Revision as of 21:29, 31 October 2009

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

Active alerts

user:Slp1 changing others' comments

Hi. User:Slp1 has changed my comment twice and . I asked him not to do this however he keeps doing it. Slijk (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

He is editing correctly. Editing other contributions is what we do on wikipedia. You need to engage the discussion in the talk page. This is not a matter for wikiquette. It is normal business of editing that changes get reverted in some cases... and this is one of them. You need to engage the discussion at the talk page; and it seems to me that there is a very good case for removing your additions to the article. It's certainly not appropriate for you merely to ask people to leave your changes in place. Talk about it on the talk page; not here. Good luck with it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 17:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, but he's editing my OWN comments. Something that I sign with signature. I don't think it's ok with the policy. Slijk (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I merely refactored a section heading, as required by WP:BLP. Your comments were left untouched. --Slp1 (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Usually the first comment begins with a heading. So they're one part. Slijk (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Slp1 is correct to refactor the heading. He has explained why in the talk page. This discussion belongs in the talk page, not here. I see you are still fairly new to wikipedia. Welcome aboard. Slp1 is a very experienced and helpful wikipedian, who will not hold any grudges over this and will be a good guide to you on what is appropriate in wikipedia. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:TALK#Others.27_comments. What of those conditions where meet so he changed my comment? Slijk (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details". Slp1 has explained very clearly - given the context that the claim appears to be an unsubstantiated slur (which means we might be repeating a slander) - how the heading comes under WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (their bolding). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, in the WP:TALK guidelines, the very section that Slijk links to, it is explicitly stated that section headings are communal and can be edited when appropriate... as it most definitely was in this instance. Here is the relevant paragraph:

• Section headers: Because threads are shared by multiple users, the original title becomes communal property. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss changes with the editor who started the thread, if possible, but it is generally acceptable to change section headers when a better header is appropriate. This is under the purview of threads themselves being shared property rather than a single editor's comments.

This is an exceptionally clear cut case; Slp1 absolutely did the right thing to alter the heading. You do not own the headings in the same way that you own the comments. They are not the same. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

But his alcoholism is discussed. Slijk (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That is completely irrelevant. Good grief, read the responses you've been given. It doesn't matter how badly you want to get this alleged alcoholism front and center. It doesn't matter that you have the poor taste and poor judgment to continue to harp on it here and in the talk page. It is not going into the article, or into the heading, because of the policy on biography of living persons. OK? Give it up, please. The person who edited your heading is one of the administrators here. You have been given good advice and it is now time for you to take that advice and move on. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Duae Quartunciae is entirely right: Slp1 broke no rules, and properly removed claims that did break rules.

Slijk, alcoholism is generally considered a "loathsome disease" in the context of libel law. You must stop trying to force this assertion into Misplaced Pages's pages, even under the guise of 'just talking about it'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Unwarranted accusations of disruption

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

I cannot explain the whole context of the underlying dispute in a few sentences. So, before I do that, let me start by giving a few diffs that point to the problem as it exists right now:

User:AGK accuses me of disruption:

see here

User:Jehochman did the same:

here

Ok, so two Admins are accusing me of disruption, so I'm doing something terribly wrong, right? Wrong!

The problem is a direct result of the outcome of an Arbcom case in which User:Brews ohare was topic banned from all physics pages. We don't need to revisit all the details of that Arbom case here. The most relevant aspects of that case are that Brews was seen to dominate the talk page of a few physics pages far too much to get his way against some consensus. In the technical dispute about the physics I disagreed with Brews. In the Arbcom case I argued against a total ban on all physics pages. My reason for that was that Brews did have many good contributions to physics articles. He is an expert in applied physics who so far had only contributed to physics topics. A topic ban would not directly address his problematic behavior, the problem was not inherently caused by the physics Nature of the topic he was editing at all.

Anyway, right or wrong, the topic ban has been implemented and Brews has to stick to it. As an answer to a clarification of the topic ban requested by William Connelley, the Arbitrators said that Brews cannot engage in any discussions about physics, not even on his own talk page or on other editor's talk pages, not even if he is invited to do that.

Again, as much I disagree with that, I have to accept this ruling. Until it is modified on appeal, the topic ban will stay as it is.

Now, the dispute I'm finding myself in now started a day before the end of the Arbcom case. Brews created pages on his user space Which irked User:Jehochman but I didn't see what the fuss was about. If these were attack pages, then they should be deleted but in principle, Brews had the right to do that. So, I started a thread on AN/I about this.

User:Jehochman can say that I was wrong to raise the matter at AN/I. Ok., but he used quite strong language against me in that AN/I thread. If from his perspective I was wrong, then that does not mean that I was deliberately undermining the Arbcom proceedings or was intending to otherwise do something improper. But he assumed bad faith here.

Then in the last few days, Brews and I were discussing on my talk page about dispute resolution. Brews was quite interested in contributing to that on Misplaced Pages. In principle, there is nothing wrong with that. There could be some potential problems, given Brews history. But then that also true for anything else that Brews could decide to do on Misplaced Pages.

Brews then made some edits to an AN/I thread discussing User:Likebox and on that thread Jehochman wrote: "Brews ohare was recently topic banned from physics. Does this discussion relate to physics? Why is one editor who was sanctioned for tendentious editing commenting repeatedly on a discussion about tendentious editing? To me this looks like disruption or very poor judgment".

And on Brews' own talk page his involvement on that AN/I thread is now under discussion

Now, if you read that discussion you see that some editors are advising Brews to keep away from contributing to AN/I threads. User:Finell says:

I am not complaining about Brews' behavior. I am trying to keep him out of getting himself into more trouble.

And AGK explains here that:

I did not say that your participation in the discussions in question was in violation of your topic ban. What I did say is that those discussions are prone to be controversial and/or heated, and are therefore likely to bring trouble your way.

Now,I saud to Brews that I dd not see any problems with what he was doing at AN/I. It is neither a violation of his topic ban, nor did he behave in a problematic way at AN/I. I also addressed some possible issues that he should pay atention to:

What you have to be careful about is to stay focussed on the particular problem under discussion and to be as concise as possible. Make your point once, avoid repeating it over and over again. You can give clarifications if someone asks you, of course.

So, I do not think that I'm that out of line with what others are saying, just that I come down on the side of being more positive about Brews participating in dispute resolution.

The issue I'm now complaining here about is not about who is right or wrong in the dispute about Brews making some edits to AN/I threads. Rather it is that two Admins who would rather see Brews not editing there and who would like to see many people giving this advice to Brews, cannot expect that everyone would have exactly the same opinion on this matter. When they find that someone has a slightly different opinion, they should not see that as "disruption" and certainly not make explicit comments saying that it is disruption.

Instead, what User:Jehochman and User talk:AGK should have written is that they disagree with me explaing how (according to them) things could evolve in the wrong direction. That would have been more civil toward me and it would have been more effective from the their POV of trying to keep Brews out of AN/I threads.

Count Iblis (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you have just used a wall of text to say not very much. If you can be brief and stick to essentials, you might find it easier to get people to be responsive to you. Looie496 (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

First 6 lines of my post: Incivility by User:AGK and User:Jehochman and then the last paragraph: "Instead, what User:Jehochman and User talk:AGK should have written is that they disagree with me explaing how (according to them) things could evolve in the wrong direction. That would have been more civil toward me and it would have been more effective from the their POV of trying to keep User:Brews ohare out of AN/I threads." Count Iblis (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Looie496, you can still rewrite this section, BTW.

First of all, copy and paste what editors say here, why force editors to click on those links?:

For example:

AGK: "Please stop involving yourself in matters relating to Brews ohare. You are becoming a disruptive influence." 25 October 2009

Is much better than:

User:AGK accuses me of disruption: see here

Second, don't ask questions and answer them.

Third, write in a neutral tone, let the reader draw ultimate conclusions, not you.

Ikip (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Fourth: Stop diverting attention away from your own conduct by dragging the name of the involved administrators through the mud. This complaint is not at all a valid one. AGK 11:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And what is the issue about my "own conduct"? Count Iblis (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't hijack this thread to talk about you. I've asked a fellow administrator, AGK, for his opinion about your conduct, and depending on how he answers we may or may not follow up with appropriate dispute resolution processes. Jehochman 14:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• This dispute cannot be resolved without properly determining the extent to which the concerns raised are justified (or not). In other words, whether incivility occurred or not is unclear in such cases as this one, except if the case for disruptive editing is successfully made out. Unfortunately, a case for disruptive editing (or otherwise) cannot be presented as effectively at WQA (even if it is an early step in dispute resolution). However, RfC/U (the next step) is a venue where it can be presented more effectively, so I recommend that it be escalated there (by either party) so this dispute moves towards resolution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC/U is a waste of time. I will not participate with such a circus. Count Iblis (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I find it questionable (even a waste of time) that you filed this if you weren't going to participate in further dispute resolution or take on the feedback you were given. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree: The comments, in context, may or may not meet Misplaced Pages's standards for civility. I am able to read them as helpful advice to an editor that is less adept at Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution milieu; I am able to read parts of them as unfriendly efforts to exclude an editor. This is a complex dispute, and this page is not suited for unraveling complex disputes. The dispute can be taken elsewhere, or not, as the complainant chooses. The complainant's apparent dislike of the appropriate forum does not mean that WQA quits being the wrong forum. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Conduct of discussion in a proposed article move

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

I started a discussion at Talk:George_Gordon_Byron,_6th_Baron_Byron#Requested_move suggesting moving the article to Lord Byron. The subsequent discussion has been tendentious and filled with accusations of incivility and assumptions of bad faith. It would be nice to have a neutral editor take a look and try to mediate, because things are only escalating. In fact, it'd be best if you don't have an opinion on the matter at hand; it's the civility issue I'm worried about now. Powers 01:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The argument was pointed out as being inappropriate as 1. the claims that there was a "common name" were completely debunked that no reasonable person could honestly continue the claims and 2. that precedence was on the matter since 2002 and falls under a standard that applies not only to thousands of British peer articles, but that anything else would be completely inappropriate. The unwillingness to accept these is the very definition of tendentious, especially by three people who have -no- actual interest in Byron and can only be seen as disruptive when it was pointed out multiple times that their claims were 100% false. The above is merely LtPowers continuing on yet -another- forum to drum up support for what would go 100% against our policies and guidelines. It is pure disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the fact that LtPowers didn't even have the decency to notify me of this is further evidence that they are not actually contributing to this encyclopedia or following our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

LtPowers... the title you have chosen for this report is not really as neutral as would be appropriate for a Wikiquette alert; and belies your words that your major concern is incivility. Ottava Rima, the dispute is not worth this level of aggression. The content dispute on the proper name of the article belongs on the talk page, not here. But you in particular need to calm down a bit; and it is not appropriate to call this disruption. There really is a problem with incivility and assumptions of bad faith; and those are certainly against policy; and a proper issue for asking the opinion of other editors. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am 100% calm. All of my posts and entries portray complete rationality - I cite evidence, I quote language, and I deal with facts. The responses from the above and others to my entries "I say so" or "my mysterious knowledge says otherwise" or "your expertise doesn't matter" or "who cares what the library of congress says". I have not made any personal attacks or been incivil. I am very careful in my language and take pains to be completely precise. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I am going to be bold and fix the heading of this alert to be better aligned with the proposed focus on civility. I hope this is okay with everyone. Ottava Rima, your initial comment above looks to me that you can do better assuming good faith, and I further think that there is every reason to assume good faith here, even though you disagree strongly on the suggested move. But that's just my reaction to the talk page and to the exchange above; and I'll leave it at that for now. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith is not 100% nor is it permanent. Once they started dismissing the Library of Congress as meaningless and saying that scholarship was pointless, they no longer had any claims to not being there for disruption. Misquoting policy, fabricating numbers that were proven as wrong, etc, are further evidence of disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at the responses - I state how it is, RegentParks puts out a falsely inflated number. I point it out along with pure cold facts, and he claims I am "ranting". Then he goes on and on about "George Byron" when he knows that it would put up false results (quotes conditions the responses, as he proved by quoting as opposed to without quotes in the previous comments). He quotes WP:NAME when WP:NAME says at the top to follow the specific guidelines, and Peer's guideline was already quoted. This is a way to dodge what he knows clearly contradicts him. This is a winning comment - "perhaps the readers of your numerous articles in the Keats and Shelley Journal expect no less than George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron (though, looking at the references in the article, I find none from that august poetry journal!)". The number one journal devoted to Byron's poetry and he attacks it as being meaningless merely because it contradicts him. This is egregious misbehavior and the fact that these people continue such actions and yet have no interest in editing the articles or working on them verifies disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The average reader is most likely to look under "Lord Byron", which takes the reader to the actual page, which is his full name and title. There is too much time spent on wikipedia debating the names of things. Let's say I want to look for the article on a well-known Swiss flower. So I enter "Edelweiss", which is the name everyone outside the botanist community knows it by, and it takes me to Leontopodium alpinum. Oh, yeh, right. That was my next guess. The same thing with this. But why does it matter? The average reader doesn't care what the specific name of the article is, he just cares that he can get to it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The average reader of what? As pointed out, the Library of Congress system does not have a "Lord Byron". Thus, if your claims were truly then there would be no readers of his works and no one would be able to find it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm defending your viewpoint and you're yelling at me. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I was pointing out that there are no readers if there was even an issue with the name to begin with. :P If you want to see me attack you, I can show you. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The average wikipedia reader is more likely to have heard of this guy as "Lord Byron" than George-whatever-Byron. My concern is that too many debates occur over "common names" and such. Who cares what the article is listed under? As long as the reader can find it, that's all that really matters. "Common names" debates are a waste of time and energy. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Got some sources for that? As I already pointed out, Norton and all of the other collections clearly state "George Gordon Byron" in their text books and such used by students. Besides that, there is little exposure. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying the article name can just as well stay as it currently is. You got a problem with that? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, you are ranting. And calling everyone liars. You;ll just work yourself up into another tizzy, you know you will. No-one's going to move the article - redirects and pipes are there for instances such as this where the proper name is one thing, and the word on the lips of the hoi polloi is another. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Elen, your comments are completely inappropriate and incivil. There is no -rant-, nor have I called anyone a "liar". I have stated that they have put forth things that are completely untrue and even verified that. For instance, over 300 articles do not simply and magically disappear. Pointing out that using the wrong terms to come up with a false number as misleading is also perfectly correct. However, Elen, your following me to various pages as of late and involving yourself in such issues is very interesting. It makes me curious as to what other names you may have used, because there is no history in your current contribs that would explain such. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Elen. Ottava, you are not assuming good faith. Not here, not in the talk page. You should. The way you are engaging, including the repeated accusations and imputations of dishonesty, is pretty much guaranteed to get people mad at you. It doesn't help. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith no longer applies when it was proven that numbers were falsified and that people were being purposefully misleading. Please read WP:AGF. It does not mean that you are not supposed to point out directly problematic behavior. Per the policy: "If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, then please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence so that people can understand the basis for the concerns" I proved those concerns. As such, your comments above are inappropriate. Furthermore, Elen's behavior has been suspicious and I am not the only one who has stated such. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I expect that you will retract your claims above per the policy stating "and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut." Since I have provided evidence as per the previous statements, it is clear that the policy states that I am acting appropriately under AGF and that your concerns would be the direct violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, it looks to me that you have a significant problem generally problem with failing to assume good faith. My comments above are my honest attempt to identify some changes which I believe will improve your engagements with wikipedia if you can address them. My exhortations to assume good faith are indeed an indication that you are not doing so at present, in my opinion. Your opinion is, apparently, that you have sufficient justification to drop the assumption of good faith. I disagree, strongly, with respect. That probably puts us at an impasse. But there you go. My comment on the wikiquette issues remains as given. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Duae, I pointed out above that WP:AGF states that you are 100% incorrect and your reiteration of the claim after this is incivil. I will once again ask you to refrain from these incivil comments and to strike your policy violating post. The policy is -very- clear on the matter and you are violating it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottawa, I disagree with you on how you are reading that policy; it does not rule out all admonition and in this page especially it is more than usually appropriate to comment on wikiquette issues. But I agree that further continued harping on AGF is counter productive, and would become a case of being aggressive about citing the policy; which is against the policy. I love the recursion of that. My advice remains as given, but it's time for me to leave it at that and let others comment.... on how any one of us can engage better with wikipedia. Good luck and farewell. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"I disagree with you on how you are reading that policy" - I quoted very simple sentences that are not ambiguous. If you would like me to break down the individual words, supply definitions, and the rest, to elucidate how these are very straight forward sentences, then I will be willing to do so. However, it seems that you are selectively misreading all of what AGF means to make a point that AGF does not support, which is a violation of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies all around for the incorrect focus in my original section title. I would prefer it if further comments related to the renaming were kept to the linked thread, so as not to split discussion between two locations. The reason I did not notify anyone of this posting is because I expected comments to go there, or to individual users' talk pages, not here; if that was mistaken, I apologize again. Powers 03:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, just picking at random from your posts on the article talkpage - "That is completely bogus." "If you are going to play these games, don't do it with someone who is an expert" "I straightforwardly proved that you were spreading blatant falsehoods." "Your comments are filled with 100% incorrect information" "Lying is incivil." "Your arguments are so incredibly wrong that you must know that they have no basis and is further proof of your intentional disruption". Given that the opposing argument to yours is that the poet is most frequently referred to as Byron or Lord Byron, and not by his full name, this escalation of abuse is absolutely astounding. Calm down already - nobody is proposing to do anything horrible to your teddy! Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

By "abuse" you mean pointing out contradictions while linking to actual reliable sources and proof for it? Furthermore, how can I "calm down" when I am calm? Merely making an assertion does not make it true, and your constantly claiming such on multiple pages in which there is clearly nothing "passionate" about my actions, along with your clouded background that makes it seem like you have probably used another name or some other to establish this relationship that you seem to be continuing really reveals a troubling matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I have read your posts here and on the article talk page with utter disbelief. When everyones else says one thing and you another, has it not occured to you that you may be the one in error? The question here is about the name of an article, not the correct, formal name of the person who is subject of the article. Misplaced Pages policy is pretty clear and your slant on it it is disengenuous to say the least. It is high time for you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and accept that the consensus is not what you want it to be. Build a bridge and get over it. - Nick Thorne 04:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

By everyone else, are you ignoring the two people who agreed with me? "The question here is about the name of an article" And it was proven that policy upholds the standard, that "common name" is completely false. You can say "Misplaced Pages policy is pretty clear" but I have already completely debunked it. Your pursual of the matter is quite telling. Furthermore, naming is not -consensus- based. The policies are. The names are -verifiable- based. I have already proved that all major libraries and groups classify the author as "George Gordon Byron". No one can debunk that. There is no recognized author "Lord Byron". There is one common use, and you cannot selectively ignore 90% of policy and all of reality to claim otherwise. The mere fact that YobMod and Peterkingiron are ignored in your post above is just evidence that there is something very troubling with your statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you any idea how ironic it is to hear you talk like that in the Wikiquette alert forum? I thought not. - Nick Thorne 05:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth; there have been proposals to move the article in the past, and they have failed. I would expect this new proposal to fail as well. For reference, here is a link to a fairly comprehensive archived discussion of votes on an earlier similar proposal: Requested move archived debate Oct 2006. The consensus was easily to keep the current name. There have been a couple of other such proposals which did not get as far. All the same reasons continue to apply, and I do not expect this new move proposal to do any better. You can debate that on the talk page if you like; though I don't think the discussion will go well. The real problem for wikiquette remains how the debate is engaged; the proposed move itself is not the topic for discussion here at wikiquette alerts. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I also think the suggestion to move is not appropriate. The current title sits within an information structure - redirects, dabs and piping are there as tools to aid navigation. The manner of the debate and the conduct of the parties is the issue to be examined here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk like what? My comments are 100% straight forward, civil, and to the point. Furthermore, you selectively ignored 2 people that agreed with me. Seeing as how there were six individuals and half were opposed to the issue, your claims that there was consensus or that everyone was against me are demonstrably false and reveal that you were making claims without evidence. Your response to it was incivil and inappropriate. When pointed out that you are wrong, it is only appropriate to admit such things. Misplaced Pages is not a game, nor are there "winners" or "losers". There is right, wrong, and articles that are supposed to be the best. You do not "lose" if you admit that you were wrong about a situation. It would, however, go to prove that you are here with the encyclopedia as your primary concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, we're not talking about the content dispute. It doesn't matter if two or twenty editors agree with the sentiment that the page should not be moved. We're talking about your aggressive, escalating, furious, uncivil, uncalled for and totally over the top attacks on the two or three people who disagreed with you. You called them liars. You called them disruptive. At one point you called one of them a troll. Your behaviour in the current debate is simply unconscionably, unbelievably rude. There is no need to behave like that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Elen, my comment was very clear. He stated that I was being disruptive by not looking to consensus that was 100% against me. I pointed out that his statement was factually wrong, as the split was clearly 50/50. Your response above is wrong and inappropriate. You have been rude above and incivil, and your statements are clearly incorrect. Elen, you have done this at many other places too, and you are starting to violate WP:HARASS. The fact that you would try and claim that I was off topic is only further inappropriate and revealing of this. Your actions suggest that you are not a new person, but a user who had another account with interactions with me. Your pursuit of me has clearly crossed the line, and your comments are inappropriate. You were asked to back off multiple times before, and yet you continue. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, your characterizations of me, such as "furious", are highly inappropriate and a major violation of WP:CIVIL. This is your warning to stop, as you were warned multiple times before to not make such blatantly false claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, please stop tossing around assertions without taking steps to back them up. Either open an investigation, or stop accusing us of being sockpuppets. Either take steps to have us blocked, or stop accusing us of editing in bad faith. In short, please start interacting calmly and rationally with your fellow editors, or this situation is only going to escalate further. Powers 18:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Us"? When have I accused anyone of being a sock puppet, let alone -you-? I have stated that Elen is a restart account or an alternative account. Sock puppetry is something very different. There are many individuals that have arbcom approved secondary accounts. Elen is most likely one of them. However, what I made explicit is that as such, her pursuit in the manner that she has done since the RfC (and during it) crosses what is acceptable per the secondary account rulings, so she must stop. Finally, I have already provided evidence for all of my statements, so your claims are blatantly incorrect. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yay! You know you've really made it on Misplaced Pages when Ottava accuses you of being a sock. If anyone wants a good laugh, they can take a look at how long I've had this account. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

An non-publically disclosed secondary account is not a sock. I stated that you were either a secondary account or a restart. Your early contributions suggest that. Your beginning activity starting in 2009 is a classic example of a name created to be a restart account. It happens quite often. Your claims on Bishonen's RfC about my history with her and making declarations about my intimate feelings when you have -no- contributions to suggest any background or history with me, only further verifies that. Your claim that I am "furious", a word that could only be used with strong intimate knowledge of a personality, only verifies that you are acting on a presumption that you know me in a manner not verified by your contribs. Your continual acting in such a regard in multiple areas verifies that. It was already revealed that Unitanode, who did 100% the same thing, was a restart account. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, who woulda thunk it. Ottava doesn't know how to use the "earliest" button on a users contribution page. Try again sir. How long have I had this account? Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Elen, did you bother to click on the link? It is clearly the "earliest". Your statements in every single response have been factually wrong. Why do you keep making 100% wrong statements which are easily pointed out as being wrong? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh? When I clicked on that link, it was the earliest contributions. Why do you think it isn't? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, Elen has been doing this in regards to me on many, many pages. They purposely through out things that are 100% opposite of what I say without any verification if it is correct or not. Hence the problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, I assumed he hadn't read right down to the bottom. I am still inclined to think he hasn't. I have been here since May 2008 - around 18 months - but Ottava seems to think my account is new. For the record, I haven't edited with another account, and I am not a restart, and I don't really know why that would be of any significance. I only interacted with Ottava in any confrontational sense for the first time a few weeks ago. He's right, we don't interact on articles - it was I think the last RfC on Bishonen that brought him to my attention - but this isn't because I'm a new account. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC) ETA oh, and many many pages are about half a dozen, here, Ottava's talk page (couple of comments), my talk page (one comment) ANI (re Bish) and the 4th Bish RfC (couple of comments), all within the last few weeks.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious from my statements above and from your earliest contribs that I pointed out that you started editing in 2009. Anyone who looks at your contribs will see that you actually begun as a serious editor in 2009. A classic secondary account/restart account action is to create an account, make a few edits, and then let it drop so that when you abandon your old account there is no way to chronologically connect it to a brand new account. This is well known. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that it is usually considered a wise way to start one's career as an editor. Make a few small edits, perhaps discuss something on a talk page. Read talk pages, see how other editors do it. Read policies. Investigate the various other activities going on - anti vandalism, dispute resolution. I'm not a teenager, I'm a 50 year old local government officer so I'm naturally cautious. Like to see the lie of the land before I pitch in. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And yet you some how have the ability to claim to know my inner most thoughts with no demonstrable connection to me until a few weeks ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I don't know anything about you, and I wouldn't presume to speculate. All I know is what you put out. I have no idea why you do it, but a lot of people do rather wish that you wouldn't. There's no need to be so aggressive you know. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar and all that - I really think you really could have persuaded the other editors if you hadn't gone at it the way that you did.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If you, as you admit, know nothing about me, then strike your claims about my inner psychology that you have made above and elsewhere. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Calm down" is not a "claim about inner psychology", Ottava.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, are you suggesting that Elen has the ability to claim I am "furious" even though I have made it 100% clear that I am calm? Do you know me? Do you see me? How can anyone here claim anything about my psychology? Texts don't reveal such things, which is even stated in our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Elen didn't claim you were furious, but rather that your attacks were furious. Since m-w.com states that one of the definitions of "furious" is "intense", it seems like a fair characterization. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite. AGF, I have to accept Ottava's assertion that they believe they are calm and rational. All I was trying to do was to reflect how his behaviour appears to others. I have no idea of his mental state. However, this hasn't worked, and I think perhaps I should not comment further.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, if that is the case, then the descriptive is purely inappropriate hyperbole, and WQA is not accepting of such things. Either way, the comments were inappropriate and everyone knows it. My statements are extremely mild, and I never cuss, use insults like "stupid" or the rest, and I also back up my statements of conduct with diffs. If you want to suggest that any of my statements can be considered "intense" or "furious", then that is an absurdity that has no place on Misplaced Pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Sarek, if you want to pursue the path, then you are defending such rhetoric that is side by side with "Calm down already - nobody is proposing to do anything horrible to your teddy!" Such uncivil sarcasm has no place at WQA, nor do your insinuations. This is not a battleground, and such conduct as you have defended in Elen is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And you're defending "Your statement above is blatantly wrong", "That is completely bogus", "Funny how 300 articles suddenly vanish in a few hours", "I straightforwardly proved that you were spreading blatant falsehoods", "If you want to continue wasting your own time, you can feel free", "Your comments are filled with 100% incorrect information and yet you are trying to be snide about it", "So cut the nonsense already", "You've heard of a library before, right?", "Anything to the contrary is imaginary BS. I'm done with your games. You have no argument, and your pursuit is against the MoS, against standards, and against logic", "Lying is incivil", "Your refusal to accept the vast majority of use is unbelievably inappropriate", "This isn't some children's game so your actions are inappropriate", "You have no legitimate argument and you pushed absurdities", "Do you even do anything around here worth while", "You have made it clear that you have utter contempt for our standards and for any kind of encyclopedic integrity, and you have been belligerent, tendentious, and abusive from the start", "Are you done wasting our time?", etc. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read our policies. Contradicting people is not incivil. Saying they are wrong is not incivil. Those comments are not incivil and it would take a complete rewrite of WP:CIVIL and a complete bastardization of common English to make a claim to the contrary. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the 'teddy' comment was because if I said "no-one is threatening to kill you", I thought there was a good prospect from previous evidence you would immediately have reported I was threatening to kill you. So I went for the absurd instead, and picked something that you would find very unlikely and, who knows, maybe even amusing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Elen, WQA is not for you to make such comments. Misplaced Pages is also not for you to claim that words are based on some emotional response. You do not know what is in the mind of others nor can you judge feelings from text. Hence WP:AGF starts out with such statements and why you must assume good faith. As such, your comments really do cross the line, and you have made such personal attacks when making such comments. It is highly inappropriate and you've been asked to stop before. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I offered to stop. No one asked me. However, I did want to explain that I wasn't intending to imply anything uncivil, rather I was searching for something sufficiently absurd to accompany pointing out the excessiveness of your overreaction. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, after reading through the move discussion, I agree that you've gone too far with personalizing the debate. Please tone it down a lot. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is -personal-, but I have provided plenty of objective information that contradicts individuals and it is met with pure hostility. When I mentioned that the Keats Shelley Journal would be the journal to look for the naming, it was met by snide comments even though the journal is the number one journal for articles on Byron. Pointing out the standard naming convention used by the Library of Congress, most libraries, and even google books for the author listing was also met by hostility. Showing that WP:NAME was being misleadingly quoted by ignoring the statements at the very top that the particular guidelines are to be looked for and having them ignored was met by severe attacks and hostility. I have worked on many of Byron's pages, am an expert in the field, and even have an FA on a Byron topic. These individuals have -no- work in Byron, have little encyclopedia contribution in general, and have offered nothing on the talk page except ignoring of policy related concerns. This is an encyclopedia, not myspace, not a playground, and not anything else. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In particular, it's not your playground. While it is probably true that "George Gordon Byron" is the name most critics use, and that the Keats Shelley Journal is definitive, questioning this does not automatically make other editors disruptive. The "common name" is a valid topic for discussion, and should be arrived at by community consensus, not dictates from on high -- especially when the "on high" isn't backed up by real-world data. Enough people have claimed high credentials here that claiming them as loudly as you just did sends up red flags -- and you've been around long enough to know that. So present your case without attacking other editors -- you'll likely prevail, as the page seems to be at the most reasonable place for it at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The strange thing is, I think Ottava is right as far as the page move issue goes - I think the page is in the right place. It's the mode of arguing that's the concern, and the inability to see anything wrong with it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in your opinion on the page move, as the discussion on that has gotten bogged down in arguments over who said what to whom and how. If you choose to comment, though, please do so there rather than here. Powers 22:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was -my- playground. The disruption came after people persisted in -attacking- what was clearly demonstrated fact and aspects of the policy. It is one thing to disagree, it is another thing to claim that legitimate statements explaining -why- 7 years of precedence existed were meaningless. That is what they did, and they did so with attacks, incivility, and snide comments. That is inappropriate behavior. "claiming them as loudly as you just did sends up red flags" My credentials are verified by ArbCom and I cited my -wiki- credentials on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware ArbCom was in the business of verifying credentials, and even if they were, that gives your opinions no greater weight. Powers 22:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how I have an FA on a Byron article, I have a lot of weight when it comes to matters dealing with Byron. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ottava Rima, Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia. That 4 or more users here have implicitly/explicitly suggested/asked/told/reminded you to calm down, and that 0 (than you) disagree, suggests that people are finding it difficult to collaborate with you due to your own approach. I suggest you take more drastic steps to address these concerns before expecting others to address yours. Your content work is good, and many users have acknowledged that often. But to have an admonishment or sanction alongside that for frequent conduct issues is not something anyone would like to see - especially when it is avoidable and something as novel as the way you choose to write your comments. Being more civil (that is, tactful) in your postings would make the world of difference - I hope you take this advice on-board after your current sanction (1 week block for such conduct) has expired. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User David A

• Reintroducing section as offender continues to repeat. Asgardian (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. I think David A needs cautioning as he has a habit of inserting inflammatory comments in his Edit Summaries about other users, particularly myself . This is at times taken to an extreme as he's taken a shot across my bow in a summary at an article I haven't even looked at for over a year . Although there are disputes about some of the content he inserts, I'd just like him to tone it down in discussion and not deliberately try and bait others. A glace at his contributions and comments also paint a picture

Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have used David A's Talk page to alert him or her to this post, and to encourage him or her to respond. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian is asking that he or she not be named in David A's edit summaries. This request is entirely reasonable and must be respected. In future, David A must not name Asgardian in edit summaries, and probably should not name any other User in edit summaries except where it is unmistakably a positive or neutral reference. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not reasonable and it need not be respected. If a user commits vandalism, then it is the prerogative of the person who removes the vandalism to mention the user who committed it, so that the admins can look into the matter. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had a few years and literally hundreds of instances of experiences with Asgardian's brand of systematic information-distortion, methodical deceit, and heavy manipulation, and am the type that's virtually unable to lie/filter in any way whatsoever, so when he consistently creates the same types of situations over and over again it turns impossible to not point it out. I have a major hang-up just about deceit and deliberate/the same pattern repeated over and over again information-twisting/misinformation, whereas I always speak the truth as I see it at all times. It's both a part of my lifelong medical condition, and the resulting personality stemming from it. I've had Misplaced Pages experiences with death-threatening stalkers, people who start chewing my head off for very little reason, and people who want to wantonly delete pages I've invested a lot of time in, sometimes in combination, but not even all of them together have given me nearly as bad an experience/impression as Asgardian to my perception unbelievably calculated "every-dirty-trick I can get away with" deceit and disinformation, which has gradually completely worn down any layers of benefit of doubt, and almost erased my energy for even helping out at Misplaced Pages. Not to mention that accusing me of "baiting others" (as opposed to pointing out word-by-word exactly what he does, which is what I always do. He lies, I tell the truth, it's why we don't get along) here hardly rhymes with his old tactic of calling me "shrieking, unbalanced, and unhinged".

Just to use a few more easily found examples. We are talking about a few years here after all, and as the greater amount of long-time ongoing "completely rewriting the content of fictional publications in the summaries" parts are harder to refer without you personally actually reading them all:

Asgardian being proven sockpuppet user, and that's just the one that's been discovered, which to me further underlines his overall willingness for systematic deceit, and turns especially suspicious whenever various anonymous ips have reverted to his edits:

Asgardian's block page for consistent edit-warring (although he's since started to simply do one revert a day to get away with it, regardless if anyone agrees or not):

Newer conflicts:

User: J Greb also noticing my ongoing hair-tearer (which makes it impossible to make useful corrections or matter-of-fact logical discussion, which I've repeatedly tried with him to no avail) that Asgardian has continually written edit-summaries that have little, or nothing to do with what he's actually doing, or even flat-out contradict it, and Asgardian characteristically stating that he'll continue to do so as long as he can get away with it/until the specific regulation is pointed out: "I've grown very, very tired of edits like this where the editor does multiple things and then puts in a partially truthful edit summary." Response: "As for J Greb's concern, I've made a request to be directed to the relevant rule on Misplaced Pages."

User: Nightscream also noticing Asgardian's systematic tendency for manipulation, i.e. the whole "drive people insane with annoyance over what I'm consistently actually doing in my edits, and not being honest in my edit summary rationalisations" and then accuse them of "incivility" simply for pointing it out, which given that he does what he always does makes it completely impossible to even respond:

Asgardian recently apparently systematically vandalising page-structures just to make a point, and various other users making a plea to finally shut him down:

Only the most recent situation of distorting profile content and deleting multiple references regardless that the information was entirely correct, and that the entire Talk population disagrees with him, and again going by my experience on other pages such as Thanos no matter the result he will eventually sneak in there and revert everything at a time when everyone else has mostly lost interest, even if he has to wait half a year to do so, previous middle-road solutions and adjustments be damned:

In addition, what started to make me see him for what he is was in an old Talk (1-2 years ago) edit wherein he expressed amusement at my outrage over his lies, and considered it infantile to have that kind of perspective of decency: ""insidious misrepresentation"...heh. How old are you?"

It's what he does... and I suppose getting pissed off about that he gets away with it is what I do. This is just the latest in a very long line of tactics that he uses as weapons to do so. Dave (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does any of that mean you have to take potshots at him personally in long, wordy edit summaries? Without getting into this specific situation, dealing with editors you have problems with is part of life on Misplaced Pages and we are supposed to deal with it in the appropriate way. Being "the type that's unable to lie/filter in any way whatsoever" doesn't give you the right to get personal in edit summaries. There are so many better ways to deal with this kind of thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not taking "potshots". That's not the way I think. I'm pointing out exactly what he's doing in them, since he's trying to hide or detract from them with his misleading summaries, and someone has to point out every instance of what he's doing. I mean, it would be impossible for me to find the time to sift through his years and hundreds of instances of this behaviour, and literally have no patience whatsoever with him anymore, so I'm pointing it out all the time instead. He's also specifically making it extremely hard to respond to him in any other way anywhere. He seems to be using the "civility" excuse towards everyone, as seen in the Nightscream comment and the Dormammu discussion. I have no idea how to handle him in any other way sicne he seems to have an inexplicable get out of jail card for things that are hundreds of times worse than anything I ever did, and he's using loopholes in regulations to make a case that lies are ok and truth isn't as a weapon. For that matter why wasn't he permanently banned after his first sockpuppet was discovered? I'm so incredibly tired of him. You try dealing with the same manipulative person several hundred times in a row dragged out over a few years and see how you like it, even without a medical condition (I have some weird overlapping Asperger-ADD-bipolar-OCD-Damp-Tourettes-Schizophrenic condition or whatever the theory I'm presented is this year. There have been a lot of variants) Dave (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this situation requires some expert advice. Dave has been asked to be civil, and despite this, remains openly hostile and abusive towards myself, as can be seen in his overall Edit Summary: . I am repeatedly targeted and openly slandered in Edit summaries. I have repeatedly counselled Dave regarding some of his Edits and why they are inappropriate, he continues to revert and be abusive. I have tried to speak with him with no success. While I realize that Dave has, by his own admission (see above) a medical condition, I do not believe that this gives anyone a free pass to harass other users. I feel Dave needs to try and follow the Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith policy when editing. I am not unsympathetic, and will state again that I am happy to discuss almost any issue. I just want the abuse to stop.

Can someone assist with this, please?

Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, can someone PLEASE PLEASE get Asgardian permanently banned. His lies, censorship, manipulation and so forth is completely systematic and never ever stops. He's using this as yet another excuse to state that telling the truth is unacceptable and systematical disinformation and deceit is completely ok. Again, I have no other way of handling him, and multiple users are consistently making pleas to have him removed. I'm so very tired of him. And no I'm not "abusive". I'm telling the truth- Asgardian methodically abuses my nerves far more than I abuse his, and I can't remotely "assume good faith" with hundreds of experiences with him personally that contradict this. In fact Asgardian is the by far least trustworthy Wikipedian that I have ever encountered. Dave (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Making personal attacks against the other party in a Wikiquette discussion is hardly going to get you anywhere. Your first post here is a wall of words, a very effective way of getting you off-side with anyone who might try to help out here. Please be concise and leave out all the uncivil comments. I have not bothered to look behind the issues in the article that have brought this case to Wikiquette, but based upon what you have written here - and especially how you have written it - I am disinclined to accept anything you say at face value. Maybe you are completely blameless in this dispute, but given that the complaint was not about the actual content of the article so much as the way you have gone about making changes (and reverting changes), your allegedly abusive edit summaries and the way you have conducted yourself here, I am rather inclined to think that the complainant has a point. You need to calm down, stop throwing accusations around and beging to demonstrate that you assume good faith. Frankly if you continue on the way you have apparently been going I would not be surprosed if a passing admin did not block you on the spot. Whatever the merits of your case about the content of the article in question the way you seem to be deporting yourself is not acceptable. - Nick Thorne 09:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't talk any other way. If I consider something to be the truth I will say it. I have no idea how to say the same thing in what you would consider a non-"uncivil" way. He does lie, he does manipulate, he does twist information. All the time. As linked above other users also notice this. How am I supposed to say that in any other way? Dave (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, let's not forget that he called me "shrieking, unbalanced, and unhinged" as a weapon ti be used, despite likely knowing about my disorder from the Galactus Talk, so me stating exactly what he does in each edit is far less in comparison. Dave (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Truth is not a defense, even less so your version of the truth (or indeed that of any Wikipedian). Being civil is not optional, it is policy, as Wikipedians we are obliged to follow it or risk being blocked. If you cannot say things in a diplomatic way in what is supposed to be a collaborative project then don't say them at all. If the actions of other editors on a particular page lead you want to say things in a rude, abusive or uncivil manner, then leave that page alone and go and find another corner of Misplaced Pages to work on. I have no idea what your post above this, time stamped at 10:00 26 October 2009 (UTC), means and frankly it is none of my business. Please confine future comments to the matter at hand and leave personal things out of it. - Nick Thorne 10:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Given this latest comment in an Edit Summary , I think I'm going to have to put a case to the administrators. If an editor's only response to repeated attempts at interaction is abuse, I have no choice. Asgardian (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I _don't abuse you_. I'm _reacting_ on what you do over and over and over and over and over and over, year in and year out, by stating exactly what what you do. You're abusing _me_ by consistently inserting inaccurate information which you know full well triggers my compulsion, to never let me go, undoing my hours of research for references, to replace with none whatsoever, and by manipulating and distorting what's really going on, not just with me but with everyone else. I don't lie, or use any multi-layered deceit whatsoever, so that makes me a very convenient target in the . "He made a comment about how I lied here, and nobody has the time to check my more intricate subterfuge, so that's easily solved" manner. You have plenty of choices. You could simply go for compromise solutions as I have tried on most instances with you, but no, you always sweepingly restore your inaccuracies in story content, reference-deletions to be replaced with POV-insertions, censor inconveniences, misleading edit-summaries, and so on. How in the world am I supposed to respond to that when you do it completely relentlessly? Seriously? How? It's not in my nature to say something else than what I really mean, so how am I supposed to respond? How is anyone supposed to respond in fact? You seem to use the convenient "civility" excuse towards virtually anyone, and that's people who have lost their patience with you for less than a tenth of what you have put me through. You've singlehandedly virtually reduced my contributions to minor obsessive fact-corrections rather than more ambitious clean-ups which I used to do more frequently, and really strained my nerves in that regard. So again, _how_? Is there any way I or others could respond honestly to what's actually going on whatsoever, rather than forcing people to try to say something other than what they mean? Dave (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dave, try this. If Asgardian really is removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced, revert him ONCE using words like "please discuss removal of sources" or "this appears to be OR, please discuss" or "I have reverted to referenced version, please discuss". That way, if he continues to revert and doesn't discuss, you can report him to the administrators without the first thing that comes up is your edit summaries, which are likely to earn you a block.

Ok, I'll try that again, but keep in mind that I used that tactic over and over even back 1-2 years ago, and that to my POV he ignores any valid Talk disagreements and middle-road solutions. I've also asked him again to start being more specific rather than sweeping with his edits/synchronising what he specifically does with his stated reasons, and at least try to compromise rather than delete everything, if he wants to convince me that he's trying to turn a new leaf. Dave (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dave, I agree with you 100%, and am dealing another user of similar temperament to Asgardian. (see User:Rmcnew below) The influx of habitual trolls like these is the greatest single issue on Misplaced Pages these days, and I think we should work together to drive them out. I'm all for civility, but since when did "being civil" mean that we had to hold our tongues when other people misbehave? Yeah I'm all for "don't worry about other people's behavior; worry about your own", but the admins are too often looking the other way. The policy just does not work, nor was it intended to allow the insane to have their way. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian isn't a troll. In fact I appreciate his efforts to structure several pages. (Not so much about the inaccuracies though) He's just been really really frustrating for me due to the sheer extent of neverending troubles I've had with his methods, and others have apparently had similar troubles with him that I haven't been involved with/don't know all the details of. So all right. I'm giving him another chance to prove his sincerity by being more specific in his edits, and I'll do my utmost to keep my reflexive responses shut. Dave (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That's good. Hopefully Asgardian will find a way to reciprocate - I don't know what that would be but I'm getting the feeling it's around clarity of communication, agreeing something and sticking with it, not surprising the other editor. All the best with editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, what I'm looking for is that he only specifically addresses the actual supposed/stated problems he has with something instead of just sweepingly deleting everything, and reinserting factual errors. Repeat that some hundred times over and it eventually creates a major annoyed itch. Dave (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. The thing that caught my eye was the slander accusation. Those are often used by trolls to intimidate other users who they think will be afraid of their legal "wrath", particularly when the troll's character comes under scrutiny. Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've cautioned Tcaudilllg about the inappropriateness of wading uninformed into a debate and calling another editor a troll. I've also left Dave a message on his Talk Page re: this matter and will continue to elaborate the reasons as to why some material is not suitable for Misplaced Pages. Thanks to all. Asgardian (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your "caution" appears rather self serving and is likely to make things worse. Bad move, in my opinion. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If by "self serving" you mean asking an uninvolved party to stop calling me names? A look at the editor's Talk Page says it all: . No matter. Let's ignore it and move on. Dave and I are talking which is the issue. Regards Asgardian (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I mean. Posts to wikiquette alerts are a request for comment from uninvolved parties. It is rather self-serving to try and "caution" a contributor on their own talk page just because they have a negative view of your conduct expressed in this alert. I also recommend not threatening people with bans. You have no authority to apply a ban, and if past experience is any guide you might be the one more likely to be banned. My advice, in all seriousness, is that when you talk with someone with whom you have a disagreement, you are better to avoid giving "cautions" and comments about how you might have no choice but to put a case to administrators, or remarks about possible bans, or anything of the sort. Just stick to the point at issue. I can see the potential for trouble brewing again with just this kind of problem, so I am putting this response on record. I stand by my previous remark, which I made with full awareness of the page to which you linked and the user's reply to your "caution". —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you should reconsider - I would usually agree with you on this point. However, it was grossly inappropriate of Tcaudilllg to compare Asgardian to another user with whom he is currently involved in arbitration with, whom also currently has no findings to justify the "troll" claim. That the subject of this WQA, David A, also did not consider Asgardian to be a troll speaks volumes. See also my note at the Socionics evidence talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We associate names with certain behavioral patterns. I called you a troll, which is a blanket term for a lot of things. I didn't mean you were all of those things, only one or two. I just don't think you should be tossing legally-charged words around, because those create fear. Fear is completely unacceptable. Personally I think the topic of your discussion (unresolved plot ponts in Marvel Comics) is completely irrelevant and not worth arguing over. If you can't agree on something so irrelevant, leave it out. Taking a side just invites more controversy and more embarassing op-eds which do not help the encyclopedia. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Question Time British National Party controversy: user MickMacNee destructively edit warring

Hello. I spent a great deal of yesterday evening editing this piece, which had known problems. Before finishing last night, I posted a polite 3RR notice on user MickMacNee's talk page, since he had persistently reverted most of my previous work.

I also tagged the page with the multiple issues and weasel words tags. And I tagged another section with NPOV. I had found, and annotated, evidence of multiple unsupported/unattributed statements. In one case, there was reference to research that was wholly unattributed, but controversially so.

This morning, I found the article reverted back to a far earlier version - wiping out tens and tens of very thoughtful and annotated edits on my part. The £RR notice had gone from MicMacNee's talk page, and all the tags I put in place had been unilaterally lifted. It is clear to me that MickMacNee is now engaged in a personal attack on my work - a unilateral edit war. I had already politely warned him about this (see article talk page)before putting the 3RR note on his talk page last night.

Please read the history on the talk page and see that I have consistently broken deadlock over problems on the page by coming up with solutions that move the position forwards positively.

I can't find the version of the page which is the very latest that I worked on. This one (and I don't just mean the highlighted sections I mean the whole body text ) - must be close to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Question_Time_British_National_Party_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=321990942

Please note that in the current version, all sorts of problematic material has been reinstated. I propose locking these pages until somebody sensible has had a chance to comment on the last version I produced, and to compare that with the wholesale reversion by MickMacNee.

I don't have all the time in the world and will simply walk away from this page if it continues to produce poor behaviour in this editor. This is a shame. I do have under my belt the completion of a page that reached Good Article status, and am solely motivated by achieving the highest editorial quality and accuracy possible.

This is an article dealing with controversial material, and requires the highest standards of judgement and consistent attention to accuracy and clarity of expression. Opinionated as he is, MicMacNee has so far failed to demonstrate these qualities in his edits.

Thank you for your help.Astral Highway (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't notify me of this report as you are required to do so, but not to matter, I fount it anyway. I had already replied in part on the talk page , but to simply address some of these points - the article has already been praised by multiple people for its quality - see ITN/C. Astral highway seems to think he is an expert editor, but I've already seen multiple examples of basic lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages policy or procedure, such as wp:lede or wp:talk, let alone wp:cite. Just to pick two examples of these 'controversial' tag removals - he wants to know who The Times used (presumably the name of the research company, or indeed person) to analyse the camera work , or exactly 'who' in Hammersmith and Fulham council asked the BBC to consider another venue, also reported in the Times. . Maybe Astral simply doesn't like The Times, because there was nothing controversial about these parts of the article from an attribution point of view, they were already adequately backed by high quality references. I am just bemused by comments like "Note: a reference does not replace an inline citation", when the article only uses inline citations! There are no general references. This highlights what I think is serious problem - it seems to me to be that Astral Highway never even reads the article references, and seems to want to impose his editorial opinion on the article, for example, even though the BBC in its own words called it a 'policy change' , he thought that that did not justify a header called 'BBC policy change'. On this flimsy basis, he believed could blank that entire section, half of which wasn't even about the BBC. Unsurprisingly then, multiple people revert these sorts of changes, not just me. I too have time pressures, I cannot update the article in a timely manner, or properly source new additions from others, while I am dealing with these edits of Astral's. He charges edit warring, but none of his specific concerns, which are quite obviously disputed, have been raised on the talk page. He seems to think that edit summaries alone are the only justification needed, and if people disagree, it is an 'attack' on him. MickMacNee (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be my natural preference to be up front about this, but I didn't tell you, because you frankly ignored two explicit earlier warnings and several hints. You even covered up the existence of the 3RR tag I placed on your talk page by completely removing it, along with a number of tags on the body text. You haven't behaved civilly and I was running out of patience with your rather subversive editing tactics.

The reason I want proper attribution is because it's what enables readers to verify the importance and weight of an opinion. It actually isn't an alternative to add a reference. References are necessary, but they have a completely different function. You're completely speculating when you say I don't read reference material: I analyse it very carefully. Rather than deflecting my note that you are edit warring, please try to understand this point. I have expanded it, mainly for your benefit, on the talk page of the article. One of the edits you reversed last night was my note that an unattributed survey on the composition of the audience did in fact need attribution. Again, you took issue when I pointed out that a paraphrase of Griffin in the recording section did in fact need proper attribution. Astral Highway (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Astral, a user is entitled to remove warnings from their own user page and talk page. If they remove it, that means that they've seen it; and that is all the warning is required to do. They are not obliged to leave it in place. The idea is simply to pass on the warning. See WP:User_page#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Added to which, the user in this case didn't remove it! MikeManNee simply moved it to its proper place in chronological order. See . —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to note a literal interpretation of that policy. Perhaps a user isn't strictly required to leave a warning in place. But surely, they're suppposed to do more than see it? The behaviour is supposed to change. Don't you think it would be constructive to acknowledge the behaviour that gave rise to the warning before removing it? And don't you think it would be wise to stop further edit warring until the underlying issues are resolved? To bury the warning and then mass-revert edits anyway isn't very constructive, to say the least. Note that I'm not the first to have raised edit warring as an issue for this editor on this pageAstral Highway (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(Astral highway, the above addition is not a "minor edit". You should only mark an edit "minor" if it is completely trivial, like a spelling fix or something. See WP:MINOR. You are using the "minor" far more often than you should.) —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I left it in place, I just moved it to the correct position, per wp:talk. this is about the fourth time this has been explained to you. The main issue for me is that I am not doing any mass reverting of your edits, I leave plenty of your changes intact, and I work to the bold, reverse, discuss model for resolving disputes on all the reverts I have made, which were all explained, because I have legitimate issues with them. I will note that you have failed to raise a single actual edit on the talk page with a view to resolving why it was reverted. It appears here we simply have B-R-... and then make a complaint here. I don't work that way, and as already said, you insisting your edits are simply good and thus right, is never going to make me accept any edit you make, particularly when you demonstrate such shockingly poor understanding of basic things like how talk pages work. It really gives me no confidence in your understanding of the more complex policies you keep suggesting I don't understand. Some of your edits are being legitimately disputed, you need to accept it and deal with it in the proper manner. As for edit warring, if you have specific examples of specific content being added / removed / added / removed in a clear behavioural breach, then by all means give me an example, or take it up on the appropriate noticeboard. Given that also in many of these disputes, there has only been one person taking your view of the content issue - you, while there have been multiple people taking my view, I suggest you break things down into specific manageable issues on the talk page, and if necessary, seek third opinions to back up your case with consensus, before even attempting to repeat what are clearly disputed edits. General complaints about mass-reverting and that you are being attacked, or vague and borderline offensive polemics like this are not going to cut it with me, and I suspect it won't with others either. MickMacNee (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Attacks, canvassing and SPAs at AfD/Bose stereo speakers

This one seems to be going to hell in a handcart...

The nominator canvassed at Misplaced Pages Review, in particular with the comment "is being somewhat railroaded by inexperienced WP editors." addressed at a few contributors (myself included) who show no indication of inexperience. Also canvassed another WP editor. SPAs then started to emerge from the woodwork, one of which then silently snuck off the SPA tag from the first, an eyebrow-raising piece of AGF accidentally careless editing. Now I've been accused of being an employee of the company described in the article (incidentally, I'm not), which was struck-through with a snippet of my personal CV posted to the edit summary. That's hardly confidential information, but nor is it a GF action for an editor with only a single mainspace edit outside this AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind providing some diffs with these claims?--SKATER 15:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Diffs. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Orderly Conductor strongly warned regarding WP:OUTING. Other issues above remain to be discussed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Oblivious Comment - "This is going to hell in a handbasket real fast!" from Left 4 Dead's Bill. Dingley, was that an attempt? LOL. --A3RO (mailbox) 04:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In Fairford church, Gloucestershire, the great West window (installed before 1517 AD) shows the Day of Judgment in stained glass, with the innocent going to heaven and the guilty going to hell. Among the latter is an old woman in a wheelbarrow, being pushed to her doom by a blue devil. It appears that folks have been going to hell in handcarts for quite some time Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous user problems

I feel user 188.192.121.123 has been making disruptive edits and personal attacks at Battle of the Bulge article and Talk:Battle of the Bulge. He was recently blocked for this. --Nirvana77 (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Looked through the first couple of talk page edits, and saw no personal attacks. He seems to be challenging sources frequently though...I don't know much about the battle of the bulge to really make a judgment on that please provide diffs of both his disruptive edits and personal attacks.--SKATER 01:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I found the quote "so your edits are bullshit because u are lyer" and me being "blind" to be an personal attack on me rather than discussing the topic. Oh well, if you don't find it to be an personal attack I won't push for anything. --Nirvana77 (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said that they weren't a personal attack. I just didn't see either of those. this is why Diffs are helpful because they direct me to exactly where I'm looking at and I don't have to go searching, generally why I won't look at anything unless it has them. After seeing both of those, I will warn him for WP:NPA--SKATER 01:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Skipsievert talk page postings

I seem to be having difficulty with another editor, User:Skipsievert. Although I have had some contact with him in the past, it has not been extensive. Recently while disputing the contents of the article Social liberalism with User:Vision Thing, I posted a comment on his talk page:

Could you please discuss this subject on the talk page rather then edit-warring. Your added text is irrelevant to the subject and I would like to avoid an RfC which is time-consuming for everyone. It would be helpful if you would read about the topic so that you could make informed contributions. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert then added the following to the talk page:

This comment --^ to another editor sounds like hectoring rhetoric instead of actual constructive editing suggestion. It is noted that you also edit with L.K. J.Q. and Cretog8 on Economics/Social science articles, to I believe a detriment of information... more here I see a distinct pattern of harassment and wikihounding toward users by this group which includes yourself. That is my opinion. skip sievert (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I replied on Skipsievert's talk page:

Your comments on another user's talk page

I do not understand your posting on Vision Thing's page. VT had continued to revert irrelevant text to Social liberalism. Because few editors watch this article, disputes have been resolved through RfC/As, as you can see from the history, but these are time-consuming.

For some reason you provided a link to a section of the Economic Project talk page. I did not make any entries to that section and my name is not mentioned there. I did not edit the main Economics article or any of the other articles discussed there. Therefore I request that you strike out your comments which are wholely inaccurate. Out of courtesy I will notify LK, J.Q., and Cretog8 of this posting. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert then replied on my talk page:

Please do not ever

And I mean ever post anything on my user page again. I also noticed all your comments as to the tandem editing team for mainstream. Thanks! skip sievert (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no validity in any of Skipsievert's statements and I resent his comments. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As one of those listed above, and one of many attacked by Skipsievert in his edit wars on Economics (he has another set going at Sustainability), I would like to say that Skip's continual disruption is a major problem for all the areas in which he is involved. He needs either to improve his behavior or find somewhere else than Misplaced Pages to push his POV.JQ (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thought that username sounded familure. I think 6 ANI's speak for themselves...--SKATER 06:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I perceived a message that The Four Deuces left on my talk page as a pure provocation because he has a habit of warning other editors to stop edit warring even though he is the one who started or actively participates in edit war. -- Vision Thing -- 14:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not true and could you kindly not make unsubstantiated comments. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What V.T. is saying above is correct in my opinion, and this points to a larger problem as seen here in canvassing and stirring, with a group that edits a certain way, and contains many members that shadow and canvas each other for mainstream issues (so called) on Misplaced Pages. This group being led by Lawrence Khoo and John Quiggin in my opinion, and it is very good at fomenting trouble as seen here., in regard to discussion of a topic ban regarding editing economics articles for Lawrence Khoo. - skip sievert (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I posted the alert on the Project Economics page because you asked me not to post to your talk page. Let me reply to your comments made there:

I joined the discussion on that page (which you refer to as "tandem editing") following a post by LK on the Paul Krugman talk page where he said "I have started a discussion at the Econ Wikiproject talk page about User:Vision Thing's editing behaviour, which I find greatly troubling." You also joined the discussion, but I have not accused you of "tandem editing".

Your suggestion that I canvassed LK, and JQ and CRETOG8 is incorrect. I notified them that you had accused them of tandem editing after I notified you that I would do that. I did not set up the WQA until after your inflammatory statement on my talk page.

Your suggestion that I am tandem editing is wholly incorrect.

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Skipsievert personal attacks

I have to ask an advice and comment concerning personal attacks by User:Skipsievert. Yesterday I made my comments on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Energy Survey of North America and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Technate (2nd nomination) . My participation on the discussion based on the Artice alerts on the WikiProject:Energy page and as an active member of this project I usually take a part of discussions on project-related articles. On the same day I was attacked by User:Skipsievert who accused me on tandem editing with several other authors (with two of them I never had any contact and with user:Johnfos my last contact ubtil yesterday was almost three month ago, canvassing, and made an indirect threat of topic ban. and . I asked to removed these attacks as baseless on the AfD pages and . AS these request were ignored, I repeated my request at the skip sievert's talk page. The request was removed with an edit summary: Do not post on my talk page. Thanks. You do edit with Johnphos . As the reference was made by skip sievert to the Wikiquette alerts discussion in February this year, I have to say that this was the first, and fortunately until yesterday very few contact I have had with User:Skipsievert. After my posting on 21 February, skip sievert made a blatant accusation saying me to be biased and closed the discussion by himself, which was also noted by user:Bwilkins. As the discussion was closed, there was no possibilities to comment accusations by skip sievert; however, I would like here to invite everybody to check my and Jonhfos discussions (at least on my talk page, all discussions are archived) and edits, and let me knew if there is any violation of policies, guidelines or good practices. After that unpleasant experience I deliberately avoided to be involved with skip sievert (except request to stop his accusation against Johnfos and request to comment the tagging of the WP:Energy articles as a project member. I still belive, the best way would be ignore that kind of editors; however, I believe that every editor has right to express his/her views during discussions like AfD, requested moves; merge proposals etc. I also believe that incivility and personal attacks should be not tolerated. During me than three years period of active editing this is a first time I have to report my fellow editor, and personally it is not very good feeling. I would like to ask any comment from uninvolved editors how I have to deal with the current situation when other editor refuse to remove basedless personal attacks he made. Beagel (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparant harassment by User:Wdford

There months ago, I came into an controversy about the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy with User:Wdford. Previously, we also had a not-so-nice encounter at the article Great Sphinx of Giza. After this controversy had led to two threads at the ANI, 1, 2, but achieved no result, I let the issue rest. I think Ancient Egyptian race controversy is one of the worst articles at Misplaced Pages, and that a better article would be quite useful for many readers, but this issue wouldn't be worth any more time of my life. However, then I had another controversial discussion at the ANI, about an article in which I actually hadn't been involved until just now, colloidal silver. The ANI thread is here, and it is quite long. I actually thought that the discussion on the ANI is over now, but then I noticed that Wdford made an edit a the article colloidal silver, of which he presumably know that I would have to object to it and to which I indeed object.

If this does not fall under "Wikihounding" as described at "Misplaced Pages:Harassment", I wouldn't know what does: "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." I wouldn't know that Wdford had previously ever participated in any way at the article or in the discussion, and I would find it incredibly hard to believe that he noticed his interest in the topic just now. The problem is: If he aims at discouraging me from editing Misplaced Pages completely, he might be successful, because I see no reason to put up with something like this. Zara1709 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Since WQA is a voluntary forum, it's a complete waste of time to open a section on an editor without notifying them of it. Please do so, and then we can continue. Looie496 (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

an external-link-related misunderstanding

a misunderstanding resulting from User:Matheisf's addition of his blues-related website to multiple articles (see Special:Contributions/Matheisf) is escalating in unpleasant ways: User_talk:Sabrebd#Please_advise and User_talk:Sssoul#Blues.2FCountry_spam. i've tried to explain courteously that adding a link to his own site to multiple articles is not a good way to approach this, and also pointed out better ways to go, but User:Matheisf has unfortunately decided that Sabrebd and i are conspiring against him, wielding authority unfairly, etc:
since User:Matheisf is new, i understand that he isn't aware of how the term "spam" is used as shorthand for "linking one's own (noncommercial) site to multiple articles" (as at WP:SPAM#External_link_spamming), but pointing the relevant policies out to him certainly it isn't malice on anyone's part. and the fact that Sabrebd and i edit some of the same music-related articles and are aware of the same policies on external links is certainly not collusion against anyone.
if someone could convey to User:Matheisf that a combative approach is not constructive, and what the appropriate ways are to have his noncommercial website added to the external-link sections of Misplaced Pages articles, that would be very helpful.
for the record, i also listed this on WP:ELN, but since the communication/civility problems appear to be increasing, i'm moving it to this forum. thanks for any help Sssoul (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking at the link-additions, and I concur, these links fail the external links guideline, the behaviour is spammy. --Dirk Beetstra 17:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

--71.169.42.87 (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)By Matheisf: --71.169.42.87 (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)For you guys to try to make this out to be any kind of fair hearing is a fluke. This has from the outset been nothing but a lynch mob. The threat I just received from Dirk Beestra to blacklist me confirms this. Who do you people think you are? You behave like shameless thugs colluding to ostracize me despite overwhelming evidence to verify that my linking was not only legitimate but advanced the topic. There is no validity to the claims you made against me. I did not spam and the links I placed were relevant. The fact that you are able to act with impunity in this forum with this type of abuse of power is highly disturbing. If the check and balance resolution process is the likes of you,this wonderful idea has been hijacked and utterly lost to primitive fascistic practices.

Judge and jury has already brought the rope out and lined up all your pals as posse. I for one am going out kicking and screaming. Blacklist me if you want. You seemingly can act without basis of fact, and with supreme authority. I refuse to submit to your false accusations. I know when I am being railroaded. Shame on you.

Messianic Judaism. Jewishness of Jews in Israel.

On the following webpage, it is stated, that the State of Israel does not recognize me as a Jew, when in fact I am: Webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Messianic_Judaism&action=edit. The Israeli High Court has ruled in final ruling that Messianic Jews ARE Jews according to the legally binding definitions of the State of Israel. This final decision has been reported widely in the press and has caused violent aggression against Jews in Israel by other Jews and attempts of discrimination against Messianic Jews on various levels. I feel personally discriminated against by this incorrect article. Please ensure that my rights and the rights of my fellow Jews are duly respected. Discussions obviously were not possible and/or were used to increase the disinformation given in that article.

Thank you very much.

PS: It has also been established by Israeli Law and judicative decision, that the opinions of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel are not relevant in this context of the sovereign matters of the State of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charraksus (talk • contribs) 21:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution