This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Theseeker4 (talk | contribs) at 17:04, 16 January 2009 (→user:Icsunonove: resolved). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:Christian Skeptic

Start here. Spotfixer (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Warned. Let me or another admin know if it happens again. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Spotfixer (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ten-string guitar article

(talk) 10:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC) User:Viktor van Niekerk is using uncivil posts to exercise ownership over the Ten-string guitar article. Several potential editors have given up, but the article needs lots of work, on content, structure, and POV issues. An attempt to discuss it on his talk page he simply reverted, with the edit summary your opinion on this matter is irrelevant; you are not an authority. I do not propose my "opinions", but the facts that are all verifiable. I am justified in excluding false information. See Talk:Ten-string guitar#Civility, personal attack, and content issues. Andrewa (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Just looked. I agree with you. OK, Viktor van Niekerk is an expert, and I know less than zilch about the specifics of the topic. But other editors shouldn't have to deal with that constant level of supercilious bombast with its bold-text and CAPITALS (and of course being an expert doesn't make someone immune to partisan and mystical views on musical topics). I'd ask at WP:ANI if someone would give him a solid civility warning. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a serious WP:COI in that he's a serious music scholar and performer with a serious focus and cause, and I'm afraid he's making Misplaced Pages one of the vehicles of that campaign.

Have a look at the article. It needs lots of work. Several people have made starts including me, and just got reverted, and nobody else wants to take him on - understandably.

I did look at WP:ANI and it reads in part To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts. So I came here.

I think that sadly the next step might be RfC, but I'd need other editors to be involved for that... more than one, preferably. Andrewa (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrewa ... have you advised the other editor directly about this WQA, as required? I would like to see a response in this forum from them before taking additional action. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops... yes, just now. Good point... he knows it has been raised here as that was noted on the article talk page, where he has responded. But I should have also raised it directly on his talk page of course. Done now. Andrewa (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Having taken a more detailed look, I think the RFC sounds a good idea. There are strong COI aspects (the article largely expounds identical views to those on his MySpace page) and the clear appearance of WP:SOAP, of being here to Right a Wrong:

My objective is to present the historical, scientific and musical facts that have been (and continue to be) obscured by misinformation. My objective is to present reliable information to musicians, guitarists and composers, for them to judge for themselves the musical and scientific logic of Yepes/Ramirez' invention, its advantages and applications.

Add to that an uncivil and browbeating approach that has the effect of deterring other editors (I sure as hell wouldn't want to engage with editing that topic). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I now probably have a minimal case for a user conduct RfC, as a second editor has now posted an attempt to resolve the issue on Viktor's user talk page as required (thank you). I think it would be good to have at least one more, and to give Viktor some time to respond, and even to have some more detailed efforts to resolve this on his user talk page before going to RfC. And as I said before, this is not for the fainthearted. He simply reverted my attempt there, with a rather dismissive edit summary.

But IMO it's a classic WP:SOAP and WP:OWN, and it would be good to do something about it. May not be the easiest...

The desired outcome IMO is for Viktor to take on board some of the Wiki ideals. Is this too much to hope for? He's obviously idealistic and has lots to offer. And his cause has something going for it. But that's ironical... Viktor's behaviour is just IMO discrediting the Yepes tuning by association, which is quite unfair to it, and the opposite of what he'd want, obviously. A balanced and independent article here would be a lot more help to Viktor's cause than another battleground, or even a mirror of his site content. Our readers do read the talk pages too! Hmmm... Andrewa (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm... It's not looking hopeful, Viktor has now removed from his talk page the two requests (one from me, one from Bwilkins) to reply here. He's also sent me a couple of emails on the subject recently, the most recent received just a few minutes ago. Some of the points he makes in these emails are new and interesting, I wish he'd post them to the article talk page (but others have already been made there, some of them several times). Andrewa (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, if non-experts did not take up vendetta's against me (as Andrewa has done here) and if they did not insist on including non-notable and faulty information in this article, there would be no battleground whatsoever, but simply verifiable facts. My desire has always been to present only factual, verifiable information. I have however faced endless opposition from not only vandals using sock-puppets to attack Narciso Yepes and the concept of his guitar, but also from well-meaning but misinformed readers. If you know the literature on this topic, you will know that misinformation is ubiquitous, and it is from this that most people draw their conclusions, lacking access to reliable sources. I however draw my information from primary sources by Yepes and from well-established laws of physics. I beg to differ with Andrewa, but (while sometimes rough - this is a daily and taxing struggle against misinformation) my actions have been exactly the opposite of a classic SOAP case (a vehicle for propaganda and advertisement). What I have excluded is precisely the propaganda and advertising of musically non-notable concepts that certain players have a vested interest in promoting even to the point of lying about their (and Yepes's) guitar's acoustic properties. To allow such content here would, ironically, lead to exactly what Andrewa is accusing me of: propaganda and advertising. This is not what I am doing. I am promoting knowledge about the standard form of an instrument as conceived by its inventor. I am drawing on primary texts by that inventor as well as the science of acoustics. Acoustics is not propaganda, but reality governed by the laws of physics.

What is really behind this is Andrewa's personal grudge against me, a vendetta that originates with his desire to rewrite organological terminology by taking an exception as a rule. I suspect that he has a vested interest in the matter, not to lose face as a self-proclaimed musicologist, after I pointed out that he was incorrect in referring to instruments with courses as "10-string guitars". A course, being a pair of strings, functions as one string. It is a well established musicological convention that we refer to instruments with at least one paired set of strings as coursed. The baroque guitar is thus a 5-course guitar, not a 10-string guitar, as it has five pairs of strings, each pair functioning as a single unit. "12-string guitar" is an exception to this and not the rule and the term comes from manufacturers and not from musicological scholars. So this is nothing more than a personal vendetta against me over Andrew Alder losing face on this issue. He clearly knows the ins and outs of wikipedia much better than I do. I am, after all, as he accuses me, a professional musician and scholar, not a professional wikipedia administrator. So he may well win in this case, but truth will prevail. Truth? Verifiable facts from the primary texts (I don't even mention my personal association with individuals who have first-hand experience of these histories), as well as facts derived from the science of acoustics, not "mystical views on musical topics". I'm sorry, but for an informed scholar with a grasp on acoustics as well as musicology, these are proven facts that have a physical, empirical reality, not "mystical views". It is just that this is a very complex and very dense topic which is predominantly misunderstood. What wikipedia needs is a credible, scholarly article on this topic. While the present article can be improved stylistically and more references added, it should not be brought down to the level of propaganda and advertising. That is exactly what I wish to avoid.

I recommend Andrewa create a new page termed "10-stringed guitars" under which he may differentiate the various types of 10-stringed guitars according to their number of courses. So baroque guitar would be included under 5-course guitar, while the Yepes instrument would be under 10-course guitar. I also recommend that 19th century 10-stringed harp-guitars like those by Lacote and Scherzer be moved to the harp guitar page. Then we can remove the comparison between these and the Yepes instrument under the ten-string guitar article. Alternatively, I can remove it anyway, but re-write the main article to state clearly the defining acoustic characteristics of Yepes's invention and why/how only this tuning has these characteristics (a fact of physics). Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. But these are largely content issues, and this is not the place to raise or reply to them. The only issue here is your behaviour.

In this context it is valid for you to protest that in fact it is I attacking you, rather than the other way around, but I hope and believe that the evidence does not support this. Andrewa (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The content issues interact with the behaviour. Viktor, your approach comes across as an assertion that you know The Truth, that nobody else does, and that your mission here is expound it and snowplough everyone who disagrees off the road. That is not an acceptable approach toward either the topic or collaborative editing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Content discussion: A guitar-type instrument with 10 strings, whether coursed or not, is by very definition a 10-string guitar. The 10-string, non-coursed version is an iteration of a generic 10-string guitar with 10 separately-tuned strings. The article for 10-string guitar should include sections on both types of instruments within the same article.

Civility discussion: the WP:OWN here is brutal. This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Forcing off others who try to reach consensus is wholly contrary to WP:CIVIL. As knowledgeable about the subject as Viktor is, that does not preclude others from making intelligent, constructive edits, and indeed I start wondering about acting contrary to WP:EXPERT. I will unfortunately be placing a warning on Viktor's page for actions highly contrary to the community-editing concept. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Is it WP:OR to point out a guitar with 5 pairs of strings has 5*2 = 10 strings?Gerardw (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Viktor's claim to be an authority in all areas of musicology is questionable. His confident claims about naming of guitars just do not fit the evidence, see below. The most charitable view is that he's venturing outside his areas of expertise in commenting on instruments rarely used in classical music (perhaps never in the case of the B.C.Rich guitar). Andrewa (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility discussion: I think I must point out that the accusations above that I am pursuing a personal vendetta, that I bear a personal grudge and that I am motivated by a fear of losing face violate WP:FAITH.

Content discussion: As I have pointed out elsewhere, Viktor is mistaken in stating that the name twelve-string guitar is an exception. In fact, while coursed instruments used in classical music do tend to follow the naming pattern Viktor proposes, coursed instruments used in rock, country and western and folk music generally follow the naming pattern of the twelve-string guitar. Consider the eight-string bass, the twelve-string bass, the eight-string mandocaster and of course the ten-string electric guitar by B.C.Rich that Viktor wants excluded from the ten-string guitar article. The course terminology is used too, we're not unaware of the formal musicological distinctions and use them where they are needed, but the -string terminology is the standard.

And while I certainly don't want to question the depth of Victor's knowledge in his field, it seems to me that this much-vaunted expertise lacks breadth if he is unaware of these other instruments... which is of course a trap that catches many academics, and is possibly a factor in some of the content disputes that have plagued the ten-string guitar article.

Content discussion: Viktor's suggestion that I create a new article violates Misplaced Pages:naming conventions and possibly also Misplaced Pages:content fork, as well as failing to address the fundamental issue, which is how to improve the existing article. Andrewa (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: further examination finds the edits of 129.94.133.166 (talk · contribs), which are evidently the same user, with a similar history of incivility, plus major POV activity in Romance (song). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The academic convention of musicologists is to refer to instruments with at least one pair of strings as being coursed. A 13-course baroque lute is never referred to as a 24-string lute. A baroque guitar with 5 courses is not by any respectable academic referred to as a 10-string guitar. The distinction is a necessary one. Finally, the contrary convention used by musicians who do not have a formal (classical) background in music and musicology is rooted in misinformation and ignorance of the already long established prior academic/musicological convention. The contrary "convention" stems from the catalogues of instrument manufacturers and not from any serious musicologists. Andrewa accuses me of not knowing certain marginal instruments. Is he a mind-reader? This smacks of personal vendetta and an attack on my musical expertise. The irony is that I know these instruments and more (you seem to be ignorant of the charango, Andrew, another 5-coursed relative of the guitar, not to mention 5-coursed vihuelas), but Andrew evidently knows nothing about the actual instrument with 10 individual strings. I know of the B.C. Rich so-called "10-string guitar", and excluded it because I know it and know the convention by which any serious musicologists (not electric guitar manufacturers) name such instruments with pairs of strings (courses). Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally, the contrary convention used by musicians who do not have a formal (classical) background in music and musicology is rooted in misinformation and ignorance of the already long established prior academic/musicological convention.

That part at least comes well under WP:NPOV: that "all significant views" have to be mentioned. If there's a differing usage outside formal musicology that has a numerically/culturally significant following, then neutrality requires it to be mentioned whatever it's rooted in.

Neutrality, of course, equally allows it to be said that formal musicologists don't use this terminology. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue not being right about guitars. It's about being a good Wikipedian. I suggest reviewing Misplaced Pages:EXPERT#Warnings_to_expert_editors. Disclaimer: it is an essay, not a guideline Most of us want Misplaced Pages to be better, but there's a good way and a not-so-good way to do that. Learn to Share Gerardw (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the logic and evidence of my post stands, and it doesn't call Viktor's expertise in his field into question, but it does strongly suggest that he's speaking outside of his field. He has made this relevant by insisting that we must listen to him because of his expertise. I'm very sorry to have to question the breadth and relevance of this expertise, but the evidence is becoming plain.

Noting that this issue is now listed as Resolved, I think I should clarify my position here. I will apologise to Viktor if he can explain how he came to make the claim (above and repeatedly elsewhere) that "12-string guitar" is an exception to this and not the rule with respect to its naming. As I have shown, the naming of other instruments in the relevant genres (instruments with which Viktor now claims to be familiar) in fact follows the pattern of the naming of the twelve-string guitar exactly.

Viktor claims that serious musicologists don't use these common names, but he claims the same thing for the twelve-string guitar. So how is it an exception?

Several thousand Sydneysiders recently had the pleasure of hearing Tom Petersson playing his twelve-string bass. I wasn't one unfortunately, and I guess Viktor wasn't there either. But I'd also guess that none of them would make the ridiculous (there is no better word for it) claim that Viktor made above about instrument naming. And possibly none of them would claim the expertise that Viktor claims, although at least one of them known to me personally has a formal (classical) musical education, and Viktor might be surprised how many others there were in this category. In the preface to his classic Downbeat Music Guide, Antony Hopkins observed The more you love music, the more music you love. Food for thought? Andrewa (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And this latest post does not answer it, in fact most of what he says is neither new nor relevant. Nobody, for example, is suggesting that we rename the 13-course lute.

Dropping the names of irrelevant instruments isn't a good look either. The charango is not normally regarded as a guitar at all, although it does look like a little one from the front, but turn it over and it's a different story. There are various instruments called vihuela but none of them are normally regarded as guitars (one is often considered an ancestor of the guitar).

And I'm afraid I resent the reference to musicians who do not have a formal (classical) background. It says a lot. Andrewa (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages (riddled with errors) is misinforming people and is blamed for falling grades among children

See this article: ]

I concur and will contribute nothing further to this disinformative farce parading as an encyclopaedia that is called wikipedia. It is nothing more than a joke, run for/by incompetent non-experts with too much time on their hands and nothing better to do than stroke each other's egos while fostering mediocrity and ignorance under the specious banner of "consensus" and "democracy".

Yes, I am uncivil towards those for whom this is intented, but they deserve it for raising inaccuracy and misinformation to a virtue. I will not suffer fools any further.

Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't bite. I freely admit to knowing nothing about the topic at hand (music), and am only aware of this issue because of the disagreements. My comments.

1. I read the article listed above, and to me it says that children are trying to take shortcuts by using Misplaced Pages as their only source of reference.
2. Serious research involves reading and reviewing multiple sources of information. Misplaced Pages itself requires multiple references to become quality articles. Misplaced Pages is only as starting point for research.
3. Viktor appears to be in the process of a self-imposed ban, or perhaps retirement is more accurate. I think that could be a loss. It appears that he is an intelligent person (at least on this topic), and his contributions could add a great deal to Misplaced Pages.
4. While it's a wonderful thing to be knowledgeable in a particular field, you'll find a more receptive audience by being friendly, and engaging in conversation. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. If you truly wish to educate someone, you must first have their attention, which isn't achieved by talking down to them and insulting them.
5. I am beyond impressed with Andrew's patience and attempts to be civil throughout this discourse. I am simply amazed. Very few people have that depth of civility and patience. My compliments to you sir (assuming gender is male). I hope that the ruffled feathers can be smoothed here. ... Just my 2-cents worth. Ched (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Viktor has announced above his intention to take an indefinite Wikibreak, which is a resolution, albeit not the ideal resolution. But perhaps it is the best that we can hope for at this stage. We have tried our best to accomodate him.

I can now return to the content issues, and will in due course post messages to earlier contributors to the article and/or to its talk page, telling them that their contributions and suggestions are finally being incorporated into the article. Hopefully some of them will return, and collaboration can then start.

There is still a long way to go, and no guarantee that the conflict is over, but should it resume there would probably then be grounds for a user conduct RfC. So in any case this phase of WP:DR is probably over.

Thank you, both to those who have participated, and also to those who lurk ready to contribute, and whose time was committed to this even if their wisdom decided that now was not the time to join the discussion.

Andrew Alder Andrewa (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite resolved

Viktor's decision to take his ball home doesn't seem to have happened. He's continuing to add hostile and disruptive soapboxing to Talk:Ten-string guitar, with a particular attack on Andrew and the promise: You deserve no less than uncivility. I wil let you play at being a musicologist for a few weeks/months until I have the time to undo your work as well as "outing" his identity. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like he has crossed the line from incivility to personal attacks and threats. The next step would be ANI. Nothing more can be accomplished here so it should remain closed at this time. He has moved far beyond anything simple reminders of civility policies can help. Theseeker4 (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Was that really an outing? The policy states that posting such information about an editor constitutes harassment "unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Misplaced Pages themselves". Andrewa's user page contains a link to an off-wikipedia blog. It would certainly be presumptuous of Viktor to post any information about Andrew that he might have dug up from that blog, but on my reading of the policy it would not constitute an "outing" if that's where it actually came from. In any case, the policy also says that an oversight should be requested for edits which attempt to "out" an editor. So if my interpretation of the policy is wrong, or if the information Viktor posted is not available on the page linked to from Andrew's user page, then a request for oversight should apparently be lodged. I note that the offending edit has already been redacted.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it probably was not an outing since AndrewA has the info posted. However I already made a good faith request for oversight. Gerardw (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting thing is, that "information" isn't on the personal wikis and websites I link to from my user page, and for a very simple reason: It's not even accurate. I think that's part of the problem... Viktor doesn't seem to care whether what he posts here is accurate or not.

But what concerns me is the threat to revert in the future. That's going to make it hard if not impossible to motivate others to collaborate on the article, and I think that WP:FAITH notwithstanding that's exactly the intent. And it's a clear breach of Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Threats.

I think that needs to be discussed, and a clear message given as to what the consequences will be if it occurs. Ideally, Viktor should be invited to contribute on the talk page only, and told he'll be blocked without further notice if he reverts the article (and the article semi-protected if need be).

I guess an RfC is now the place to take this. Never raised one before. Guess there's always a first time.

It also occurs to me... we have no proof that Viktor is the same guy who plays the 10-string in Sydney. We have only his word for that. Caution advised.

A related and even more bizarre possibility is that the real agenda is not to promote the Yepes ten-string guitar and tuning at all, but simply to attack Misplaced Pages. Frankly, our Viktor doesn't talk like any real expert I've ever met. Real experts love to have their views challenged, and see this as an opportunity to hone and improve their understanding, even if they don't change any of their views in the process... that's how they get to be experts. Real experts make complex things seem simple. Real experts are confident, not insecure, in their fields. There's none of that in Viktor's contributions. Again, no proof either way, so caution advised.

Hmmmm... Andrewa (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(as an attempt at using humour to defuse...) He may not be the guy playing a 10-string in Sydney, but I once played a G-string in London :-P (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I redacted the personal information as attempted outing, on grounds that it was being used as part of a personal attack and wasn't the information/link Andrew has provided elsewhere.

Ideally, Viktor should be invited to contribute on the talk page only

Not ideal, unlkess it comes with strict provisos of civility and adherence to Talk page guidelines . I can think of a number of articles where this was thought sufficient, but development was made near-impossible by lengthy hostile filibustering on the Talk page. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Any resolution needs to deal with both the WP:OWN issues, and the several problems that arise from it: Civility, harassment of myself by false acusations (including and especially those of harassment), harassment generally by filibustering, harassment by threat... (another attempt at humour) should we hold off for a little and see whether we can go for a record number of different violations?

Thank you for removing the inaccurate personal comments about me from Viktor's user pages and the article talk page. I hope nobody would think they belonged there, and I was in a bit of a quandry as to whether to remove them myself, not wanting a revert war. It's different having them on my personal talk page where I can reasonably reply, and where I have an explicit notice asking that such comments not be removed. I certainly didn't want them spammed elsewhere. Andrewa (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be justified to now go straight to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. An RfC is just another way of attempting a voluntary solution, and I think there's ample evidence that this will not be enough. Comments? Andrewa (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't trouble the arbitrators with this just yet. If you think that Viktor won't respect dispute resolution steps, such as the community input that an RfC would generate, and if disruptive editing continues (by that I include harassment or threats to disrupt) then contact myself or WP:ANI. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, OK. But it has continued, even in some ways escalated, and Viktor has clearly indicated it will. I think enough is enough, and that ArbCom will need to be involved eventually. The advantage of going through RfC and/or mediation is that it will involve more people. But it will also take time, theirs and also mine, which I'd really prefer to spend improving the article!

My main concern is not the waste of my own time, but the prospects of getting other editors to re-involve with the article. The bottom line is simply to rescue the article.

All please see Talk:Ten-string guitar#Behaviour issues 2. Obviously we don't want discussion to continue in both places. Comments on that welcome too. Andrewa (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Article so tagged. Gerardw (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Viktor van Niekerk from editing for one week. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

On the evidence I have seen, it seems pretty clear to me that if Viktor disagreed with the findings of any dispute resolution procedure he would simply ignore them. Nevertheless, on my reading of the arbitration guide Andrew would have an uphill battle convincing the arbitration committee to take the case at this stage.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 22:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

::Per Andrew's request (above) can we continue discussion at Talk:Ten-string guitar#Behaviour issues 2? Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there seems some doubt that it's appropriate to continue this discussion there, and while several people have recommended RfC as the next step (assuming it's necessary, as seems likely), nobody has yet volunteered to be the second party that I'd need to raise one. Andrewa (talk) 06:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

2 person threshold? I don't understand -- Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users just says you need evidence at least 2 people have tried to intervene. Between warnings posted on the talk page and the commentary here, that threshold is more than met, right. Gerardw (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, I think you're right. Andrewa (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User:NoseNuggets

Used uncivil language here in response to edit dispute. Also, "templated a regular".Tomdobb (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it appears you (Tomdobb) did revert his edit without explanation or any discussion on the talk page. And WP:DTTR is an essay not a policy or a guideline. There's another essay Do template the regulars. That said, NoseNuggets language was less than ideal, and accusing you of vandalism for a good faith edit, especially regarding WP:BLP, is uncivil. Gerardw (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but templating a regular is not uncivil. Sure there is an often-cited essay about it, but it is an essay, not a guideline or policy, so it has no more weight than the essay Gerardw cited that says to template regulars. Was his use of the template potentially uncivil? Yes, I would say it was since you were obviously engaged in an edit dispute, not vandalism, so templating you for vandalism is certainly not assuming good faith or being civil. He also was uncivil in the talk page comment you provided diffs for. I am a little concerned that neither of you took the dispute to the talk page to discuss but instead began to edit war, and in NoseNuggets case resort to incivility. I would agree that NoseNuggets did cross the line a lot further than you did, and will place a comment on his talk page.Theseeker4 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the template essay. I will say that my revert was without explanation because I already cited my reasoning in a previous edit. I'll try to be more clear in the future. Tomdobb (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

User: Cannibaloki

Reverted an edit I made to a page that I felt was a perfectly understandable and intelligent one - formatting it to look more like similar pages I have worked on (this was the List of Megadeth band members page) and his reversion was justified as "RV ignorance". I was understandably offended by being called ignorant and explained this on his talk page, but the key part of my response to him was an exact explanation of why I had made my edit in the first place. I hoped we could, you know, discuss it? He ignored me for several days, while still listing himself at the top of his page as "around" and making a large number of edits to Misplaced Pages, so I left a simple message asking if he was ignoring me (this being after 8 days). The response I got included phrases "Why do you think the edition that you did to this list is most correct that my?" and "You simply destroyed all the work that I had, to improve the quality of this list" - both hypocritical and quite obviously ignoring my explanation. Again, I tried to explain in more detail and with a visual aid. He responded with a smiley face. After a few days waiting, I said I was going to request a third opinion - which I did - though this generated no response from Cannibaloki.

I had noticed on his userpage that he helped make Trivium discography a Featured Article. I'd never seen a discography that was an FA, nor did I see how a band with so few releases as Trivium could earn it - and saw poorly written English, spelling/grammar errors, overly-long sentences and also an error on how band singles the band had released. Initially I edited the page so the information on singles conformed with the band's template along with a large number of legit edits. This entire edit was reverted as "cleanup" by Cannibaloki. I did some research, found out the singles listed as singles on their individual pages, and in the band's template at the bottom of the page, were not actually singles - I had believed they were since I had read they were online and they had music videos but evidently my sources were inadequate at that time. So I put my other edits back together, and still updated the information on singles - I had uncovered some singles Cannibaloki had not mentioned on this page even if many of the others had not been singles. I felt these edits were so obvious that no user would question them - I got an A in A-level English and AA in my double GCSE so even if I'm not the best writer in the world I recognised and improved on the clunkily written text and fitted it into a more concise explanation - so I did not include an edit summary. After the user reverted them as "Removing few unnecessary changes." I made a more accommodating version - no details were skimmed out but I restructured the phrasing all the same to improve it without removing any information put in place by Cannibaloki. I also edited it in steps, putting an edit summary each time that gave a clear explanation of actions. He reverted them with the justification that they were "Nonsense" edits.

Frankly, I don't think he's taking me the slightest bit seriously or holding me with much respect, despite admitting on his user page that his English isn't brilliant. I also think to call my edits "ignorant" and "nonsense" and to respond to a serious discussion point with a smiley face - effectively blanking me and shutting down conversation - was rather rude. However, it also leaves me at a loss as to what to do; normally even if I have trouble with an argument, I can have that argument. I can't even argue with this guy. (The Elfoid (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

Shorter reports with "diffs" of the specific behavior will probably be more effective.

Yes, the edit summaries of Nonsense are rude, and I'm not quite sure what to make of the smiley faces. However, basically what you have is an edit war -- there's just 2 of you going back and forth, but slowly enough to neither of you are violating WP:3rr. Rather the posting your content comments on his talk page, I suggest you post them on the appropriate Article Talk page and enlist the support of other editors to achieve consensus. For example, there's nothing on Talk:Trivium discography since 21 December. As long as there's just two of you editing, it's going to be difficult (i.e. next to impossible) to come to closure. Gerardw (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, try to provide "diffs" next time.

I agree with Gerardw that the most appropriate place to discuss content issues is at the Article Talk page. The responses to your patient and civil queries to date border on incivility, but probably don't quite step over the line - the "ignorance" edit summary is frowned upon though, and borders on a breach of WP:AGF. My advice is to take content issues up on the article Talk page and get a conversation going. If he ignores you there, at least other editors may step in and continue the discussion and perhaps even support you. I also encourage you to continue to WP:AGF despite the lack of discussion - in all probability both of you are trying to achieve the same end result - a better article. I detect no POV pushing, so it should really boil down to providing references to support the facts. It will be interesting to hear Cannibaloki's view on this incident...

I really like the "timeline" graphic too BTW... --HighKing (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Taken from Misplaced Pages:Editor review/The Elfoid
  • I am a naturally insecure person. To give a little background, I spent last year with a therapist helping me regain social confidence.
    • And what are you doing here?

Editing tests or errors same!

• List of Iron Maiden band members
• List of Megadeth band members
  • The ignorance
  • The salvation
• Trivium discography
  • No. 1 Ref. 17: You must specify title = and url = when using {{cite web}}."". iTunes (2009-03-01). Retrieved on 2009-03-01.
  • No. 2 Add original research, with several non-referenced singles; Unexplained removal of content, per Line 198: {{commonscat-inline|Trivium}}.

Inserted the code...

| * None

...when the correct is

|
* Here, in the planet Earth, we normally left this field blank, when we don't have a certification.
|

• from Line 51 to 102 (↑)
  • No. 3 Line 1: Dublin go to Dublin! The text looks good!
  • No. 4 "Dublin" is too vague for a global encyclopaedia - there's a lot of places called Dublin in the world. And images at the top of an article should have full names because users won't have read text. What I put on the caption, go to Dublin, Ireland, it's a irrelevant commentary.
  • No. 5 Oh, The destruction of a lead.
    • "As of 2008 they have released..." (Revision as of 18:46, 11 January 2009)
    • "Trivium then and replaced Young with Paolo Gregoletto, adding Corey Beaulieu on guitar." What?
  • No. 6 (aka More efficient, concise use of language.) Just read the text and see, take your own conclusions.
    • Top Heatseekers became Heatseeker (?)
  • No. 7 (aka "The end of a FL.")

In short, I believe that this user is revolted, with envy and anger with the improvements that were made to articles, and since then is doing drama. Initially, I did not answer, because I thought he would realize that committed several gross errors, and would help in improving the articles, and not distorting all. (See also: Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/Trivium discography) Regards, Cannibaloki 15:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I have requested that Cannibaloki re-think some of their entry above, and am willing to accept edits/removal of some of their text above rather than striking. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Woah, Cannibaloki, calm down. I am not qualified to deem the merits of the article content dispute, but responding in this way, digging up irrelevant personal information and continuing to be uncivil in your comments ("And what are you doing here?" and "Here, in the planet Earth...") to a etiquette problem rather proves the OPs point more than it helps your case. Initially I thought that the suggestion to take this to the disputed articles talk pages was good, but I fear judging from Cannibalokis response that that will probably only make matters worse. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll concede his point on the "then and" and "as of 2008" are errors. Fair point. Though I still stand by my original claim that this is not a user I feel is civil or that I am capable of dealing with myself, and a giant revert can't be justified by what are quite obviously simple typos. I've said my part though, so I'm trying to keep quiet until the dust's settled on this a bit since Cannibaloki made that last comment.(The Elfoid (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

I've posted a civility warning on User talk:Cannibaloki. Gerardw (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully it was a level 3 warning, and was based on him making fun of the fact that the OP was in therapy for regainig social confidence.... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Icsunonove

user:Icsunonove got very excited and insulting yesterday and was thus reported at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Icsunonove and IP 192.45.72.26 no action was taken and the hope was he would calm down... he just came back and has upped the insulting by ton:

• 1.
• 2.
• "I feel at this point I'm getting myself dirty playing with the pigs in the pen." "Your fears and insecurities are something you need to deal with off this encyclopedia."
• "You are absolutely disgusting and act like an angry teenager Noclador." "Arrogant people such as you sicken me, and make Misplaced Pages the most unpleasant of places to edit."
• 5.
• 6.

and he keeps raging and raging... --noclador (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• 7.
• "I'm in the mud with the pigs again, look at what Noclador does." "I truly feel sorry for people who live in Bolzano-Bozen and act like him. It is a disaster to humanity in fact."

--noclador (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• With people such as yourself Noclador, it is difficult not to be angry and upset. How you provoke people and accuse them of being fascists trying to make a new Rome, how you revert edits blindly labeling them as vandalism. You'd drive about anyone to rage. I've had enough of Misplaced Pages for quite some time. You go and deal with your issues. Icsunonove (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This alert can be closed, due to the user's stated intention to take a wiki-break (or to leave altogether). I would suggest in the future that you assume good faith about a fellow editor's intentions, Noclador, as it seems Icsunonove was editing in good faith. There are better ways to deal with someone making edits against consensus and convention than accusing them of having a bias, and such accusations, even if you feel they are justified, do nothing to diffuse the situation or make other users more willing to work with you toward consensus. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution