Revision as of 21:49, 21 March 2011

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

Talk:Big Ten Conference#Which new logo version?

• Eightball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Big Ten Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Eightball made two personal attacks on User:Levdr1 at Talk:Big Ten Conference#Which new logo version?. –CWenger (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that these comments (see below) by User:Eightball qualify as personal attacks. I have left a message on his User Page asking him to consider striking these comments and amending his behavior.
  • "Levdr10 guy is an absolutely delusional moron"
  • "How stupid can you be?" -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Great message on your part, Keithbob. I was going to reiterate the message to them, but I noticed that, unfortunately, they've already responded with yet another personal attack. I decided to leave them a warning because apparently they're not getting it. Swarm 08:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Good follow up, thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Comment I've responded in their Talk page after having done some research and discovered that both 'sides' were accurate in stating that the logo each of them was defending is current. I agree with the other editors here who find the lack of civility unacceptable, and hopefully those who responded poorly will take a lesson from this moment that just because you're right, doesn't mean the other guy can't be right also. -- Avanu (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
          • • Funny, in spite of all these personal attacks both users were right all along. I think I've taken a lesson out of this myself. Thanks for that followup. Regards, Swarm 10:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

user:Bzuk and the removal of citation templates

• Bzuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Many articles this is recent from High Speed Flight RAF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and this is an example from BAC TSR-2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bzuk is a well-regarded editor known mostly for his contributions to aircraft articles. However there is a long-running dispute between him and myself and some other editors. This is going nowhere and I'd appreciate additional input.

The issue revolves around the {{citation}} templates. I use these, I use them when adding new references, I use them when re-working older references. Bzuk does not use them - to the point of making a great number of edits whose only point is to remove them. These are usually labelled as "cleanup" and are often performed immediately after another editor has expanded an article with appropriately formatted refs. Apart from the virtues or otherwise of any particular format, this sort of edit is of itself disruptive and usually perceived by the initial editor as being a critical dismissal of their work.

When questioned, the response ranges from being ignored or the cryptically terse to the overly effusive to the point of WP:TLDR.

Their justification is a stylistic one, based on their previous vast experience as a librarian, and the fact that we poor fools at Misplaced Pages are just doing it (citation formatting) all wrong. I see three problems with this view:

• If there is a problem with the output of the citation templates, then the place to fix that is at template_talk:Citation where a better template can be produced, with a smarter output. I have a lot of sympathy for this view.
• I am not personally a librarian (and thus my opinion evidently counts for nothing), but I am a professional and published authority on the handling of metadata within the library and museum context. I am also a software engineer of considerable professional experience. Uniting these two areas involves techniques like the citation templates. They offer two advantages. The first is that their output is flexible, even in the future. If we markup a source page with wikicode to call a template using identified property values, then we can change the future formatting of this, and many pages, however we might wish, without needing to re-visit the many pages that used it. This is an important technique for abstracting a data model (the template parameters as separate properties) away from a formatted presentation. Secondly, we may (I hope) wish to expand the semantic web capabilities of WP in the future, to better support projects such as DBpedia. Such projects benefit hugely from embedded semantic publishing, the output formatting of content in ways, usually hidden, so as to make it machine-processable by further agents. Rather than just an italic-formatted string of Flight (which a few humans might infer to be a journal title), we can make this a structured property such as Flight, where it refers to a taxon within an controlled vocabulary - a strong machine link to this being a journal, and it being a particular journal, not just another publication of the same name. By using such techniques early, we build a content repository that can easily support new processing and access techniques in the future.
• It's just rude. No-one likes to work on an article, to add those all-important references, to spend extra effort in structuring them carefully, only to have them immediately stomped by another editor and their implied structure thrown away. Particularly not when this edit is labelled as "Cleanup". I for one no longer contribute to aviation articles, simply because I don't appreciate my work being discarded in this manner by this one editor.

I don't believe I'm the only editor seeing this behaviour as a problem either. See & . I particularly like Bzuk's comment, "When the referencing style is already in place, it is contingent on new editors to either follow the proscribed style or explain clearly why changes are to be made. ", a viewpoint which his own edits show absolutely no regard for whatsoever. Also & and & , , and even .

On a related note, it seems that this editor is now going to lecture us on why WP's use of alt text should be removed too

That's a non-issue as I have been persuaded that there is a need for the notes for vision-challenged users; my concern was with the style of writing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC).

I'm sorry to raise this issue with someone who is clearly such a valuable editor, but enough's enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

See my response to Andy Dingley on his talk page on numerous occasions, which I believe stems from his rewriting all the original citations on the Supermarine S.6B article into his preferred style of templates. However, the rewriting introduced new errors and going back in the article history, I noted that cite templates were not standardized. When there are many errors, it is sometimes easier to rewrite the data in text rather than wrestling with the malformed templates.

In a few words, the issues are:

1. Useage in Misplaced Pages is highly influenced by the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome.
2. Cite templates are presently incorrectly formatted and have "bugs" that were never addressed properly by their designers. despite many efforts to re-draw the templates, they are still rampant with errors in format. I can actually re-write the templates, but it takes so much time and effort, that I finally have abandoned that practice.
3. Cite templates were intended for neophytes and casual users (certainly not someone like you who is attempting to make a difference!) to have a bibliographic and referencing tool that would make references available.
4. Cite templates were written in the simplified American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide that was intended for short-cut editing and does not allow for multiple authors, changes in publication date/location or non-print media.
5. Cite templates were never recommended, nor approved for use in Misplaced Pages, but were offered as an alternative means of referencing.
6. Once a referencing style is in use and accepted as it was in this article, it is contingent on all other editors to maintain and follow that style guide consistently. It is a difficult thing to "mix" style guides for editing purposes and it is recommenced to establish a style guide, which was done and stick with it, unless there is an overwhelming reason to change to another style.
7. The old canard that cite templates produced meta data that would be somehow in the future, melted into the templating systems to come, is long discarded.

Item 1 Explanation: The "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome is derived from computer nerds who soon realized that if your data is flawed, no matter how you manipulate it, it comes out flawed. It's a precept of Misplaced Pages that any and every one can edit so it also follows the adage of "too many cooks..." Basically, having numerous editors working on an article can actually create a negative result, much in the way of a committee product, although with judicious review, a levelling can take place in terms of style, grammar and syntax. The citation templates are still a mess, but there have been "patches" placed over nearly all of them. I have tried for years to get the designers to rewrite the templates to no avail, so if you continue to use a template system, you will have to learn how to manipulate the template parameters and unless you have a background in cataloging or reference librarianship, it may be too daunting a task. Nevertheless, I can teach anyone how to cite in MLA or even APA, Chicago or other referencing styles that eliminates all the malformed template errors.

Item 7 Explanation: The canard that you must have citation templates no matter how flawed they are, and all of them, to one degree or another, are malformed, was because editors were told that their meta data would be more easily manipulated by some miraculous future programed bot that would set about Wikiwonderland, standardizing everything. If you believe that, I do have some prime swampland in Florida for you to consider, or perhaps the Brooklyn Bridge may be to your liking. Not to be facetious, but there is no magic bot out there, just a whole bunch of semi-trained researchers/editors plinking about and since they have no training in cataloguing or reference systems, the best way for them to proceed is to use a "fill-in-the-blanks" template. Now, a full disclosure, I am not a Luddite, having been a reference Librarian for 30 years, and lately an author and editor at various publishing houses and film companies. I can use the templates, even in the form they presently appear, but they have to be adapted in order to accept second and third authors, publication data such as location and require a plethora of different citation templates for documents, news articles, media, books, and journals (periodicals). I have, along with many other experienced editors, simply ditched the messy template system entirely and write out the data in an clearly "scratch" cataloging/referencing system used for all citations, notes and bibliographical notations. FWiW, to allay any other concerns, I have been editing Wiki articles since 2006, and have countless articles accepted as FA and GA articles, without any of the citation templates that reviewers seem so intent on preserving.

In articles that Andy seems to have ownership, such as the RAF High Speed Flight, I have typically done a preliminary "cleanup" of just the references, but so many errors existed that I was loathe to spend three hours re-writing citation and bibliographic templates that are so messed up, I would dump the whole mess and start all over with the correct formatting. I do try to explain why editing changes occur as there appears to be non-standard editing and stylistic issues that have to be addressed. Do not hesitate in asking for the reasoning for an alteration.

Now, for the comment that I rewrite all citation templates arbitrarily, that flies in the evidence of numerous articles where the templates are properly formatted and left that way, see Bill Waterton, an article I recently spent some time researching; you will note that templates and "scratch" cataloging exist side-by-side. Numerous other articles are left alone; the Boeing 777 is a particularly egregious example of an editor overwriting perfectly good references with templates. I backed off when I saw what was happening, but this editing phenomenom is all too familiar. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC).

If you're going to accuse me of both WP:OWNership of an article, and also for changing all of its references to use templates, please check your facts. My only edits to Supermarine S.6 are this diff. I've never even read 777 and my only changes to Bill Waterton were a typo and a wl.

I do recognise that the irritation of having formats bulk-changed arbitrarily from one form to another. I think the templates are better, but if our agreement is generally to maintain the status quo, then I agree to abide by this, in the larger interests of collaborative editing. This is not a courtesy that Bzuk seems willing to extend.

As to the point by point issues, then I still remain unconvinced by them

1. Useage in Misplaced Pages is highly influenced by the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome.

This applies to either method equally. So we fix the garbage, same as we fix other problems. It's also generally easier to manipulate data as bare properties rather than as formatted output.

2. Cite templates are presently incorrectly formatted and have "bugs" that were never addressed properly by their designers. despite many efforts to re-draw the templates, they are still rampant with errors in format. I can actually re-write the templates, but it takes so much time and effort, that I finally have abandoned that practice.

So we fix the bugs. It'll probably take longer to identify and characterise them than it would to do the coding changes.

3. Cite templates were intended for neophytes and casual users (certainly not someone like you who is attempting to make a difference!) to have a bibliographic and referencing tool that would make references available.

So what are you suggesting here? We exclude the casual users from editing? Are you looking to restrict WP editing to only time-served librarians? WP editors are, on average, average. We not only need to have mechanisms that work in the best cases, but also ones that work for average users of average skill.

4. Cite templates were written in the simplified American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide that was intended for short-cut editing and does not allow for multiple authors, changes in publication date/location or non-print media.

As I've always acknowledged, your have more familiarity with the vagaries of styling. Yet it's a simple matter to make a template support multiple, switchable formats. Besides which, there already is support for multiple authors.

5. Cite templates were never recommended, nor approved for use in Misplaced Pages, but were offered as an alternative means of referencing.

I just don't know what you mean by, "nor approved for use in Misplaced Pages". {{cn}}}, to coin a phrase.

6. Once a referencing style is in use and accepted as it was in this article, it is contingent on all other editors to maintain and follow that style guide consistently. It is a difficult thing to "mix" style guides for editing purposes and it is recommenced to establish a style guide, which was done and stick with it, unless there is an overwhelming reason to change to another style.

What do you mean by a "referencing style"? The finished output formatting in the HTML, or the method used in the wikicode to achieve it? There is an obvious benefit to the reader (readers, remember them - they're the only reason why we're here) in the final result being consistent. However any benefit from the wikicode used to achieve this is only of very marginal benefit, to editors alone, to those editors working on multiple refs within the article. A competent mapping from input properties to formatted output means that different routes will anyway give the same result.

I'm aware of style guides to keep the output consistent between refs, and advice to keep the wikicode and method consistent over time (to avoid ping-pong editing). However I know of nothing that requires consistent techniques across the wikicode within the article, nor any strong reason to do so.

7. The old canard that cite templates produced meta data that would be somehow in the future, melted into the templating systems to come, is long discarded.

The point is that it's never discarded, we can simply do it tomorrow. We retain future flexibility by using the templates.

Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

My contention remains, I change the referencing style to correct errors; I retain templates if they are properly formed, but if there are errors, it is easier to rewrite the entire "string" then reformat the code in the templates. I have tried in vain to have the templates modified, and was basically told, "if you don't like them, don't use them..." which still leaves multiple bugs inherent such as multiple authors, which do not follow the second author standard. FWiW, the output remains inconsistent when authors, publishers, dates, and other data is not consistent with the body of the article. Some like templates, others can abide them and some editors replace them if there is a better system. Check Supermarine S.6B for the first of our disagreements. Bzuk (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC).

What do you mean by "errors"? As I see these changes, they're less "errors" and more a use of APA rather than your favoured style. Yet per WP:CITEHOW, APA(and a few other) styles are acceptable. You might not like this, you might not choose to use it, you might even change some to achieve consistency through an article, but that doesn't make them errors. Your reaction to a format you simply don't like is excessive. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What I mean by errors in any style guide is often the notation of authors, use of primary and secondary titles, publisher's dates and locations, and ISBN/ISSN notes. When these are in error, that's the reason for changing the citation or bibliographic record. As to use of APA over MLA style guides, neither is actually the model for the citebook template but an amalgam of styles most closely resembling the APA style guide, but still with inherent errors. I can use the templates and can even modify them to output correctly, but if there is no overwhelming need to use a malformatted template, it is simply easier to write out the code parameters. FWiW, an a recent FA article, I answered an editor's call for assistance and he preferred the template style that he was employing. I used the templates but the amount of work was magnified compared to the usual written out style. Bzuk (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

Of any of these, what can't be added to the template? I've always agreed with you that the template is imperfect (I'd like to see finer-grained identification of sections), but there's no reason we can't just fix it and move on.

The main problem here is that it's not about your edits, it's about what the average joe is supposed to do. Maybe you (with the benefit of years of librarianship) can hand-craft the perfect reference. Now how is anyone else supposed to achieve these same heights? You are not only refusing to work on improving the templates to your standards, you're thus implying that everyone else's edits will be stuck at some lower standard, until you deign to visit personally and re-work the prolefodder. This elitism is not how a collaborative project is supposed to work. 23:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Bzuk's item 7 and commentary on it: Bzuk talks about automated use of metadata as if it were some kind of myth or dream for the future. There are already automated tools in use such as the citation bot. This is an extremely powerful and useful tool, which can fix formatting errors in references and load missing bibliographic information from external sources. --Srleffler (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

From Avanu: I've posted this on Bzuk's Talk, but I'll post it here as well to ensure better coverage.

I'm posting the following for your review to assist in understanding other editors on Misplaced Pages who are inserting what might appear at first glance to be repetitive or unnecessary 'alt' information into images and other items.

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (accessibility)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Alternative text for images, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Images, Misplaced Pages:Image use policy#Size 1.Images should include an alt attribute, even an empty one, that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users. If additional alt text is added it should be succinct, or should refer the reader to the caption or adjacent text: see WP:ALT for more information.

United States: Section 508 Laws

http://www.section508.gov/

In 1998, Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to require Federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology (EIT) accessible to people with disabilities. Inaccessible technology interferes with an ability to obtain and use information quickly and easily. Section 508 was enacted to eliminate barriers in information technology, open new opportunities for people with disabilities, and encourage development of technologies that will help achieve these goals.

http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?fuseAction=stdsdoc#Web

§ 1194.22 Web-based intranet and internet information and applications. (a) A text equivalent for every non-text element shall be provided (e.g., via "alt", "longdesc", or in element content).

Web Accessibility Initiative (a project of World Wide Web Consortium)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Web_Accessibility_Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI/

Modern Language Association (MLA) statements on accessibility

Guidelines for Institutional Support of and Access to IT for Faculty Members and Students http://www.mla.org/resources/documents/rep_it/it_support

"Technological innovations that permit persons with disabilities to conduct research and carry out other professional responsibilities effectively should be available. Institutions should be aware of and comply with federal regulations regarding accessibility."

Guidelines for Evaluating Work with Digital Media in the Modern Languages http://www.mla.org/resources/documents/rep_it/guidelines_evaluation_digital

"Stay Informed about Accessibility Issues. Search, reappointment, promotion, and tenure committees have a responsibility to comply with federal regulations and to become and remain informed of technological innovations that permit persons with disabilities to conduct research and carry out other professional responsibilities effectively."

-- Avanu (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

• Recommend block on the editor who brought this item. I think the problem is that Misplaced Pages has a significant population of editors who are obsessed with templates. The templates are opaque and largely unnecessary - the citation templates are a good example this. They make Misplaced Pages articles harder to edit, which presumably is the 'advantage'; they exclude non-cognoscenti. This item has been brought to cause difficulties for someone who appears fairly blameless, but does not go along with the template-obsessives. Would it be possible to have a 2 week block on the person who brought this item to Wikiquette alerts?--Toddy1 (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Personally I prefer using the templates for a variety of reasons however I also understand that some users do not like them which is fine. Users should not however be reformatting references to remove them from the templates or vice versa. There is no preference and to force it one way or the other is a bad practice and could be grounds for blocking. Some editors don't agree but some editors find using templates to be easier to use and it makes it much easier for applications and bots to determine if the citations contain or do not contain certin items, are on the article at all and a variety of other things. --Kumioko (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• I don't know if I am uninvolved, but I was not sure where else to comment. I've only had a brief exchange with Bzuk about citation templates. I use the templates in my edits, but it is more to plug reference details in so readers know where information comes from. I suppose my hope is that any formatting can be done in the template coding to rearrange the reference details for the best possible presentation. Might also be worth mentioning in the discussion to consider WP:CITEVAR. Some articles will have an obvious style, and some won't. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• It seems to me that the debate is largely a matter of style vs. substance. Templates allow automated tools like the citation bot to fill in bibliographic information and keep references up to date. They also allow style to be kept consistent between references and allow the style to be easily updated as needed. It's just a better, more functional, way to store bibliographic data. The objection to templates seems to be a matter of mere appearance. Somebody doesn't like the way the template output happens to look right now. To me, how the bibliographic entries look at the moment is mostly irrelevant. If the data is in a template, appearance can always be improved in the future. Stripping references out of templates and putting them in as text is actively harmful.

That said, the last time I looked the guideline was that references should be kept in a consistent form within each article. If an article already contains well-formatted text references, editors adding new references should stick to the same format rather than using templates. If an article uses templates, editors should continue to use them even if this is not their preference. I hate this; if it were up to me templates should be preferred over formatted text in all cases, with different sets of templates as needed to support different bibliographic formats. It's not up to me, though, so that isn't how it works.--Srleffler (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

But this magic bot also makes mistakes, the templates remain buggy and if major changes are required, it is easier to write out the information than change coding. FWiW. the places where I have substituted a written out style is when gross errors occur, and if all that is necessary is to correct errors, then the easiest method is the one I have employed. In other instances when templates are properly formatted or when primary authors prefer that style, then that is what is followed. Bzuk (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC).

Not assuming good faith and incivility by User:Mokele

• Mokele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User_talk:Gracefool#March_2011 (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Brief summary of the interactions in question:

• User:Gracefool made a few small edits to article Aquatic locomotion on 2011-03-13T05:32:40, diff. It does not appear that Gracefool had previously edited this article, nor did Gracefool have any history (to my knowledge) with the editor Mokele.
• User:Mokele responded by reverting the edits to the Aquatic locomotion article, then gave a one-time only (serious) Vandalism warning to User:Gracefool at 2011-03-13T15:18:34, diff. Mokele's edit included a threat to report (probably reasonable, if was really vandalism) as well as a putdown of the (presumed) belief system of the editor Gracefool (inappropriate civility, in my opinion)
• Gracefool responded on the Gracefool Talk page with a reasonably well-articulated defense of why the edits were not vandalism, requested non-presumption of ideological sensibilities, called out the attacking language, etc. on 2011-03-13T05:32:40, diff.
• Mokele responded on Gracefool's Talk page, diff, requesting that Gracefool "not make any such further edits regarding evolutionary topics." (a bit too far, in my opinion. It would seem to me that no editor should be asking other editors not to ask for citations on unsourced statements, or not to clarify prose, on a broad set of articles within Misplaced Pages).
• I (User:N2e) then commented on Gracefool's Talk page (diff), stating that "I find no vandalism at all in the edits of Gracefool in the subject article. Mokele should, indeed, assume good faith in initial interactions with other editors"; and
• I (N2e) placed a lightly worded caution on Mokele's Talk page (diff).
• Mokele deleted the comment from her/his Talk page (which is the user's right; I have no problem with that) and wrote a response to N2e in the edit summary that said "Don't care, not even slightly."

I find this lack of civility, and failure to assume good faith remarkable—which along with the editor's explicitly stated lack of concern for such personal incivility—worthy of bringing to the attention of this Wikiquette page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have no direct involvement, to my knowledge, on any of the mainspace pages where Mokele and Gracefool are interacting. And with one exception, have never interacted with either editor previously. (the exception was a month ago where I mistakenly and incorrectly placed a "Welcome-with-an-improperly-cited-material-caution" on Gracefool's Talk page that was meant for another user; when my mistake was pointed out, I agreed completely that the error was all mine. N2e (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at Mokele's contributions and personal Talk page to get a sense of his stance. One comment in particular stood out to me with regard to this situation. "Unfortunately, I don't get as much editing done as I used to, beyond fixing vandalism, but I periodically update important pages now and then. Mokele (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)"

It's possible that focusing specifically on potential vandalism is affecting the editor's point of view on non-malicious edits, creating a sort of battleground mentality. I can't speak for Moleke, and look forward to seeing his point of view represented, but for the time being, I get the impression that Moleke might play nicer if he would just WP:LIGHTENUP and have fun. -- Avanu (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an isolated incident that the Mokele was appropriately warned for. I don't think a WQA discussion is necessary. I will say that while their quick assumption of bad faith was inappropriate, it's perfectly understandable. Changing "did evolve" to "may have evolved" or "is believed to have evolved" is certainly controversial and questionable. This is better handled as a content dispute. Swarm 18:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to keep this brief, with a few key points.

Firstly, I've had no prior interaction with Gracefool, beyond an edit which is *identical* to several others I've encountered by creationist trolls. As such, I reverted and warned, and I'll admit I was harsher than probably necessary.

Second, I'll admit that axe-grinding vandalism (such as creationism) is particularly abhorent to me, and likely to garner a harsher response than is "nice". I try to remain at least marginally civil, but blatant stupidity such as creationism is sure to provoke harsh responses (hence why I avoid high-profile evolution articles).

Third, I also admit that my concern for others' feelings is minimal, at best. I'm used to a more academic setting, in which bad data or sloppy science is called as much without subtlety or concern, and frankly I hold that up as the ideal of discourse. However, I do acknowledge that most editors lack the ability to detach themselves so fully.

Fourth, the edit in question was undisputably disruptive, like editing Newton's second law to read "F is believed by some to equal M * A". Citation-needed tags are fine, but to introduce such ridiculous equivocation into matters of settled science is disruptive, unproductive, and verges on vandalism, axe-grinding, and weasel-words even if good-faith is assumed.

Lastly, Avanu is right - dealing with the unending influx of vandals and all-too-temporary semi-protection is draining and frustrating, leading to a greater chance that I'll snap at someone. It's particularly infuriating for the pages in which it's obvious that I'm the only person watching it, or at least the only one who checks more than every few weeks. This leads to both a reduction in my output and a general "us-vs-them" mentality. This actually ties into the current survey on the participation of academics such as myself on WP - as long as our edits will be washed away in a tide of vandalism without our constant maintenance, it'll seem pointless. I don't mean to soapbox, but something seriously needs to be done to prevent little-known pages from becoming solely entrusted to the care of just one editor.

Well, so much for keeping it brief. Point is, I did over-react and was overly harsh, but the edit in question was not nearly so benign as supposed, being a precise mirror of the kind of vandalism associated with creationist trolls. Mokele (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I don't want to get into it on this page, but the edit did seem strange and does indeed mirror creationism-biased tendentious editing. As I said above, their actions should be perfectly understandable. Swarm 00:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm disapointed. If we want a community where WP:AGF is the norm, then a community response that is somewhat more than has occurred here would, I think, be appropriate. If this discussion, and the extremely mild conditional apology for such rude and inconsiderate behavior by Mokele, is all that occurs, methinks our community norms will be moving to less and less WP:AGF over time. But it is what it is. What we tolerate in this area is what we will get. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour by User:Ryulong

• Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Intoronto1125 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Ryulong has used profanity to try and solve an issue with me, as well as using caps lock to "prove" his point (not a general consensus) that he is right. In a way this kind of intimidated me. Anyways if I did end up being wrong, it did not give this user the right to swear. Intoronto1125 (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I used the word "shit" and "damn" on his talk page and used capital letters in the history and bolding for emphasis when Intoronto1125 clearly did not understand what I was trying to convey to him as he kept repeating the edits despite messages on his talk page to cease. Nothing needs to be done other than reminding Intoronto1125 of the WP:BRD cycle.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I just had a very quick look, and subject to Intoronto1125 providing a further explanation, it appears that Ryūlóng is correct. The bad words were not directed at the user, and the heavy use of bold seems more than justified given that Intoronto1125 seemed to have trouble hearing the very simple message ("do not state X unless a source verifies X"). The WQA noticeboard should not be used for minor issues, particularly when the matter should be resolved by the simple expedient of reading Ryūlóng's comments and edit summaries. Johnuniq (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I did tell him to be civil, however (does not matter if it is directed at me) . I never did say it was directed at me. Intoronto1125 (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors care about articles and proper sourcing (and other policies introduced at WP:5P). I guarantee that if a proper source is provided for any information added to the article in question that Ryūlóng will not use bold comments or profanity, so any issue will not arise. My comment about "not directed at the user" is important regarding interpretation of WP:CIVIL: strong language is regrettable but not necessarily a big problem. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that but keep using swearing a whole day after reporting is not right, and it looks like he is taking advantage of this. Intoronto1125 (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If you understood me the first time I wouldn't keep swearing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

In case you did not understand me earlier please do not swear. Intoronto1125 (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) Hey Ryulong. Profanity doesn't bother many users, but it does indeed bother many others. A couple curse words here and there aren't a big deal, but the civility problem I see is your use of profanity after a user requested that you refrain from doing so. WP:CIV tells us we should be respectful and courteous. The respectful and courteous thing to do would be to not use profanity if asked not to. Surely you can agree to that principle? Swarm 02:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Everyone here knows that. However, it is not necessarily helpful to the encyclopedia to focus on the use of a minor amount of bad language (not directed at an editor), when the actual issue appears to be the failure of one editor to acknowledge that adding information that appears obvious to them is in fact contrary to Misplaced Pages's established practices. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If you'll see my above comment, I noted that while the bad language isn't a big deal, using profanity with a user whoo's asked you not to goes against the principles of civility. And, yes, I'm sure Ryulong knows this, that doesn't change the fact that they've failed to show it in practice. Swarm 10:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Guys my edits are deemed bad by him, not a consensus. For example, the Chinese Zodiac was listed on the page where we were warring in no specific order, so I decided that it would be best for it to be in alphabetical order. Mere minutes later he decided that he was right and I was wrong and it should be in the order of procession, when there was no indication on the article it should have . After making that edit the user went and changed the previous sentence to include "of procession of signs", without a consensus . Pretty much I feel like WP:OWN has been violated as well. Intoronto1125 (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Intoronto1125, the "procession of signs" part is from the TV show. I don't know why I need a consensus to elaborate on something from the source (the television program also explained the order, my edit reverted Intoronto1125's modification of the order against what reliable sources say it should be).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

He is continuing to say "deal with it" as it was a typo for using the word "f******". On top of that calling my edits "hampering". Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"If you understood me the first time I wouldn't keep swearing" implies that Intoronto1125 deserves to be spoken to in this manner; that he is the one causing Ryulong to speak in this fashion. No one deserves to be spoken to in this manner, in my opinion. Ryulong, it would be better if you could hold your temper and behave in a more collegiate manner. Intoronto is not causing your behavior. He is not the one controlling your behavior. Intoronto though new is a hard-working editor and with a little guidance his contributions will get better as time goes on. See also the thread on my talk page. --Diannaa 18:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine. He does not deserve to be spoken to in this manner. If someone does not understand something that I have told them the first time around, should I continue to be courteous after I have to explain to someone over and over again what is the issue with some of their edits or their behavior? Do I need to be courteous about when I make a typo and he accuses me of having poor grammar? This shit is getting blown out of proportion once more. Or should I have not said "shit" to refer to this situation as Intoronto1125 seems to think that any cuss word I use is directed at him?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it, all edits I make are reverted in the opinion of Ryulong, not a consensus. The source you provided for the procession order does not have what you list. Diannaa before that comment I did tell him to remain civil and he blatantly refused. Intoronto1125 (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You should be courteous no matter what. That's the point of the civility policy. Swarm 19:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Intoronto1125 - He doesn't need a consensus to revert something, but you both should seek one on a talk page. I suspect he's more right than you think, but getting more editors who are aware of the content topic would help.

I second Swarm's comment as well, I have discussed somewhat on Ryulong's talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Of couse he is right now, because he added that sentence. Without either one both of us is right. Intoronto1125 (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should examine the source material again before saying that either one of us is correct.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The source you provided from CBS does not state that, I am watching the video again. He does say that I am sorry. Intoronto1125 (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) I think Ryulong has received the point. If there are more problems, feel free to continue this, but I know Ryulong can cool off enough to, at least, refrain from using profanity. I hope they will do so. Swarm 19:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add additional interactions with Ryulong as a demonstration of continued un-civilm personally attacking behavior, and failure to follow the community procedures and guidelines.

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Samurai Power Rangers
• Misplaced Pages:AN#Histmerge_needed
• User talk:Hasteur (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
• User_talk:Ryulong#Your_less_than_civil_responses

I have asked the user to redact their personal attack (and assumption of bad faith) on the AfD and when I raised concern on the AN page that they failed to notify me regarding an administrative action concerning me (in violation of the big orange box at the top of the page) they responded un-civily and placed an explative on my talk page (which has been subsequently removed). As such I see an escalating pattern of failures at AGF and NPA. Hasteur (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There was no such personal attack or assumption of bad faith on the linked AFD. And there was nothing in the thread on WP:AN that required your notification. I was requesting janitorial assistance which I already mentioned on your talk page. So please kindly drop this issue and move on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) This edit does not seem to be a personal attack. Mathsci (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hasteur probably objected to this edit; the last part has since been revised to "dont have a cow, man." Now it is just one more step for Ryulong to think before he posts instead of after. Getting there. --Diannaa 21:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hasteur objected to Ryulong's first diff (above) as a personal attack in the very next diff. Mathsci (talk) 06:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What to do about defamatory comments by User:Tkircher

I have had defamatory comments made on my discussion page by the user User:Tkircher. He has also made defamatory statements in edit comments. It appears that it started because he had not heard the term Islamist, and was comparing it to calling people Christianists. He has since extended it to claim that I am "spewing ethnocentric nonsense", and ironically writing articles bigoted against Hinduism, despite the fact that I am a Hindu and have been awarded a barnstar for these articles. How should I handle this type of user? -- Q Chris (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not heard the term Inslamist. I guess you mean Islamist. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that was a typo - (which I did not make in the original article!). I have just corrected it -- Q Chris (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Tkircher feels that calling radical Muslims "Islamists" is negatively biased and that "extreme fundamentalist Muslim," for example, would be better. Considering that Islamists aren't necessarily defined as "Islamic extremism," surely you can understand where they're coming from? There's about a million different ways you can say "extreme Muslim," so why don't you simply go with a different term? If I'm correct, they said "Islamist" is a bigoted term. They didn't call you a bigot. Swarm 18:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What about when you created a section in my talk page called "Bigoted Edits" and put an edit comment with the lie that "There are also complaints on your talk page about your other bigoted edits." That combined with saying that I should "considering the nature of your irrational fear of the 'other' before you decide to spew more ethnocentric nonsense" (see my talk page) certainly is accusing me of being a bigot. As a matter of interest what do you mean "spew more ethnocentric nonsense" and what ethnicity do you think I am centering on? -- Q Chris (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I certainly see where you could've taken offense, my apologies. Anyway, the user is relatively new so they may not be familiar with assume good faith. I've notified them of this discussion and WP:AGF so hopefully they'll avoid those comments in the future. As to "how to deal with them" my point above still stands. Compromise with them: use a different term. "Islamist" doesn't necessarily mean "extremist." Swarm 01:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Five years is not relatively new, and he has a pattern of this behavior. Apparently, because I would dare ask for sources I am either mentally challenged or have a weak ego.MartinezMD (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) Perhaps not new in terms of account age, but in terms of Misplaced Pages participation, certainly. Someone with 176 edits, all to article or talk spaces is certainly still considered a newbie. Swarm 19:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Do as you see fit; I'll put him behind me. I just find his user page revealing:

"I'm a theoretical physicist, scientific instrument designer, and part-time college radio DJ. I often create article stubs and don't properly wikify them, to see just how many so-called wiki community members make snarky and unprofessional comments about it. When I do run across articles in need of proper wikifying, besides my own, I like to fix them. Most of my edits are for grammar and punctuation and not content. I try not to take myself too seriously."

Regards,

MartinezMD (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that's sarcasm. If someone can present diffs to support a history of trolling, that's quite a different story. Swarm 20:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Scott MacDonald

Diffs: threat of block, attempted to resolve, one original issue, another issue directed at another user in the same conversation.

Not sure what to do, really. It's obvious that this user has little desire to be civil, and I cannot begin to assume that he's just new or doesn't understand. I admit that I've given in to my own frustrations at a couple points, but as a senior admin this user is frankly disappointing. Honestly, I'd rather avoid an incident, and maybe he'll block me for reporting it here anyway. SDY (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Your report is a failure to assume good faith in itself. I am sure the user has a desire to be civil, and your suggesting that the user might block you for reporting here is just your idea. If you didn't know what to do why didn't you just take his userpage off your watchlist for a while instead of escalating the dispute by reposting material the user had previously deleted from there as he is allowed to do, we all fall out every now and then. Its no biggie. Off2riorob (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Persistent incivility is acceptable? Good to know. Assuming good faith has limits. I had a problem with some of the comments and brought them up on the user's talk page and was met with hostility and disrespect. The presumption of good faith is out the window at that point. I was in the process of taking his talk page off my watchlist when I saw the "go play elsewhere" comment in the edit summary. I didn't expect an apology, but I did expect that he would not further escalate the issue by adding additional insults. SDY (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think such an expectation is remotely reasonable given your failure to avoid escalating the issue further by your own additional insults, bad faith assumptions and needlessly unhelpful escalation (as can be seen from this complaint). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am not the least surprised to see Scotty MacDonald here. For aeons I have found him to be rude, brusque and clearly not a gentleman. Where would we all be if everyone was uncivil ?– Civility and etiquette are very important and “not” telling extremely irritating people to (I can't bring myself to say it: “.... off”) cannot be acceptable behaviour in any civilised society. Mr MacDonald clearly does not realise that elderly ladies with delicate sensibilities edit Misplaced Pages and they don't want to be confronted by his lowly vulgarities. I think he needs de-sysopping, placing on civility patrol and mentoring; the latter, a service I am happy to provide. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

SDY, this comment that you made on Talk|BLPN accusing people in the discussion of being trolls was the start of the fall out. "I'm going to stop feeding the trolls and de-watchlist this page.". - with the edit summary of "this discussion is meaningless." Off2riorob (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, there are points where I gave in to my frustrations, but in disagreeing I was accused of being dishonest, evil, and selfish because I didn't see the issue as catastrophically important. I admit my own fault in not helping the situation with that comment, but that's not where it started. Both of the last two diffs I linked at the start of this posting had already happened. SDY (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• SDY, should you throw AGF out the window prematurely and repeatedly hurl inflammatory insults yourself ("if you're going to claim to be the adult, at least act like one"), as you have done throughout this matter, you open yourself to the risk of being considered a hypocrite. Your complaint is an assumption of bad faith in itself as Off2riorob observes ("and maybe he'll block me for reporting it here anyway"). I don't agree that he threatened to block you himself; he warned you about what would happen if you continued. The level of edit-warring you engaged in on another user's talk page is close enough to a level of harassment that had you reverted again after the warning (and another admin was around), your editing privileges would have been revoked for a period of time. Your own escalation of this dispute has been disturbingly needless and your response ("I'm not "playing", and as long as you continue your incivil and insulting behavior I'm going to continue replying") suggests you had no intention of taking his talkpage off your watchlist. Given your own earlier broad attack ("Facepalm. We do have strong controls for BLPs...I'm going to stop feeding the trolls and de-watchlist this page. SDY (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)") on users who have a concern about an obviously sensitive issue, you really aren't in any position to be offended by the same term being used to describe your behavior in this context; seems relatively mild given the variety of concerns with your approach. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Tu quoque does not change the original claim, it just files additional charges. I agree that my own behavior has been less than exemplary (after I was openly insulted and provoked, though that's not much of an excuse). It is clear to me that SmD's comments were tasteless and unacceptable but it is also clear that I'm just lettng myself be bothered. Go ahead and close this, it's obvious that no one is willing to confront SmD about his behavior and I agree that my own is problematic. SDY (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything that resembles a level of provocation or insult which would justify the conduct that you have engaged in. Everything is relative; when you lack the willingness to show sensitivity towards the concerns others have, it is (to use a word you're familiar with) foolish of you to expect such sensitivity over yours. But no matter which of the two ways I look at it, Scott's behavior does not come remotely close the variety or the seriousness of your own inappropriate behavior (and your vague agreement seems less than convincing given the extent of your role in this). I'm waiting for Scott's response (if any) to this complaint; at this point, I don't think I need to address him, unless he somehow takes more time to register his role in this than you are taking to register yours. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have apologized for the comments in general I made on the BLP page, which were poorly chosen. That SmD does not choose to engage here mostly just shows that he has no regrets over the comments he made. "More sinned against than sinning" perhaps. By the way, I don't mind "troll", the "go play elsewhere" was far more insulting, not to mention the diffs linked above. Without the blocking threat, I probably would have let it go, but since it came up I figured I needed a third opinion because it appeared to me that he was threatening to block me himself because I was annoying him by calling him out on inappropriate behavior. SDY (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's standard practice for any user to warn a fellow user of the risk of being blocked - particularly for the harassment reason I pointed above - when the user continues to revert on the user talk despite continued contact clearly being unwelcome. It's the final resort to stopping it prior to requesting intervention. That doesn't mean he's going to block you himself (which is why I disagree with Swarm below) but he should have clearly specified he would not impose a block himself (to prevent that perception arising). Scott needs to remember his responsibilities as an admin (some of which has been touched on by Epeefleche below). Scott says he did repeatedly try to walk away from an unnecessary dispute - and that does seem to fit what I see has happened (and that part is appropriate) - but this did not require, as Swarm observes below, incivility or troll feeding. I think Scott's pledge indirectly acknowledges that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing for me to say here. Those posting have pretty much nailed it. I tried to walk away from a pointless quarrel several times, but SDY refused to take the hint. I've no desire to give more fuel to this self-lighting fire (probably even this post is unwise). If you need third opinions to tell you when your trolling, there's not much hope really. Anyway, whatever response this generates, I solidly pledge not to be baited into responding any further. Walking away now (as I tried to three times already - I just hope that's finally the end of it).--Scott Mac 16:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I concede that I overreacted and apologize. I still have some concerns, but honestly that's my problem and not anyone else's. SDY (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Nice to see SDY was righteously torn apart for their part in the matter, but Scott MacDonald's comments are still completely inappropriate. "Piss off, troll"? "bury your head"? Blocking threats? "I was baited" isn't an excuse. Try acting like an administrator and resolve disputes appropriately. Whether you're responding with incivility or feeding the trolls, I can't see what what you thought you were doing. Swarm 19:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. That sort of language is unbecoming a sysop. Sysops have special obligations to be civil, beyond that of a mere mortal editor. Per wp:admin. This is not minor stuff, and the arb committee has made clear more than once that they take it seriously when it comes to an uncivil admin. Sysops have lost the bit as a result. This is clearly inappropriate behavior for an admin. As the guidelines states:

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. ... sustained or serious disruption of Misplaced Pages is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Most especially, administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.

--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks and threats by user:Brewcrewer

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

I added a notability template to Murder of Shalhevet Pass. Brewcrewer reverted my edit, saying "wasn't there a bunch of ANI's about you stalking?" (Zie has accused me of stalking in the past, never with any evidence or results.) On Brewcrewer's talk page, I asked hir to refrain from personal attacks, noting that unsubstantiated accusations fit that description. I also commented that a disagreement several months ago does not preclude my ever making any edit to any article which zie has touched (the addition of the notability tag was not even a revert of any of Brewcrewer's edits). I having meanwhile restored the tag and begun a discussion on the talk page as to why it was needed, Brewcrewer threatened me with ANI or ANEW if I did not self-revert, despite the fact that I was not in violation of any policies, whether general or relating to Israel-Palestine sanctions specifically. I explained hir mistake, and zie again accused me of edit-warring.

As with previous incidents where this user has accused me of stalking, other users of socking, etc. it's fairly apparent that zie is using threats to try to get people zie disagrees with to stop editing articles in hir chosen field. Perhaps WQA is a good starting-place for dealing with this problem. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Are you following this editor's edits?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. BC seems to have a hard time believing that I might be editing I/P articles out of interest in the subject rather than out of some sort of personal vendetta. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'm starting to wade through the literally thousands of refs out there on this incident, covered internationally and the subject of conversations between heads of state and dramatic changes in governmental policy. I'm a bit perplexed, frankly, that you would tag it for questionable notability. Did you do a wp:before search before tagging it?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm much mistaken, the notability template also covers "please add refs to prove that this is notable," not just "I don't think this is notable." (See the wording of the template.) I hadn't noticed that it was full of external links (I suppose I should lower my expectations for formatting). This is off-topic, though, so if you'd like, we could continue the discussion at my talk page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If you (as I gather you were) understand that the subject is notable, and you -- being a good faith editor -- think it would be great to add more refs to those that already existed, there is an easy way to address that. Add the refs yourself. Second-best -- mention on the talk page that you think it would be great if refs were added, see that there are dozens of books and literally thousands of articles out there on the subject, and perhaps someone else would like to add some of those to the existing refs. If you were a bad faith editor, which of course you aren't, you would just tag-bomb a clearly notable article with a notability tag -- but that practice makes no sense for good faith editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please remain civil. WQA is a bad place to make baseless claims about other editors acting in bad faith. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the above, your tagging appears to be what we call "tag-bombing". In the instant case, wildly inappropriate tag-bombing, where thousands of refs reflecting notability exits. Please remember that AGF is a rebuttable assumption. Your tagging appears to be anything but good faith, and your appearance here appears to be tainted by what we might call "unclean hands"; consequently, if any action is taken, it would properly be relative to you for these issues.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is completely on-topic. When someone brings a complaint to this page, her behavior in the incident is reviewed as well, and she is also subject to sanctions if her behavior is inappropriate. Ros perhaps dislikes what I have pointed out above. As she has twice sought to censor it, by collapsing it. It relates to the incident and to her behavior in the incident, however. If she tags it again, I request that she be summarily blocked. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. WQA is not for discussing notability of articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Typically, I ignore these types of frivolous postings, but choose to respond in this instance because of the blatant WP:BOOMERANG nature of the instant case. Preliminarily, Roscelese has mistakenly(?) not provided the full text of the edit summary, in which the stalking concern was part of a larger quote.

As for the edit summary at issue, the complaint of stalking could have used a bit more tact, but I was specifically referring to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive669#Stalking by User:Roscelese and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive665#Repeated personal attacks by User:Roscelese, where stalking of me and other users were brought up for discussion. A number of additional threads concerning Roscelese's behavior can be found here. It's unfortunate that this stalking continues, unless Roscelese can explain how she again wound up at the very random article that I had just edited for the sole purpose of adding a bunch of templates.

In response to my complaint about stalking, Roscelse has gone over the top including plastering my talk page with templates and snide comments ironically accusing me of being uncivil. Now he has started this baseless thread. If there is anything useful that can come out of this, its perhaps to request from Roscelse that he cease stalking and to reiterate to Roscelse the importance of staying civil. Best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition, it is probably also worth noting that User:Roscelese stalked User:SlimVirgin following a content dispute until she was blocked for editwarring on one of the pages she followed SV to. - Haymaker (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Another untrue accusation of stalking. If you think it is "worth noting," perhaps it would be a good idea to provide evidence. (You don't really need to get involved in every thread I'm in, by the way - I'm flattered by the attention, but your time might be better spent improving articles.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I don't think it is right to imply that another user's comments here are not "useful" contributions. Good Ol’factory 01:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Rephrased. Thanks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that we've got some of the confusion out of the way, shall we get back on topic? Brewcrewer repeatedly accused me of stalking and threatened administrator action for no other reason than that we had edited the same article. We had not argued recently. I did not follow hir there. I did not revert hir edit there. There is absolutely nothing about my conduct that resembles wikihounding, and by continually accusing me after being warned, Brewcrewer is, at the very least, breaching wikiquette. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• As I discuss above, I think that you arrived here with unclean hands, and your edits have been tendentious at best -- even in the wake of bringing this complaint. Looking at your overlap of edits with his, it's not clear to me that he is not correct, and given that your tag-bombing suggests that you have rebutted the presumption of good faith, I see your complaint as baseless. I would suggest that you use special care when arriving at articles that BC has just edited, which you had never edited, and where very few editors in all of wp had ever edited, and where you are tag-bombing (especially baseless tag-bombing, as the above). If you fail to follow my advice, I imagine we will see your name at AN/I or elsewhere, with a diff directing to this advice. Let's simply avoid the drama, shall we? In just the past hour or two, I've seen you tag-bomb, warning-bomb, and bring this complaint -- all in what appear to me to be a desire to gain the upper hand in an editing dispute, or push a POV, but wholly without any real basis. I'll leave it to others at the moment to comment as to whether your behavior here is actionable.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How on earth is "This user has a tendency to throw around accusations of stalking, so just avoid articles to which zie has made the smallest of contributions" good advice? What kind of encyclopedia would we be building by letting such users control entire subject areas? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand. Nobody owns articles. But--I've glanced at your overlap. And your tendency to show up at articles where your nemesis edited. And very few other people edited. And where you never edited earlier at all. And for you to then edit in conflict with him. Add to that, a tendentious aspect to your editing, such as tagging the above article baselessly with a notability tag, where the notion that it is not notable is absurd. Those facts, when taken together, begin to reflect somewhat poorly on your claim that you are not wikihounding him. Those of us who have been around know how it goes. If that sort of thing continues, he will take you to AN/I. Among the other evidence will be a diff to this discussion, where it has all been explained. You are free to ignore me, of course, but I'm just trying to avoid major headache for you, and waste of time for the rest of us, because I sense a collision course here. There are millions of articles on wp -- you might wish to stop checking your nemesis's contributions, if that is what is leading to this unusual coincidence. It will be better for all of us I imagine.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've asked you already, but I see I have to ask you again: Please stay on-topic. Your opinion that the article already contained adequate sources is irrelevant, partly because I explained my tag on the talk page but mostly because this board is not for content disputes. Your concern is appreciated, but Brewcrewer has never marshaled evidence of stalking any of the other times zie's accused me and now is no different. As for you, kindly stop accusing me of the same, since you, similarly, lack evidence. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I know this isn't any of my business, and I probably shouldn't be butting in, but a few weeks ago I reverted Ros on an abortion article. She is really, really, really into abortion articles. She hates when I write "save the baby" and call her "pro-abortion" on the Talk page. Funny. But I digress. Anyway, right after that she removed PRODs and CSDs from a large number of articles I tagged the day before. I thought it odd since she has described herself as a deletionist. It was also odd that the order of dePRODing closely matched the sequence that I PROded them in the first place. I'm kinda ashamed to admit I was going get her back and dePROD some of the articles she tagged, but I realized I'm better, and bigger than that. I believe in the Golden Rule: "Do as to others etc." You know, Jesus. I also believe in "Do a good deed." You know, BSA. Now, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but... Lionel (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I also added sources to the articles I de-PRODed/de-speedied, so your point is rather moot. I mean, the point of deleting things is theoretically to make sure everything in the encyclopedia is notable, not to make sure coverage of LGBT people is minimized, so if someone finds sources for something you PRODed on notability grounds, what is the problem?

Moreover, this has already been brought to ANI without anyone finding any problems with my conduct, and trying to pin it on me again smacks of grasping at straws to get me blocked because you disagree with more recent edits I have made, rather than because I am actually doing something wrong. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. As an outside observer, it looks to me like User:Brewcrewer was a bit forward in his comments, but given the apparent history of editing behavior by User:Roscelese and Brewcrewer's knowledge of it, Brewcrewer's reaction could be somewhat understandable, even if not excusable. I think the specific encounter raised here could easily be resolved by both sides just voicing a simple apology and then just moving on. Good Ol’factory 04:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that I have anything to apologize for. I did not follow Brewcrewer and I did not revert hir edits, and I don't think zie is owed a personal apology from anyone who dares to touch Israel-Palestine articles without hir permission. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, then don't expect any sort of apology or reciprocal gesture from the other side. It takes two to reconcile, and it's not a matter of being "right". Sometimes you apologize for the incident and misunderstanding taking place, and if one side does it, the other side does it, and everybody feels better. It sounds to me like you're more interested in being right than in resolving the conflict amicably. If so, WQA may not be the correct place to work on this. Good Ol’factory 04:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to resolve things amicably, but I think an amicable solution would include the other party recognizing that I have the "right" to edit articles on Israel-Palestine. If I had recently had a conflict with Brewcrewer that made it look like my edits were retaliatory? If I had reverted an edit that zie had made? Sure, I'd apologize for the misunderstanding and move on. But just editing another article to which Brewcrewer has made minor changes? We don't own our articles here, and particularly on this sensitive topic, I think it would set a bad precedent. It would help to hear again from Brewcrewer, to hear what steps zie will take in future. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

So you're not going to acknowledge any wrongdoing at all in any respect? Some sort of statement that you could understand how he might react the way he did given your past behavior could be helpful, but—of course—it can't be made unless you really do understand that point. Good Ol’factory 05:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify what exactly you'd like me to apologize for? What you think I did wrong? I mean, you mention my "past behavior," but the incidents Brewcrewer is referring to are other incidents in which zie accused me of stalking without any evidence, which would seem to weigh against hir rather than for hir. I'm not responsible for this user's feelings of ownership. Brewcrewer's having edited an article does not automatically mean that anyone else who edits it has followed hir there or is doing so for personal reasons rather than out of a desire to better the encyclopedia.

As I alluded to above, I don't like the chilling effect that this already has, and as I said, it would set a terrible precedent. If there is actually something that I have done wrong, I will apologize for it. Editing an article that another user has edited is not wrongdoing. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I can tell you're not really getting my point. Most users who have commented here have mentioned that you are fairly aggressive overall in your editing style. This is not "wrong", but it's evident that you want the focus here to be on right and wrong. That's fine, but don't expect to get any joy out of an WQA if you take that approach. Good Ol’factory 07:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really hoping for joy. To me, not being accused of "crimes" because I dared to edit Israel-Palestine articles should be a neutral state, not a positive one like getting a barnstar or something. I'm open to a broad view of right and wrong, of course - as I said, I'd be willing to apologize if something I'd done could reasonably be construed as hounding even if it wasn't, such as reverting Brewcrewer's edits immediately after we'd argued. But, again, Brewcrewer has accused me of stalking and threatened admin action because I edited an article that zie had also edited. I don't want to see hir punished. I want to leave this discussion knowing that it isn't okay to attack and threaten other users based solely on the fact that they edit with a different perspective in the same subject area that you (generic you) do. I think that with this as a baseline, we'd both be more able to edit collaboratively on the subjects that interest us both - Brewcrewer because zie wouldn't take any edit to any article as a rule violation, and me because I'd be able to engage more fully with articles without worrying about accusations and threats. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just using "joy" as a euphemism for getting a result that is satisfactory to you. This looks to me like it's going nowhere. Good Ol’factory 08:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we really not even establish that it is not okay to attack and threaten other users? That's a bit disheartening. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is not. But what is even more discouraging is your inability to admit any wrongoing in your own behaviour as well as that of other users'. Perhaps you've reflected on it and have decided you have not done anything wrong. If so, I think you need to consider why multiple users have disagreed with you. "They're wrong and I'm right" is a theoretical possibility, but it doesn't get you anywhere in WQA. Good Ol’factory 20:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, the wrongdoing here appears to be that I edited an article that Brewcrewer had also edited. I did indeed reflect, after being blindslided by this accusation, on whether it might have been a good idea to check the article history first to see who else had contributed, and avoid articles to which certain aggressive users have contributed. But I rejected that idea, because I think putting the burden on the users who don't throw around accusations without evidence is bad policy. Are there concrete steps you think I could take in the future that don't require tiptoeing around an entire subject area just because this one user edits there? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If it were me and I thought I had done nothing wrong, I would just leave a message for the other user on his talk page apologizing for anything I might have done that has offended him or made him wary of me and my editing, and just explain what my intent was and why I made the edits I made, and that it was nothing personal against him, and so forth. I wouldn't take this approach if I were trying to defuse things. That sort of approach will only heighten the tension. That's only what I would do, though, and it doesn't mean what you did was wrong. I just don't think WQA is going to resolve the problem unless you've first tried a softer approach one-on-one with the other user. Good Ol’factory 21:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps this is one of those times when fuller knowledge of the history between two users might come in handy. My attempts at productive non-template discussion have never defused any disputes when this user is involved - rather, for example, my invitation to an article talkpage discussion resulted in BC leaving rude messages on my talkpage - so I don't really feel like putting out a welcome mat for more abuse. There is of course the option of just ignoring the attacks and threats and editing as normal, but as I said below to Cptnono, I'd be more comfortable ignoring the threats if I could be reasonably sure that editing an article that BC had happened to edit wouldn't get me dragged to ANI. Can we agree that this circumstance - in which I had not recently interacted with BC, did not follow him there, did not revert his edits, and did not violate any rules - did not merit the accusations and threats I received because of it? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that kind of behavior is ever really appropriate, so in my opinion no one needs to ask if it was merited. He should apologize, and really, I still think that if things are going to be smoothed over, both sides need to apologize for any misunderstandings or offence from this incident or past incidents. I'm guessing, but based on what I'm hearing about from other users, I can see that that won't happen on either side. Good Ol’factory 04:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec x4) Me again. It's not about recent editing. It's just the odd coindidence that the articles I PRODed were dePRODed by you. Isn't this thread about following people around? I am in the right place aren't I? Not than I'm accusing anyone of anything. Lionel (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The dePRODing was retaliatory. Shouldn't I get an apology? Lionel (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Er, no? Like I said, adding reliable sources is not a sin - quite the opposite. If my sourcing LGBT-related articles "creat irritation, annoyance or distress" to you, you might want to re-evaluate your goals here a bit. (Also, no, not retaliatory. I'm sorry that you believed it was, but I don't know what you expect me to do - put a little note in each edit summary "I'm not doing this to annoy the PRODer"? let notable topics be deleted?) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion works for me, short of the apology I'm due. Lionel (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Save you didn't add reliable sources, you just followed Lionelt around removing prods as retaliation for an edit conflict. , , - Haymaker (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, fancy that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

All of those edits took place after you were reported to ANI, not when you reverted Lionelt as retaliation. - Haymaker (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think I'm stalking someone, go ahead and report it. Maybe you'll have more luck than you had the last time you reported me with these exact same diffs. Until then, kindly consider the novel idea that writing content takes longer than blanking other people's content and that sourcing things takes longer than just adding them without sources, before you claim that it was your report that motivated the improvement of these articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

All right, chaps. Does anyone have any comments on this report, or are we going to keep on re-hashing conflicts that were buried at ANI without admin action? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "the last time you reported me with these exact same diffs"? I don't remember getting one of those "There's an issue which may concern you at ANI..." notes. Did someone report the dePRODing of my PRODing and didn't notify me? Did I miss out on testifying? I love testifying at ANI. I'm sure my testimony could've gotten someone blocked. Is it too late for me to bear witness? I have a lot to say. And the sooner I get started the better. Lionel (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I guess Haymaker didn't let you know. It's in an archive somewhere. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Does "chaps" still mean fellas or has it been appropriated as some kind of homosexual slang? Because if so I'd like to remind youeveryone of my huge crush on Lila Rose and my efforts to get a sexy pic of her (for which I probably should've received a barnstar but never did). Lionel (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I bet you're thanking your lucky stars that you chose "Lionel" as your username now - "Lila Rose is hot" and "I am totally straight, honestly" wouldn't really compute if people kept mis-gendering you the way they do me! ;) (Is "Roscelese" a particularly masculine name? I never thought it was, and I do have a "This user is female" box on my userpage, but...) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am so giving you a barnstar if you were behind getting that OTRS. BLP standards do not prevent me from saying I completely disagree with her but they do prevent me from going into too much detail on how I feel about that picture. Insert Beavis laugh here.Cptnono (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And just to comment: There is nothing wrong with looking at other editors edits unless you are using it to harass them. Take the advice up above and let it go maybe. Let this report be the "final straw" before esculating any conflict.Cptnono (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Luckily, that is not even what I did here, so we can avoid the discussion of when it is okay to look at someone else's contributions. :) Could you both also tone down the discussion of Lila Rose, please? As a female editor, I'm feeling a bit uncomfortable. "Rose is sexy" is totally uncalled-for, but perhaps doesn't cross the line. "I have NSFW thoughts about her picture" is just creepy. Thanks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a double standard to me. :D Feel free to remove my commment above or move it to the user's talk page if you found a pun offensive. However, refering to another editor as being creepy after making a BLP violation is laughable. But that is all off topic and not really that big of a deal. If you need for the other editor to acknowledge your "right" to edit articles then you are probably wasting everyone's time. The BOOMERANG aspect is interesting since you and stalking has come up by two different editors here. The one with diffs does raise an eyebrow but I see no problem AGF. Hopefully you guys can work it out without the other editor groveling. I do agree that apologies go a long way so BC would show some good form if he at least clarified that he did not make the best move in assuming bad faith (unless of course, it was justified to assume bad faith).Cptnono (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't want BC to grovel. Maybe a promise not to attack or threaten me in future would do? I don't need to change Brewcrewer's mind, though it might be nice - I'd just like assurance that having the nerve to step into BC's article space isn't a blockable offense. I'd gladly promise not to stalk, though as I haven't been and he (he?) has nonetheless accused me of it, I'm not sure how far a promise from me would do towards assuaging his concerns. (I mean, I guess the assurance would be enough without the promise from BC. It would still be annoying having to put up with the attacks and threats, but if they were confirmed to have no validity, I could at least ignore them.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) Has any of the above been helpful, Roscelese? It looks like it turned into a dramafest from the very beginning, but it's TL;DR so I can't tell if you got resolution out of any of it. If not, I'd be happy to comment, but not unnecessarily. Swarm 17:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The user in question hasn't commented since the beginning of the discussion, so I don't know what he thinks of my suggestions for resolution, but I have faith that he'll be along - everyone is busy and/or lives in different time-zones, after all. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How about the huge discussion above? Was that more off topic or was it helpful? Swarm 19:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It didn't help me, but it may have helped other people (summary: "The article to which you added a notability tag is notable" - off-topic, "omg you stalker" - on-topic, but false and already discussed at ANI without any wrongdoing found). Some productive conversation with GOF over what one is hoping to get out of this discussion, but that's something we'd still need input from Brewcrewer on. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

180.10.153.175

• 180.10.153.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Japanese Language Proficiency Test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP user has been active on the article, and it appears to be the same user from february. The editor has shown incivility towards me, harasment an disqualification without evidence. For example, he repeatedly disqualify me for not being english native, implying that I shouldn't be editing here, or repeatedly suggesting I work for the organization which source I used to disqualify my neutrality (and that is false). At first (february) I responded to those comments and the issue halted. But now it continues and I'm avoiding any response to those comments. But when I want to reply with argument about the article, he responds ignoring my point at all and including such kind of "insinuations", making difficult to actually improve the article. He also misreads or disqualifies my comments so I feel futile to end the dispute by normal dialog. Some diffs: (here he change the facts in his "timeline", since the first bold edit was not adding another numbers, but replacing them in a context of another source) (telling me to go to "my" wikipedia version) pmt7ar 02:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've sent them an NPA notice. Let's just assume they're a newbie and are unfamiliar that comments like that aren't allowed. If it continues, though, feel free to report back here. Regards, Swarm 03:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

DailyEditor

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.

• DailyEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of Ghost Hunters episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DailyEditor wants to add a "date filmed" or "date investigated" category to the List of Ghost Hunters episodes article, but the information is being obtained through original research by the user watching each episode from their DVD collection and recording the dates/times the crew was at a location by what is displayed in on their computer video screens and cameras. To me, that is unacceptable referencing. I told DailyEditor this information is not reliable because it cannot be verified through proper references and this is info he/she is gathering and publishing themselves. No websites that I can find list these dates, just the date the particular episode aired on SyFy.com - the only official website for Ghost hunters. Likewise, I commented that the information, I believe, is trivial information which does nothing for the article except to add clutter and confusion to the listings. In response, DailyEditor threatened to "report me" and get me "blocked" because I'm "vandalizing" by leaving comments on their talk page. How else are we to communicate? I'm obviously not getting through to them, they don't want to cooperate, so now I would appreciate third party intervention here. Thank you. Cyberia23 (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: DailyEditor now claims their word is reliable because they have a "close personal friend who works for Syfy: Imagine Greater". Their actual words. (By the way, "Imagine Greater" is the company's tag line, not part of their actual name). Oh and "I messed with the wrong guy." Cyberia23 (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• If the Ghost Hunters episode were a series of printed books, it would not be original research to look up information from them and cite the relevant books as sources on Misplaced Pages. How do published DVDs of episodes differ? If the DVDs were purchased (not home-recorded), they just like a set of books. If he wants to use this information, he needs to provide individual citations for the information. If he were citing from a book, he would have to state the volume and page number. He needs to cite DVDs in the same way. At the moment he is not doing this. He should also put something from sources saying why this information is notable - and yes, a citation will be needed for this too.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any specific examples, but I've seen a couple Misplaced Pages television articles in the past where people had cited information that was "exclusive DVD content" and some editors deleted them saying they were not reliable sources because not everyone had access to the DVDs. I don't know if there is a difference between books and DVDs, but still in this case, DailyEditor - who is clearly a adolescent and therefore shouldn't be taken as a reliable editor to begin with - isn't even citing DVD content; they are watching the show (claiming they own the DVDs, but could be watching them off YouTube for all we know), and saying the dates are on background computer monitors and feed from the thermal cameras. The actual film dates, as far as I know, aren't indicated anywhere on the DVDs (be it case or booklet or voice-over commentaries) and no website gives the filming dates. The show itself just shows a day and time of a specific segment, no actual dates are given. Therefore, the information is questionable and should not be permitted unless given by an official source. It can also be considered unnecessary "fancruft" material (as they call it) which is of no real value to the article. Cyberia23 (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack DailyEditor. Everyone is welcome to edit here and comments like that can be considered biting. I however agree that sources have to be either books or internet sources accessible to everyone.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't attack him/her. He/she had a fit about my so-called "violent" protest of his improperly sourced information. I just told them they shouldn't add unverified information based on what they saw on a DVD, and I'd be challenging it's validity and that's what I'm doing. I didn't threaten them, or call them names. I may get sarcastic when people say dumb things and since they didn't get what I was saying I assume they're either a kid or can't speak English. This should all be a no-brainer as to who is acting out of place here. Cyberia23 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comment and your previous one are the ones attacking DailyEditor. I don't want you to bite him. However, both of you need to stop attacking each other. While DailyEditor should not be unwilling to discuss like that, you need to not attack him/her on basis of age.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Cyberia23 Splendide mendax! It is conformed that you are having some serious problems as you were the casus belli who started a fire, and I just added more firewood. If you were a more 'experienced' editor, like you claim, you should have sorted out the dispute you started in a diplomatic way like John. It is crystal clear that you are a juvenile because you believe that only you are perfect and everyone one Misplaced Pages is stupid and is waiting to be guided by you. You cannot handle criticism or losses. In my opinion you are a persona non grata to Misplaced Pages and should be blocked. Quod erat demonstrandum, is proved. You are a spoilt brat, similar to the Winklevii in The Social Network. Everything had been going your way in life as well as Misplaced Pages until I came over. The world is completely contrary to the virtual world you are living in bear in mind you are not Queen Elizabeth II of the 1940s that you have the whole world under control, or if you are, even God will have a tough time helping England, You believe that everything you do, is right but, ipso facto, you can't even act as a diplomat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyEditor (talk • contribs) 06:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the article List of Ghost Hunters episodes for one week. Judging by what I read on User talk:DailyEditor, it seems DailyEditor was the first to take the conversation into inappropriate territory with his/her hyperbolic accusations of vandalism over a content dispute. However, Cyberia23 isn't helping matters by insisting to continue to insult DailyEditor on a page called Wikiquette disputes. That behavior, however understandable considering DailyEditor's insults, doesn't bring us any closer to resolving this dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, doesn't anyone else here see that this DailyEditor person is a complete whack job? Now he's speaking Latin to make himself look like he's some sort of genius. Delusional psychopath with multiple personality disorder is more like it. Go read his talk page, half of what he says makes absolutely no sense and the context changes with every comment. Why is he still allowed to be here to spew his lunatic rants and personal attacks? I've seen people blocked for weeks for far less. Cyberia23 (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not unsympathetic. However, calling someone a delusional psychopath is not the best way to convince an uninvolved third party that you are the sane and civil one in this dispute. If your diagnosis is even remotely accurate, then others will quickly see this without any further escalation on your part. Good advice in such situations is to refrain from such comments and let the other editor dig him or herself into a hole. Gamaliel (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh so now I am the sociopath instead of you, you are so sensitive to criticism that you will go to any extent to prove your false point. This proves that you are a human being (BTW I'm not sure whether you are a human) with an unreasonable attitude and a fat brain. I don't even know how madmen like you get into Misplaced Pages, a place for intellectuals not lunatics. I expect an immidiate ban for disrespecting a Wikipedian. By the way do you even know Latin? I am majoring in the classic, in your face. Beware fellow Wikipedians, if this vermin is not annihilated it will drool its venom on you. And before you cry and say that I called you a vermin, bear in mind that it is a metaphor. Now as I know that your English grammar is distressing, allow me to explain what a metaphor is. A metaphor is a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity. DailyEditor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

Tell me what's Latin for "keep talking shit." Cyberia23 (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well a perfect English synonym will be: Cyberia23

DailyEditor (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

DailyEditor, that comment constitutes a personal attack, which is strictly forbidden here. If you continue, you may be blocked. As a whole for everyone here, I want all of you to redact (delete or strike out) your incivil comments and actually resolve the dispute. If the incivility continues, I will request an administrator to take action here.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Since both editors are engaging in incivility and personal attacks, maybe both of them would benefit from the same discipline? -- Avanu (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree fully with Jasper, both of you knock it off. You're both coming across deplorably here, go find something else to do other than snipe at each other. Dayewalker (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Cyberia23

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.

• Cyberia23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GH episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vandal, deleted reliable information at least 5 times. Should be blocked. Also violently opposed addition of reliable information. You can check details at my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyEditor (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• In my opinion, User:DailyEditor is the one who engaged in personal abuse. For example in this diff he accused Cyberia23's mother of being illiterate! I looked at Cyberia23's contributions in the article on Destination Truth, and they are constructive edits. On the List of Ghost Hunters episodes, there is a content dispute between the two editors. However as DailyEditor cannot provide citations for the additional information he wants in the article, and Cyberia23 says that the information is too unreliable, the onus is on DailyEditor to provide citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's clear to me with how DailyEditor has responded that they are child, or young teenager who doesn't know what they are doing and has no business being here. Although we cannot keep kids from editing, this is a clear case of juvenile behavior and they should be blocked from editing. Cyberia23 (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Everyone regardless of age is welcome. That comment is not appropriate and I suggest you redact it as per WP:CIVIL.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Further reading comments, I suggest both of you do not attack each other as per WP:CIVIL.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You know, I see edits made by kids on here all the time, and if it's clearly an unconstructive juvenile rant, I'll delete it when I find them. Granted not all they're edits are stupid and if they make a good faith edit that can be corrected I'll help them out. But every once in a while you'll get one who throws a baby fit temper tantrum and you expect us to just say "oh how cute" and give em a pat on the head for it? No you need to correct them, and if needed to block them from access. Problem solved. To tell you the truth, I'm not even sure if DailyEditor is a kid - my guess is they're not an adult, but if they are, God help them, because they have some serious social issues. Cyberia23 (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No-one is perfect, and the attitude of Misplaced Pages is supposed to be welcoming. I want you to stop criticizing DailyEditor based on age. Back in 2008, I too used some rants myself, and have grown out of it. I learned WP:CIVILITY and am now an experienced editor. So, teach DailyEditor the ropes, by giving him policy links, which I'm assuming you did, and do not attack him on basis of age or maturity.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@DailyEditor:When you have a dispute with someone, and that someone takes you to a policy page, please read that page. One of the biggest things here is that you can't be afraid to be wrong. If you are wrong, do not attack the person who showed that you were wrong, and assume good faith. Be civil.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Cyberia23 Splendide mendax! It is conformed that you are having some serious problems as you were the casus belli who started a fire, and I just added more firewood. If you were a more 'experienced' editor, like you claim, you should have sorted out the dispute you started in a diplomatic way like John. It is crystal clear that you are a juvenile because you believe that only you are perfect and everyone one Misplaced Pages is stupid and is waiting to be guided by you. You cannot handle criticism or losses. In my opinion you are a persona non grata to Misplaced Pages and should be blocked. Quod erat demonstrandum, is proved. You are a spoilt brat, similar to the Winklevii in The Social Network. Everything had been going your way in life as well as Misplaced Pages until I came over.

@Toddy1, Ipso facto, Cyberia is the casus belli, Cyberia started the fight and disrespected my mother, so I did the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyEditor (talk • contribs) 06:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, please stop the personal attacks and incivlity. It seems none of you have read WP:Civility. Please read and understand it. This goes for all of you. To experienced Wikipedians:Do not publicly discuss DailyEditor's age and do not criticize him based on that. To DailyEditor, remember the Golden Rule that anything you do to others comes back to you. Please be civil and do not attack other editors just because they disagree with you.

As a whole, I want everyone to calm down and show civility here.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(OD) As with my comment sabove, I agree fully with Jasper's warning here, you're both making personal attacks on a discussion page, and you'll both be handed blocks if it continues. Walk away and get back to doing something productive around here, please. Dayewalker (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Rastamouse-ting

• Rastamouse-ting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Rubiscous (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rastamouse-ting has made unwarranted and frankly bizarre personal attacks on my talk page. Has made attacks against others and never assumes good faith. Uses his own user page and talk to make unsubstantiated accusations of racism and to attack Wikipedians in general. Unless I'm mistaken Rastamouse-ting has already received a block as an IP user for homophobic vandalism of User:Biker Biker. Rubiscous (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary Psychology

I may be reporting myself or User:Leadwind, or both of us, depending on who is doing something wrong. This is just background: The article is part of a long drawn polarized dispute about how best to represent Evolutionary Psychology. One issue has been whether Evolutionary Psychology is a narrowly defined field r whether all evolutionary approaches to psychology are "evolutionary psychology". Today I added a source that states explicitly that some sources use the narrow sense and others use the broad sense. User:Leadwind then posted this to the talkpage gloating against his opponents:. The post is clearly just baiting and taunting the named editors with whom Leadwind has had a dispute in the past, it doesn't even attempt to make it look as if it has a constructive purpose but is simply a lognwinded nyah-nyah (it also misrepresentst he situation because Leadwind had argued that the narrow sense was wrong and only the broad sense existed, now he acts as if the fact that both senses are obviously in use somehow supports him). I first answered and told him that that was unproductive, but then realized that this post was purely disruptive so i deleted it entirely, per WP:NOTFORUM.. I removed it again, but then realized that I didn't know whether I was doing the right thing. My question is whether it is acceptable to make talk page posts like this one by Leadwind, and if it isn't whether it is acceptable for me to remove it. I realize that this is a borderline case per WP:TPO so if there is a consensus that Leadwind's post was not disruptive and that I had no right to remove it I will reinsert it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I am involved as I have commented about the nonsense at Evolutionary psychology where some strange sources have been stretched to assert some POV. However, my exposure to the talk page has convinced me that too much off-topic speculation has occurred, and I think you did the right thing to remove that inappropriate thread. The enthusiasm with which Leadwind approaches the topic is not matched by improvements to the article, and it may be time for other editors to take firmer control, including strict observance of WP:TPG—there is no need to endlessly engage in unproductive debate. Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I would encourage those interested in this dispute to consider its broader context, as Maunus and his compatriots have been less than civil for months, and repeatedly derisive about this topic in particular (the general term used for the application of evolutionary theory to psychology). Leadwind (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

...and in turn, I'd point out that, as the article talk page indicates, there has been a noticeable tendency for those arguing from a pro-evolutionary psychology standpoint to dismiss all criticisms as 'unscientific', 'politically biased' and otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. This is a contentious subject, and it's scientific credibility is disputed. A little less proselytising from the 'pro' faction might actually improve matters - at times, the talk page has looked a far-too-close imitation of the 'Astrology' one. Doubts about the validity of scientific claims aren't 'anti-science', they are a necessary part of the scientific process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I would very much like an inquiry into Leadwind's talkpage contributions at EvoPsych. He consistently misrepresents views of other, attributing them opinions they have neither voiced nor hold, often in sarcastic condescending ways. For example in this edit he attributes to me the exact opposite view fo the one that I have argued at length feigning to "agree" with me. In doing so he also misrepresents my summary of a source that he has not read - attributing it the opposite viewpoint of what it has. Honestly this makes me incredibly angry. If any one editor is the cause of the derailing of the discussion on the EvoPsych page it is him.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) Focusing narrowly on this one incident, the section was completely unproductive to the article, served as blatant baiting and and its removal per WP:NOTFORUM was appropriate. The removal of others' comments, especially when you're in a dispute with them, should be done extremely cautiously, but in this situation I think it was an appropriate and justified action. Swarm 21:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

MarshalN20 violating formal mediation

• MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Diablada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article of the Diablada passed through formal mediation Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Diablada, and MarshalN20 was one of the parts, there was an agreement as seen on the article's talk page, however I noticed that MarshalN20 has started again with POV edit wars in the article violating that agreement as seen in the last edits since November 2010, P.S. sorry if this is not the right board I can't seem to find the one for these kind of matters. 200.87.23.193 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Adding sources, images, and improving the format of the article (for better readership) is not a POV problem. All edits are explained in the article's history. Based on his edit style, this user is probably a puppet of User:Erios30, who is involved in edit conflicts in the Spanish Misplaced Pages. User constantly deletes images and sources from the article. If an admin could please explain to him how to properly edit without disrupting articles, it would be greatly appreciated. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 16:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I just restored what was agreed before, the neutral part that had all the points of view and was reviewed by the mediation committee, precisely to avoid edit wars between Erios30 and MarshalN20 and was very carefully reviewed. I find it insulting that regardless I asked him politely and explained what I was doing in the talk page, this user now says that I "need" any explanation about how to edit articles, what I did here was the most ethical and neutral way to solve this to prevent further edit wars, therefore MarshalN20 accusations only constitute a personal attack. I won't break 3RR but I believe this user is playing with the system to preserve a biased version of the article. 200.87.23.193 (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The edit history shows you have been deleting material from the article. The mediation was focused between the edits of Ereb and myself. I don't understand why you claim to be a part of that past discussion. Your aggressive nature and usage of these WP resources obviously show you are the puppet of an established user, which does go against Wikiquette. I would suggest the admin (if any actually bother to review this silly case) to please either block this IP puppet or give him/her a better explanation on how to edit WP. All the best.--MarshalN20 | 18:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I never claimed to be part of the mediation, I said clearly that who was involved previously was MarshalN20, not me but it's right there in the talk page all what happened before, it's common sense I just observed a biased phrase. Besides the source that is claimed to be deleted is right there right now, I said it before that I was keeping it, repeating it constantly is just defamation, also the continuous puppet claims and repeating that I need any explanations are again more personal attacks, I just did some fixing there is no rule-breaking in that, for me the solution is simple, the article is okay as it is because it covers all points of view, I'm just calling the board's attention to prevent further conflicts. This is getting redundant, I prefer not to extend this to avoid making it more difficult to the person who will review this, but I advise to pay special attention on the accusations of MarshalN20, my edits are visible this person is just recurring to defamation, which is unacceptable. 200.87.23.193 (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution