Revision as of 09:04, 9 September 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

User:Otterathome

Good day,

I am posting this here because I believe it to be the best place to do so. If I am incorrect, I humbly request to be directed to the correct page.

In the general area of pages related to the lonelygirl15 web series, we currently have some trouble with User:Otterathome, who seems to have made it his personal goal in life to remove as much as he can get of LG15 from Misplaced Pages; he started nominating a large number of pages related to the series, mostly of the actors involved, but also of spin-offs. That, in itself, is -of course- not a problem. The problem is the way he behaved afterwards:

1. First of all, he shows no actual interest in improving the pages. His entire argumentation in all related discussions boils down to "this is not notable, it must be removed". He doesn't even dismiss merging or improvement - he simply refuses to acknowledge the option. He simply doesn't talk about any other options than deletion, even if directly asked about merging, etc. He simply ignores such lines and reliably replies with something that boils down to "not notable, must be deleted".
2. When he notices he's about to "lose", he gets dirty. This is nicely visible in the AfD for LG15: The Last. In the discussion, there were basically two people arguing against keeping the page, User:Atama and him. Since he was not acknowledging any attempts to discuss, I directly proposed a merging effort to Atama, which both s/he and a new user deemed acceptable.
   Instead of finally joining the discussion and giving his opinion on my merging proposal, Otterathome went on to first try to invalidate the amount of supporters the page had by falsely implying there had been a call to brainless vote on the AfD, then tried to cast doubt on Byronwrite's support of the merging effort, and then tried to discredit milowent by inventing a conflict of interest. All directly after it was clear that the only other person supporting a removal of the page was content with a merge rather than deletion, and without ever giving a statement about improvement, merging, or any option other than deletion himself. But it gets better.
3. He doesn't accept "losing". Both LG15: The Last and the page on Jackson Davis (an actor in the franchise) were kept after the AfD. In the case of Jackson Davis (where his behavior in the discussion was similar), he went on to appeal the AfD decision. After that failed again, he turned his attention to LG15: The Last again, now, finally, as a last measure, actually acknowledging merging as an option.
   But don't think he even mentioned my previous proposal, already supported by other people, nuh uhh. He didn't even mention it. When asked, directly, "What about renegade's idea in the deletion discussion about a LG15 portal style page?", his response was "Feel free to make a portal. I'll give you until next month to find more sources so it passes our guidelines, otherwise it will have to be merged or deleted, I don't mind which".

I believe it is very clear that Otterathome has a personal vendetta against LG15 content on Misplaced Pages, rather than any interest in improving any of its pages. Let me assure you that I am not questioning the nomination of the articles per se. That is, of course, his good right, and I admit some of the pages were not exactly in good shape when he nominated them (they improved considerably during the AfD, another fact which he refused to even acknowledge).
What I take issue with are not the nominations themselves. What I take issue with are the facts that he

• is unwilling to discuss any other solution but deletion (despite WP:AFD clearly listing half a dozen other possible outcomes), and
• just doesn't let go.

Nominating something over notability concerns is one thing. Insisting on deletion over all other options, continuing to fight for deletion even after a decision was made, and immediately trying to get rid of a page through non-deletion measures after deletion was rejected, is an entirely different thing.

Once more, since I know this will be his first argument when he sees this: I am not making any statements about the notability of the pages in question, or his right to nominate pages for deletion. I purely take issue with his unwillingness to consider other options, his relentlessness despite official decisions having been made, and, ultimately, also with the new tone he's putting on now that he wants to merge the page away - "I'll give you until next month to find more sources so it passes our guidelines, otherwise it will have to be merged or deleted" sounds almost like he considers himself an admin of sorts, and entirely ignores the fact that it has just been decided that that exact page will be kept.

As such, I am here today to request assistance with this situation from the community at large. Independent from all notability concerns, Otterathome's behavior is more than questionable and directly interfering with our efforts to provide an encyclopedic overview of the LG15 franchise.

Thank you for your time.

~ Renegade - 80.171.27.157 (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Renegade. You have chosen the correct place to raise your Alert. Other members of the WP:WQA community will comment in the near future.

I have had a quick look at the articles you have mentioned, and looked closely at your criticisms of Otterathome. You support the Lonelygirl15 series and are attempting to retain them and improve them. Otterathome is perusing them with a critical eye and being the Devil’s advocate. He is displaying a different disposition to you but I see nothing to indicate his behaviour is outside the bounds that are acceptable within Misplaced Pages.

Whenever an article is nominated for deletion there will be Users who argue in favour of keeping the article, Users who argue in favour of deletion, and others who argue in favour of a compromise such as improve, merge, or re-direct. It is in Misplaced Pages’s interests that Users argue thoughtfully and vigorously for whichever outcome they believe in the most strongly. We shouldn’t take it personally when a User argues vigorously in favour of deletion of an article that we have helped create – that is what is expected of Users who take on the thankless task of nominating articles for deletion.

If any User acts outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour, that behaviour can be challenged. Acceptable and unacceptable behaviours are defined in such articles as WP:Civility, WP:3RR and WP:AGF. If you believe Otterathome has behaved in breach of one of Misplaced Pages's rules, feel free to provide details here. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

My advice to Otterathome is, if you find it impossible to deal with the kid stuff calmly and patiently, just stay away from it. Nobody reads it except kids anyway, and it keeps them away from more important articles until they mature a bit. Kids have a very skewed view of notability, but getting into holy wars about it is just a waste of time. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

While I was not trying to turn this into a hunt for violated policies, but more a discussion of his behavior in general, I do believe he broke the rules you linked in the following ways:

• Consensus: He clearly ignored consensus by flagging a page for merging a mere week after it was decided to be kept, and threatening to have it deleted anyway. In fact, apart from finally having to acknowledge merging as an option now, his posts on the talk page now sound exactly like his posts in the deletion discussions. It looks like he simply doesn't accept it's over.
• Co-operation: As I laid out above, he simply didn't even acknowledge any option other than deletion, ignoring any attempt to discuss merging with him, and, instead of commenting on the proposed merging structure, he ignored the factual bit of that discussion and instead tried to discredit a supporter of it. That can hardly be described as "reasonably cooperative".
• Civility: As already alluded to above, imo, he engaged in acts of incivility in a variety of ways:
  • Trying to put in doubt the validity of people's opinions, by conveniently placing blind vote allegations and "no or few contribution" warnings right as the discussion started to take a direction he didn't approve of.
  • Deliberately misrepresenting, if not outright lying about User:Milowent's supposed connections to the production company, in a cheap attempt to disqualify him from the discussion.
  • As well as engaging in a generally hostile and dismissive attitude towards anyone arguing against deletion, culminating in his previously quoted line " I'll give you until next month to find more sources so it passes our guidelines, otherwise it will have to be merged or deleted, I don't mind which.", which, independent from its general tone, also clearly violates WP:CIVIL's provisions to treat all editors as equals - who is he to set us ultimatums, especially after it was just decided that the page would be kept?

In addition, his constant attempts to try to invalidate new users' opinions by placing the vote warnings, tagging Byronwrites as having no other contributions, etc. are surely not a sign of assuming good faith. (As well as, I believe, a violation of WP:NEWBIES.)

As I said before, I do explicitly not question his right to nominate these articles or to argue for their deletion. But for one, there is a vast difference between arguing for deletion, and trying to discredit every user arguing for the opposite, and for two, a decision has been made. It's over. The AfD ended, the decision was to keep, and yet, he's still on the talk page telling people the page needs to go away.

That is not part of the deletion process anymore, and, as such, cannot be explained as expected of users who do the nominations.

Thank you for opinion :)

~ Renegade - 80.171.53.79 (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I wanted to note that Otterathome has now nominated Jackson Davis for deletion again, just 16 days after the prior AfD closed. Here's the new deletion discussion where I noted this in more detail. --Milowent (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to add my two-cents to this discussion. I have been dealing with Otterathome in the third deletion review for Jackson Davis. If you read my edits there, I have largely been debating policy with him, as opposed to his actions, but I do feel his actions need to be addressed, so I am bringing them here.

Otter seems to have a personal vendetta against the web series genre, but no real knowledge of it. see quote: "It doesn't state anything about webshows, but I don't know if any of them are "commercially produced or significant" because they have so few sources.", see his entire argument here about WP:ENT, and this entire post.

He discredits sources without knowing enough about the sources as well. For instance, in this diff, he states that the two actors Jackson appeared on an interview with were not notable, without bothering to learn about the people first. He also continues to insist that a show is a "non-notable web show" even after citation showing otherwise had been added to the page.

Although WP:DEADLINE is not an official rule, it is a general guideline, which he does not follow. See diff - "7 days is long enough seeing as closing statement at DRV suggested to relist it There has been plenty of time for editors to improve the article, I nominated it at the start of August, nearly a whole month." He also seems to misunderstand WP:NOTAGAIN, which he cites over and over to defend his actions. diff, diff2, diff3, etc etc.

WP:NOTAGAIN states that "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." Therefore, his continual use of citing NOTAGAIN to justify his actions are not accurate (for my full point, see here). Whenever this is pointed out to him he ignores it. This demonstrates an attempt to game the system and wikilawyering. Another example of gaming the system appears when he tries to argue for using WP:BAND as a guideline for a source for Jackson Davis (an actor), while taking the context of the guideline totally out of context.

He also uses tactics to discredit the other voters in the discussion, such as adding the notavote template (diff) when things are not going his way, declaring a user to be an SpA voter when they disagree with him (which fails WP:NEWBIES), and adding the puffery template to the article when the AfD was not going his way. (See my reply to that in full here.)

He also does not show civility when dealing with other users in the debate, calling another user's post a "long rant", told a user "when you stop failing WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL and stop criticizing Misplaced Pages itself", telling a user "Why do you keep repeating yourself? I don't think you know what consensus means.", saying "Wow Zoeydahling you sure know your stuff." in a clearly sarcastic manner, and tells a user who simply voices their opinion "You've basically just repeated everything that has already been said so have contributed nothing new.", thereby simply dismissing that user's opinions without any real reason to.

He tells a user to WP:AGF, but clearly shows WP:IRONY in doing so, as his actions linked throughout this post demonstrate that he does not, in fact, show good faith. The policy explicitly states "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." (emphasis added) I believe I have demonstrated throughout this post that he does not, in fact, show good faith in dealing with editors and is once again trying to game the system and wikilaywer, as he is misrepresenting policy and attempting to discredit any users who call him out on his behavior by simply citing the policy (without understanding its underlying theme, that you should assume good faith until it is proven otherwise).

I would also like to point out diffs like these: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 which further clarify my point from the words of other editors.

In conclusion, I would very much appreciate if Otterathome's behavior could be addressed, and perhaps he could even be discouraged (if not outright banned) from editing articles on the web series genre which he clearly knows nothing about and cannot edit in a calm and rational manner. Additionally, I would like to note that this post just addresses his behavior on the Jackson Davis AfD, as his behavior on the LG15: The Last deletion/merge was already addressed above. However, I believe that information also demonstrates the same principles I have just addressed.

Thank you very much for your time.

--Zoeydahling (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Mere hours after the Jackson Davis AfD was closed as keep, Otterathome has decided to go after another Lonelygirl15-related article Mesh Flinders (AfD). It is pretty clear that he is determined to rid the Wiki of any LG15-related content in any way he can and will not get over it, let go, or just drop it. He appears to be guilty of tendentious editing (not having a neutral point of view when it comes to such articles). Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Abductive

I thought the matter of User:Abductive not assuming good faith with me had been dealt with at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Another personal attack on an AFD and when another editor reproached him here , but now there has been another attack from him here , and I think this is the best forum to discuss it.

Both examples represent incivility and bad faith in assuming that an editor has ulterior motives. Both are an attack on my good standing as an editor who does his best to follow WP rules. I think Abductive should try to concentrate more on the issues at hand and not other editors possible motivations. Johnfos (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything particularly wrong with that edit... or the original edit you complained about either, for that matter. It looks like you are choosing to read every comment in the worst possible light and running off to complain about it. The underlying issue is that he has legitimate complaints about your behavior not following Misplaced Pages policies. If you don't want him to point out your bad behavior, stop the bad behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlike you , I've never been blocked so my behaviour can't be that bad. Johnfos (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jusdafax

I am getting sick of this. Because I am open with my political positions (though I've changed it since this whole thing began) and b/c he doesn't agree with my edits (though several other users have) Jusdafax has taken it upon himself to launch a crusade to make sure that everyone knows he thinks I have a right-wing agenda and it has grown rather annoying: , , , , , , , and . I have been patient and hoped the fact that others (two liberals mind you) were agreeing with me would halt the baseless accusation, yet they continue. I ask that Jusdafax please stop this so we can get back to WP:CIVIL editing. Soxwon (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I too am getting sick of this. Interestingly, Soxwon states he has now decided his proclaimed conservatism no longer serves his editing at Karl Rove and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/VoteToImpeach, where I am not alone in my interest in his previously stated politics. He has used every tactic in the book to try to intimidate me, including a message I quote in full:

If you have a problem with me being up front with how I stand then discuss it with me, don't go following me about trying to frame me as some sort of right-wing demagogue. You have concerns about the environment and San Fran on your userpage, yet you don't see me going around calling you a hippie Californian Green peace nutjob now do you? Soxwon (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, this message, from my perspective, is disingenuous in its contention he is not insulting me by "not" saying I'm "a hippie Californian Green peace nutjob". It seems to me Soxwon's message is meant to be intimidating, with a veneer of plausible denial. Tellingly, he does not see fit to include his message to me in his bill of particulars here. I have never used the tactic of attacking people on their personal page on anyone in Misplaced Pages, nor shall I. Yet, breathtakingly, Soxwon has brought the issue of Wikiquette to this forum, the same day he leaves his uncivil comment. This shows a confidence that astonishes me.

Soxwon appears to me to be highly agenda-driven on the Karl Rove page, which is why I took a look at his both his user page and his edits. The latter led me to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/VoteToImpeach where I found114.161.253.11 (talk) complaining about his actions in much the same way I did. To quote: "I have to question Soxwon's motives for deletion, in light of the information on his user page stating: "I'm a right-wing capitalist, and for the most part conservative." Is this proposed deletion politically motivated?"

"Truth offends worse than fiction", as the saying goes. Today's actions at the page VoteToImpeach, in my opinion, speak for themselves. In itself, the page is not that important. As a test case, I looked into Soxwon's claims that the article should be deleted because it can't be referenced. Despite my coming up with seven in a few hours of part-time effort, it appears Soxwon has now decided he doesn't like the references, or more likely, the subject of a notable Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, and his website to impeach George Bush. Clark is additionally notable for defending Saddam Hussein at his trial. Is it really such a stretch to see that this person (Clark) and subject (voteToImpeach), to put it mildly, are almost certainly not going to be to a self-described "right-wing", "mostly-conservative" editor's liking?

Since the subject of Soxwon's recent history of a request for deletion (in my view, in this case, censorship) goes to the heart of his editing at the Karl Rove page, I placed a notice on the Karl Rove talk page asking for a discussion of what I see as his overall right-wing bias. Soxwon, true to form, instantly deleted it. I undid it, and gave my reasons. His response: delete, and call me a vandal. He understandably does not want broader attention called to his actions.

To conclude: This issue goes beyond mere Wikiquette and to the heart of how an on-line encyclopaedia should be edited. The Karl Rove page is one of a number of hotspots in Misplaced Pages. It goes without saying that many people who go online for history go to Misplaced Pages first. I contend that the issue at stake beyond who 'wins' this particular point.

What this is all really about is who gets the self-proclaimed right (to quote another of Soxwon's attempts at intimidation again on today's VoteToImpeach deletion page discussion, "...you're now outvoted and by two far more experienced editors.") to censor history his way using various tactics including making me out to be uncivil and 'punish' me - all for speaking in a forthright manner regarding him, and my deep concerns about an admitted "right-winger" editing with an agenda.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. Jusdafax (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I presume I am one of the "liberals" that Soxwon refers to. I disagree with Jusdafax's characterisation of Soxwon's behaviour on the Karl Rove page. Soxwon has been interested in reaching consensus, to the extent of going out of his/her way to find sources for material s/he had originally wanted omitted. In mitigation of Jusdafax's actions, we have had a problem with a very disruptive, wikilawyering POV pusher on that page (now blocked), and fuses have been shortened accordingly, especially in the attempt to clear up the damage the blocked user left behind. It does not help that the Rove article (by general consensus) was, before all this, messed up with weaselly words and a lot of unsourced allegations, some of which are actually sourceable, and some of which are not. Rove is a divisive figure, and wikipedia is not immune from this. I think Jusdafax needs to assume good faith, not pre-judge, and listen to when third parties ask him to be more civil.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to BaseballBugs and Wikidemon at the deletion page. I know how they stand and wouldn't characterize you as I don't know you well :). Also the "references" of which Jusdafax speaks are (and this is true): a myspace page, a press release/promotion by Ramsey, a mocking Weekly Standard piece, a democracynow page, a counterpunch editorial by one of the co-authors for The Case for Impeachment of Bush and Cheney, a link to the cite in the SFBG, and a blurb in a local paper in article paper about Ramsey. Soxwon (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jusdafax, you really appear to be judging edits based on what you feel are the political positions of the editor. We're here to comment on edits, not editors. If you disagree with Soxwon (or any other editor), I'd strongly suggest addressing their edits with calm, logical points, rather than just trying to dismiss them as "agenda-driven." That kind of argument really won't get far around here. Dayewalker (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have found SoxWon to be a fair and reasonable editor, who occasionally comes to me for advice, and I try to give a fair answer. If he were agenda-driven, I don't think he would bother asking a self-styled liberal for advice. I think Just The Facts is upset over the article being nominated for deletion and is striking back in whatever way he can. But there is growing consensus that the article does not stand well on its own and would be better situated as simply a line or two in the Clark article. Baseball Bugs carrots 05:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Vsevolod, Dayewalker and Baseball Bugs on this. Jusdafax has been responding inappropriately and not assuming good faith vis a vis Soxwon. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur in what's been said. This is the comment that really jumped out at me - leaving messages on someone's talk page is "intimidating" them? A talk page message isn't talking to someone "openly"? (A user's talk page is no less a public venue than an article talk page, after all.) Then going through the other difs, all one sees is accusations of POV pushing and a kind of reverse censorship bleat (usually we get "I'm being censored"; here we're getting "he's censoring," but it's the same phenomenon). The diaphanous response by Jusdafax above confirms the conclusion that this is a pretty clear-cut case of one editor (Jusdafax) getting his panties in a bunch over the existence of an editor with a contrary point of view (SoxWon). That kind of parochial "lives in SanFran and commutes to HuffPo" insularity is unfortunate, and here we see it being used to justify incivility and harassment toward SoxWon. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, no ad hominems Simon, particularly not political ones.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov: look up the meaning of ad hominem. It means "to the man." That means a personal attack. So your, "Please no ad hominems Simon, particularly not political ones." makes no sense. When you lift material from others, make sure you understand what you're lifting. But hey, glad you like my term.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I must add to the Justafax complaints. He's accused me of being a sock puppet, he's called me a joke, he went to my talk page and lifted material I had deleted and pasted it on the Karl Rove talk page. He's angry, inappropriate, insensitive to the needs of others, and seems to think only his opinion matters. Along with his friend VsevolodKrolikov, who both seem so like minded, he is edit warring material on the Karl Rove page that has been well cited and researched to fit his agenda. Whoever can do something about this, please do it ASAP. Many thanksMalke 2010 (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is a threat to my person (direct or implied) and would like to know if I am correct.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:GabrielVelasquez&diff=311788222&oldid=311757130
not that I am afraid of User:BatteryIncluded but i don't see that this kind of behavior should accepted.
The context is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:BatteryIncluded&diff=311784400&oldid=311202540
Copied from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Space_and_survival&diff=311778738&oldid=311764686
Thank you for your consideration. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are over reacting to the posting "Chronic disruption at its best. I think you deserve the Karma heading your way." It is critical and obscurely incivil. It is no threat to your person, direct or implied. So your belief is incorrect. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a threat, and probably not even uncivil. I note there is a WQA report about you directly above - some of your comments there were uncivil. Unfortunately, this WQA report will only be seen in the light of the report above, and may lead to the conclusion that you are attempting to make a point and/or game the system. My advise is to keep a cool head and close this WQA. --HighKing (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, imo this is just misunderstood. I get where you're coming from, but it's not a threat. GrooveDog (oh hai.) 19:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Per HighKing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Troublemaker1949

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

User:Troublemaker1949 has been engaging in disruptive behaviour at an AfD for an article they created Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zane Carpenter and are fully in breach of WP:CIVIL and WP: NPA. Also been hassloing the nominator here: GainLine ♠ _♥ 15:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have given him a final warning on this and reverted his most recent edits to the AFD. I will keep an eye on this user/this AFD. either way (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

He continued so I blocked him for a week for his incivility and desire to disrupt the AFD process. either way (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Abusive warning by ex-Admin impedding progress just to be that way and boost his ego.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I had attempted to avert another indecent where Misplaced Pages was misquoted to people
"Thessaloniki is the Capital of the Republic of Macedonia" with this edit.
This edit was reverted and changed and mocked and reduce and finally made invisible by an abusive Admin's perverse mockery.
I had to press for this to be added and and this arrogant Admin just could not be wrong.
Later when trying to solve this I had reverted the vandalism when I noticed "Capital of Macedonia" redirected to "Adolf Hitler,"
and changed it to "Thessaloniki" and I thought with this the problem solved.

Then this Admin deceptively changes redirect so that he/she can revert (nearly waring with me) a related edit and say
"(no, "Capital of Macedonia" does not redirect here. Why would it?)," a clear LIE.
I consder this warning the last straw in a series of bad faith edits (read Abuses) by this administrator.
Oh, in the end after I mention bring it up here he does the right thing so as not to look bad and says "maybe I'll be politically correct today."
Turns out he isn't a real admin, and his threats to block me is another falsehood.
I must say I can image why this one was dropped as an admin if that's the case.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: I already mentioned this incident over at WP:ANI#User:GabrielVelasquez at Thessaloniki. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Perhaps someone should add this to the other abuses here: - the guy obviously likes to cause trouble with editors, especially in the Greek areas, and the remedies are obviously not enough. - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Xellas Posting Uncivil Personal Attacks

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

User:Xellas is personally attacked my character and integrity in Momusufan's talk page because of what I wrote in Location hypotheses of Atlantis. They include innuendo and speculation falsely implying that I either support Robert Sarmast, I am Robert Sarmast, or have some vendetta against him. Also, he or she falsely claimed that my contributions contain "details" that "Sarmast never spoke or published anything to". Presumably, this falsehood is evidence of his spurious allegation that I am either conspiring with Sarmast or actually am Sarmast. In addition, concerning the Location hypotheses of Atlantis, he or she stated:

Have you seen any other theory to be debunked in here? Of course not!!

Here he falsely implies that the only editing that I have done on this article has been on its Cyprus section. Given that I have edited and contributed text to sections of Location hypotheses of Atlantis about Antarctica, Azores, Canary Islands, and Sundaland. his statement "Of course not!!" is completely false. As a review of my posting history shows, I was editing and contributing to Misplaced Pages articles long before I did any editing of Location hypotheses of Atlantis. His or her comments about me clearly violate Wikiquette. He or she needs to cease posting these fraudulent and uncivil allegations and retract the fictional claims and allegations that have been posted so far.

Recent discussion about User:Xellas and the Location hypotheses of Atlantis article can be found at User talk:Xellas Paul H. (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provde precise diffs rather than pointing to entire Talk pages? --HighKing (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have started a section about the article in question at WP:FTN#Location hypotheses of Atlantis. Looie496 (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The comments that I am referring to are currently the bottom paragraphs by Xellas of the section, Regarding the vandalsim of Location of atlantis, which is currently at the bottom of the Momusufan's talk page. Instances of the false accusations of being someone, whom I am not are:

No geologist would spent his time with a failure like sarmast unless is Robert himself or knows him very well and either a conflict or sympathizes with his work.

and

Ok Paul? Or Should I say ok Sarmast.

In the above statements, Xellas is falsely implying that I am someone, whom I am not, and have hidden agendas that I do not have. In order to support these claims, he or she falsely claimed:

How come you know his work in details when Sarmast never spoke or published anything to that extend?

The material that I contributed to Location hypotheses of Atlantis contains only information that I found on either his book, his website, or a web site about the The Urantia Book to which Sarmast contributed articles (and found using Google). Xellas' claim that I have inside knowledge of Sarmast's ideas is an absolute falsehood.

Overall, his or her comments focus mainly on attacking me and my motives for contributing to Location hypotheses of Atlantis, which uncivil behavior on his or her part. Paul H. (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Hi Paul. This is weird as you so obviously disagree with Sarmast, who is an editor on here - he's emailed me saying who he is and doesn't seem to be keeping it a secret, but he hasn't edited in quite a while. I told Xellas you weren't Sarmast. This is a bungled attempt at outing by the way, perhaps another Admin can step in and help here? I don't think it would be appropriate for me to take action. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Raised at ANI, Xellas given a warning by another editor. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

personal attacks cont

Hi - I noticed that my posting got archived without there ever being a resolution (here: Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts/archive71#personal attacks, accusations presuming bad faith)... Should I repost anything; is it still ongoing or has it been dropped on the floor? Luminifer (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

WQA, as a voluntary process for everybody concerned, frequently ends without a resolution. If you feel that unacceptable behavior is continuing, the next step is to escalate, either to an RFCU or, if you feel that immediate admin intervention is called for, to WP:ANI. Generally speaking a WQA is treated as a "warning", and you're not likely to be able to get any action unless you can show that bad behavior has continued after the "warning". Looie496 (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification! Luminifer (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User: ChildofMidnight - uncivil editing behavior

User:ChildofMidnight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

has recently been creating an uncivil editing environment at the Barney Frank article. This behavior includes edit warring, belittling other editors' content in edit summaries, and repeated insertion of content despite requests to allow the relevant discussion on the article's talk page to take place.

I started to become more involved in the article after I saw that User:ChildofMidnight may have been engaging in edit warring by repeatedly attempting to insert a particular piece of information, despite objections from another editor , , , . Between the third and fourth attempt to insert, I posted a comment on his talk page

"Please also understand that the WP:BLP policy applies to the entire article, not just those sentences that refer to Barney Frank directly. Also, your argument that it is 'well sourced' does not trump BLP policies"

At this point, I performed my first and only revert ever of this disputed content , stating WP:UNDUE as my reason in the edit summary. Before my revert, rougly one third of the "early life" section of the article was about Frank's father's connection to organized crime. Shortly thereafter, I joined a discussion on his talk page, in which he followed my above comment with

"...So you guys should cut out the bullshit and false accusations because that's a blockable offense..."

Administrator User:Chillum intervened, and agknowledged that both sides of the argument were legitemate, and suggested that we discuss the disputed content on Talk:Barney Frank. I then went and created this section on the talk page, where I and several other editors are discussing the addition of this content. This morning, ChildofMidnight made this edit, with the summary

"if we can't have accurate encyclopedic statements then there's no room for this bullshit puffery in the opening paragraphs"

and then proceeded to insert the information he attempted to add before for a fifth time . I now see that very shorly before I created the talk page section, ChildofMidnight created one as well, where he says that

"For some reason a couple of editors are going ballistic over Frank's well sourced statement that his father was involved with the mafia. What's the big deal?"

The editor that ChildofMidnight was going back and forth with before I became a part of the situation is User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. I think that if this behavior continues, people are going to get baited, and it will be extremely difficult to work on the article. MichaelLNorth (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This noticeboard is basically an informal way of intervening with editors who may not be aware that their behavior is problematic. CoM doesn't fit that description: he's been the subject of numerous WQA and ANI threads, and he has been topic-banned from Obama articles. So this report isn't going to accomplish anything -- if the behavior is unacceptable from an experienced editor, report it at ANI. Looie496 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I've been dragged to these boards numerous times by various POV pushing fuckwits posting lies, distortions and other nonsense after coming after me because they disagree with the way I edited something. Once or twice a dimwitted admin, unable to comprehend the simplest of situations, even blocks me. It does get old after a while. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah well there you go. CoM just won't listen. As L said, this venue isn't enough. Read up WP:DR; RFC is probably your next step William M. Connolley (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: a need for further action also arose here: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_ChildofMidnight. In view of CoM's response above, it's hard to imagine a constructive outcome from a WP:RFC/U ("An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information."); but it could collect information for appropriate sanction. However where an editor has a history such as this and a constructive outcome is wildly improbable, ANI might serve better. Rd232 09:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution