Revision as of 06:15, 8 March 2009

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcut WP:WQA Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

WQA with cross-complaint Ikip, THF and Collect

WQA against Ikip

I have several complaints about the uncivil behavior of Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), largely over his conduct on the talk page of Business Plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is a civility dispute, though Ikip, in his statement, is trying to characterize it as just a content dispute. Ikip has already been blocked once over this behavior, but has continued it.

Ikip:

• Update, 2 March: makes threat against me on my talk page, gets warning from Cool Hand Luke.
• Update, 2 March: makes bad-faith accusation of COI at WT:COI -- see resolution at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion.2FDave_Johnson_.28blogger.29.
• Update, 2 March: continues to abuse WP:TALK by using article talk-page to make personal attack irrelevant to article (NB that Ikip was blocked for precisely the complaint he complains I made)
• Repeatedly falsely characterizes a series of good-faith edits unique to me that I've made only once as "edit-warring." (and many many more times) even though I haven't even violated 1RR.
• Asks me the exact same question nine times on Talk:Business Plot and a number of other times on my talk page and elsewhere. I answered it the first time, two other editors agreed with my interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy about the inclusion of lists of miscellaneous trivia, and he never acknowledged the answer or the other editors, and has continued to demand an answer from me and falsely (and ironically) claims I am violating WP:TEDIOUS because I haven't answered him.
• Repeats the same argument word-for-word in a subsection in response to every single editor that disagrees with him, but never acknowledges the responses to that argument. (e.g., here, where he posted the same misleading quote from a congressional subcommittee four separate times in under 24 hours; or, here, where he repeated word-for-word the same comment twice in half an hour, both times ignoring the substantive argument being made.
• Creates ginormous charts on talk pages that falsely claim to represent my position in issues, that clutter up the talk page and are impossible to respond to in a manner that a third person can read, and then objects and reverts me when I try to edit the column that misleadingly says "THF response" to respond to his questions.
• And then leaves a second copy of the ginormous chart on my talk page in violation of WP:MULTI, though he knows darn well I've seen it on the article talk page.
• Creates an RFC for the article that is actually a personal attack in violation of WP:RFC.
• Moves my user-talk page comments to an article-talk-page with my signature, making it falsely seem like I have violated WP:TALK by using an article talk page to leave a personal comment.
• Deleting my comments with fake edit summaries falsely calling them personal attacks.
• In violation of WP:REDACT, modifies his talk-page comments after other editors have responded to them (without strikethroughs or any other indication of modification), making those other editors look like they're spouting non sequiturs. See, e.g., these 19 consecutive edits to the talk page.
• Copies and pastes existing talk-page discussions so that they are taking place in two different parts of the talk page.
• Falsely accuses me of "tag-teaming" with User:Collect against him, when, in fact, the first time I ran into Ikip, he and Collect were together arguing against me on cluster at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Morton Brilliant (2nd nomination).
• Perversely mentors a new editor to edit-war against me and ignore a 3RR warning and the NOR rules on an unrelated page, Skull & Bones, where three separate editors agreed (and the newbie essentially admitted on the talk page) that the newbie's insertions and reversions violated WP:OR.
• Follows me to pages he has not previously edited on to badger me about Business Plot and my supposed conspiracy with Collect.
• (Pre-block) Brought a retaliatory bad-faith MfD on an essay I wrote, again falsely characterizing it as a personal attack.

All of this makes the Talk:Business Plot page impossible to read by existing editors, not to mention impossible to get outside editors to wade in and help resolve content disputes. (Update 15:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC) -- NB that after this WQA was opened, Ikip started redacting the talk page.)

Apologies that diffs are difficult to find: as you can see from Talk:Business Plot, Ikip has made well over 100 edits to that talk page in the last 48 hours. A couple of times, I made the mistake of trying to consolidate duplicated (as in copied-and-pasted) conversations in a single section, or to {{collapse}} overlengthy sections and he'd just revert me, making the history even more confusing. It isn't even enough to let him have the WP:LASTWORD, because he'll keep badgering and badgering and treat a failure to respond between, say, 5 and 10 in the morning Eastern Time as a reason to accuse an editor of bad faith.

This seems to be an attempt to overwhelm and badger away other editors and ensure ownership of a page that is seriously out of compliance with Misplaced Pages policy (for example, giving higher priority to an amateur conspiracy theorist over Arthur Schlesinger): it's impossible for any new editor to the page to figure out what the content dispute is. At best, it's someone who doesn't begin to understand Misplaced Pages rules or WP:NOT#BATTLE or WP:STICK, except he is an experienced editor who should really know better.

He's already been blocked once for hounding me, so I'm at my wit's end. Is he allowed to chase me away from an article by bad behavior? (I can't even disengage, because he's followed me to other pages to complain about my edits on Business Plot.) Does Misplaced Pages endorse the heckler's veto?

I predict that Ikip is going to respond with a lot of allegations about the content dispute; this isn't about the content dispute, it's about his method of conducting the content dispute. For example, I changed the name of the article to Business Plot conspiracy theory to conform the article title to other similar conspiracy theory articles; Ikip immediately reverted me, and I immediately took the issue to the talk page. All of this is perfectly reasonable within the be-bold/revert/discuss cycle, but Ikip is still complaining that I made the page move and making false accusations about it as "edit-warring," and will complain about it again below. THF (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC), updated 00:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Update, 2 March: Ikip deletes my talk-page comment again, and threatens to harass me on my talk page. THF (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is more of a general comment rather than a request or suggestion since I do not consider myself a neutral observer. I'm posting to point out that Ikip's behaviour has come under scrutiny in an unrelated case just this past week. I had a run-in with him and the two main issues I had were regarding WP:CANVASS and WP:BATTLE, the second of which you bring up here. A brief discussion for a user RfC occured but nothing has happened yet. This was about a different set of circumstances, mostly regarding the Article Rescue Squadron, so I won't ask for comment here, but I thought I'd mention that some of the behaviour you accuse him of has been noticed outside of the article you are dealing with. Themfromspace (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

>>Place holder<< See User:THC and User:Collect below. Ikip (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Themfromspace's comment that "Ikip's behaviour has come under scrutiny in an unrelated case just this past week" probably relates to this ANI discussion. May I point out that "Ikip's behaviour under scrutiny" related not to what he had done, but what he may or may not do at some some future time - i.e. pure speculation. The discussion was closed with "there's nothing here not but You Said, No You Said, I Didn't Say, Spammer, No u, No U, and so on". It is simply unfair to bring this matter into play here. It says more about the close scrutiny Ikip is under and the personal flak that he receives, than it says about any of his misgivings. He is a passionate defender of the five pillars of Wiki. And yes, he seems to be human too, sometimes he crosses the line, and yes, he was rightly blocked for 3 hours, as I see for failing to respond to an uninvolved admin's intervention in the dispute between Ikip and THF. I have certainly seen worse conduct on Wiki that did not result in blocks. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ikip was not blocked for "failing to respond to an administrator." Ikip was blocked because he was told to leave me alone and instead we saw: . THF (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: See how Ikip views this page at . As a "circus." He has since added " It is the greatest show on Earth, until the next greatest show on Earth comes along sometime tomorrow." shows him soliciting others to complain. (other examples available - but this is blatant) He uses threats blatantly per ] note: "I have already added a: Misplaced Pages:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. If you do not stop, I will begin searching for editors on Joe the Plumber, and other pages you recklessly edit war on, to co-endorse a RfC against you. I have had it with your tedious edit warring, deleting so much well referenced text. In preperation for the RfC, I will then systamtically dig through your entire edit history, as I have done with countless other admins before. 03:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)" which makes a mockery of how he views WP processes. showing his attitude towards editors in general: "you seem to have some pretty prominent editors who delete a lot of material from Misplaced Pages on your talk page, so you must be doing something right. Ikip (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dream_Focus" and the corresponding On his attitude toward rules which contained explicit detail on how to have an undetectable sockpuppet. (see the Machiavelli section). I endorse the complaint against Ikip here. Collect (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Collect,above, provides a dif, from a discussion on my talk page, which supports Collect's opinion. Here is the follow up , by Ikip on the exact same matter, which, obviously, should have also been referenced in order to give a fair representation of Ikip's final nature on that matter. I have found Ikip to be helpful to me in dealing with unfriendly edits coming toward me and I have found Ikip to be,overall, the editor most attempting to build consensus rather than taking an absolute or overwhelming position on article development. I support Ikip in his defence and do not think this complaint has merit. Abbarocks (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  • • THF, I read through the first three things you linked to. I don't see anything there that he did wrong. Those large charts you complain about only take up one line, no one seeing them unless they click "show". You appear to want to delete large amounts of an article, which he believes are fine the way that they are. Thus you have an edit war going. I see nothing you have mentioned or linked to which adds any merit to your complaint. Dream Focus 16:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not what "edit war" means. The charts took up half the page when Ikip added them. The only reason the charts take up a line is because Ikip ran out of reverts trying to restore them after I collapsed them, as I clearly indicate in my statement. THF (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The charts were not hidden until THF made them so. They did not "take up only one line" at a;;. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

User Ikip is a senior editor have been in Misplaced Pages since October 2005.As an outside observer, I find User:THC behavior toward the new editor Abbarocks and some other editors awkward . A quick look at THC| edits shows that he calls other editors meat puppetsdiff, delusional, and new editors good faith edits "vandalism". He also seem to assume the worst in other contrary to , here he calls other editors POV pushers, cabal and terrorist lovers Diff. He seems to have WP:OWN issues on all of the articles he edits, and he seems to WP:Wikilawyer more than most editors. It seems like User:Ikips behavior definitely do not happen in a vacuum.But feel both the users should move forward and reconcile with due respect user THF has also contributed with wikipedia and respect his right to his opinion but his wording are clearly undiplomatic. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins, please note that Pharaoh's diffs do not support any of his false allegations against me. I invite admins to look at my edits to User talk:Abbarocks, who has repeatedly edit-warred to violate NOR, and tell me if I could have handled that differently; Abbarocks certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with it. THF (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

THF Abbarocks is a new user and has been around less than 3 months diff .You have been the only user repeatedly warning him/her no one else and getting involved into an edit war with a new user which is harsh on new users.I do not find any outright vandalism from user Abbarocks this is clearly WP:BITE .My apologies if you were hurt by my comments really it is more about moving forward.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The record will reflect that three separate editors found Abbarocks's insertion of OR into the article inappropriate; the only one "edit-warring" was Abbarocks, who refused to defend his edits on the talk page and continually reinserted it with false edit summaries like "not OR" despite the consensus against him. I think I avoided WP:BITE in trying to let an editor know he was violating the rules, including the 3RR rule. I pointed him to the various policies, made repeated attempts to explain the policies, responded to his questions, encouraged his good edits, and pointed him to WP:HD and WP:NORN for further guidance. What more could I have done other than to ignore the policy violation? New editors don't get carte blanche. THF (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

They do not get "carte blanche". If they are showing a wish to improve the project they should get a bit of guidence and schooling. This seems to have devolved into a tennis match between you and Ikip with Abbarocks being used as the ball. Schmidt, 19:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I provided "guidance and schooling," as Abbarocks himself has said. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide the diff instead of making unfounded accusations. The only relevance Abbarocks has to the controversy is that Ikip interposed himself in a content dispute on an unrelated page. Even without that, Ikip has been violating WP:HOUND even after he was blocked for doing so. THF (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that Abbarock's statement that at some point you called him Ikip's meatpuppet needs to be sourced But the diffs provided above seem to show him standing in the middle of a larger battlefield. My thought here is that guidence and schooling should not involve anyone having to wear a flak jacket. Sorry, but that is my impression of what this has devolved into for him, no matter how it began. Schmidt, 21:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(ouitdent) In response to THF visits to my talk page and questioning my comment above, I learned that Abbarock's impression that he was being called a meatpuppet stemmed from a misunderstanding when he was being cautioned to not become one. I am now aware of this misunderstanding and have struck the sentence above that referred to it. Schmidt, 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the dif with meatpuppet reference at the bottom.THF and I have settled the matter amicably. Abbarocks (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• This just seems to be various editors backbiting and squabbling with each other. 1. Follow the rules at WP:CIVIL. 2.Use dispute resolution to resolve content disputes. --neon white talk 23:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. It was tempting to put the trout slapping template here. This thread is just more effort focused on "tattle tale" antics than encyclopedia writing. We are here to write an encyclopedia after all and should resume writing an encyclopedia. The best solution would be for thr editors to work together to rescue an article or if that fails, ignore your opponents as much as possible. Ikip has created scores of articles. That counts for a lot here and he has pretty much always been helpful and friendly with me. I doubt I agree with him on everything, but if he can get along with me, I'm sure he can with others. Strongly suggest withdrawing this thread and recommend working constructively to rescue some articles or just avoid him if you don't want to try a collegial approach. Best, --A Nobody 03:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: shows Ikip continuing his behavior even during this process. (note edit summaries) entering other talk pages in order to cause wikidrama, shows his colors again. Neither THF nor I have in any way encouraged such activities on Ikip's part. He does stress his support here -- though I suggest that canvassed support in some cases should be given lighter weight. Collect (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Response against User:THF and User:Collect

Hello editors, I am new to this process so please forgive me. It's with heavy heart that I respond to this Wikiquette alert. It is not my intent to reignite the tempers which flared on several article pages and various talk pages. I respond to this Wikiquette alert because I feel what fueled this fire for so long was a level of personal attacks and edit wars in the form of unsubstantiated accusations which do nothing to serve the goals of the encyclopedia. This Wikiquette alert is necessary to give the involved parties an opportunity to substantiate their claims, and to give the community the opportunity to clarify what level of claims constitute opinion/constitute constructive edits or personal attacks/edit warring. The disruptive behavior on Business Plot is not unique to the page alone, unfortunatly for the project, these two editors have disruptived several pages and been uncivil to several other editors.

I have been editing since 30 September 2005. I started to edit Business Plot on 17 November 2005, when it looked like this, without a single reference, and 6 external liks. Through years of comprimise, hard work, give and take, between numerous editors, we built the page to look like this (as of 17 December 2008), with 56 references, and a large External link and Further reading section. On 17 December 2008, User:Collect began edit warring with some editors over the first sentence of the article. I stayed out of it, until 11:23, 19 February 2009 when User:Collect removed the alternate names with the incorrect statement, "alternate names have only a scattered handful of uses -- many tracing back to THIS page." I reverted, and then collect reverted back, stating with another incorrect statment: ""alternate names" esp "putsch" are POV and RARE on any source not sourcing back to WP <g> WP is not a valid source" I then sourced this disputed section, with 7 sources, many new. In retliation, User:Collect deleted 1,184 well referenced words, 3 pages of text, with no conversation on the talk page before. The reasons given were illogical and showed a general misunderstanding of the historical incident. This began the current edit war.

THF joined in a few days later. Ikip (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess Ikip liked this ArbCom statement, because, he seems to have borrowed heavily from it. PhilKnight (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Phil, nice to see you. Yeah, isn't it the greatest introduction ever? Inspiring. They say imitation is the greatest form of flattery. :) 10:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(To Ikip) Is the heading necessary? It implies that you started a Wikiquette alert yourself. I haven't posted here much either, but I think that all the information regarding you, and THF should be under the same heading for procedural purposes. I don't really know what to do about the copy/paste statement since I'm not sure if Ikip broke any sort of Misplaced Pages formalities by lifting InkSplotch's wording. Ikip, to be on the safe side, I'd reword it if I were you, or at least state where you borrowed it from. Themfromspace (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you too, Themfromspace. Philknight was kind enough to provide this notification, so I don't think any further notification is necessary. I appreciate your pressing concern for wikipolicy and copyright, and I am sure in the days to come on this page, you will diligently continue to repeatedly point out what rules I am not aware of or am not following, as you have repeatedly in the past in several forums, to help me understand wikipolicy better. We are all here to help the project, and I appreciate your continued support.Ikip (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• I recently encountered User:Collect at another article where he edit-warred to maintain a controversial POV which seemed inadequately sourced. I engaged in dispute resolution at the reliable sources noticeboard which supported my position but User:Collect did not respect any contrary opinion and continued to war. Finding dispute resolution to be unavailing, I walked away from the matter. This matter is interesting in that User:Collect is now taking an opposite line - insisting on the removal of material with a debatable source. My impression is that he is gaming the system in support of his personal POV, per WP:TEND. I may be mistaken, of course, but offer this anecdote so that an overall pattern of behaviour may be established. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

i agree, User:Collect does seem to make tendentious edits based on his own views. he will argue for inclusion when it supports his right wing philosophy and against inclusion when it does not. it would be better if he were more consistent in his views on inclusion/exclusion/sources/etc. than he seems to be when it comes to politics. Brendan19 (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Odd. See how Ikip views this at . As a "circus." He has since added " It is the greatest show on Earth, until the next greatest show on Earth comes along sometime tomorrow." Note further how Ikip views editors at etc. (note his comments about THF and me being one person, etc. , "The reason this text was added was to stop edit wars with other POV editors in the past, who understood this incident as little as User:Collect does, and contributed just as little as User:Collect has." et seq wherein he solicits another person to file an RfC. Ikip, in fact , solicited others for an RfC as well -- and apparently seems to think that canvassing is proper behavior (per huge numbers of spams for ARS). ] note: "I have already added a: Misplaced Pages:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. If you do not stop, I will begin searching for editors on Joe the Plumber, and other pages you recklessly edit war on, to co-endorse a RfC against you. I have had it with your tedious edit warring, deleting so much well referenced text. In preperation for the RfC, I will then systamtically

dig through your entire edit history, as I have done with countless other admins before. 03:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)" Alas, I would not want the list of his diffs which clearly belie any good intent of this complaint to make my response too long or uninteresting.

Ikip also makes misleading edits per where he posts something from his own user talk page as though THF were posting it to Talk:Business Plot. Note Ikip never "fixed" that mistake.

Next examime Ikip.travb/Inclusionist's posts to my user talk page at giving me a barnstar, also , (note effusive praise), odd comment, more praise from Inclusionist (Ikip), and here and

Next observe a third party's comment about "Ikip" at , and about me at

Note an IP posted Not to mention the socks which have appeared on my talk page. has the same amazing language. Oh and then.

Note further the nature of his comments on WP editors at "A prominent editor who deletes a lot of material from Misplaced Pages has your own user page in her sights, guess what her one and only solution is? She will be stopping by to say hello soon, since I accidently posted this on her page first. :( Ikip (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC) you seem to have some pretty prominent editors who delete a lot of material from Misplaced Pages on your talk page, so you must be doing something right. Ikip (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dream_Focus" and the corresponding

Also read User:Ikip/guests which contained explicit detail on how to have an undetectable sockpuppet. (see the Machiavelli section). As for "Colonel Warden" I do not want to spend an hour showing his diffs here. Collect (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I support the complaint against Collect but not the complaint against THF.

Collect has made combative and communication stopping edits to me and about me, e.g."He is a SPA sock of someone - likely Ikip" which have made it very difficult for me to continue working on any article which he edits. Collect has been exceptionally rude and unfriendly in his edits and edit summaries with regard to articles where he and I edit and he has a continual method of stating his opinions about article content as if those opinions are unquestionable fact. But the main thing is his combative attitude (at least toward me and my edits) and his selectively choosing difs and wording of Misplaced Pages rules which are misleading as to the totality of the difs or rules. Just as he does above re: the complaint about Ikip. (please see the first sentence in my comments about Ikip).

THF has been calling me a "meatpuppet", I don't know why, but it certainly is not true. Otherwise, he has, overall, been trying to help me understand the intricacies of OR better and he also praised me for finding a RS for a Pancho Valez reference. I can not possibly keep up with the speed of THF's edits so I feel overwhelmed in trying to respond to and create my own edits when he is editing an article or communicating with me, but that is not his problem. In summary, he has also been a bit tough with me but ,overall, I respect and appreciate his attempts to help me continue. So I do not support the complaint against THF. Abbarocks (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As you can see, I've rounded up the pieces of this multi-faceted WQA so that the many common issues can be dealt with collectively. I'm taking "second fiddle" on this one, as I'm already tied up with other issues here and there. In the meantime, let's try to keep this civil, free from personal attacks and insinuations. Comment on contributions, and not the contributor. Edit Centric (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I had thought the "Its with a hevy heart" bit came from Nixon's resignation speeach and both were using it on wiki decades later. Schmidt, 19:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Ikip, one of the things that perturbs me about this, and I realise that this may be because you are new to the process, but the cross-complaint that you filed here starts with text that is not even part of the WQA page; it's being called from your own userspace. What this means is that, when archived (hopefully soon!), if you remove the text from your end, it will not be saved as part of the archived discussion. Could you please rectify this, by linking only the table that you have here, and importing the rest of your text into this WQA page? (This is the one and only time I'll allow a refactor to take place, because of what it accomplishes.) Edit Centric (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

NB that it's actually two transclusions because User:Ikip/q itself transcludes Talk:Business Plot/Ikip's chart of Collect's deletions, each of which may well undergo further editing.

NB that Ikip has not noted any Wikiquette violations; his entire complaint (especially Talk:Business Plot/Ikip's chart of Collect's deletions) is entirely content-related regarding a third party. He hasn't even shown a single diff about me, though my name is in the subtitle for some reason. Can someone remove my name from the subtitle? THF (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

NB The only reason this section exists seems to be out of upset at having THF issue a WQA complaint. The solicitation of support as noted above (the Ikip section) is an indication of desire for wikidrama. Collect (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

my take so far

User:Ikip, the "edit charts" are disruptive and needless, please use diffs instead. Either way, this is not the page for any talk about article content, at all. Also, please don't refactor talk pages (moving and copying comments, giving new titles to sections and so on) and be careful about your use of edit summaries, negative comments about a user in an edit summary may be taken as personal attacks or incivility. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's so tempting just to refer the whole thing to the arbitration committee so they can impose some strict 'one strike' sanctions on the page, but i think mediation is required first which is the course i recommend. This is too complex for WQA, each editor is simply listing their petty greivances agaisnt each other en masse here with neither editor seemingly prepared to work towards a resolution. Any opinions on that? --neon white talk 20:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, this one is SO laborious that I again let other editors 3-O it, taking only the maintenance angle on it. Glancing through it though, I tend to agree with neon white. Edit Centric (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

With due respect, I don't think this threat is a petty grievance. The problem is that Ikip's conduct makes it impossible to work towards a resolution; he is affirmatively inhibiting resolution by his persistent violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. His conduct through hundreds of talk-page edits attacking other users is what is making this laborious; throwing up your hands and refusing to get involved essentially perversely rewards that poor behavior. Neutrality here rewards the bully. THF (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Stepping back and using WP:AGF, the provided diff seems to show Ikip (finally) wishing to open a dialog after pages of butting heads over edits. This should be a good thing in all eyes, and a postive step forward toward resolution. However, and in light of past edits, his caution about discovery of possible COI inre Business Plot would certainly be seen in a bad light, and I can understand THF's feeling it as a veiled threat. But if AGF can be used one more time, a caution about any possiblility of a COI might then be seen as a wish to help and protect the project. And certainly, had there been no "history" between these two editors, it might have been seen as just that... a concerned caution. In his very first sentence he shows a (perhaps grudging) admiration for THF and desire that they both continue work to improve the project. So in (stretching) AGF, should we not accept this as a desire to finally end a feud? Or is a percieved sinner never allowed to repent past transgressions and seek grace? Schmidt, 23:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

An arbitrator agrees with my assessment. What possible COI could I have with a historical event of 75 years ago? What possible good-faith reason could be behind lines like "no quarter given" or insisting that the compromise be made "out of the public eye"? THF (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

An arbitrator agreed with you and told him stop anything that could even remotely be perceived as a threat, else face a possible block. Have any more such happened since that notice to cease? I do kinda wish the arbiter might have spoken toward and encouraged the open dialog, but I am not in his head. In Ikip's request for offwiki communications between you and he, he might have wished discussion that was not itself commented upon by others, and would certainly be aware that if there was anything inapprpraite in those discussions you could easily disclose such here. As for "no quarter given", though colorful, that seems to be a reference to the wikikipedia moving quickly to prevent off-wiki / on-wiki clashes from harming individuals or the project outself. If something "in here" might harm someone "out there" wiki laudably moves fast to prevent harm. As for the COI, I have no desire to spend hours trying to discover to what he was referring, for as you have pointed out, there is 75 years of history that would need sorting through. Even starting with today and sorting backwards it would take someone like me months. I have no such inclination, very slow fingers, and would not know where to make the connections between an anonymous username and the real world. Schmidt, 01:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I will reveal that I was born decades after 1934, and thus had no role in events alleged to have happened in 1933 and 1934. To my knowledge, none of relatives are alleged to be involved either; I don't even have relatives who were adults in 1934. And, yes, Ikip has continued to harass me after the warning: frivolous complaint of COI dismissed at ANI (exactly what he threatened to harass me with, and on an article he had no prior relationship with); deletes my talk-page comment to bury the talk-page with lengthy and uncivil chart that misrepresent my position; personal attack with false allegations on article talk page completely irrelevant to discussion in response to different editor; hounding me with the *tenth* repetition of a talk-page question I had already answered; and burying an RFC with a lengthy personal attack misrepresenting my position so that the RFC is unnavigable and no one can see my position. THF (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This shouldn't go to arbcom before mediation's been tried, even that might be skirted. The background for this is so long and daunting, so many editors have been drawn into edit warring, I'd say the arbcom scythe could be broader than most of these editors would like. Try not to let it go there. Meanwhile I see three main worries, with maybe a fourth thrown in.

• Civility, which also has to do with the threats and mean comments, likewise answering them back in strong ways. None of that's on. I'm getting ready to put out some warnings, I don't want it to go that far though. Linked to this is the notion of off-wiki talks about content and such: I don't think this would be helpful.

• Too much edit warring, although most editors seem to have shown a wish for it to stop.

• The content spats seem to be driven by strays from WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR (mostly cite spanning). Editors should keep in mind, the historical sources for "both" PoVs are likely flawed. Following WP:V, that's what Misplaced Pages should carry, flaws and all, editors must understand that a tertiary source like WP is a start for reading up on a topic, I don't think "anyone" would be happy with these articles as they likely should be carried here.

• I see hints of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, sleeper accounts and all, maybe. Fishing further for them shouldn't be the pith if this settles down into strings of edits which look like editors are sticking to policy.

I hope this helps. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and concerns Ms. Gale, Mr. Schmidt, Neon White, and Edit Centric, I have been pretty quiet here, and I have avoided a larger laundry list of percieved violations of my own, in the hopes that this will blow over. This is a big risk I am taking, in an attempt to avoid more drama here, I am letting all of these allegations go unanswered.

I will refactor everything here as you all suggested.

I think a user above said it best: "User:Ikips behavior definitely do not happen in a vacuum." Ikip (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think that it is a good idea to leave aside the specific incedents. I think everyone is has got the idea by now that incivility and edit warring is a major problem with this article, i think it's best now to concentrate on a resolution and the way forward. --neon white talk 07:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Saguamundi

This user has on several occasions taken a biographical article about a living person who has Turkish heritage, but was born and raised outside of Turkey and uses a westernized spelling of their name, and moved the article to a name using the Turkish spelling. Since all sources and the person's personal preference all reflected the original westernized spelling (as best I can determine), I reverted such changes. In each case, Saguamundi then inserted the Turkish spelling into the article (despite any connection to Turkey other than previous generations of the family) and left a talk message for me demanding that his changes be retained. Despite acceding to his wishes in each case, Saguamundi has become increasingly strident in expressing his demands. The latest such demand, in my opinion, clearly and blatantly crosses the civility line. I would ask that someone council this user on WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:OWN. I also think his edit pattern violates WP:NPOV, but lets start with the basics. As far as I can remember, some relevant pages are his and my talk and Halil Suleyman Ozerden, Mehmet Oz, Arda Ocal. (I'm assuming that the edits by 88.232.149.239 are also Saguamundi because of the identical language both used on my talk page.) Studerby (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for the content dispute, but you're correct about the CIVIL violation. I'll drop a note to the user. THF (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Dave Souza

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

I'd like to alert anyone interested in etiquette to Dave Souza's repeated, off-topic, incivil characterizations of documentation by madman2000 and myself of hrafn's incivility to editors and what appears to have been hrafn's deliberate obliteration of text that described 19th and 20th century social organizations and authors who were advocates of various spiritual beliefs. Dave Souza associates this documentation with me alone, although others contributed to it. In his hostility, he overlooks the actual impetus for the research, namely hrafn's incivility to a number of editors. His mischaracterizations of the original attempts to rein in hrafn's incivility now constitute an ongoing violation of social etiquette carried to the level of a verbal vendetta against me.

] contains some examples of recent vintage:

Dave Souza: 'So, Cat was missing the point of MEDCAB and produced a long inaccurate screed in an effort to defend her habit of producing articles without reliable sources?"

(Madman, Firefl, and i were documenting hrafn's incivility to his fellow editors; most of the articles in whose talk pages hrafn was being uncivil to editors had not been written by me.)

Dave Souza: "your assertion that it is 'unlikely there was no truth at all in her statement' is an uncivil and unsourced smear."

(Dave Souza calls Malcom Schosha "uncivil" because Malcolm thinks it "unlikely there was no truth at all" in the documentation of hrafn's incivility by madman, firefly, and me -- or, to put it another way, Dave charges Malcolm with promoting a "smear" because Malcolm disputes Dave's statement that the group-originated documentation of hrafn's incivility may have contained some truths.)

Dave Souza is being rude while banner-carrying for hrafn, an editor who is, despite his promises to act in a civil manner, still being called up on Wikiquette alerts and is still given to using loaded words like "rant" to describe the documentation produced by those (myself but one among them) who called him up on similar charges in the past.

Why is it so difficult for Dave Souza to engage in civilized discourse when charges are made that hrafn has (again) committed violations of Wikiquette?

I would like Dave Souza o apologize for his rudeness. I did nothing to deserve this latst outburst, nor did Malcolm Schoscha.

Catherineyronwode (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Support block of Catherineyronwode. Verbal chat 11:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Verbal, is that your idea of a joke, or do you really mean that? I would suggest that you refactor. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• This complaint is now closed. If you find a dispute cannot be resolved at WQA, then you need to go to the next step in dispute resolution. Otherwise, please read the top of the page: If you're filing a report to complain about a WQA editor who responded to a previous WQA alert, please stop now, and think. If you were contacted by a WQA volunteer based on a previously filed alert, they were acting as a neutral third party and probably have no interest in personally entering into a dispute with you. Asking you to respect WP:CIVIL or telling you not to make personal attacks does not itself constitute any sort of incivility or personal attack. Further abuse of WQA by any users involved may result in blocks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn

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

Hrafn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), ostensibly defending himself against all charges of incivility, in this archived thread ], was brought to mind by Malcolm Schosha of past protests aginst his incivility and twice called the previous documentation of his incivility by Madman200, Firefly, and me "Catherineyronwode's rant." In the second instance, her wrote, "I will simply regard the invocation of Catherineyronwode's rant as analogous to Godwin's Law#Corollaries and usage and consider that any credible discussion is now over."

That's pretty uncivil, i'd say. The documentation which he calls a rant contained examples of his previous incivility, such as this:

"I would (...) suggest that he takes his irrelevant intellectual masturbations elsewhere."

Now he claims that this past documentation of his past editorial incivility is "analogous to Godwin's Law."

I'm sorry, i just don't buy it. It looks to me like he still hasn't learned to interact with other editors as colleagues, but still tries to harrass them, and when his past history of editorial harrasment is mentioned, he flounces off in irrational anger, leaving, as always, Dave Souza to defend him.

Time passes, but i don't think that hrafn has greatly improved his social skills.

Catherineyronwode (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• See answer above. Verbal chat 11:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been asked for clarification: My comments in these two related threads have the same status as the original postings, ie a joke. However, like all good jokes, perhaps there is a grain of truth. Then again, it wasn't a very good joke. My meaning is that this is pointless, and that certain people should know better. Verbal chat 15:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Truthfully, at the time I was considering making the complaint that Catherineyronwode did make now. I decided not to, even though there had been considerable incivility in the process of the previous discussion. The fact the some regular participants to this noticeboard feel disinclined to hear more on the subject does not automatically justify closing a complaint, as was done above by Ncmvocalist. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

However, that the complaint is inane does. 15:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Second Verbal's view. This bizarre waste of time has gone on long enough. KillerChihuahua 13:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Thirded. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Fourthed. Cat seems to have the opinion that anyone who has an issue with her edits must be attacked. Time to block her. OrangeMarlin 15:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Second", "Thirded", and "Fourthed" what? The original proposal was that Catherineyronwode should be blocked for making this complaint. Is that what you are saying? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

is an indication that any further problems will lead to a block. Per the instructions at the top of the page, WQA will not impose sanctions. However, misconduct or abuse of the dispute resolution process can lead to sanctions in another venue in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

NB: I did not initiate this complaint, and I told you on your talk page that I have no intention of pursuing the issue further at this time. As far as I can see, Catherineyronwode has had no discussion beyond the original complaint. Considering that, who are you threatening with a block, me or her? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Drama. is the link on this complaint really from july 2007? close it and move on. untwirl(talk) 16:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I tried telling him that, but it seems he won't stop beating a dead horse. Now he says I'm threatening him...whatever next. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, you wrote this to me, which is on your own talk page: If you continue to assume bad faith as you did in your reply above, you may be prevented from editing. It is regrettable that it may come to this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That is apparently a threat to have me blocked. What I had done, in fact, was disagree with you. That should not have been cause for a threat to block. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This was already clarified on my talk page; this isn't a threat, nor is it my problem. Please use dispute resolution like everyone else if you want to escalate this, and stop hounding me and other uninvolved users who found problems with your behaviour. You have no evidence to demonstrate involvement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The link is from a few days ago , in a complaint now closed by Ncmvocalist. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

in the link to the relevant medcab case (sept 2008), the mediator specifically stated, in response to the post/rant/whatever - "Catherineyronwode, unless you've edited the article in the infobox at the top of this page, this isn't something you have any involvement in." according to mw - to rant is "1  : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner 2  : to scold vehemently" and a rant is "1 a: a bombastic extravagant speech." neither of these appear to constitute a personal attack. untwirl(talk) 17:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed by Eldereft.

User:JHB

This user is very impolite, not just on my talk page, but others too...Zir (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs to specific, recent cases of incivility? Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"I will not tolerate my carefully thought-out writings on a subject I am close to being ruined by low quality and unknowledgeable tampering." from Zir Talk

"By your precipitate action today, without consulting me, you are now perpetuating that ignorance. Congratulations...I have read the pretty little baners on your user page, and your ridiculous section entitled 'Pet Hates', and I am not impressed by the level of your maturity...I have undone your edits, because you have by your actions supported an erroneous article and prevented improvement. I will do it again if necessary. If you feel it should be referred to a higher level then go ahead - that will be all to the good." to Schcambo in Dec 2008

"I have not yet studied the article in full, following your efforts; or seen fit to correct your indiscretions - I thought I would give you a chance to redeem yourself first. If this is the sort of result we can expect of your clean ups - God help us if you ever want to do a full review." to Ground Zero in November

I must have got his rant for the month of March...Zir (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

PS, I informed the user of this report, but in the future please make sure you inform any user you file a report about or mention in a report. Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...Zir (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. However, although JHB's impolite comment on your talk page is obvious, I have been unable to find any other recent comments that are incivil. Not that I am saying a single comment is not worthy of attention, but there is a difference between how one should handle a single incivil comment and how one would deal with a user who demonstrates a pattern of incivility. Do you have any diffs available other than the post to your talk page? Thanks in advance. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've now listed one or two above, I could go on - not the way to win friends and influence people, is it?...Zir (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have posted a comment on user:JHB's talk page regarding the comment on your talk page.The Seeker 4 Talk 18:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and patience...Zir (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Another example of User:JHB's incivility is the edit summary of this edit. I left him a message about it on his talk page. —teb728 t c 21:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• There does seem to be minor issues of incivility here but the bigger issue seems to be one of ownership ("my carefully thought-out writings", "without consulting me" etc) so i think it would be a goodc idea to explain about this and point to WP:OWN alongside any warning given. --neon white talk 23:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• I think this user just needs to be pointed towards guidelines, which actually Theseeker4 has done, and hopefully JHB will understand that his behaviour is not acceptable on Misplaced Pages and no more will be said. If there's then an issue of article content rather than incivility, I suggest getting a third opinion. Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD consensus was keep, but some editors keep deleting and redirecting instead

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=History_of_quaternions&action=history Several people have stated the consensus was clearly keep, not delete everything, and put a redirect there. Several edits and reverts have taken place. Attempts to discuss it on the talk page, have failed to get either side to agree.

During the AFD discussion, after overwhelming majority of people thus far had said Keep, User:C S stated:

Comment on future redirect: It doesn't matter if this article is deleted or not. If it ain't deleted, I'm just going to replace the whole thing with a redirect to quaternion. Maybe there's something legitimate here that isn't already there (as indicated by G-Guy), but I don't see it. I'll take a look before deleting the whole thing though. --C S (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked about this, and got a response:

Is that going against consensus? Dream Focus 16:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would just like to point out that nothing has been deleted. The article has been redirected while there is a discussion on the talk page (involving editors who understand the subject) about rewriting the article. pablo_hablo. 16:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really a WQA issue. You need to go to WP:ANI if people are re-directing the page against consensus. No incivility issues are here, so nothing for this forum to discuss. If ANI will not back up the consensus on the AFD, you will have to move to the next step in dispute resolution. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, if the AFD closed with a keep then that is the consensus, obviously consensus can change but a further afd would be required. It needs to go to WP:ANI or alternatively request full page protection which is probably what an ANI report will result in. It might also be worth pointing out the reasons for merging at WP:MERGE. A poor article not being one of them. We should always aim to cleanup article. Redirects, merges and deletions are not a solution. --neon white talk 18:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• As suggested I brought it up over at ANI Thanks for the feedback. Dream Focus 18:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Tagishsimon

User:Tagishsimon was decidedly uncivil with me in a recent deletion review, telling me to "Get over pathetic story" before abusing me for being "stupid and reprehensible" before calling me a liar in response to my apology for revealing his behind-the-scenes commentary. I later discovered another attack which is what ultimately prompted this (my first) WQA. It is also my first dealing with this editor so there is no historical issues to consider. It's not their first time being warned about incivility though. Perhaps someone this editor hasn't already attacked pointing out that this is not acceptable behaviour would be helpful. WikiScrubber (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Calling something 'a pathetic story' is ok, it's fair comment on a story and not a personal attack. Whilst there are some examples of incivility by User:Tagishsimon, your accusations of impropriety are neither civil nor assuming good faith. I suggest both editors calm down, stick to discussing the issue and remember to assume good faith. --neon white talk 20:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nec532x

This is the most recent comment left on my talkpage by Nec532x. He is impersonating an actual Navy SEAL named Bob McMeans (I've spoken to the real Bob McMeans about this) and has been trying to add someone named Charles Hoelzel who was not a SEAL to the List of Navy SEALs. This is beginning to look like harrassment and I wanted to make the admins aware. Thanks. Atlantabravz (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There's rarely any admins here but that comment is obviously incivil and i posted a warning. Also remember to inform the editor of this alert. This seems to be an SPA so if the problems continue i'd post on the admin board. As this involves unsourced claims about a living person you are correct to remove the info. --neon white talk 21:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Having read the post to WP:ANI, I have issued a 1 week block to Nec532x (talk · contribs). Attacks of that nature are intolerable. caknuck _° remains gainfully employed 22:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:2009 Lahore attack on Sri Lankan cricket team

Could someone who knows something about India-Pakistani relations keep an eye on this talk page, please? A uncivil squabble is starting to break out, I think ... almost-instinct 19:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

THF (talk

This edit is one of several which seem to be getting more aggressive "there will be heck to pay". Editor seems to think TRUTH is always with him and it's getting worse,I think. Also THF often demands self reverts or he'll report me to ANI. Here he makes a "vandalism" accusation against me Abbarocks (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The offending edit does appear to violate both WP:V and WP:NPOV (for a WP:BLP no less) in which case User:THF had every reason to revert it. If you don't want to be reported to ANI then don't break the rules. If there is a problem then you should explain it clearly with diffs and associated policy violations rather than identifying instances where you've been told off for WP:3RR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. violations by a number of editors. -- samj _in 01:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a carry-over from the preceding WQA, and Abbarocks' attitude therein. Collect (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. As uninvolved in this episode i will comment that I have had my own problems with THF that was far less than civil and they may not realize how their online comments are felt even if they weren't intended to be overtly blunt. That's putting it lightly but I think you get the gist. To me they seem to have some ownership issues which can be helpful but may also be crossing the line. Other editors, even newbies and anons, are people too and deserve to be treated civilly and respectfully. Talking down to others generally isn't constructive and likely will escalate problems. -- Banjeboi 02:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Response. I have been extraordinarily civil to Abbarocks; please do read the extensive user talk page history. Unfortunately, every edit of his has been either (1) edit-warring against consensus to include OR or other text not supported by the claimed cited sources, often with fake edit summaries purporting "consensus"; (2) edit-warring to delete well-sourced information with edit-summaries falsely calling it OR; (3) tendentious argument on the talk-page to include conspiracy theories of John Buchanan (American politician) about Prescott Bush in articles having nothing to do with Bush, or (4) edit-warring to sanitize Buchanan's biography.

The absolute last straw is that he has followed me to Richard Rossi to start an edit-war there on behalf of a banned editor, complete with a fake edit summary "well sourced" (compare ). This is the sure sign of someone trolling and not here to productively contribute to Misplaced Pages. Far too much productive editor time is being wasted arguing with this user, who has made the grand total of half of a constructive edit in his Misplaced Pages career, and lots of time is being wasted trying to explain OR and EW rules to him. Just as vandals get progressively increasing warnings ranging from "your editing test has been reverted" to "you have not been productive" to "stop or you will be blocked", users who steadfastly refuse to follow OR and EW rules get increasingly stern warnings. Whether Abbarocks is an experienced editor pretending not to understand the rules or a newbie who still doesn't understand the rules (but somehow magically knows how to include savvy edit summaries misrepresenting his work and to avoid going over the 3RR line when he edit-wars) is irrelevant: the effect on the project is the same.

At some point, one loses the presumption of good faith: this is not an editor who is here to contribute productively to the project, but one who is here to disrupt the project, and there is a non-zero chance this is an experienced editor pretending to be novice. I have reported this user to ANI. THF (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

THF has a habit of stating his very personally directed and negative opinions as if they are absolute fact. He has no real AGF at all in my experience; it's just something he throws out as a criticism when it's useful to him in putting somebody down. And his edits directly below (Re:Protonk) show clearly his habitual use of personal accusations and assumptions about someone's NEGATIVE intent: "He gave you a forthright answer to your original question, and you asked a question in response that most people would view as disingenuous,.....As wikiquette goes, I'm much more concerned about your misrepresentation...Abbarocks (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I would urge all interested parties to spend 10 minutes reading abbarocks' contributions and judge for themselves. Rklawton (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I would urge all interested parties to also look at these edits from THF for balance. notice the weasel words he uses and how he disparages those with opposing viewpoints, calling them fringe, conspiracy theorists, urban legends, etc. I think worst of all is this attack on a valiant public servant. Others have brought up issues of incivility with THF before and THF has pointed out that he works for a think tank. The question is does wikipedia want a person working for a POV pushing think-tank pushing POV on wikipedia, or should wikipedia strive for neutrality and stop all these nasty personal attacks THF is using? If people think that type of editing is okay behavior to tolerate on wikepdia, is it really okay to edit your employers entry with some dubious category tags? MehTsag (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Query: Which of the fringe conspiracy theorists that I called a fringe conspiracy theorist do you believe it is beyond the WP:CIVIL pale to call a fringe conspiracy theorist? Because I'll be happy to show you admins (or, at a minimum, reliable sources) who agree with me for any of them. You realize that we have a whole WP:FRINGE policy that necessarily requires us to discuss whether anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists like Voz de Aztlan are mainstream or not, right? The fact that you have to reach back to August and point out a defensible neutral edit that no one in a highly-trafficked article has objected to in six months to make a content-dispute claim against me speaks for itself. THF (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I provided on a brief highlight of the vile material you posted. But if you want me to trim it down even more, then I will point to a former Major General and a former Attorney General. With respect to editing your employers entry people probably assumed good faith since you did not point out that you worked for the organization in the edit summary. MehTsag (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a content dispute (and one where I happen to be completely in the right), not a civility complaint. You're in the wrong place. THF (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying that "NB Ramsey Clark hasn't been an attorney general in over forty years, or credible in over thirty. The fact that he has taken the case is almost prima facie evidence of its meritlessness." (emphasis mine) is not a content dispute, it is a civility complaint and you happen to be completely in the wrong. Please do not tell me where I should and should not be. MehTsag (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussing the credibility of a source is absolutely required under WP:WEIGHT. I fail to see the WP:CIVIL problem, since Mr. Clark is not a Misplaced Pages editor. To repeat, WQA handles civility complaints, and you are upset with the WP:WEIGHT policy. You can have the WP:LASTWORD. THF (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Protonk overly dismissive?

I would appreciate an outside view as to whether User:Protonk is being uncivil or I'm being overly sensitive. I asked Protonk at User talk:Protonk whether he had a reason to delete a prod notice and P replied "Not really" and referred to the article's "author" . I questioned P's use of the word "author" (which struck me an an attempt to assert ownership by proxy) using the sentence "What does "the author" mean on a wiki?" P described that as "cute", which I don't understand precisely, but is obviously a Bad Thing, as P went on to say that P has "0 patience" for it . My explanation of the point I was trying to make was admittedly blunt (presumably the opposite of cute) and P's response was simply "This conversation is over" .

I think that Protonk is falling short of the standard of civility expected of an experienced user. Am I being oversensitive? Thompson Is Right (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• In a word yes. In longer words your final message was aggressive made real assumptions of bad faith. The point of prod is that anyone can remove a prod for any reason. If you don't like it then AFD is thataway. Opening a wikiquette alert over this is, well, unbelievable. Spartaz 14:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I had hoped to make it clear that I am not concerned about the deletion of the prod, but about what seems to me an incivil response to a civil attempt to discuss it. I admit to being provoked before making my last comment. However if the consensus is that P's comments represent an acceptable level of discourse Misplaced Pages then so be it. Thompson Is Right (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm guessing that Protonk didn't check the history and wrongly assumed that Elonka, who is on a wikibreak, had 'authored' the article. PhilKnight (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Protonk's response. He gave you a forthright answer to your original question, and you asked a question in response that most people would view as disingenuous, and he explained himself further. As wikiquette goes, I'm much more concerned about your misrepresentation of Protonk's original response as "Not really" when the actual response was much more substantive than that. Elonka did contribute the majority of substance to the article. The prod was further explained in his original edit summary; he simply felt that the deletion decision would be controversial enough that it should be made by AFD. THF (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Closing as resolved I believe the comments above show this is not uncivil - directing further comments to someone who has been more involved in the article is not a bad thing. Removing PROD's when immediate deletion would be controversial is a valid responsibility for any editor, as the next step would indeed be WP:AFD. No incivility, no public attacks. Please let me know on my talk if you have issues with this reasoning. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jmcw37 and others not responding to arguments

There's been a feud on Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe for some months now about whether or not the on Chung Moo Doe is a reasonable source to include in the article. I've pursued a few content-centered avenues for resolving this dispute -- RS/N was more or less inconclusive, an RFC received no response, and a request for mediation was not agreed to be any of the parties that disagree with me. Discussion on the talk page has now sprawled across several sections: 1, 2, and now 3.

As I see it, one central issue preventing this disagreement from simply being resolved on the talk page is the refusal of some of the other editors to respond to my arguments (sometimes taking the form of specific statements that users aren't planning to participate in further discussion, i.e. to answer my questions). It seems to me that this is a violation of WP:EQ, specifically:

• Do not ignore questions.
• If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate.
• Concede a point when you have no response to it.

I'll limit this complaint to User:Jmcw37's behavior to avoid making things too complicated. Specific arguments which User:Jmc37 has not addressed during this discussion (while continuing to readd the source on the handful of occasions when I've removed it, and more or less ignoring me pointing out that he's not addressing my arguments or answering my questions) include:

• "It seems to me like it's easily possible that one single person emailed the FMC explaining that Chung Moo Doe was a cult, and providing some information on it, and the FMC simply included that information in a page and explained that it came from former members without doing any of its own verification. ... Does that sound easily plausible to you, or no?"
• "I'm removing this source from this article. If anyone would like to restore it, I would ask that you first address ... Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Freedom_of_Mind_page_on_Chung_Moo_Doe the issue dougweller raised on the noticeboard."

That first question I asked at least seven or eight times.

Do the folks here agree that this behavior is a violation of WP:EQ? Subverdor (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say that nobody is required to reply to any question, no matter where it's posted. There could be many reasons why they don't reply: intentional ignoring, not watchlisting the article, away from their computer ... the portions you quoted from WP:EQ would, IMHO, apply to cases where something was purposefully reverted or removed, and you deserved to know why. Purposefully excluding you from a discussion as an attempt to undermine your edits, or to drive you away would be inappropriate. So, in other words, you cannot force anyone to reply to you. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

From a cursory glance at that talk page: "I can't stress enough how unreasonable I think it is to refuse to respond to my arguments and yet still revert my edits." (Subverdor)

Whether or not his characterization is accurate, he's asserting that what's going on is the type of behavior you said it would need to escalate to before it became inappropriate. Subverdor, do you have any diffs to show more specifically what's going on? arimareiji (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Taking a closer look at the page, I notice this as one example of what you're talking about. I agree with you about it not being a particularly reliable source, if it's an RS at all. The disclaimer of "this is what some people told us" at the top is particularly troublesome.

But I don't know what to tell you, because the unfortunate reality on Misplaced Pages is that if you're outnumbered - as you seem to be - you'll never get anywhere, even if you have a dozen different guidelines and policies that are explicitly on your side. I'm sorry to advise such a course of action, but honestly the best thing is probably to let it drop and count your blessings that you haven't been as vehemently opposed in other edits. Just my 2 cents. arimareiji (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, the issue is that my edits removing this source get reverted (examples here, here, and here) claiming that the source is "still under discussion" or that there is not consensus that it needs to go away. Nothing I'd describe as meaningful discussion seems to take place, though; it seems that the other editors on this article are essentially claiming veto power over changes to the article on the basis that "there isn't consensus" without feeling the need to justify a good reason for the consensus. I think the most clearly I can summarize it was how I did on the talk page some time back; search for "this is frustrating". There are (or at least were, a month or so ago) people willing to spend time talking to me about this source -- they just seem extremely reluctant to address what I'm saying.

I can understand that as a practical matter, strength of numbers is important when wrangling over edits to a topic, but certainly that's not a good argument that it's right to acquiesce to such a situation :-). The outnumbering only seems to be 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 or so here anyway. I've been encouraged in this whole effort by policy sections which seem to say that weight of numbers is not at all paramount in policy disputes (example here).

I'll list some other specific examples of what I'm talking about -- this source has got a clear factual inaccuracy right near the beginning (search the talk page for "definitely and absolutely wrong"). I've also been spending time and energy responding to a claim that the Freedom of Mind Center is the same as the Rick Ross institute (which, by the way, it isn't), and so the fact that the Scientology article references reprinted newspaper articles hosted on the Rick Ross site means that this page hosted by the Freedom of Mind Center must be reliable (search for "don't seem to be at all the same to me"). In both of those instances, after I've put time and energy into (for example) researching the Rick Ross institute and discovering that what my fellow disputant is saying seems to be more or less made up, that conversation simply petered out with my questions unaddressed while the debate continued in other, more comfortable territory.

I know it's not possible for anyone to "make" people answer my questions or talk to me :-). Continuing to debate a contentious issue, though, while tactically ignoring inconvenient questions or arguments, seems grossly unreasonable, which is why there are specific etiquette policies against it. Most of what I'm looking for here is simply another opinion or two to (hopefully) confirm my perception that what's going on here is a violation of the etiquette policy. Subverdor (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User:JCRB Posts Insulting Ethnic Remarks & Deletes My Replies

User, JCRB, keeps posting insulting statements about Spaniards. He says that phillipinos are Spaniards. His remarks are offensive to my heritage since I'm a Spaniard and we don't consider philipines as Spaniards. The world knows that philipinos are not Spaniards. When I disagree, he DELETES my remarks. He's a phillipino with a racial identity crisis who thinks he's a Spaniard, and wants everyone to think they they're Spaniards. I urge that you ban him. The following link is the discussion page where he posts his insults:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Hispanic#To_JCRB

Thank you, and I hope you deal with the probelm since he greatly offends my heritage. 68.173.91.50 (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't censor opinions simply because you happen to disagree with them. I cannot find any instances of User:JCRB removing anything from the talk page, in fact the major incivility, personal attacks and removal of talk page comments are from yourself. You are warned. Anymore and you are risking being blocked. --neon white talk 01:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:IMatthew

This user's comments toward members of the professional wrestling project have been angry and offensive. He left the project several months ago after some members of the project opposed his RFA. Since then, he has returned several times to attack editors and criticize the project. His comments and edit summaries, including , . He holds other editors to different standards, however, as shown here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment: the whole "" thing is nothing more than a running joke. He doesn't actually go around censoring people. J.delanoy_adds 03:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to mention that I take full responsibility for my comments in the discussion cite above, and that it is my fault for him causing him to say those certain things.--₮RUCӨ 04:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user disrupted me with a threatening warning , when asked why gave this rationale , and subsequently refused to provide evidence of his explanation . But he was happy to threaten me again , and again , and again , and again , and again . 94.192.38.247 (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the edit histories, 94.192.38.247's accusations appear to be factually incorrect, while his edit history shows some significant civility problems. Edward321 (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution