anything inappropriate by WLU. Firstly, don't interpret good faith actions to this board as "false accusations". Particularly when an apology was given. If the motives of an editor is relevant as mentioned here [40], then discussing them is important, there is nothing in this that can be construed as an Ad hominem attack. Your interpretation of the diffs is completely at odds with their content, what I see in [41] is someone removing a number of off-topic bad faith assumptions. Similarly this comment is perfectly legitimate: [42]. It was not completely improper for WLU to be removing bold changes from the article per WP:BRD, it was improper for the editor who was trying to edit war their version of the article in, if your changes get rejected take it to the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I have to disagree. First, an editor acting in good faith - or even appropriate skepticism - would have simply read the comment and then acted. WLU made accusations to this board based on a comment he hadn't read. His accusation here was in bad faith, an act of prejudice. WLU treats sources as flippantly, often fighting for bad positions based on resources he hasn't even read. Tylas gives a recent example. I could give older ones. I'll remind IRWolfie that content discussion should be driven by sources, not attacks against the editors. If motivation is to be considered, we need to consider WLU's chronic sense of ownership, even to the point of attempting to drive away many other editors. ...and that IRWolfie has a long pattern of taking WLU's side in these matters.
Ad hominem attacks, such as the ongoing([43][44][45][46]...) cracks about my sexuality, have no place on Wikipedia. BitterGrey (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Do not make baseless accusations against me, or involve me in your dispute. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

WLU works to drive off editors that do not agree with him. He has stalked me off WP, looking for anything he could find to get me off the DID page. He swore at me and attacked me as my introduction to the DID page. So much for a warm welcome to new editors. Given his list of subjects of interest that he displays on his page, his looking for me off WP scares me since I do have 5 children. I was ran off a couple of times now by WLU, but keep coming back in hopes that the rest of WP is not what editor WLU makes it for many of us - a place where even on a medical article, he and his extreme POV dominate. ~ty (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Bittergrey is a self-disclosed activist for people like himself, who have paraphilic infantilism. By "self-disclosed", I mean that he has advertised his personal website in support of PI people on his Wikipedia userpage since 2006. It can hardly be a "personal attack" to say about himself exactly what he says about himself, unless you believe that having an apparently harmless paraphilia is somehow dirty or shameful.
So the "personal attack" must be my recognition of reality, which is that people who strongly and publicly advocate for a position in their real lives—no matter what the subject or position is—tend not to be the single most unbiased editors in the community. People who self-identify with a particular psychological condition or quirk, no matter whether that is condition that society calls "normal" or "abnormal", tend to believe that they know a lot about the condition and that their beliefs are the Truth about their condition. This is just basic human reality: if they thought they were wrong, then they'd change their minds!
This has practical consequences for Wikipedia: People with _____ (fill in the blank: paraphilias, psychiatric challenges, special educational needs, whatever) psychological situation (1) tend to be interested in editing the articles about those conditions and (2) tend to want to make the articles sympathetic to and reflective of their own beliefs about their conditions.
So Tylas identifies with DID: Tylas is interested in the article on DID (Guess who the #1 editor is) and wants the DID article to reflect Tylas's own beliefs about DID. Bittergrey identifies with paraphilic infantilism: Bittergrey is interested in the article on PI (Guess who the #1 editor is) and wants the PI article to reflect Bittergrey's own beliefs about PI. We could name other examples: people with bipolar disorder want that article to reflect their views; parents of children with mental retardation want that article to reflect their views; people with multiple chemical sensitivity want that article to endorse their views; people with learning difficulties want special education to reflect their views; transpeople want that article to reflect their views; gay men want that article to reflect their views; and so on.
And this is fine, within limits. The problem is that some single-minded editors don't understand the limits. Activists and other people with strong commitments to their point of view often don't realize that their view isn't actually the mainstream view. So Bittergrey isn't trying to have a biased articles about paraphilias, but his best efforts to make them accurately and adequately (in his mind) reflect his personal beliefs about the subject have the actual, if inadvertent, effect of promoting a minority viewpoint (in this case, promoting the viewpoint of the sexual minority itself over the viewpoint of the academics). Tylas is trying to write a balanced article about DID, but it's very difficult, if not humanly impossible, for a person who has dedicated years of his or her life to a particular psychotherapeutic approach to really take on board the critics of that very approach. What looks "balanced" to a dedicated adherent of any particular point of view will look "biased" to anyone else.
This isn't unique to psychological subjects: Having a close personal relationship with the subject can be a conflict of interest no matter what the subject. Religious people aren't always able to see their bias in favor of their religion; anti-religious people aren't always able to see their anti-religious bias. Neither the pro-abortion-rights nor the anti-abortion activists are the people we should look to for balanced, unbiased work on the abortion articles. The woman who believes her cancer was cured by drinking juice isn't the best person to work on Breast cancer treatment. Even when these people search for sources, they tend to choose, believe, and favor sources that validate their own experiences. It's called confirmation bias, and it's hard-wired into the human brain.
This is just reality: if you're very close to a subject, you are not likely to have a clear, undistorted view of the subject. If you're very close to a subject, you are not likely to recognize or accept sources that completely disagree with you. If you're very close to a subject, you are not likely to notice when sources subtly disagree with you. This happens even if you are trying your level best to avoid it. That's why WP:MEDCOI echoes the main COI guideline by encouraging people with any medical condition to be wary of re-writing articles so that the articles match your own personal experience.
All of which adds up to this: Bittergrey is fond of filing noticeboard complaints, but COI and inadvertent POV pushing are the real issues here, and it is never a personal attack to accurately point out a COI problem or an instance of POV pushing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
WAID - why do you do this? You twist things around when you run to WLU's rescue. #1 - I do not want the article twisted to my own beliefs - I don't have any. I am neutral on the subject and have said many times that I do understand iatrogenic methods and have no doubt that a temporary dissociated state can be created through poor therapeutic practice which were used in the past. #2 - There is some slight controversy as to how adult can get DID. Rather than overwhelming the board here with vasts amount of research on this topic: see this page. It is a good summary of what is the general consensus in not only the psychology, but the medical world of DID. #3 - You talk to WLU so I am sure you know exactly where those stats come from. In case you do not, since this is the 2nd time you have repeated this foolishness and I have corrected you in the past but again - any edit (I think it is absolute and he might have missed one or two but I doubt it) I have ever made on the DID page WLU has reverted almost immediately. A couple of weeks ago, I began to edit, he reverted. I reverted back and then I continued to work on it without being harassed by WLU. Two other editors came in and did a bit of work. I did the edits pretty much one at a time on the DID page hoping others, including WLU would come and help. I know my WP procedures are not up to par with WLU, but I still had hope he would help and others would come as well. This all ceased when WLU reverted everything single edit I made during those couple of weeks to a version he had in his sandbox. I am not saying the version I was working on was more WP correct, but it was certainly more accurate as far as the subject of DID goes. And Encyclopedia should report correct information about the subject at hand. I was working on the other issues and had posted a notice on an editors board for unbiased editors to come and help. I wanted help with this project. WP is not a one man show. So - all those edits you are complaining of were made during that one short period of time where WLU left me and the others alone to edit, then he reverted every single one of them in one sweep to his own version from his sandbox. Please quit spreading this same inaccuracy around. ~ty (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
WAID - Again not true. If you know about DID then you know I am ANP - hypoaroused and unemotional. I have a BS in Biology and a MS in ex. Physiology. I spent my school years learning to not be biased. I have not dedicated years of my life to DID. I only recently found out that I have DID and I am totally open to learning all I can about it- everything, but this extreme POV of iatrogenisis, has its place in history, but for now it is just a minor issue that good researchers are trying to get out of they way so they can do real work. Even so, I had mentioned iatrogenisis in the lede and there was a long paragraph about the entire controversy. There was a great deal of it in the history too. This view of iatrogenisis is important to the history of DID research, but times change and quite quickly in the area of science. Those with a strong POV on DID (and others things thought to be due to a traumatic childhood) tend to be of a percentage of the population with a like mindset.~ty (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Please do not change my comments. I have undone your changes to my comments, fixed the formatting, and moved your comments to the end.
WAID - I did not change your comments - I answered in the part of the paragraph that was about me. Please talk about me and Bittergrey in separate paragraphs. It makes it difficult to reply to you.~ty (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not defending WLU; Bittergrey is accusing me of being uncivil for noticing the contents of his userpage and believing them to be a good example of POV pushing due to a personal or ideological conflict of interest.
And your reply basically proves my point: you say "I am neutral on the subject", which actually means "Like all humans, I am often unable to recognize my own biases on subjects that are very important to me". You don't have to be angry or fearful or sad to be biased. I believe that you are making a sincere effort to be unbiased, quite possibly more of an effort than any other person who has worked on that page. But while you effort is admirable, that does not mean that you have been wholly successful. Like any other person with a conflict of interest, you need to take advice from the editors without a conflict of interest. On the DID article, that means writing the article so that editors who don't have DID, aren't treating people with DID, don't have family members with DID, don't have websites promoting a viewpoint about DID, etc. think it's an appropriate description, not so that people who have been affected personally or professionally by DID think it's right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
And ultimately it's not the COI that is the problem; it's the behaviour of the person with the COI that is unacceptable. Nobody will block Bittergrey for being a paraphilic infantilist, or Tylas for having a diagnosis of DID. Blocks or bans will be issued if either one breaks the 3RR, POV-pushes beyond the tolerance of the community or persists in incivility or personal attacks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
WAID - Thank you. I would love to take the advise of editors without a COI, which is why I posted asking for a general editor - not someone with an agenda. I do not know anything about Bittergrey, but he seems to be nice, but at his ropes end - like me and Daniel (who I also don't know but has been friendly and helpful on the DID and appears sharp as a tack!). I am not just trying to be unbiased. I am. It's WLU that has said - he has no interest in learning about the traumagenic model at all. Please don't ask me to dig for that diff in that huge talk page. I will if I have to though, but the point is his interest is in the iatrogenic model. ~ty (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Really? I said that?
Yeppers! You did! ~ty (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Even if I did, that's different from insisting the traumagenic position not be represented on the page. I've never insisted on that, only that both positions appear in accordance to their representation in reliable sources, as required by WP:NPOV. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This is true, but it is not the problem. Again the 2 views are not equal and should not be presented as equal. I know this goes against all you believe in, but it is how it is in the real world. ~ty (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Let me be clearer, for the record: WLU does not have a COI. You do. When I say that you should accept the advice from editors without a COI on this subject, I mean that you should accept the advice that WLU is giving you (and anyone else who has no personal or professional connection to the condition). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
WQA is not able to resolve disputes like this, see further possible instructions at the top of this section for all involved. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's refocus here. IRWolfie, if I were to delete all of your comments above, would you consider that uncivil? Were I to say that your input, not just about Ireland but in everything, should be ignored because you claim to be Irish, would you consider that uncivil? BitterGrey (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Like all nationalities, Irish wikipedians are not immune to being effected by pro-Irish bias; it is possible that there are Irish editors who push a particular point of view on the subject of Ireland. If a person can't detach from their own personal point of view then it can be problematic. This avenue of talk is not going to lead anywhere productive though, see the top of the section for further instruction and also the relevant guidelines and policies WP:NPOV etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

But IRWolfie, would it be civil of me to disregard all of your input, including all that you have written above, merely because you were Irish? ...And to persistently bring up your Irishness anywhere we had a debate, and anywhere you debated with one of my friends, as a reason why your input was worthless and why everyone else should ignore any input you might offer? Cracks about my sexuality are being made, made repeatedly, and being given in multiple places across Wikipedia as a reason why my input about any topic should be disregarded. Since you took it upon yourself to tell everyone else who might otherwise have looked into this that no incivility is occurring, I'd like to get a better idea of what you consider uncivil. A yes or no is all I ask. (Well, two yes-or-nos actually. There is also the question about deleting other's talk comments, which also did occur[47]. )

Oh, and the trick of tagging open issues closed to avoid discussion is getting old[48][49]. Didn't work there either. BitterGrey (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is closed, go to the correct venue. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Two simple yes or no questions about what you consider proper wikiquette, IRWolfie. Are they so hard to answer? As for "go to the correct venue", it sounds exactly like the "this isn't the approp[r]iate venue" you gave when defending WLU elsewhere[50]. No, you need to come to terms with your position here, or you'll be defending WLU at some other forum next time, telling whomever WLU is trying to drive off that week to go away. BitterGrey (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and insults to multiple users by BScMScMD

Resolved
 – Issue appears to have been resolved (one of the parties added the resolved template earlier today so everything seems to be ok). IRWolfie- (talk)

Apparently BScMScMD Thinks it's okay to refer to people as "morons" if they make a typo on a talk page. I and MrBoire have been involved with the user, and this seems to be retaliation for having been told that they were showing their ignorance, the state of being uninformed, about a subject. Perhaps there is a deficiency in language, as demonstrated by the user's comments, and this is at the root of the retribution. It is of note that in the contributors native language, the term fr:Ignorance is also used to describe a person who "does not know."--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 23:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

can you provide the relevant diffs as well IRWolfie- (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
read edit summaries.
I didn't mean for me, I've already responded to the editor on their talk page. It can be handy for other editors. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, there was absolutely no typo on my user page. The message was strictly bitter and obviously did not have its place on a Wikipedia talk page. Having that said, before summarizing an issue to other editors, you, UnQuébécois, should be sure to include real facts, not bits and pieces of misleading information. --BScMScMD (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, no one said there were any typos on your page. And the summary is exactly what it is, it highlighted the major points. I have tried to assume no ill intent, however after reading the response on your talk page I am not sure you understand the concept of etiquette.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly believe you have the "it" disease! --BScMScMD (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User is still at it, here, with their "nit picking" on talk pages. It's very frustrating behavior, and from the comments left on their own talk page, is On purpose.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 23:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have asked the editor not to do it and pointed out how uncivil it is. Not editing the comments of others is also policy. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Dickhead

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – This has already been escalated to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed_posts and WP:ANI. IRWolfie- (talk)

I complained to AndyTheGrump that "remove image and explain why)" did not describe http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Penis&action=history. I also complained that he had written "I would take the suggestions of this 'contributor' more seriously were it not for their recent contribution history. [51] Might I suggest that you'd make a better case if you didn't make a habit of spamming pages with pictures of people urinating?". This contradicts the idea of assessing edits, not editors. It is also wrong, as i had only added photographs of a man and a woman urinating to Urination and Talk:Urination, and a photograph of a penis urinating to Talk:Penis. Please try to be more accurate in the future." He wrote "If you don't like my comment, fine. Report it at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance or wherever." Subsequently in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APhallus&diff=503393294&oldid=503391356 he wrote " I'd ask 93.96.148.42 to stop being such a dickhead. " and "l. If 93.96.148.42 wishes for policy to be revised to enable off-topic pictures of human genitalia to be added to whatever article he/she wants, on the basis that it is supposedly 'censorship' to do otherwise, this isn't the place to do it". I am not happy at this abuse.93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see this contributors recent edit history, and the new thread I've started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#user:93.96.148.42. I'm not interested in discussing matters of Wikiquette with people clearly out to cause trouble - and in the case of this contributor, my description of him/her as a 'dickhead' was not intended as a metaphor. I suggest the contributor should either grow up, or fuck off and troll elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Is 93.96's recent trolling style of editing good witiquette? Or should some further action be taken, maybe by an admin, to stop the disruption? Adding: I see that's just been done: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#user:93.96.148.42 —MistyMorn (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump created that complaint after telling me to fuck off here. No action has been taken by an admin.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Factually incorrect. I posted at ANI first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a board to discuss perceived incivility and work from there to resolve misunderstandings etc. It's not a place for enacting bans etc. Considering that things have escalated to ANI and AN (non-autoconfirmed) this thread has no further purpose. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Mmmmm...sandwich-pushing... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow, what a sensational essay! And yes, it does sum up the situation very well. Sometimes English has trouble encapsulating the silliness of a situation, but "dickhead" somehow fits the bill in this case—Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED so I can add dick pics on any article related (in my mind) to the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Threats made by Administrator

Due to a disagreement with a reversiona reversion, done by myself at Fort Hood Shooting an Administrator threatened a reduction of editing privilege against myself and acted in, what I perceive as, an uncivil manor. I pointed this out to the administrator, which was meet of a response of, as I perceive, as continued incivility. After continued correspondence the administrator followed up with an additional threat and a threat to wikihound myself.

I am unsure if this is the appropriate place to bring up an administrator's actions towards regular editors, however I feel that the final posting of the editor warranted additional review.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I read John's post to you, I wasn't quite sure what was meant. It sounded like he was saying you wouldn't have the right to revert, but reverts and edits are pretty much the same thing. Regardless of the poor phrasing, the proper course of action is to discuss this content dispute on the Talk page of the article. I see that you guys are doing that now, and other than suggesting to John that he rephrase the 'threat' into a positive call for discussion, I don't think you have much to worry about at this point as long as the editors in question don't begin an edit war. One thing that might spur the participants to discuss more is temporary protection for the article, so that no edits can be made for a while. -- Avanu (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Looking here: [52], on the initial message there is no personal attack or incivility. Do not claim something is a personal attack or uncivil when you aren't sure, and avoid saying it to the individual anyway when you are sure, as it is needlessly inflammatory. Further, never revert another editor with BRD as your sole reason. Also, Assume good faith and avoid being inflammatory. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
What I mean by this is, don't use make an accusation in the same thread, provide your reasonings quietly on their talk page in a new section, be sure to not be confrontational etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe that there has been a misunderstanding.
I am not saying that incivility has occurred on the article Fort Hood Shooting, or its talk page. The subsequent discussion following the reversion has so far been civil regarding all parties involved there.
My concern was regarding the incivility that I feel occurred solely on my talk page, in regards to the reversion of the Fort Hood Shooting article.
As for myself being unsure, I was sure that the initial message left in response to the reversion was uncivil, and thus why I civilly reminded the administrator of the pillar. What I was unsure about was this was an appropriate noticeboard to bring up questionable actions of an administrator.
As for the initial reversion, the reason for it was it was blanking/deleting content that was verified from multiple reliable sources; it was done boldly, and thus subject to reversion. I believe that I stated as much in my following edits in regards to the reversion (specifically on the talk page) of the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
All of my response is aimed at what is covered at the talk page and what was said. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't quite understand this edit—why does it redirect to an AfD about another article?? However, it would be inappropriate for any admin involved in an editing dispute with you to revoke your privileges himself, but if he goes through the proper channels i.e. ANI then that's his prerogative. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
@Betty: I think you just have a bad diff link, try http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fort_Hood_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=503477640
@Betty Logan, let me replace the diff. Thanks for pointing this out.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I read John's comments at User talk:RightCowLeftCoast#July 2012 as messages that would be appropriate if rollback had been used. However RightCowLeftCoast does not have the rollback right, and did not use it. Perhaps John had his mind on something else and took the edit summary starting with "Reverted" as the standard rollback edit summary which is "Reverted edits by X to last version by Y" (his first comment includes "the reversion tool is to be used only in cases of vandalism..."). Having had a very quick look at the situation, I think it could be summed up as that John's comment would have been ok if rollback was involved, but was inappropriately phrased under the circumstances. However, I can see the point that if an editor (RightCowLeftCoast) is going to revert an edit which involved an edit summary linking to WP:MEMORIAL, they should discuss first rather than reverting less than half an hour after John (yes I know what BRD says, but something like a list of victims in an article on a shooting rampage should be justified in advance). RightCowLeftCoast focused on the threat part of the comment when really just an observation that in their opinion such a comment was inappropriate would be sufficient. Editors should be aware that idyllic niceness is not always possible, and after making a reply about the tone of someone else's comment, further discussion should be restricted to the topic (text in an article). Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump's accusations

Stale
 – No recent responses from involved parties. This thread was a spill over from an associated ANI thread, the partipants appear to have moved on. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


I am writing this complaint about AndytheGrump. In an ongoing debate at the linked article, I have been subjected to repeated and baseless accusations of being a meat/sockpuppet, a throwaway account, an SPA as well as other incivil comments. I have asked him to stop making these claims, yet he refuses to, and continues to behave in an insulting and degrading way.

I ask you to note his previous block, as well as repeated warnings and notes on his talkpage related to his attitude, and the above discussion on this very page. Because of these factors, I do not believe this behaviour will stop without this case being filed, his response to the message formally asking him to stop is proof enough that he has no qualms with incivility, even after being repeatedly told. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In all honesty, the problem with that An/I thread you mention is far too many people lacking in common decorum. Andy was a part of the problem in that thread, but I see quite a few people in that thread with less than civil attitudes. I would suggest an admin politely remind the participants that calling people Single-Purpose-Accounts or Sockpuppets are extremely contentious accusations and there are probably much better ways to approach a debate than dragging it off track and using namecalling and ad hominem.
Andy knows full well that he needs to be civil, and I would say pretty much all the participants in that thread know that. So, either issue a perfunctort block for the lot of them that were less than civil, or let's all agree that civility is supposed to be inviolate here at Wikipedia, not an afterthought. As I say on my User page, the unfortunate motto of too many Wikipedians is "Using logic and reason isn’t enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn’t think like you." (from this episode of South Park) -- Avanu (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Iamthemuffinman is a liar, as will become readily apparent if anyone asks for diffs for such 'repeated accusations' from me - I've only stated the obvious (once), which is that a 'new' user that jumps straight into an ANI thread and starts posting comments such as "I could not care less about what other editors see me as. Nor do I care for their opinions, or yours. I'll post to wherever I feel I want to, thanks" [53], and goes out of his way to disrupt discussions, is almost certainly someone's sock/meatpuppet (or possibly a troll), as well as being an obnoxious little turd. Clearly not here for the benefit of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Will others seeing this please not bother to make further postings asking for me to 'be civil' in this thread - Iamthemuffinman states that he doesn't care about my opinion about him, so there is no particular reason to waste time on bogus politeness. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Just starting to look at this, but one thing jumped out at me. Re: not asking you to be civil, Andy. I will never, ever stop asking you or anyone else to be civil. The basic logic of your argument (User X did Y so it is now OK for me to be uncivil) is flawed. I don't care if the other fellow calls you a Nazi Pedophile Bedwetter WikiVandal who thinks Battlefield Earth is the best movie ever made. You still must be civil. If you don't like it, 4Chan is that way. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
And yet more personal attacks and accusations. I'm preparing the diffs now. I fully encourage any user with checkuser rights to run my account through the system to absolve me. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to seeing these supposed diffs. Meanwhile, perhaps you'd care to disclose to us the previous Wikipedia account(s) you used while you became familiar with the inner workings of AN/I, checkusers and the rest? Or have you learned all this in the last few days? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Iamthemuffinman, how do you know, after two days on the project, what checkuser is, or that that's the name for it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Please use civil discourse along with proof of any allegations of misconduct. WikiquetteAn/I is not the place to bring stident language or personal attacks (nor is anywhere in Wikipedia, for that matter.) -- Avanu (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Because I have been using this project as an IP for the best part of 5 years, and in my time reading the wp:signpost newspaper, especially the arbitration section, there were numerous tales of checkuser being used sucessfully. Obviously I wanted to know how this worked so I researched it. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No diffs than? As I expected.
Since Iamthemuffinman has singularly failed to demonstrate the validity of his assertions, can I ask an uninvolved person to mark this thread as resolved? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I am currently compiling the rest which is difficult as I have to sift through endless disgusting comments you have made to find the ones solely related to me, which in addition to the opening comments from the lovely Andy, should build a very valid case for assistance. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please excuse any delays, my arthritic fingers make using the keyboard and mouse quite difficult. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you really think that a diff of my response to you accusing me of "constant baseless accusations" and informing that you are opening this ridiculous thread is a justification for you opening it in the first place? Please add 'off your trolley' to the list of gratuitous (though entirely accurate) insults I've sent your way - or provide evidence that I'd made these "constant baseless accusations" at the time you posted it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
And they continue to roll in and they are defended. If this sort of outragous conduct and abuse is allowed, then it makes a mockery of the rules and blocking policies. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This is Wikiquette assistance - blocks aren't handed out here. You could try asking at AN/I - though if you do, I shall of course ask to see the diffs you use to support the claim you posted on my talk page accusing me of "constant baseless accusations". At which point, whether anything I've said is 'baseless' will of course become an issue, as well as your rather curious use of the word 'constant' - and no doubt your own behaviour in the four days since you opened this account. Likewise, your statement that you "...could not care less about what other editors see me as. Nor do I care for their opinions, or yours. I'll post to wherever I feel I want to, thanks" will also be taken into account. By the way, do you care? if so, perhaps you should think a little before saying that you dont. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Because, for some strange reason, I'd like this to be resovled without having to take it directly to ani, this is a chance for you to accept that your conduct as of late has been completely out of order, which explains why there is another complaint against you at the top of this page. If you cannot see that you have a problem when two out of three entries on this page are against you, then this is something that needs to be dealt with. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
...And because you've now realised that any complaint at AN/I will backfire spectacularly. Now, can you explain to me what you meant when you accused me of having "a vested interest in this matter" here [54]. And what the grounds were for stating that I was "conducting [myself] in an almost obscurist and intentionally antagonistic manner" in the same post? And why, in the same post you also falsely asserted that an edit I'd described as a misrepresentation of a source was "word for word what is written in the article you linked to"? And then of course, there is this rather interesting earlier post of yours [55] where you state that suggestions that sock/meatpuppetry is being engaged in by other people are 'baseless'. How could you possibly know whether people you have no contact with are meatpuppets?
(And in response to your off-topic comment about me being involved in two discussions on this page, I'd recommend you look into the history of the other one - the consensus seems to be that describing someone with an apparent obsession with posting multiple images of human genitalia over multiple articles as a 'dickhead' was entirely apt, if perhaps a little impolite. In any case, given that you were warned that your behaviour regarding Talk:Main Page within hours of you opening your account was likely to result in a block, pots and kettles come to mind). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
As you point out, Andy, this is Wikiquette, and as such, we are here to try and resolve a dispute through patient discourse and fact finding. Wikiquette is optional, and if you don't wish to participate, you are free to decline. However, if you are going to interact here, please try to stay on target and focus on resolving the dispute. -- Avanu (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Avanu, I regret to say that I feel that your comments are unhelpful. Iamthemuffinman has made specific claims regarding my conduct, but has failed to provide the necessary evuidence to back them up. These are the only 'facts' that are relevant here - if anyone is going off-target it appears to be you. I don't need lectures in civility from you (or at least, am unlikely to take much notice of them), and my major complaint about Iamthemuffinman's behaviour is that he has taken every opportunity to drag discussions off-topic. I'd appreciate it greatly if you would try to avoid dioing the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Quotes from the Ani Exchange linked at the top of the entry

Liar. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC) - in response to my answer to his lop sided question.

I have to ask, because it is notable that several of those taking part seem intent on dragging discussions off-topic at every opportunity. I'd cite the section above as an obvious example, but it isn't the only one. Naturally, it isn't up to one individual or another to decide the flow of discussion, but comments like "I'll post to wherever I feel I want to, thanks" from what is almost certainly a throw-away account from a 'new' contributor (who seems very familiar with inner the workings of Wikipedia) appear to me to be intentionally phrased in such a way to distract from discussion of the underlying issues. If this is the case, it appears that ANI may not be the best venue for this discussion, and it might best be continued elsewhere. Clearly, a RfC/U on AnkhMorpork might be a starting point, but I feel we need to address the broader issues in some way too - as Zero suggested above, an extension of 1RR into the subject matter here might make sense, for a start. I think more needs to be done though, to find a way to systemically deal with coordinated POV-pushing and gaming the system in the ways evident in this thread and in relation to the articles concerned. Exactly where and how this should proceed I'm unsure - maybe others (amongst those that actually wish to see an honest and reputable Wikipedia) can offer suggestions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC) - A section he created, where an unfounded accusation is made.

His comments in this entry

User:Iamthemuffinman is a liar, as will become readily apparent if anyone asks for diffs for such 'repeated accusations' from me - I've only stated the obvious (once), which is that a 'new' user that jumps straight into an ANI thread and starts posting comments such as "I could not care less about what other editors see me as. Nor do I care for their opinions, or yours. I'll post to wherever I feel I want to, thanks" [56], and goes out of his way to disrupt discussions, is almost certainly someone's sock/meatpuppet (or possibly a troll), as well as being an obnoxious little turd. Clearly not here for the benefit of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC) - Note the initial attack, and the combination of accusation and serious personal attack


Do you really think that a diff of my response to you accusing me of "constant baseless accusations" and informing that you are opening this ridiculous thread is a justification for you opening it in the first place? Please add 'off your trolley' to the list of gratuitous (though entirely accurate) insults I've sent your way - or provide evidence that I'd made these "constant baseless accusations" at the time you posted it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC) - What you see here is that this user has absolutely no problems with carrying on his abuse, and will no doubt continue.

This is an indicator of the major problem we have with Andy. This is limited to the confrontation between me and him solely, however, a simple look through his history of contributions will reveal a long running campaign of incivility for which he was blocked. His continuing of the incivil behavour on this page is a more justification for this thread. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned this topic is closed. You have singularly failed to provide the evidence I asked for regarding your original assertion that you were "subjected to repeated and baseless accusations of being a meat/sockpuppet, a throwaway account, an SPA" by me. I posted a single comment at AN/I after you wrote of me that "You clearly have a vested interest in this matter and are conducting yourself in an almost obscurist and intentionally antagonistic manner". I have asked you to explain what this supposed 'vested interest' is, and you have failed to do so. I fully stand by what I said in the post where I wrote that your behaviour was an example of a pattern in the AN/I thread, and I see no reason to change my earlier assessment that you were being intentionally disruptive.
The only remaining question for me is whether it is worth the bother of bringing your behaviour up at AN/I. You are of course welcome to bring my behaviour up there, but your failure to provide any evidence for your assertions here suggests that you may well regret doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems like a reasonable course at this point might be an interaction ban between the two of you. I'd like more editors to weigh in on this; I'd like to see a more positive outcome, but I am losing hope in that outcome. -- Avanu (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I see all of this as a waste of time and server resources. The best solution is for everyone to stop commenting. It is natural for Andy to assume there is sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry involved when a new editor is taking part in behind the scenes meta areas of Wikipedia. The diffs outside of that were a bit gruff, but the only thing causing any problems is the continued discussion. Random article button is ← that way. Go improve one. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Ryan Vesey is correct. We all acknowledge that Andy should use calmer language, but the report is fatally flawed since it merely demonstrates that Andy's assertion is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I endorse the above two comments. I am having tremendous trouble viewing this "new" user's actions here as anything but disruptive. But I would appreciate it if Andy could learn to not inflame situations with intemperate language. It just feeds this kind of nonsense. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • No, no, no, no! Andy needs to be civil even when the other fellow is being disruptive. Shame on all of you who are excusing clear violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA on the basis that "the other fellow is disruptive". I expected better of you. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I think both parties are being needlessly uncivil and inflammatory (particularly judging from the responses at ANI). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

On the Theory that the Rules Don't Apply to Some Editors

Andy the Grump is the most reliable editor in terms of maintaining our BLP policy, and so protecting Wikipedia and living persons.

Everything else is secondary. I would ask that persons stop treating Andy without the respect he deserves. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

i fully agree on that.-- altetendekrabbe  17:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah. So now we have moved from "it's OK for Andy to be uncivil because the other editor was disruptive" (which he was) to "it's OK for Andy to be uncivil because he does good work on BLPs" (which he does). And we have now added the request that I "treat Andy with the respect he deserves" (meaning "say it's OK for Andy to be uncivil"). No. It's still wrong for Andy to be uncivil no matter how many of you say it's OK. I challenge any of you to point to anything in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines that supports the assertion that it is OK for Andy to be uncivil for any reason. Again, you should be ashamed of yourself for saying that the rules don't apply to Andy.
Wikipedia:Five pillars says:
Fourth pillar
"Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.
Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, and remember that there are 6,907,793 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Be open and welcoming, and assume good faith on the part of others. When conflict arises, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution."
Wikipedia:Civility says:
Fourth pillar
"Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of Wikipedia's five pillars. The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.
This policy describes the standards of behavior expected of users when they interact, and appropriate ways of dealing with problems that may arise. It applies to all editors and all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians."
What part of " It applies to all editors and all interaction on Wikipedia " is so difficult to understand? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
What part of 'I'm done here, bring it to AN/I if you like' don't you understand? I have never claimed to be immune from any policy whatsoever, and am prepared to accept the consequences of my incivility. I think it might be better for Wikipedia though, if we actually considered the end product a bit more. Without peeking behind the scenes our readers won't see the bar-room brawls and custard pie fights that go on there, but they do read the articles - and presenting POV-pushing spin which casts an entire ethnic community in a bad light based on a blatant misrepresentation of sources as 'fact' is worse than 'uncivil', it is downright repulsive (and given the apparent residence of at least one of the contributors, possibly even illegal). Still, it seems to be par for the course on Wikipedia that we are expected to be 'civil' to ourselves, while we fill articles with vitriol, tittle-tattle and vacuous speculation about the significance of a maternal great-grandmother's religion regarding everyone else. If we can't be civil to the rest of humanity, why should we assume that we can treat each other differently? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
We all must avoid unparliamentary language (follow the link). Expressing oneself without using unparliamentary language is more persuasive and helps to avoid other editors setting up this sort of discussion thread. TFD (talk)

It is kind of funny to me to see an appeal to respect one editor (who without question deserves respect for his positive contributions), but at the expense of disrespect for another editor. It is a two-way street guys. You don't get a pass on civility for your good works, you get civility and patience, and you probably get more patience if you're easier to get along with, but in no way does that entitle you to a pass. Andy, as much as you are grumpy, you are helpful. But the problem is bigger than just you. There are a lot of people who think it is ok to be uncivil as long as the final product is good looking. But our policy, our PILLAR, says otherwise. It says you don't get to have one and not the other. It says you MUST HAVE BOTH. I'm sure there are plenty of fine academic journals, professors, scientists, who get away with treating other people like shit all day long and those guys get a pass because they perform at a high level. While that is one reasonable model, it is not how Wikipedia is designed to work. There is no excuse for defending a culture of asshole-ism. So either we behave like civilized gents, or we find a new hobby. -- Avanu (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I actually have far less problem with your use of uncivil language than I have with those here who claim that this is OK because the rules don't apply to you. I would note that you never claimed that the rules don't apply to you. I consider your actual behavior to be rather minor, worthy of a stern "Tsk, Tsk, please don't do that" and nothing more. My issue is with the other editors who have claimed that it is OK for you to be uncivil if your target was disruptive (which he was) or because you do good work here (which you do). That's just wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  • A friendly note to those involved, WQA is to resolve disputes, not risk exacerbating existing ones with banter. Be civil regardless. Two wrongs don't make a right. Let bygones be bygones and go about your separate ways. There is not need to scold or push this further. Right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Nicosia dispute

Resolved
 – Specific WQA issue solved. IRWolfie- (talk)

A dispute has arisen at Talk:Nicosia over:

  • a remark by E4024 which other editors are complaining was inexcusably uncivil;
  • whether I (Richwales) am taking sides by suggesting that everyone, as opposed to just one individual, should be careful in what they say and how they say it;
  • whether I — either as an ordinary editor, or as an admin — should strike out or remove a negative comment made by one editor about a general group of other editors (per WP:RUC or any other policy or guideline);
  • whether I can or should intervene as an admin in a civility dispute on this or related articles, given that I believe I am an involved editor here because I have participated heavily in discussions aiming at reaching compromise wordings regarding the division of the island of Cyprus in general, and the city of Nicosia in particular.

See Talk:Nicosia#More thoughts on status in infobox generally; and, specifically, this comment by E4024, and this subsequent exchange involving Dr.K., Athenean, and myself, in which I am being chided for my perceived inaction.

In retrospect, I should probably have been more sensitive to E4024's original comment and should have asked him to retract it right away, rather than letting it pass. However, I believe the general issues I've listed above should still be addressed by uninvolved outsiders. — Richwales 18:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please consider me excused from this. First let me make a clarification. Contrary to what Rich claims I had no intention to chide him for anything he did. If my remarks were construed by Rich as chiding him it is really unfortunate but that definitely was not my intention. If Rich feels strongly about in his view having being chided I would request of him that he gives me a diff on my talk, not here, explaining where the chiding occurred and I will retract it. I am not a filing party and although the issues raised by Rich in this WQA alert may or may not be valid and/or proper for a forum such as WQA, I don't think that it would be relevant or useful for me to participate in any discussion here. The dispute is also misrepresented as simply a single remark, whereas if one reads what I actually wrote it will become clear that this denigrating of Greek editors happens often in the remarks made by E4024. It is this repetitive quality of abusive remarks by E4024 which is really annoying. Nevertheless I never asked to be drawn into a noticeboard and I had quietly withdrawn from such verbal abuse by simply announcing that I would not participate further in the discussion at Nicosia. End of story. Coming to WQA for this was never my intention. So please consider me excused from these proceedings. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
E4024 has withdrawn the contentious remark in question and authorized me to remove it (which I have done). I would like to keep this WQA request open in order to get outside feedback regarding how to deal with this sort of situation if/when it happens again — as well as to give people an opportunity, if they wish, to examine and comment on the wider problem of which this specific incident is just one example. — Richwales 23:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
You should never intervene in an admin capacity if you are involved in the discussion that led to the incivility. In a grey area its better to not have the appearence of acting while involved. This does not prevent you from asking people to be civil however, and the reality is that if an editor is also an admin and spots what they see as something actionable in a discussion they are taking part in, it wont be long before an uninvolved admin is aware of it. So for everyone else - if an admin of good judgement says 'be civil', even if they are involved, take notice! Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes you are involved and can't act in an administrative capacity. What you have said in that section as an editor is civil and all above board. If I'm not mistaken the other issues mentioned have been solved above? If so I will mark this section as solved, if there is no further issues? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, the specific wikiquette issue which originally led me to come here has been resolved. Major disagreements still remain regarding the article's content, but others will need to deal with this, because I concluded over the weekend that it would be best for me simply to withdraw from the Cyprus topic area altogether and focus my energies on other articles. But as for this WQA request — yes, I would say it can be closed now. Thanks. — Richwales 15:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive120&oldid=1079183046"